Charles Tart - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- Help keep our content free from paywalls with a donation to Closer To Truth: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Here’s the big question about consciousness, our inner experience of what things feel like. Is consciousness a product of the physical world alone? Because if consciousness is the output of the physical brain by itself, however complex, then consciousness as physicalism would defeat those who believe, or hope for, the existence of nonphysical realities.
Watch more videos on consciousness: shorturl.at/0Mf3s
Charles T. Tart is a psychologist and parapsychologist known as one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology. He is a Core Faculty member of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and ushered transpersonal psychology into modern psychology.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast wherever you listen: shorturl.at/mtJP4
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Love this exchange. Love Tart's reasoning, Love Kuhn's skepticism. Just full of love.
*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics)
Oh well, nobody’s perfect. :)
It’s rough on S3RAVA3LM though that Planck was a devout theist. He thinks quantum mechanics is an atheist conspiracy. I think theists need to hold a convention and decide once and for all whether they think quantum mechanics is either proof of god, or an atheist plot.
@@simonhibbs887 let's not mix atheism - theism with science.
Great quote. Expect armchair experts to deny it
@@deanodebo Why would anyone deny that Planck had that opinion?
We know better. Only science can correct scientists.
I loved how easily he falls into the trope about, "well, if life is meaningless, I am just going to think about myself." Get out of the bubble, Charles. Doing good and finding meaning is all within our own grasp without an "external meaning-giver".
There is a vast chasm of a difference between "finding meaning" as you say, and "making meaning" as you actually suggest. If everything that matters is available within the grasp of a subjective internal experience then there's nothing to "find", and that's all you're going to acquire. A subjective internal experience. Consciousness is not its own end, it is meant for something.
@@gildhelm "Consciousness is not its own end, it is meant for something"
Indeed,
we are conscious 'cuz civilization won't run on human instincts only.
8:13 This is how it was for the Veda seers. Science and spirituality weren't two things but one. The Rigveda is everything physicists(metaphysics) today discuss, but the difference is the ancients had a real connection to nature, unlike the modern man.
Prof. Tart nailed it to Robert Kuhn, why in 18 years on CtT, he did not move 1" closer to truth.
Because CtT (and most) shows ultimate goal is to “Make friends”, be popular, and make $$$$$$ sufficient funds for “Next episode”…
Telling the Truth but making people mad is a “Dead-End”..
Also, the edges of Science is just “Hard”…
Naaaa, Kuhn wouldn't continue the channel and website if he thought that materialism was all there is. That's why he asks the questions and "devil's advocates" no matter who he talks with. And that's why you watch.
Robert is a very intelligent man. The vision that CTT has, I think, is not to close the door on anybody but to get people thinking, and together.
He criticizes those scientists who arrogantly, as he says, say "we completely understand the universe!" (no serious scientist believes that), but also spends most of his career trying to produce the tiniest smidgen of credible evidence that telekinesis (psychic ability) is a real thing. Despite having produced no such evidence, from what I read he appears to be a firm believer. A striking incongruity of thought!
Telekinesis involves something physical. There are more experiences with no physical objects. I think its very interesting that people try to find something exterior and never try to observe inside. There are experiences you can verify that we are not only a physical body, you can experience an out of body experience and watch your body sleeping in the bed or go outside to explore. Its not difficult to differentiate a dream and an out of body experience (also know as "astral projection"). In an out of body experience, you can feel the "vibrational state", you can feel your body vibrating, and, if you relax, you can easily have the experience, you will see how light you are out the body, you can levitate easily.... you just need concentration. Most of these transcendental experiences requires concentration, and you need to focus inside, not outside, that's why meditation is the best practice. I am sure he criticizes those scientists because he had a similar experience that I described. And scientists deny these kind of experiences, a true scientist would try to replicate the experience, but, because of the materialists/atheists, they think the material its the only thing that exists, then nothing happens, and, to me, it is a blind faith.
@@tao4124Here is the definition of the word telekinesis that I found in two seconds by googling it: "The supposed ability to move objects at a distance by mental power or other nonphysical means." Note closely, if you would be so kind, the word "nonphysical".
@@tao4124 If all that is required to achieve a levitative state is the ability to relax and concentrate really hard, it's a miracle there aren't more people floating around all over the place! Being naturally disposed to laziness, I for one would much prefer to float to the fridge from my living room rather than walk.
@@Hieronymous-ms2uj I think you didn't understood what I said: in an out of body experience, its easy to levitate; in the body, of course, I cant levitate. Maybe in 100 years, people will understand what I am saying.
Tart shows that he doesn't understand science.
I died for 20 minutes I went somewhere outside of space and time I was in a dark train tunnel with ankle deep water and time wasn't the same it just felt so eternal it's hard to describe the feeling of letting this life go for the next so yes for us this is only the start of life kind of like a catapiler that sheds that life for his wings in the next
Too funny! And absolute nonsense that's barely incomprehensible. Learn to spell & compose a proper sentence before attempting to enter into a conversation about things you have no knowledge of.
@@Woodesiesbeautifully put!
sure.
Science is concerned with the physical because it is empirical. It depends on observation and evidence. One can only observe, and collect evidence of, the physical. If the resulting scientific world view ("materialism") is unsatisfactory to Charles Tart, our apologies. But we decide which theories are true based on observation and evidence, not on the supposed consequences of the theories for Charles Tart. Tart's empty and contemptuous dismissal of empiricism is unhelpful.
Finally normal comment.
I don't think he's dismissing it as much as he's saying that it goes beyond the material. Materialists are so fixated on the "3D" but cannot explain this nebulous thing we call consciousness. Yes, there is an element of material (atoms, molecules, etc.) but there is also an element of the unknown or the "unperceivable" that they cannot measure and that is OK. it's ok to admit that not everything is meant to be understood by human perception.
@@boneysouthwest How do you know there is an element of the unknown or the "unperceivable" about consciousness that we cannot measure? What evidence do you have for that statement?
@000FireAimReady000 Well put it this way, all of the scientific studies have only scratched the surface of this universe. There are only THEORIES of consciousness, the big bang, etc. If any scientists claim that they know everything, they're lying.
What if science got it wrong? What if not everything that exists can be observed? Or perhaps it can't all be observed with current technology--this is almost certainly true. I think all Tart is saying is we shouldn't be so certain we have it right when there is outlying data. Outliers suggest we either have the data wrong or our understanding is wrong. We can't know which for sure, so we need to continue to ponder.
Could anyone point me to a parapsychological study that is particularly compelling? I ask this because Charles Tart makes it seem as if most scientists simply dismiss evidence for phenomena they don't like, but I think there's just no compelling evidence for e.g. extra-sensory perception and that's why most researchers don't bother with it. I think that if such effects could be established, both science, commerce, and the military would jump on it. The fact that they don't is telling us something.
I think that you have nailed it.
I agree. As a scientist, my attitude is "show me the evidence". I don't care how outlandish a claim may sound, because how it sounds isn't relevant. If it has observable intersubjectively shareable evidence, that is what matters.
As someone who has experienced altered states of consciousness (namely an out of body experience) , I can say, hand on heart that from my experiences consciousness is more than physical . It goes beyond the brain. Trust me on that.
hahaha - "trust me" is not a valid scientific stance
I too have experienced altered states but
my conclusions are that
thoughts and selfs and being conscious are essentially abstractions.
And, as you know, abstractions are immaterial existents,
have no mass, occupy no space and
are things to which 'location' does not apply
(though of course location etc. does apply to the elements of the substrate).
Much appreciated Kuhn presenting the best physicalist arguments he could to Tart. Would be glad to see you pursue the debate. Cheers for both of you!
"physicalist arguments" There is no need for arguments. Spiritualists make a lot of empty claims. They have been for millennia with no evidence to support their wishful beliefs.
'materislism can't be true otherwise I wouldn't get out of bed'
top tier philosophy right there
Investigate the existential difference between matter and movement.
Did you see that movement is a fundamental part of the physical realm
while at the same time enjoying an immaterial existence?
Hint: Movement is relative and therefore not a property of an object.
(Imho, movement is the proximate substrate of
thoughts and selfs and being conscious.
Matter, on which movement supervenes,
is thus one level down in the hierarchy of substrates
on which thoughts and selfs and being conscious depend
for their real yet immaterial existence.
"Suppose it's not true". And suppose flying unicorns that poop lollipops also exist.
i'm glad you understand ultimate reality. its been solved in 2024, and you know the answers.
But we experience consciousness and not flying unicorns
@@xNazgrelExactly
Except that, unlike unicorns that poop lollipops, there's actually very good evidence for Consciousness not being generated by the brain.
@@asielnorton345 the point is you can simply suppose anything. This man’s suppositions are not supported by observed or testable reality. Until or unless such support can be established, there is no reason to place weight on the suppositions of a purveyor of the paranormal outside of personal wish fulfillment.
When we talk about consciousness, one cannot ask a question by saying YOU, without defining what (or who) is the conscious YOU. This conversation stops at 20 seconds.
Doesn't it all boil down to whether we can we give rise a living being in the lab entirely from chemicals? It will prove that everything is physical? It's quite possible after some advancements in science I think but not sure.
That’s a good question and out of 200 comments for people trying to refute physicality, yours is the only comment which provides a legit argument against materialism. I’ll get back to you.
@@dr_shrinker living beings literally do come from chemicals. This has been abundantly clear for 160 years.
Investigate the existential difference between matter and movement.
Did you see that movement is a fundamental part of the physical realm
while at the same time enjoying an immaterial existence?
Hint: Movement is relative and therefore not a property of an object.
(Imho, movement is the proximate substrate of
thoughts and selfs and being conscious.
Matter, on which movement supervenes,
is thus one level down in the hierarchy of substrates
on which thoughts and selfs and being conscious depend
for their real yet immaterial existence.
Saying there is something more than the material world is easy. But proving it exists has been an total failure. And why is there this desire to be more...to seperate us from the nature that created us ?
We are just the last of our line. The survivor of natures many filters.
Robert's position in this episode is a fanatical one. This is blinding him to something so abundantly observable. His position is unscientific in the true meaning of the word. True science is devoid of any form of fanaticism.
Robert and all his like-minded colleagues who are uncomfortable with the words spirit and spiritual, both of which have religious overtones, should simply change those words to non-material.
The reason conceptualizing the non-material stuffs is a challenge is that we are adept at reducing stuffs to their constituents in order to understand them. For now, we have no way of measuring the volume and magnitude of any of the non-material entities. It is currently impossible to physically pinpoint any because of their non-material nature.
For the same reason, we lack the necessary laboratory tools to work with. Our best chance at this moment is working with biological organisms as "sensory receptors" - tools.
So are you saying Santa Claus is real?
@@TraderhoodNo. They are saying that there are real-life phenomenon that happen in this world that cannot be explained.
Consciousness is one them. Over half of scientists believe that Consciousness is at least partly outside of our physical bodies.
That is not because they are religious wackos. These are PhD professionals, trained in relevant fields. So, this seems to be a good topic.
Possibly u should open ur mind. Being on this channel is a good start.
@@TraderhoodSanta clause is real, if you’re thinking of him. He exists as a physical construct in your brain.
@@dr_shrinker mentally real but not materially real.
@@rckflmg94 mentally real is real. Mental perception is as physically real as the external object. Electrochemicals are physical. Thoughts are physical things. Nothing immaterial exists…..it it did, you wouldn’t be able to perceive it.
What you have is two ontological belief systems. One perspective is the material is all there is, the other is that there is more than the material. Both are leaps of faith. As we know nothing and saying everything is material is a specific option, and saying there is more than the material has an infinite of options, the latter is far more likely true.
I have four objections:
1. You need to be careful when you bring up infinity. Are there countably or uncountably infinitely many supernatural explanations? Does the set of physical explanations have the same cardinality?
2. We have never observed anything supernatural. Therefore, we can never know how many supernatural options there are.
3. Are single-celled organisms conscious? If not, then at some point something physical became nonphysical.
4. Even if we grant the consciousness is nonphysical, there would have to be some mechanism by which the two interact, which we haven’t found.
@@seanpierce9386 there are an uncountable number of possibilities. Any possibility anyone comes up with could be added to by another idea. Furthermore the possibilities of absolute reality are not constrained to the imagination of the human mind. B) plenty of people (the majority of people who have ever existed) have both experienced and believed in something beyond the material (and whether they experienced or believed it is neither here nor there as a tadpole believes the surface of its puddle is ultimate reality). 3) as no one knows what consciousness is there is very little reason to suppose or not suppose that such organisms have consciousness (it’s a leap of faith either way). 4) bc something hasn’t been found to assume it doesn’t exist is an absolute fallacy. Secondarily as a corollary far more people have been through experiences of something beyond the physical than those that claim the immaterial doesn’t exist. Particularly if one takes man in the historical context. But even if no man had experienced the non physical, as Plato’s cave explains, it doesn’t matter. Given the mathematical chances the sigular, specific idea that material is all there is is highly unlikely.
@@asielnorton345 Thanks for answering all of these, I know it’s a long comment.
1. I am using the mathematical definition of cardinal infinity. We cannot know the cardinality of either set, so assuming one is larger than the other is unfounded. You are relying on intuition to prove a mathematical point.
2. Belief in something does not make it true. I have never observed individual, supernatural events beyond reasonable doubt. Most miracles are medical in nature, due to statistical anomalies (bodies are complicated and unique). We have never seen physical laws violated though.
3. In my view, consciousness is emergent, and we simply call it how we see it. This avoids the pitfalls of assuming it is somehow special. A supernatural explanation has to go out of its way to explain the dividing line.
4. Since supernatural explanations usually do not make falsifiable claims, they are no better than a simpler, naturalistic explanation. I reject them as a matter of practicality. Prove a falsifiable claim that is reasonably narrow and I am on board.
I think you are claiming natural and supernatural claims are on equal footing because they are both assumptions. However, which one better fits the evidence we have? As far as I am concerned, consciousness is just like other complicated emergent phenomena. Discussing molecular states is pretty useless to us unless we can simulate every last detail, so we generalize, and over time those generalizations become better until we understand them. Keep in mind that neuroscience and machine learning are burgeoning fields. Superstition and wild claims get headlines in the meantime.
@@seanpierce9386 this in no way refutes what i stated.
@@asielnorton345 Precisely. Your position is unfalsifiable. Show me one reasonably certain example of supernatural behaviour (say, matter from nothing) and materialism is falsified. The fact it has not yet been falsified is testament to its accuracy. Without providing specific predictions, supernaturalism is not useful.
The set of things which are true is definitely larger than the set of things which we can find out is true.
Science is the best tool we currently have for assessing collective truths about our external world, but it doesn’t mean that “non-physical” things aren’t true. It just means that we don’t have good enough tools to assess these truth collectively (and not just subjectively)
Science enables us to make predictions that
come true more often than any other method.
"but it doesn’t mean that “non-physical” things aren’t true"
By "true" I think you mean 'exist".
Truths are non-physical things that exist....
So, if I only believe in the ‘material’ I’m going to be a self-interested, greedy, bastard. Wow. Glad there aren’t any examples of people who believe in the “spiritual” who act that way….
Lol, good one.
I caught that too but then forgot it.
Tart was just questioning observable verifiable status quo while offering some hypothetical unverifiable nonsense.
So, they have already captured a glow at the time of conception. This proves that we come from somewhere outside of all of this in order for us to get into this.
Robert - is space-time material? What about electromagnetism? Nuclear forces, etc.?
These are (now) features of the underlying structure of science that did not "exist" in older understandings of physics, and were "created" in the process trying to understand previously unexplained material behavior.
It is ingenuine to say they are "physical" -- they are not things you can touch or see, but are theories which explain the behavior of the material world, of which we are part.
Are there as yet undiscovered fields, forces, and structures which will bring consciousness (and free will...) and PSI phenomena within the realm of an extended physics?
could there be material existence that people unaware of or beyond current understanding, including God and spiritual?
Materialists have yet to explain why an electron can be in two places at one time until it’s observed by a conscious mind.
It’s irrelevant to causality. If I kick a bowling ball, it hurts. I can make predictions. Superposition is not important to determinism. Physical consciousness is a different discussion than entanglement and superposition.
@@dr_shrinkersays who?
@@stellarwind1946you can see for yourself. Go kick a bowling ball. See if it hurts. #funwithscience
You have not recognized the satirical intent of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Can AI robot feel real love emotion
Yes if the Robot if built just like a human with same Organs and chemicals.
Define “real” first.
@@MaddyIndia That would be by definition a human. And one still can not be sure that is conscious. It could still be a philosophical zombie.
Yes, once it is composed of the same ingredients as humans. Then you can have a chemical reaction in AI robot body that will feel to it as something which is described as feelings of love.
can you?
Explore beyond the physical for yourself. Experiment: Sing *HU* . Search how to sing *HU* . A sonic tuning fork to safely alter personal frequency. Explore. Experiment. Experience.
Huhu
Tart said a lot of nothing here specifically regarding whether or not consciousness is material
Still, you know with absolute certainty that consciousness is immaterial
just as you know that movement is immaterial.
I think it is. Or for better words, it needs a brain! You can´t have a conscious being without a brain or some other physical substrate that can create ir or manifest it.
I agree completely and have an explanation of it.
But I'd like to hear yours because it might be better.
Tart is a self-promoting quack. It’s cool that Robert includes a variety of perspectives on the channel, but his inclusion of so much woo woo nonsense devalues the remainder, honestly.
Created by the physical brain, however, consciousness is not at it self physical and thus not restricted to physical laws. This is how we can have free will and other seemingly miraculous things. Most of the universe is not made up of physical matter.
So are you saying that created by physical computer , non-physical software is not restricted to physical laws? Furthermore according to Sapolsky or Sam Harris we do not have a free will at all. And last, none of the universe is physical matter, it is all frozen energy.
So are you saying that created by physical computer , non-physical software is not restricted to physical laws? Furthermore according to Sapolsky or Sam Harris we do not have a free will at all. And last, none of the universe is physical matter, it is all frozen energy.
@@Traderhood I would say it is similar in that the non physical avatar or world created by the software would not be restricted to the physical laws of nature, however, it would be confined to the set instructions in the program, created by the programmer. It may be able to do things that can not be done in the physical world, however, it would still be far from being conscious and having free will. Perhaps if you could make a quantum computer capable of creating its own thoughts you could create consciousness and free will but maybe not.
Furthermore, neuro science is far from proving we have no free will, they are only following the obvious physical deterministic path of cause and affect.
In the quantum realm, the affect of the cause is NOT predetermined. Rather there is only probabilities of what might happen.
This is the realm of free will.
Lastly, we live in a physical world made up of atoms of matter. Most of the universe is not so, however, the part we have access to is physically real. At least to me, lol. Cheers.
Most of the universe is not made of physical matter? Please explain how you measure “non-physical’ things to prove they make up most of the universe.
@@dr_shrinker Dark matter has a measurable gravitational affect on physical matter and dark energy has the measurable affect of causing the universe to accelerate in expansion. These two "forces", lets call them, make up the majority of the universe.
scientific parapsychology... Thanks, but I'm really into Quantum Astrology
Lol!
The funny part of this is that both of them BELIEVE they understand what consciousness ACTUALLY is hahah
Just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean they don’t.
Dr. Kuhn always clearly states that he does not understand what consciousness is
and that he is doing the interviews in an effort to find out.
He has yet to find a satisfactory explanation.
I wish he would interview me because I've got one that's a humdinger,
I mean, one that's perfectly understandable and
without any magic thinking whatsoever.
Is hunger physical or is it okay to skip lunch?
if you dont eat something physical, you will die in a couple of weeks.
Hunger is a thought and thoughts are abstract entities but
thoughts supervene on a physically existing substrate.
This is like that painting of a pipe that is not a pipe but
most certainly represents one.
Great interview!
There have been philosophers and physicists on CTT that don't believe that space -time is real, it's just a concept/illusion. But science only deals with what is in space-time.
I have no problem accepting space-time and the unreality of space -time. There is both the physical and non -physical.
there is no evidence of "non-physical" - just scared, little Homo sapiens wishing and hoping that there is something more than this universe.
@@rckflmg94 I don't want there to be a non-physical. I'm actually a bit scared of the non-physical, as most people are. But, I'm not going to let my fear cloud my thinking.
@@rckflmg94 The physical realm includes movement whereas the material realm does not.
Imho, thoughts and selfs and being conscious are products
of movement (in the form of processes (like evolution and neural discharge timing patterns)).
Still, I would just love to be thirty for at least a few thousand years
(although I recognize the possibility that that love might evaporate entirely
should long life ever become the actuality (though progress in psychology might prevent its disappearance)).
Scratch that.
What I would really like is to be able to program my body to assume
any physical age for any duration and also
to be able to choose exactly when
to make a permanent exist from conscious existence.
(I suspect folks who say they want to live forever
have not thought much about how a trillion
to the trillionth power, number of years,
wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface of infinity).
If you honestly think believing in materialism would make you a monster- I say there's something wrong with you. I know dozens of ppl personally who believe in materialism- none of them are anymore selfish, greedy, or immoral than the ppl I know who are religious or "spiritual". It's frankly disgusting and pathetic that someone would even try this argument in this day and time- when ppl know better. The vast majority of academia are atheists- but there not out killing ppl or acting in immoral, unethical ways.
There is no such thing as morality between chemical mixtures. Physical things do physical stuff.
@@xNazgrel I am an atheist, and I believe all of society should practice the Golden Rule to aid in our evolutionary survival.
the physical-non-physical dichotomy has it backwards
physics is non-physical bc it is mathematical, quantitative
consciousness is physical bc it is non-mathematical, qualitative
that’s why conscious properties are properties of being, of physical existence
and physical properties are properties of measurement, of mathematical description
physics points to the mathematical realm
consciousness, the so-called “spiritual”, and being belong to the physical realm
so rather than being being mysteries of “other, non-physical realms”,
the mysteries of consciousness, the “spiritual”, and all qualitative properties are fundamentally the mystery of physical being
There’s no such thing as non-physical. If there were, how would you detect it?
A or B. B, so not A. Therefore B. And not A. And I insist, A or B. Etc.
There's no way to believe that premonitory dreams exist until YOU experience one. Only then you know. The weird thing is only a few people seem to have experienced one.
And theyre never repeatable or testable.
@@JacobBedard Yeah. It's weird since it's a knowledge that you can't really transmit to others. They would have to believe you without really knowing like you do. So they understandably keep being skeptical about it.
Yeah, and monkey can throw darts and be successful at producing good results at investing 50% of time. So you had a dream that came true. Boo-hoo.
@@Traderhood I like it when "non believers" show how arrogant they are. You never experienced one and most certainly never will. So you'll never know. But hey, at least you're already a religious man since not believing is a belief. So that's a start. Ha ha ha... Have a good day, religious man !
@@Traderhood I like it when "non believers" show how arrogant they are. You never experienced one and most certainly never will. So you'll never know. But hey, at least you're already a religious man since not believing is a belief. So that's a start. Ha ha ha... Have a good day, religious man !
...This exceptionally enlightening. You are both exceptional, & this discussion/dialogue established Free Will to Worship & Honor, as well as Acknowledge GOD, the depth of how exclusive Life, Earth, & caring for our Brothers & Sisters. Also the facts that we are created in GOD'S Image & Likeness. The fact here we are honing our Gifts & Talents so that we learn how to Love as GOD Loves. Remember GOD Resides in the Heaven of the Heavens, of the Heavens, Eternally. Fully expect to see you both there. It is not hard for me to see this. Each one born as a baby, yet by learning, life's Turbulent Flow, & our Free Will to accept or reject GOD'S Love. Including the simple fact that we each have different fingerprints, Wow how mind blowing. The immense distances just within our Cosmos Heavens. I truly think we are indeed, Closer to Absolute Truth. GOD & sciences coexist so Beautifully together as we prepare for Living in Perpetual Now with our Heavenly FATHER. Many roads/paths lead to GOD, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
Nah, Tart was just questioning observable verifiable status quo while offering some hypothetical unverifiable nonsense.
I hadn't thought that my - and my fathers - experience with ESP was anything other than physical, but if it is physical, then it is something that's not yet explained. On the other hand, if the universe is a simulation, then ESP is possible, eh?
The universe could be a simulation and ESP not be possible
Even in a simulation there could be rules or laws embedded in it in order to make it real or make it hard to get out of it or even being aware of it. We are not Neo.
@markb3786 meaningless reply as it doesn't rebut or refute mine.
@@tunahelpa5433 There is no way to refute the simulation hypothesis. However there is plenty of evidence to prove ESP does not exist.
Where can I watch the whole interview?
Closer To Truth has a web site will all their videos and TV series, both in series form, and as collections of clips.
Consciousness is part Metaphysical, Supernatural.
Closer to True
Sofar for truth
😂😂😂
What does "Physical" means? Do you mean follow the law of Physics? Is the baked cake taste the same as its raw ingredients? Do you sell the baked cake and the raw ingredients the same amount?
The physical generally means those phenomena described and studied by physics. Physicalism is the belief that all other phenomena are reducible to these phenomena. Including baking cakes.
@@simonhibbs887 Thanks for the good explanation. People who use "Reducible" to explain all that are not science seems like a lazy way to justify anything that has not yet been proven by Physics but has confidence that it will be solve someday. It is not a good argument.
@@liamc4113 Yet reductionism has solved problem, after problem, after problem. It’s given us all the technology and opportunities of the modern world. For an approach that “is not a good argument” it’s been spectacularly productive and shown no sign of slowing down.
Also note that the other major philosophies are also reductionist in their own way. Idealists believe that the physical is reducible to the mental. Theists believe that the universe is reducible to the intentions of god. It’s just that physical reductionism actually works for achieving results in practice.
That doesn’t prove physicalist reductionism correct in every case. We can show that many phenomena are reducible in this way. The weather, the wetness of water, the behaviour of electrical circuits, chemistry, etc. That doesn’t prove that consciousness is reducible to physical processes, but it does show that the general approach works in many, many cases, and therefore I don’t think it can be dismissed out of hand.
With luck and more power to you.
Bro completely ignored game theory in his analysis of why we would behave in what we call a moral way…
Interesting.
Unfortunately there is neither data nor evidence backing up any of this.
I think it is likely that the universe in itself has no purpose as nature in itself has no purpose. We ourselves give ourselves purpose from our desires and may feel comfortable in the thought that the universe has a purpose lol . Everything in the universe is the universe down to the its & bits ( particles etc ) and is an expression of itself . This isn’t at all suggesting that there isn’t much much more to the universe, nature, consciousness etc that mainstream science haven’t discovered. But I agree that data is important regardless of whether it fits a narrative or not.
"We ourselves give ourselves purpose" and that's really all we need.
Is physicality entirely physical? Or is it a way for the mind to conceive of itself?
I once replied to a nihlist this way to that question: 'How about I punch you in the face as hard as I can, and YOU decide whether it was real or not'. I have a black belt in Karate, BTW. You would not enjoy the experience.
I suppose you think this is profound? It's not, it's just a word salad that demonstrates the author doesn't know the meaning of the word physical.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 How do you define physical? In terms of atoms? Quarks? Quantum interactions? At the most fundamental level all physical interactions come down to observation-- in other words, consciousness.
@@jeromehorwitz2460don’t expect a coherent answer. They take the physical on faith and have no idea what it is
here i see Berkeley philosofy
Materialism is philosophy not science. Materialism is philosophical monism but sadly some scientists presuppose this philosophy. The founders of quantum mechanics didn’t even think subatomic particles were real physical objects. Godel’s Incompleteness shows there’s a transcendent element that understands all self evident truth. Jesus said,”I am the Way, the TRUTH and the Life.” 🙏🙏
I believe the committee that invented Jesus
had simply realized that society could run just fine
without all the cruelty and torture which was the first
solution to the problem of societal control
hit upon by the leaders immediately after humanity became conscious.
But folks were extremely ignorant back in those days so
the committee introduced all kinds of magic and miracles
to all the better convince folks of their better way.
Is Dumbness Entirely Mental ?
1:32 lol
🤌🏼🤌🏼🤌🏼❤❤❤
Is respiration entirely physical? /sarcasm
Yes.
Humans: O2 and glucose fuel in....CO2, water, and energy out...
Plants: the Reverse reaction.
So yes, Respiration is All physical...
You have to assume the physical - whatever that’s supposed to be
Of course it is.
@@Existidor.Serial137 how do you know that with certainty?
❤️🙏RW
Nope. At 2:00 he makes the basic statement that, if there's no God then we should all be raping and pillaging. This is nonsense. The well-being of conscience creatures gives us meaning.
what is conscience?
@@stevefrompolaca2403
Consciousness is a greater/deeper, faster understanding.... (it is Not just feelings)..
You are less consciousness as a baby than as an adult...
You will become less conscious when your brain/body gets old and when you loose your bodily-control ...
Newton is More conscious because he understood Calculus as a kid.....Newton “Gets-It”...
...while the rest of us had to struggle-struggle with Calculus...
Consciousness is “the Eureka moment” when we understand, that we understand...!
There is No magic, nor God involved...
My takeaway from that is religious believers who say this must be the kind of people who would rape and pillage if they lost their faith in god. It’s the only conclusion that makes sense of them making that argument.
Meanwhile atheists generally don’t rape or pillage, there’s no evidence atheism is correlated with a tendency to criminality. Maybe we shouldn’t try and persuade these people out of their beliefs after all.
@@simonhibbs887 Right but also (and I'm coming from an agnostic pov) atheists tend to dismiss anything because they think they know for a fact that their beliefs are true, which could be counterproductive to scientific study imo
@@simonhibbs887 The Golden Rule would be a better moral law than Biblical nonsense.
yawn
If consciousness is entirely physical, then consciousness and the physical are essentially the same thing. I don't know about you but for me this implies panpsychism, and that physicalism and panpsychism are the same thing.
It means that consciousness is a result of physical processes. So, some physical processes create consciousness and others don’t, in the same way that some physical processes create cakes and others don’t.
@@simonhibbs887
But cakes are essentially the same thing as non-cakes. Just a different structure.
@@firstaidsackRight, and consciousness is another structure. Some physical structures are cakes, others are brains. That doesn’t imply panpsychism any more than it implies pancakeism. Actually I think consciousness is an activity of a structure, it’s a process.
@@simonhibbs887
Reduce both consciousness and the physical to its fundamental nature. You'll end up with the same thing. And the difference between Physicalism and Panpsychism boils down to what you reduce first. If you reduce the physical first, then you call it "fundamental physics" and discover that consciousness is made of the same thing. If you reduce consciousness first you call it "fundamental consciousness" and discover that the physical is made of the same thing.
But whatever your route, it's the same reality.
how can we be physical when energy is permeable and we are made of energy. (which can't be destroyed). consciousness is just energy and awareness is what we experience. the object or tool we use for awareness is our body the perceptive organ.(plus who is the thinker of thoughts). so maybe our consciousness is a consequence of energy but awareness is the consequence of perception of that energy? but then levels of consciousness would be based on the perception of reality more then anything. so the whole point of religions is honing the capacity to/of self inquire. which might be one of the keys to human evolution.
Energy is physical…meaning it is definable by science….it is not magic…
@@jimliu2560 magic is just a word used for what can't be understood or is forbidden. use different word if ya want to discredit
@@jimliu2560 atoms and quarks are not solid neither are you. your mostly empty space by science terms actually 90% space roughly. so imagine calling yourself solid.
@@jimliu2560 and if atom and quarks are also mostly empty space then is it the spining and ionic bonds that make you belive your solid.
@@thatguy7249
Let’s get to the bottom of this:
You are just claiming there is a God..and that humans are special because of god.
And Mostly empty space does Not mean Entirely empty space.. A “rotating” propeller blade is solid and Real and gives “Lift” even though it is “mostly empty space”…
The human mind that can contemplate materialism can’t be material , because you can only know what is beneath your capabilities, not the same as or greater . Also a consciousness that’s purely physical should all be the same therefore everybody’s mind if they were purely physical, would have the same exact thoughts at the same exact times and should only be reactive -never proactive
I’m not sure what the first sentence is saying to be honest. If thoughts are a process of assimilating and introspecting information, different information will lead to different thoughts.
@@simonhibbs887 that’s assuming thoughts are introspective. If thoughts are just chemical reactions they can’t introspect and at a certain level all thoughts must be materialistically predisposed to only react to certain stimuli and so can only all react the same way. The concept of “situations “is a mental abstract concept . And in fact, I’ll go further to say that if the mind is purely physical, then they’re actually cant be any cause any effect at all because there would be nothing abstract in between cause and effect to make any room for change.
@@MrSanford65We build and program software systems that are self-referential, recursive and introspective. Reflective programming is an approach in which a running program can introspective its own runtime state and even self-modify its own code.
Whatever else the brain is, it’s definitely a neural network, and neural networks are capable of anything a computer can do. If a computer can introspect on its own operation, so can the brain.
If what you’re saying about physical systems always doing the same thing, computers should only ever be able to run the same program. In fact they can run any program that will fit in their memory. It’s the same with us, different perceptions and modes of thought lead to different experiences.
@@simonhibbs887 computers only self modify because the force of their initial programming eventually overwhelms any mistake and corrects itself; because there is a template in the programming that is self-referential. That template is unchangeable unlike the mind which is fluid. Also, computers in every aspect are simply cause and effect and never do anything just for the sake of doing it which, the latter is the crux of the varieties of human mental states. But given the same exact stimulus, such as a man made virus, computers will all act the exact same. The human mind has a certain abstract self-awareness that allows each individual to be different or even aware when it’s being the same as another individual. Or putting it in another way- all flesh and bone acts the same according to the laws of nature so if the mind or consciousness were just material, minds should react to stimulus the same way all bodies react to trauma
And of course they know what thing is emergent whatever it is from
No. It is entirely non-physical.
Proof?
None of this matters. In 10^100 its all over.
A prophet for the future? Maybe we've reached the frontieres of verifiable data (wemay have reached the limits of theories that can be empirically verifiable.) and therefore we may be now forced to shake our faith in science and start knocking it a little bit from its rock side pedestal. Who knows?
In any case, most humans will need an emotional story to relate to their lives since life is experienced as a journey through ideas, emotions and hope.
The analogy of love is excellent. Love is a story. Love is who we are even if we need a heart and a brain to feel it.
1:24 you aren’t just juggling them. Does anyone think past that part? You see justbjiggling but every difference has a weight to it because it’s difference in relativity. Crossing measurements/dimensions shows us a perspective like one face of the Rubik’s cube but that’s not the only pattern or difference, just one of infinite. The trick is to not lock yourself in the box of measurements, hence why they call it “thinking outside the box”. So look are the boxes or multiple dimensions all the way from the smallest we know to the biggest and understand there’s more connected to the differences. Like when you do something, you don’t teleport because that’s not a relative feature, we have to find the path to the other thing and so we walk through the differences or swim through life because the push and pull of the waves of differences. Consciousness is being able to see and navigate as well as understand that we don’t see everything just like we aren’t everything but we can share. That’s how everything becomes real, expanding into and sharing to reveal.
🧐Great Great argument for and against para psychology Charles Tart , I’m on your side 🫣🤭👍👏
...Like Mr. Tart I must laugh because Mr. Kuhn is stuck on believing that our 3 dimensional Space is the end all. Where is your scientific curiosity, thinking about the limitedless ness of our Cosmos/Universe & the fact that only a very short amount of time has lead to the development of Mr. Kuhn stated theories, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
Physicality is only a principle delimited to matter. For physicality to be acknowledged and experienced requires first life and condition, consciousness and relation in contact, thus pluralities and divisions, but most importantly, affections in either attraction or repulsion, like or dislike, congruency or incongruency. But there's a domain to be realized here along with the medium. Platonists acknowledge as the hyparxis or summit of a cause or principle. There is the unparticipated cause, atop the summit and impervious, and the participated part of the cause in which all things participate in. Somehow, all such relations are in the same dimension or place or body. Therefore, even opposites have a common similiarity, a likeness to that which is other than, in that all are present and affected by the same mind, universals, and principles, progress too, in the same order and all have a direction towards the same good for well being, nurtiment, sustenance and life... for this 'physicality' requires so much that it's not actually the principle of all such things that experience contact.
Physicality as an ultimate principle in hypothesis is broken and implausible
....the only persons who believe in it are those who place the mind as criterion above the God-given INTELLECT.
Agree with Charles Tart. It’s time scientists to grow up so that overcome their security and look at the world more objectively.
That’s hilarious.
Stopped watching when he said ‘irregardless’
Most important is neurosience keep out how figure set out consciousness so far. Bunch of rubbish he shows is brains system . Rumbling and honest neuroscience proceendings out.
Has there ever been a CTT interviewee you've agreed with?
You got it absolutely right. I too feel I heard this interview 100 years before.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
Physics => calling-> physical 😂😂😂😂
These "scientists" will never have answers yet they criticize actual science. Pretty amazing. Almost on the same level as Flat Earthers IMO.
You people do not understand, only I have it right. 😂
What a bunch of crap.
"Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?"
Not entirely physical but, rather, Entirely SPIRITUAL or Supernatural..
Being Physical, or simply PHYSICS, deals with physical causes and physical effects... but the power of Awareness to freely choose on its own to believe in Supernatural Existence is neither physical cause nor physical effect but a SPIRITUAL ONE..
..therefore, Awareness does not belong to this physical world... please read the light below to help clear up your material addiction :
The essence of AWARENESS, being commonly misunderstood as Consciousness, is the essence of God the Holy Spirit, this is why it is the Forbidden Fruit or forbidden knowledge... We are AWARE because our aware immortal souls are free splits of the Holy Spirit..
...and the reason why we are here in this physical world, comming from hell, is because we left Heaven for trying to find this Forbidden Knowledge believing that we can be as powerful as God by knowing His essence despite God's plea and warning that there is only Emptiness and Suffering beyond Heaven..
...we did not heed God's plea.. we lost faith in God's love... we left Heaven and ended in a cold dark state of emptiness as God had warned. We created our hell, only our free souls to blame..
...our lost aware souls were sent here on this physical world (by our request) for a chance of salvation through regaining our faith in a loving God freely without knowing Him... Our physical existence serves as a shield that hides knowledge of our pasts so for us to freely choose to believe without knowing God for our souls' salvation...
... if we fail to regain this faith that can override our prior bad choice of leaving Heaven, we can not return to our Original Home... our prior bad choice will remain in effect and, so, our lost souls will return to a cold dark nothingness (hell) - an absence of God's grace that we had chosen to abandon.. God can not force you Home because He always respects your Free Will to choose as you are not His slave nor robot....
..by the way, if we were able to freely believe without knowing that we can be like GOD by leaving our Home to find the forbidden knowledge about GOD that ended us all in hell, we are also able to believe in God now without knowing... so, you have no excuse to require proof... faith in God is actually a logical choice of belief compared to funny Bigbang and Evolution of IGUANAS or unconscious rocks..
... sadly for Robert Kuhn, his lost soul can not return HOME/Heaven because, like CERN, he is again emulating satan's greed who frustratedly want to know this forbidden fruit to be like God... pray for God's mercy for his soul..
No, consciousness is not physical
I agree, consciousness is not material but
it's clear to see that consciousness supervenes on matter
(in much the way that movement does and
for the same reason).
You can tell the bias immediately in the response: "Are you anything more than a meaningless hunk of meat?"
Umm, no, but that doesn't mean your clearly charged question validates spiritual anything. You can't leap from a gaslit question to validating your presumptions.
Yes, things just happen and the universe IS meaningless, however, we provide that meaning... deal with it guy. That doesn't mean it's not physical. Either that, or your trying to describe something else and you should be upfront about that.
The guy has a very too narrow view of understanding what he's trying to say. "To hell with you"... excuse me? Umm, everything has consequences including us interacting with others that DO matter to us. You're gaslighting again.
Right, so not everything in the universe is meaningless. It’s just that meaning is an emergent property. Like us. We are meaningful hunks of meat.
Mr Tart is only describing something that might exist meanwhile there is no physical data to support this view. Not much different from faith
The word materialism is used often, and ambiguously so. He is actually attacking narrow and specific theses like eleminative/reductive materialism.
Like yourself isn't that right, sophist?
Remember stalking me for months denigrating my choice of lexicon and dicta while you couldn't make the distinction that I never once was referring to dogma. You never quoted me, refuted me, nor displayed erudition, but moan and groan, and like a true sophist, you strawman your way accusing others of the very hypocrisy that is innately what you are.
Which is it buddy - you critize metaphysics that is profound, and here you point out the superficiality and equivocal inconsistency of the materialists dogma.
And that's exactly what a SOPHIST IS... on the fence dwelling weasel, slippery, not truly a truth seeker but applies pseudo arguments to boast your ego like woman do on social media and dating sites.
You have the greatest vanity I've seen on youtube.
and?
@@stevefrompolaca2403He was asked about materialism, and answered about a tiny subset of materialism believed by very few people. Most of what he said is irrelevant to what most materialists actually think.
@@stevefrompolaca2403 As I said, the word is used often and ambiguously without clarifications.
Then he proceeds attacking narrow and specific theses.
There are people who identify themselves as materialists but of a non-reductive variety.
You risk pigeonholing them.
@@codymarch164“…you criticize metaphysics…you point out the inconsistency of materialist dogma…”
I have never criticized metaphysics as a discipline. Metaphysics is inescapable. I have criticized specific metaphysical positions. Likewise, I have criticized determinism which is not necessarily connected to materialism. For example, theological determinism is a position.
I have also criticized naive and narrow positions like eleminative/reductive materialism.
Having said that, I focused on this part to help you get rid of your delusions. The rest of your comment consists of rants not worth responding to, like it always does.
I stick to my last advice. Seek help immediately!
(2:20) *CT: "There's more to a human life to being a human being than simply the material aspects of it."* ... Well stated! I am surprised with how many people actually believe there is no purpose or meaning attached to "Existence" when everyone who states this exudes "purpose and meaning" on a daily basis.
Everything we do has some type of purpose and meaning attached to it. And when confronted, these people respond with, _"Sure, WE can establish purpose and meaning, but the universe itself is void of purpose and meaning."_
... So, we are either *supernatural beings* that possess powers well beyond what the universe can wield, ... or the universe does have purpose and meaning, and we represent an evolution of that very same core "purpose and meaning."
Where is your evidence?
So are the homeless people on Skid-row “supernatural beings also”..?
Your backdoor argument for god is laughable..
Where is your evidence?
*"Where is your evidence?"*
... Did you purposely post your comment, and is there meaning embedded within your words? If so, then we observably wield purpose and meaning. ... There's your evidence!
*"So are the homeless people on Skid-row “supernatural beings also”..?"*
... If they are doing purposeful, meaningful things every day (just like you and I) while the universe is totally void of any and all purpose and meaning, then yes, they absolutely ARE "supernatural beings."
Anything that's beyond the scope of nature is considered "supernatural," right? So, if we can wield "purpose and meaning" while the universe can't, then we are supernatural beings.
*"Your backdoor argument for g0d is laughable."*
... I am not a theist. Sorry to bring down your narrative.
how about we are a bridge between the 2, the material and the unknown?
@@oskarngo9138 *"Where is your evidence?"*
... Evidence of what?
Charles Tart proofs work only in suppositions. Absolutely nothing concrete.
Just wait for a while and see his proofs working in suppositories.
That would really be the day! 🤣
Consciousness is 100% electric,
pictured in rainbow,
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory,
tree first, is the Stuff.bearing basic-Energies,
Stuff-side of Gravity and Feeling, is Heat and Freeze,
Instinct keep them in a dynamic balanced tension.
You may need a better translator becuase in physics there is no such thing as cold
Freeze or Cold, holds Everything together,
at the Life-side and the Stuff-side.
Heat does the opposite.
What a pant load! Meaningless word salad.
Tart was just questioning observable verifiable status quo while offering some hypothetical unverifiable nonsense.