Rupert Sheldrake - Is Consciousness Fundamental?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 янв 2017
- The great challenge is explain consciousness-the inner experiences of sense, thought, intent, feelings. It's what David Chalmers calls 'The Hard Problem' of consciousness. Is our mental life a random accident, solely the product or byproduct of physical brain?
Click here to watch more interviews with Rupert Sheldrake bit.ly/2gHCPfF
Click here to watch more interviews on whether consciousness is fundamental bit.ly/2il8Yps
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
Yes Sheldrake is on the ball with just about everything! Love hearing him talk!
Of all your interviews, and I have watch many, this man makes the most sense to me.
It is the opposite for me.
I agree with yoy entirely. EVERYTHING is alive.
Dr Sheldrake, Dr Hoffman, and Dr. Bernardo Kastrup are the "real thing".
Dont forget Sir McKenna
@@alexisrosalesruiz7334 read Sri Aurobindo & The Mother
"Consciousness is involved in choice and the weighing up of possibilities." - Rupert Sheldrake.
So when I've reached pure consciousness through lifelong meditation - without awareness of content like thought or emotions - Sheldrake is saying that I am still caught up in the mental processes of choosing and deciding. If not choosing between things is a choice, and not making decisions about what to do is a decision, there is truly no escape from the rambling internal dialogue, the chattering of the mind. or the intentional movement of the eyes, lips and hands. What seems like process without content is actually the processing of abstract content (meta-content) - beam me up! Sheldrake is brilliantly annoying and annoyingly brilliant. I used to think I was a biological machine, now I'm thinking my strings are getting by universal forces behind the curtains of consciousness.
The slight reverb is a nice touch.
These arguments concerning consciousness being univerals and fundamentally existing in the universe remind me so much of the vitalism arguments
Thank you for all these wonderful videos. And for making me use my brain. I love all the settings you use! The background is almost as interesting as the guest. Thank you.
More like this, Dr. Kuhn! So glad you're interviewing Rupert!
Mr Sheldrake is my favourite visionary. Wonderful, fascinating person.
Same
I like how he puts it. Make alot of sense
The brain is simply an interface - between our true spiritual nature / eternal consciousness and body...
Agree
Mind*
Not brain (its still part of body)
@@summerbreeze5115 ? If you want a pedantic explanation ; Brain actually facilitates thoughts / mind / same thing..
@@crystalawen the fact/info that the brain create Consiousness is in Consiousness.
So which came first?
Consiousness or brain ?
I wrote this?😂😂
Sorry
Consciousness/mind/thought is the product/epiphenomenon of Brain
If consciousness is fundamental, consciousness is eternal. If consciousness is eternal, there is an afterlife. But there won't be any individual experience of this afterlife. No 'I'. So in a way, YOU don't survive death, we all do.
Jesse Gandy Well said brutha ..bravo, bravo..👏👏 Something to definitely ponder!!!👌👁👏
crisisofconsciousness Umm not quite, more like Holographic so to speak, packets of data that the brain is deciphering ! I look at it in way or hypothesis is the brain being a Transciver & Receiver of Consiousness! Look into Tom Campbell & his research, maybe a better understanding than I can explain!
You forgot about the collective memories we store, things we learn, things that shape person thoughts etc all carry with the YOU & that connects to the eternal ie Supreme Consciousness ie Supreme Being ie God
So it's a personal intertwining with the collective that connects with God. Other God connecting & revealing "Himself" to the collective consciousness thru personal interaction with the personal
Jesse Gandy - spot on ! There is only one of us - and we are not alone :-)
How do you explain near death experiences? They are individualized. You can't assume that an individual consciousness will not exist in an afterlife.
A full on genius.......his insights join us all together including animal, mineral, vegetable etc. Oneness is the true state its so refreshing to hear someone remove the walls which were never there....
This consciousness problem is truly a difficult thing to wrap our heads around and it's a tough problem that I hope one day will be well understood. The thought plaguing me after watching this video is this: Will our descendants look back on this video and laugh? Or will they get a good chuckle out of the materialists. I tend to think the former, but I'd be lying if I said I were supremely confident.
Thank you very much: two of my favourite persons in sensible conversation: wonderfully enlightening 👍
Wow this is incredible , thankyou :)
When I dream it appears that I am interacting with other minds, other persons, within the dream, but of course we know that all of those dream people are produced by just one mind, mine. This shows how one mind can appear to produce many.
I mean, there might be ways to find out of minds interact with each other in a sleep state. Very difficult.
Consciousnes means, aware of whole thing in present moment.
Past present future exists in present.
thinking is a state of consciousness.
The work of thinking is to be experienced, to which no Law applies.
Thinking is a process thought to another thought, experinece too
Our body ? Time gender reality it all exists based on experience.
Experinece is the form of thought.
We are form of thought.
Our dna contains information of our civilizations similarly our thoughts are also the legacy of our civilizations.
Our previous connection breaks when connecting with a thought.
We are form of thought
Thinking is a state of consciousness
No Law applies to thinking.
That is why experinece format understands that I am experiencing myself.
Great video
You may like to explore the God concept which is referred as 'Brahman' in Hinduism- Advaita. Everything came from consciousness. Brahman is defined as "Existence, Consciousness, Boundless". It is both the material and intelligent cause of the universe. It is the substratum of the entire universe including humans. When we get behind & peel off our thoughts, emotions, intelligence and Ego we are pure consciousness which is same as Brahman. It is behind inanimate as well.
It's very common thought throughout different cultures. There's an old muslim scholar Mansur al-Hallaj who brilliantly wrote a poem about it.
He was killed later.
I saw my Lord with the eye of the heart.
I asked: Who art Thou?
He answered: Thou.
You are He Who fills all place
But place does not know where You are.
In my subsistence is my annihilation;
In my annihilation, I remain You.
Mansur al-Hallaj (c. 858 - 922)
@@armchairrockstar186 thanks for that, armchair rocker rocks
Consciousness, Brahman or however you'd choose to designate is is akin to a film screen upon which there appears the film itself. When we look at the screen, we actually perceive the screen but caught up in the film, might forget that the film isn't what's real, only an appearance. it's the screen itself which is the changeless reality and the film only arises by virtue of it being dependent upon the screen. That qualifies it as a "substratum" for the movie.
What a load of nonsense!
Is that why Hinduism has a caste system where the Brahman's are the elite and then there other castes serving them?
Chris Langan went a step further in his CTMU paper, basically saying that we should consider the probability that consciousness is a force in the universe which is fundamental to any notion of a grand unified theory.
... without giving proof, while having an IQ of over 3000
@@etzenhammer Intangibles don't have proofs. They have evidence. Had you actually read his paper you would have read much the same evidence for the effects of conscious will on the material world as Sheldrake gives here.
@@wildbillhackett none of them deliver any kind of hard evidence, objectively observable, repeatable experiments to proof the mind is not created in the brain. Also they don't answer questions like: why is consciousness gone when given anesthesia? Or when a concussion happens?
@@etzenhammer I can't answer your questions, but keep in mind that the "T" in CTMU stands for theory. If a theory had hard evidence, it wouldn't be a theory.
@@etzenhammer consciousness is still there. When you’re during anesthesia you’re experiencing awareness, but since brain and consciousness are linked and you’re not dead you’re more focused on the physical part, the "nothingness". Only a small part is focused on consciousness
Conciousness, requires reasoning of all of the information collected from the body parts that sense the environment around and within! My Conciousness is not part of my body, in fact, it is anxious, at times,.. about being freed from the body, and into the universe. Conciousness is critical feedback to the universe (which allowed just the perfect place for our bodies to live, thrive, and feed consciousness back into the universe) itself. The higher our Consciousness grows, the more it becomes,,... aware, respectful,...able to help what the universe is doing, that it might even continue mankind's existence in the Universe.
For me as a Hindu Consciousness is the only variable that generates pluralistic manifestations.
Interesting guy.
A very good conversation about how materialism does not work.
🙄
It may be we are interacting with other dimensions but unable to discern anything but a very small part of reality.
Amazing
I had the same theory. I called it the intelligence theory. I believe all things, including atoms have some form of consciousness or intelligence. I think humans are a very complex representation of particles.
Love Rupert! Do we detect a shamanistic concept here? We totally agree with him...A little Terence McKenna influence to boot...Gaian Mind...Consider the possibilities...
Karen Contestabile Terence McKenna and Dr. Sheldrake were friends....
And recorded talks together....
Consciousness is the active access point to infinite potential.
The brain is a co-interacting network that gains information both externally and internally and all systems are networks within fields of force of influence where multiple levels of connection and entanglement.
Lucas Pierce well said! I would agree with your hypothesis!!
Consciousness is indeed fundamental, but we'll have to go further than a Type-F Monism like Strawson and Sheldrake suggest. We'll need to go to a full blown Type-I Monism:
an immaterial monism where consciousness is the only fundamental substance.
For arguments for this view check out: *The Case for Monistic Idealism*
Like a dream? Where all the things you see are being created by mind stuff, however it feels like a real world and you are fooled it is reality (unless your lucid)
@@footballfactory8797 Exactly.
Brilliant talk. I can't disagree with anything he said.
Would the detection of quantum field(s) have something to do with measurement of quantum field, in which case maybe consciousness is on the quantum / planck scale?
Very bright
Any and all of our conceptions of physics and causation have an element of mind in it and it describes an ideal of reality both measured and hypothesized. We don't agree on the definition of consciousness of awareness yet it's reflective like fractals and conter-fractals, the same goes for living systems as we try to reduce and define life, we find that quality in a system that seems non-living. Consciousness allows us to be aware of things millions of light years away, but particles can be entangled as if there one singular entity. My prediction is that we will always run into this until we realize that we only wanted to see the details, when it was the whole we ignored. True panpsychist and pantheists don't attach to one sided arguments that deny it's obvious expressions in all systems and don't make it their goal as a religion, but as an outlook that is immanent. We are a minority among humans as philosopher apes and it is at it's core a denial of materialism on one side and embodied idolistic deism, mysticism and peganism on the other which are false and half-truths at best. We are but a singularity in the Infiniti of the true all, that gnostics called the Holy Spirit, the illuminists call monads, and we see as the animated thermodynamically driven whole. That's why the universe seems like a simulation or intelligently designed, cause it's a self-perpetuatual self-organizing infinite expression of eternal transformations.
By us making descisions from offered or imaginated possibilties and by this braking or destroying the wave function of the probabilities of our choice parameters Sheldrake says us that "freedom" is what makes life and consciousness so exiting and fundamental.
He is right all "beings" are lifeforms, that includes also earth or Sun as a star and many more "celestial" beings and entities! He is a true antroposoph a modern Steiner!
“If the body came into being because of consciousness that is a wonder, but if consciousness came in to being because of the body this is a
wonder of wonders.”
The Gnostic Christ The Gospel of Thomas
Nice!👍
A nice place to talk!)
i think being conscious is the ability to somehow sense time . as in the universe changing and all the different possibilities. maybe when our biology started taking advantage of quantum
processes is when we truly became conscious and gained free will.
The Law myoho-renge-kyo represents the identity of what some scientists refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s a sound vibration that is the essence of all of existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration.
On the subject of ‘Who or What Is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us.
When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them?
Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of ‘God’ could actually exist. It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent.
In a very similar way, it’s important for us to have our ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and what we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because the sound vibration of myoho-renge-kyo represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence.
Myoho represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. One state of myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect manifests from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s simply the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something.
The second law, renge, governs and controls the functions of myoho, ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect. The two laws of myoho and renge, both functions together simultaneously, as well as underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination, kyo, is what allows the law myoho to be able to integrate with the law renge. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the string theory that some scientists now suspect exists.
Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big or small, important or trivial that anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of myoho-renge-kyo.
These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are all moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two universal states of myo and ho in absolute accordance with renge and by way of kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn in accordance with the workings of what the combination myoho-renge-kyo represents.
Nam, or Namu, on the other hand, is a password or a key; it allows us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with myoho-renge-kyo. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well in our environment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is turning, and rhythmically chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo for a minimum of ten minutes daily, anyone can experience actual proof of its positive effects in their life.
In so doing, we can pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and activate our Buddha Nature (the enlightened state). We’re then able to summon forth the wisdom needed to challenge, overcome and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It brings forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that is preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we truly are, regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexual preference. We are also able to see and understand our circumstances and an environment more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations.
Actual proof soon becomes apparent to anyone who chants the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo on a regular daily basis. Everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect, so the strength of the result from chanting depends on dedication, sincerity and determination. To explain it more simply, the difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a song and so on.
NB: There are frightening, disturbing sounds and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It's the emotional result from any sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day you are producing a sound vibration that is the password to your true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things, such as your fears and desires etc. The important way to get the best result when chanting is not to see things in a conventional way (difficult to achieve but can be done), rather than reaching out to an external source, you need to reach into your own life and bring your needs and desires to fruition from within, including any help that you may need. Think of it as a seed within you that you are bringing sunshine and water to in order for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s important to understand that everything that we need in life, all the answers and potential to achieve our dreams, already exist within us.
ruclips.net/video/6CZ0XJqWRr4/видео.html OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN sings about Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
Imagine how ancient the consciousness of birds after millions of years of pattern replication and tuning......
Consciousness isn't a property of matter. Matter is merely what we have to express it.
A neuron only judges how relevant various signals are to its operation. It doesn't know (or need to know) what its operation is, because that's encoded over the whole brain, much like the interference pattern of a holographic image. Neurons are roughly organized into layers. Since each layer only judges relevance with a lower layer, the first few seem very logical. As you get deeper into the layers, more abstract relationships pop up. It's only at the end of a very deep neural network do you get something as abstract as consciousness. In theory, there may be something stranger and more abstract than consciousness.
The nice thing about this assertion is that it offers a testable prediction. Since consciousness is the last step in the neural pathways, it should express itself after everything else has been processed. You may have heard that it has been demonstrated that consciousness occurs about 80ms after we make a decision.
My point of view is that you can't separate consciousness from the things that you are conscious of. Our consciousness is rich because it has access to a model of reality constructed by our brain by integrating all the sensory inputs and memories available to it. If things like bricks and hammers possess consciousness then what would they be conscious of exactly ?
Sheldrake states that only self organising systems or organisms have consciousness, i.e "living" or "moving" things. Hammers and bricks and machines don't count in this respect, and therefore do not possess consciousness according to him
Consciousness is an emergent property, not a property of matter. The same as Wetness is not a property of matter but an emergent property of liquids. The Sun is not conscious because consciousness doesn't emerge from random atoms, it's structured in specific ways and most evolve gradually.
How is the Sun not structured in a specific way and how did it not evolve gradually?
@@anonsurfer the sun is not a complex network like the brain. In fact the sun is actually just lots of atoms reacting and releasing energy. And the sun would have no biological advantage for being conscious.
@@etzenhammer The sun or any other aspect of nature need not adhere to your definition of complexity in order for it to be conscious. The same would apply to microorganisms which some humans will regard as conscious and some will not. Besides, there are already some scientists who do not even accept that humans are conscious entities and that consciousness is an illusion. That is the nature of the Relative - that our view of it will always be fragmented.
As for consciousness being ubiquitous, I can see why some disagree. If consciousness was everywhere , then why do humans require some specialized arrangement of neurons, for example, to selectively see color RED? The conscious experience of REDNESS depends on the SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT of these cells. A lump of coal or a doorknob, has atoms, but does not share this arrangement. One can get around this problem by suggesting that that our brain has consciousness of every (quantum, if you will) possibility, but the purpose of specialized cells is to FILTER for specific modes of consciousness. In this way humans can have a consciousness for things that are important (for example, colors, for evolutionary mating, or sounds for avoiding danger or communicating) , whereas a rock may be conscious of infinite possibilities in superposition. If this is the case, then the biological mechanism of consciouness may involve some type of 'shielding' of other types of superimposed quantum events, which have the undesired potential to give rise to other forms of consciousness experience that would be meaningless to us.
Idk if you need consciousness to have choices, this can be done with some probabilistic biological structures, same way I can write a program that does random things.
Rupert is talking about electrical fields and quantum phenomena, and so on. He is not talking about all the fields that have physical reality, that we can not detect and do not yet understand. Actually, I say "yet" in the last sentence when in fact, we may never know these fields that are beyond us, just as dogs will never comprehend electric fields.
While the quantum field has random possibilities, could something that is continuously measuring quantum field, perhaps time or another thing, give quantum field(s) the quality of free will? And if quantum field(s) have the quality of free will (through time or other), the brain or something in the brain measuring / detecting quantum field with free will might become conscious?
“The Spirit of God has made me and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” - Job 33:4
is this the same guy who watched over the "Scole experiment" ?
I've been waiting for the Sheldrake interview for some time. Why Is the audio so bad for him and why is the interview conducted standing awkwardly in a narrow hallway XD supposing that it was in some way to thwart the delivery of his ideas I think he spoke eloquently, articulately, and most of all coherently about these controversial concepts of consciousness that are frankly reviled by classical science. I see much more potential in incorporating consciousness into our understanding of reality as opposed to smashing together atoms only to find finer and finer phenomena occurring ad infinatum with the assumption that some spec will pop out to explain this "exploding machine" of a Universe. I understand the reticence a staunch materialist would have in accepting the implications that treating consciousness as an actual entity in the world would have but as he stated even strict materialism leads to a notion of pan psychism. If we are to construct an accurate model of cosmology I think this outdated archaic mode of thought that all that is must be composed of some physical matter will eventually have to be modernized, even the most fundamental particles are 99.999% space! To say that correlating quantum and consciousness simply because they're both mysterious is a dumbed down understanding of the argument , as Rodger Penrose conceives it , the brain is utilizing the same physics that everything does at the quantum realm, the notion that consciousness collapses the wave function and plays a role in the universe has been debated almost since the inception of quantum physics. It's Inevitable that science will have to accept the better explanation and established scientists will do it kicking and screaming as in every shift of paradigm.
I have often thought the choice of venue in CtT videos odd, often bordering on the bizarre. I think I've seen a Daniel Dennett interview filmed inside a church. Nice one! DD can, I understand play the organ, but I ask you! I think it must be that Kuhn just has a wicked sense of humour. Be that as it may, it certainly does no favours to either sound or picture.
Lol seriously you think they'd at least be sitting
Anthony Ayala are you the “Ant” from RB?
Happy New years. Hello My freind, I agree , you know your comment make me think of some . China have maybe 1000 of those pyramide. I know one of Them is a 100 feets higher the Égypte one . The piramyd of gueesay . Sorry for the probable mis Spelling That I just . please the curse of Spelling mistake Will never leave me alone I sorry. Please My freind Tell me if it is me or most of archeologist, sciences of aller kind beeing blind. About all those above civilisation living on Earth, and Vénus. Also may be IT is just fear. Yes it is just fear. Now Do you know you have freewill by the way. I belived all of people have freewill this years. Great I guess. Good freewill you and all of you. Fear now Will act very differently. It will have some courages people like you my freind who Will say scru you fear now I am abel to be an individual who Will have to assume now on My own Act. As long IT does not be stupid with otter like killing. No problem. I forgot my first idea m'y freind hoppe you dont mine. At lease you know know you have freewill. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎
The audio is bad because they’re using 2 microphones which have recorded both speakers slightly out of phase with each other - making it sound echoey and robotic. Great interview nonetheless.
What is thinking? What are thoughts composed of? Brain seems to initiate thinking which is a form of self awareness. What kind of energy,electrons or something material? Why are thoughts so evanescent, how are they used in brain? Where do they go if not stored in memory. Why do you have different states of consciousness.? Just thoughts typed on smartphone.
The guy is very smart. It all depends on how things are defined. Some say that animals are more conscious than some human beings. For some a crime is not a conscious act. For me to be spiritual is to ask the question why Am I more valuable than anything else. Whether the sun was conscious or not, it is something to be respected and considered as if it was alive, actually the sun does not need to be conscious at all, it is gonna outlive all of us and it might destroy us, consciously or not, and it might be the source of a new life on one of our planet one day, maybe for few million years or more, maybe never. If I offended anyone, this is only a thought.
Our sun has a mind.......damn, we are in trouble now
At least our Sun has one unlike some creatures that it shines on. :)
@@manafro2714 LOL! 😁
@@manafro2714 😅😂☀️
Consciousness is the preliminary necessary condition for existence it is the ground of all being.
Brain or something in the brain detecting quantum field(s) might have something to do with or be consciousness?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that consciousness arises from the brain. The brain is composed of many regions that contribute to that consciousness. Those regions are made of patterns of neurons, and those patterns are comprised of individual neurons. At what point does consciousness arise? If disconnected from the other regions but kept alive somehow, would a single brain region be conscious? What about a single chain of neurons responsible for a single thought or memory? What about 2 neurons?
Is a lone neuron conscious? If so, what is that consciousness like? It only has 2 states - on and off. It wouldn't "think" or consider, as those are the result of complex patterns of neurons, but it might be conscious of its "onness" or "offness".
Now consider that 2 neurons don't actually touch but communicate via neurotransmitters that they send to and receive from one another. Through this act of sending and receiving, a higher consciousness must be formed, as if you keep adding neurons you end up with a complex human mind. Is it possible that the neurons are still individually conscious?
In that vein, human beings need not touch to communicate. We send and receive information from one another in many different ways. All of these ways are essentially just one human's neurons sending a signal to the neurons of another human. Is it possible, then, that a higher consciousness arises from communication between people while those people retain their individual consciousnesses? What would that consciousness be like?
Consciousness, is philosophical, weakness, and will give you perfect understanding, about any objects , in our nature’s, and is works , like general theory relativity, between the space and planet earth.
If consciousness is about choices/ weighing up probabilities etc - what are the choices and decisions that larger conscious agents make such as the sun galaxies etc? Could they maybe be the things that determine the activities of subsets of nested reality whereby the consciousness of a collection of people make decisions that determine the conscious decisions of the individual people meaning that we still don’t have free will
Happy New years my freind. Yes now you have freewill. I am glad I am the first to Say to you. Viva las Vegas mon ami James. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎
If you apply the standard characteristics of life to the Sun, then it could be considered "animate". Features such as birth, locomotion, inhalation, ingestion, excretion, reproduction, death etc. To me, the Sun engages in all of these. Animate and inanimate are merely human definitions based on our limited understanding of life on earth that we have used as a reference point.
Consciousness is somewhat more comprehensive I think. Life after death is or should be an open question. Also I do not think human consciousness varies by ones nationality.
For the brain to have consciousness, something in the brain might have to detect / measure quantum field(s)?
Hi Mr Lawrence , yes I am sure. The real Deal. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin
How about interviewing Thomas Campbell?
How much of this involved discussions with Terence McKenna?
7:50 Everything in nature is electrical. Maybe we should look in this direction instead of gravity ruling the cosmos.
There is a Universal consciousness that permeates the universe.
Yes it is all about " Bravo.😎🌈😄
Consciousness is observer, what being observed is nothing but your consciousness
Nature is not "nested" as much as emergent. For entities to be of sufficient complexity to create new effects "in relation" is not intrinsic except as relation occurs ergo, emergence.
David O'Neill - I think our “universe” is an evolving smaller-scale fractal (subset of a subset of a subset, etc...ie nested) of an evolving primordial consciousness...ie the entity that initially decided to be one thing-state or another. Maybe its Original Choice was to feel normal or feel better. With that choice time was born (before the choice/after the choice). And the rest is evolution-history.
As to Emergent...from what? Atoms, matter? By what process do supposedly non-conscious atoms give rise to conscious decision-making organisms?
may the Force be with you
Can consciousness be created? Can it be destroyed? Can it change forms?
Wow Rupert, tear it up dude! LOL
Sheldrake is such a boss; what an interesting non-confirmist.
Why does this guy not debate any of the big wigs in science, so we can see how his ideas fair in open discussion with other high level scientists. I've seen that shoddily shot, grainy video from the 1700s of Sheldrake, Dennett, Dyson, Sacks, and others but this isn't enough. We need a Sheldrake vs. Dawkins, Sheldrake vs. Krauss, Sheldrake vs. Harris, or others
Adrian Postawa Yea man, and not saying that I agree, but even so, why not bring your ideas out into the full view of the public? Its no doubt crossed his mind, I'm just wondering which side is causing the hold-up, is it Sheldrake or is it the "frauds"?
Sheldrake has said he´s willing to debate anyone. He particularly said he´d like to debate Dawkins, but Dawkins said "No". Dawkins, of course, has an overblown reputation. He usually gets lost the few times when he does debate someone credible who disagrees with him.
He has debated Dawkins when Dawkins turned up on his doorstep it was amusing to watch because it was like a verbal pugilistic boxing match with Sheldrake representing Cambridge University where he used to be a Don and Dawkins representing Oxford. Sheldrake won on points.
Sheldrake finds the notion that consciousness is relative to the size/complexity of the brain as a fantastical one, even though we know that this is the case through experiments with children. As just one example of many, children do not gain one of the hallmarks of what we'd define as human consciousness - the capacity for self actualization (ie the internal realization that they are a distinct entity in the world) - until their brains have developed enough capacity to be able to do this, around 18 months for most kids. Honestly, if the guy spoke in a Liverpudlian accent instead of his exaggerated 'Oxbridge' tone, then people would not take his fantastical and wholly-headed theories as seriously.
A fair argument here --
Does the brain or something in the brain detect an external source for consciousness?
The realm of possibility = see C S Peirce's Realm of Firstness. If the relationship between an observer and an electron is semiotic, as it would seem to be, then it is meaningful and is therefore proto-conscious, has the possibility of consciousness. Indexical and symbolic sign-making emerges from iconic sign-making, which is the kind of sign-making activity that takes place when a person observes something by creating a percept.
I often point out that Science has declared Life to be nothing special, just chemistry, so they simply move the hard problem up one step, but they can no more produce life than they can produce consciousness. It's just as much a mystery how matter can move around in a purposeful way when inside of a living thing, but just sits there and reacts once it is excreted. When you declare life to be "nothing special" you end up with nonsense like Panpsychism or Determinism, since you closed the door to the real mystery.
There seems to be an almost constitutive resistance, even among bona fide scientific anti-materialists like Sheldrake (though not a hard line 'mysterion'--he still appears to argue for the possibility of scientific explicability in quasi-mechanistic terms) to what for many seems glaringly obvious: namely that the so-called Hard Problem of consciousness (why there should be "something that it is like" to be conscious) is and will always remain insoluble until scientists and philosophers accept two working hypotheses. Firstly, that experience is a entirely autonomous, instantiable, and fundamentally irreducable property of reality, and secondly (and perhaps counterintuitively) that it is also in some sense a quantitative entity. Spiritual traditions have almost universally sought recollective disclosure of our vast unconscious depths to the light of conscious awareness for two very good reasons: primarily to bring our incomprehensible natures to the highest possible levels of intelligibility, but more cogently (to use an economic metaphor) also to transform these raw materials into the universe's most valuable stock, i.e. not transendentally structured awareness but fully transcendent experience. If science itself blindly refuses to take stock of such ancient technologies of consciousness building and raising, simply because it feels itself beholden to an outmoded Seventeenth Century Hermeneutics of Suspicion, then the dark age notions about who and what we really are will continue in perpetuity . . .
this is a very materialist view of consciousness, no one talks about consciousness as love. We love ourselves because we are conscious of ourselves.
There you go folks! Just adopt a smart-sounding British accent, pass off a bunch of unfounded ideas about consciousness, and you too can be a guest on Closer to Truth!
materialism is ludicrous
Does the sun have more complex patterns of electrical activity than our brains like he said??
Fundamental? It is the ONLY thing, not just the only fundamental thing, not just A fundamental. Life is but a dream.
@Sad Cube Does anybody really know what time it is?
Fractals are nested. Ring any bells? Fractals are ubiquitous in nature
consciousness is the only reality. world is a temporary. world is like a movie - unreal/temporary. Consciousness is real - the screen movie plays on which is the only reality left after this movie is over.
I don't agree that the sun has more complex arrangements of atoms than brains
He talked about "electrical activity" - not atoms.
3:48 - 4:05
"if consciousness emerges from patterns of electrical activity in your brain and mine as most materialists would assume.
The sun has vastly more complex patterns of electrical activity than our brains,
so why shouldn't that be associated with consciousness why shouldn't the sun have a mind"
Because the sun would have no evolutionary benefit from it.
@@etzenhammer The sun wont need no evolutionary benefit, the sun is a god.
@@tjommidagg3296 oh ok.
@@etzenhammer evolutionarily benifits is irrelevant
@@etzenhammer
Still, there would be consciousness, regardless of evolutionary benefit.
stars are conscious.
His definition of consciousness seems based on the preoccupation of future possibilities. I don't think that's what it is.
Can you prove that it isn't, MajorCulturalDivide?
@@coreycox2345 Animals are conscious.
@@MajorCulturalDivide It seems as if that is only a small part of it. The part we can grasp in a way that we relate to consciously now.
Unconscious habit. English consciousness is different from California consciousness, spanish speaking person consciousness is also different . Downey California
His accent is similar to that of Hitchens.
Isn't it interesting that most of the people who know the most about how the brain works believe that consciousness is a product of the brain?
He dismissed the obvious answer early on. If you put stuff together and it forms in such for which it's beneficial to make models where the model needs to generate an idea of an agent that can itself be modelled, and so on, in a loop, then bam, you have consciousness... A planet could indeed be 'conscious' but that does not imply panpsychism in a hard sense. It seems that biological cells are the thing that are most likely to be the substrate of consciousness, but that doesn't have to be the case. But if the entity doesn't face any challenges that need modelling then consciousness has no reason to evolve and emerge.
sheldrake got one thing terribly wrong - when he makes his argument about consciousness only having to do with one aspect. he was using the word in a very limited sense, in whether we were "aware" of what we were choosing. yes, we may do some things instinctively. but consciousness is all about having a personal experience. if we had no consciousness, we would be robots.
Bright minds once believed that heat was a substance.
They called it phlogiston.
Later on they discovered heat was simply the movement of particles in objects and
the faster the particles moved the more heat there was.
Bright minds once believed that life was a magic spark animating flesh.
Later on they discovered life was simply the movement of particles in objects and
was simply their complex process based interactions.
Bright minds once believed that consciousness was a substance.
Later on they discovered consciousness was simply the movement of particles in objects and
a result of their ability to mirror the world in the form of neural discharge frequency encoded analogies.
Does drinking too much beer makes one unconsciousness?
Yes if you drink enough of it.
'Locker room talk....' ;-)