The brain is the interface, filter and receiver that allows mind to be quantified and differentiated into a multiplicistic subjective framework and have a linear, dynamic, experience as ever moving and ever-changing form with consciousness.
For my part, I believe (Frank Jackson's) Mary would know what red is like b4 she leaves her prison. I also believe that this is 100% perfectly consistent w/physicalism. 1. Mary, by reading her textbook, acquires a justified true belief about what red is like. 2. Justified true beliefs are knowledge. 3. Therefore, Mary, by reading her textbook, acquires knowledge about what red is like.
THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
When David was talking about Panpsychism, I would've liked it if he'd gone more in depth on what matter is for him. He says the panpsychist's idea that something else could play the role of matter is silly because you could have smash instead of mass, but to me, his position that matter is nothing more than physical behavior sounds like the stranger and more unintuitive position. If he's saying that you fully know what matter is just by fully knowing what it does, then that sounds like he's telling me "nouns are just verbs". It's hard for me to even make sense of that idea without further positive arguments for it.
~ 49:00 "...she's only learned something new at the level of concepts. She's acquired a new way of thinking about red experiences... and now she knows that ripe tomatoes cause *this* - and all we physicalists say is well she's got a new concept I'm expressing by *this* and it refers to just the same thing as her old concept 'oscillations in V 4' referred to." But the experience is not a concept, rather it's what the (phenomenal) concept refers to. *This* refers to her experience in which she learns something new, what seeing red is like, which is not obviously identical to oscillations in V4 - that has to be demonstrated. The experience is not a new way of thinking, which is a conceptual matter, but a new experience, which is clearly non-conceptual. The "two concepts/one physical thing" claim can't simply be read off the Mary experiment.
The human consciousness of death is the real bugger. To "defend" against the fear of death (meaninglessness), we create mental schemes to separate ourselves from our physicality...which dies.
There is a collective consciousness that creates the illusion of the material world and born from that is the individual consciousness which leads to a more personalized worldview. Sanity or madness is how well the personal consciousness interfaces with the collective worldview.
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 ….
1. It is possible to have beliefs about something you have not yet experienced. 2. Mary hasn't yet experienced what red is like. 3. Therefore, it is possible for Mary to have beliefs about what red is like. 4. Knowledge is justified true belief. 5. Mary's belief about what red is like is justified by the textbook complete science that Mary is stipulated to have. 6. Mary's belief is true - perhaps not true in virtue of its justification, but since Gettier taught us that justified beliefs can be true on accident, let's stipulate that Mary's justified belief is true on accident. 7. Therefore, Mary's belief about what red is like (which, again, is a belief about something she has not yet experienced) is knowledge. What do you think about these 2 arguments? Do these arguments jointly show that Mary knows what red is like even b4 she experiences what red is like?
20 mins in - I'd say that although phenomenal consciousness is difficult to define or describe in physicalist terms, it's completely understood as a phenomenal experience by the experiencer. My experience isn't mysterious or vague to me, or yours to you. And it's not illusory - in the sense that I can't be mistaken about my own experience, there's no room between the experience and me 'having' the experience for error to creep in. Illusionists are correct that my experience isn't a perfect representation of the world 'out there', but nobody thinks it's a complete and perfect representation. So what exactly is the illusion? I also believe David is wrong to say there isn't a fact of the matter as to whether eg lobsters have phenomenal experience. To put it in Nagel's terms, there is something it is like to be a lobster at any given time, or there isn't. It's a yes/no issue. And just because we can't know the answer doesn't mean there is no fact of the matter. We can't know the answer because phenomenal experience is private, and there's no physicalist explanation which enables us to look for the 'public/physical' necessary conditions. Hence we have to rely on analogy - do they behave as we'd expect conscious critters to behave, do they have similar neurobiology. This reliance on similarity to us (who we know to be conscious) only points to the inadequacy of physicalism in explaining consciousness. And the jump from there to 'Illusionism' looks like a defensive over-reaction. Something like Physicalism can't (currently) explain it, so it can't be quite real, or what we think it is. Without being too specific about what the 'illusion' actually is. I think Physicalism has to take this head on. Illusionists seem to me to dodge the difficult questions.
Hmm. Quite an intelligent, even interesting conversation. But I honestly don't think it added anything of real helpful substance to the understanding of consciousness and the mind body problem. I felt like trying grasp on a rising smoke. There's nothing that I can actually hold in my hands. No offense to these 2 intelligent people. I'm still planning to finish the conversation though.
To me Mind is like Artificial intelligence, a collective but us humans have lost connection. We can't access the collective unless we achieve the correct frequency ... Random thought manifests from the collective Mind/Conciousness 😂
It's not a question of are lobsters concious, of course they are. It's a question of if they are self-aware which they are not. You need language to be self-aware. Language is the problem! There is no you without language, therfore yhe lobster does not suffer because it doesn't have a self that can experience suffering.
Materialists posit one dimension rather than three. They see the physical or elemental as fundamental with consciousness and mind arising from it. The reality is there are three dimensions. Consciousness;(fundamental); Mind (elemental emerging with quantum events); Physical or elemental (also emerging with quantum events). In philosophy there is the hard problem of consciousness; it is not elemental; they fail to see that it is fundamental so it remains the hard problem.
Given what is known about the world, consciousness is physical, produced by the brain, as is the mind and self. There is no immaterial ghost in the cranium. We live in a physical world all the way up, and all the way down.
Given what is known, what is known is around 0.000001% of ultimate truth, we don't even see or, perceive the vast majority of what's actually out there.
Immaterial is you cannot define something. Ghost? Why the air existing If it doesn't needed anyway? Physical only apply on the living but not the the dead.
The assumption that the physical creates the mental is the dualist approach but it is problematic, due to emergence etc. There is also the assumption that the mind and brain are one inseparable process, that I prefer, as it offers access to a monist ontology.
@@bradmodd7856 dualism is a particle clashed together based on science. I still don't understand how electricity powered the brain by sending signal in the entire body and why do flesh Roth ? Is it our surroundings? "Metal rust" iron
The brain is the interface, filter and receiver that allows mind to be quantified and differentiated into a multiplicistic subjective framework and have a linear, dynamic, experience as ever moving and ever-changing form with consciousness.
This was a perfectly sooth talk, it beat my insomnia and slept through 90% of video, but I did sleep so well. Will bookmark and revisit when needed.
Thank you?
For my part, I believe (Frank Jackson's) Mary would know what red is like b4 she leaves her prison. I also believe that this is 100% perfectly consistent w/physicalism.
1. Mary, by reading her textbook, acquires a justified true belief about what red is like.
2. Justified true beliefs are knowledge.
3. Therefore, Mary, by reading her textbook, acquires knowledge about what red is like.
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
When David was talking about Panpsychism, I would've liked it if he'd gone more in depth on what matter is for him. He says the panpsychist's idea that something else could play the role of matter is silly because you could have smash instead of mass, but to me, his position that matter is nothing more than physical behavior sounds like the stranger and more unintuitive position. If he's saying that you fully know what matter is just by fully knowing what it does, then that sounds like he's telling me "nouns are just verbs". It's hard for me to even make sense of that idea without further positive arguments for it.
I agree
~ 49:00 "...she's only learned something new at the level of concepts. She's acquired a new way of thinking about red experiences... and now she knows that ripe tomatoes cause *this* - and all we physicalists say is well she's got a new concept I'm expressing by *this* and it refers to just the same thing as her old concept 'oscillations in V 4' referred to."
But the experience is not a concept, rather it's what the (phenomenal) concept refers to. *This* refers to her experience in which she learns something new, what seeing red is like, which is not obviously identical to oscillations in V4 - that has to be demonstrated. The experience is not a new way of thinking, which is a conceptual matter, but a new experience, which is clearly non-conceptual. The "two concepts/one physical thing" claim can't simply be read off the Mary experiment.
What is there yo an experience/qualia besides language? Language is the problem.
He snuck in a ‘rest his soul’….interesting remark for a stark materialist….its in how people speak is what he mentioned. I agree
Lobsters are conscious in their own world and work of the big picture ecosystem we also live in. Its okay if you eat the slow ones.
The human consciousness of death is the real bugger. To "defend" against the fear of death (meaninglessness), we create mental schemes to separate ourselves from our physicality...which dies.
There is a collective consciousness that creates the illusion of the material world and born from that is the individual consciousness which leads to a more personalized worldview. Sanity or madness is how well the personal consciousness interfaces with the collective worldview.
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 ….
Regarding Mary, do you agree that Mary - before she leaves her room - has a belief about what red is like?
1. It is possible to have beliefs about something you have not yet experienced.
2. Mary hasn't yet experienced what red is like.
3. Therefore, it is possible for Mary to have beliefs about what red is like.
4. Knowledge is justified true belief.
5. Mary's belief about what red is like is justified by the textbook complete science that Mary is stipulated to have.
6. Mary's belief is true - perhaps not true in virtue of its justification, but since Gettier taught us that justified beliefs can be true on accident, let's stipulate that Mary's justified belief is true on accident.
7. Therefore, Mary's belief about what red is like (which, again, is a belief about something she has not yet experienced) is knowledge.
What do you think about these 2 arguments? Do these arguments jointly show that Mary knows what red is like even b4 she experiences what red is like?
20 mins in - I'd say that although phenomenal consciousness is difficult to define or describe in physicalist terms, it's completely understood as a phenomenal experience by the experiencer. My experience isn't mysterious or vague to me, or yours to you. And it's not illusory - in the sense that I can't be mistaken about my own experience, there's no room between the experience and me 'having' the experience for error to creep in. Illusionists are correct that my experience isn't a perfect representation of the world 'out there', but nobody thinks it's a complete and perfect representation. So what exactly is the illusion?
I also believe David is wrong to say there isn't a fact of the matter as to whether eg lobsters have phenomenal experience. To put it in Nagel's terms, there is something it is like to be a lobster at any given time, or there isn't. It's a yes/no issue. And just because we can't know the answer doesn't mean there is no fact of the matter. We can't know the answer because phenomenal experience is private, and there's no physicalist explanation which enables us to look for the 'public/physical' necessary conditions. Hence we have to rely on analogy - do they behave as we'd expect conscious critters to behave, do they have similar neurobiology. This reliance on similarity to us (who we know to be conscious) only points to the inadequacy of physicalism in explaining consciousness. And the jump from there to 'Illusionism' looks like a defensive over-reaction. Something like Physicalism can't (currently) explain it, so it can't be quite real, or what we think it is. Without being too specific about what the 'illusion' actually is.
I think Physicalism has to take this head on. Illusionists seem to me to dodge the difficult questions.
Hmm. Quite an intelligent, even interesting conversation. But I honestly don't think it added anything of real helpful substance to the understanding of consciousness and the mind body problem. I felt like trying grasp on a rising smoke. There's nothing that I can actually hold in my hands. No offense to these 2 intelligent people. I'm still planning to finish the conversation though.
To me Mind is like Artificial intelligence, a collective but us humans have lost connection.
We can't access the collective unless we achieve the correct frequency ...
Random thought manifests from the collective Mind/Conciousness 😂
The mind is the perception of its modeling intentions. It knows nothing of the brain.
It's not a question of are lobsters concious, of course they are. It's a question of if they are self-aware which they are not. You need language to be self-aware. Language is the problem! There is no you without language, therfore yhe lobster does not suffer because it doesn't have a self that can experience suffering.
Isn' t a guest first introduced?
No introductions needed. These guests are legends and icons. However, if you need an intro, check the title and video description.😁
@@drtevinnaidu
The Monkey Business Illusion- again😉!
You're telling me you don't know David Papineau?!?!?🥲🥲🥲
I think illusionism is a disrespectful theory. :( I think it isn't even a theory. It seems like mere presumptuousness.
Materialists posit one dimension rather than three. They see the physical or elemental as fundamental with consciousness and mind arising from it.
The reality is there are three dimensions. Consciousness;(fundamental); Mind (elemental emerging with quantum events); Physical or elemental (also emerging with quantum events).
In philosophy there is the hard problem of consciousness; it is not elemental; they fail to see that it is fundamental so it remains the hard problem.
Given what is known about the world, consciousness is physical, produced by the brain, as is the mind and self. There is no immaterial ghost in the cranium. We live in a physical world all the way up, and all the way down.
Given what is known, what is known is around 0.000001% of ultimate truth, we don't even see or, perceive the vast majority of what's actually out there.
Immaterial is you cannot define something.
Ghost? Why the air existing If it doesn't needed anyway?
Physical only apply on the living but not the the dead.
The assumption that the physical creates the mental is the dualist approach but it is problematic, due to emergence etc. There is also the assumption that the mind and brain are one inseparable process, that I prefer, as it offers access to a monist ontology.
@@bradmodd7856 dualism is a particle clashed together based on science. I still don't understand how electricity powered the brain by sending signal in the entire body and why do flesh Roth ? Is it our surroundings? "Metal rust" iron
Agree