“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.” ― Bill Hicks
I've often thought about the idea my mind creates reality as it is able to be processed (observed). Didn't know there was a whole "-ism" attached to that idea...very interesting. And honestly...seems to be un-provable. I like when things can likely never be proven. Keeps us grounded knowing there are forces at work far beyond the human scope.
I think if the limitations exist, it is within our mind, and not within the universe. We are limited by our flawed meatsack. The universe may be ineffable to us.
When I was a kid it was a thing to hold your tongue with your fingers and say "I was born on a pirate ship" and then to get as many unsuspecting people to do the same. I'm only slightly more mature 30 years later. Just in case anyone is trying to work it out, you would then say to the person who just tried it "What? You were born on a pile of .... ? Bwahahahaha"
Maybe your mind creates a universe with imperfect actors because that's more interesting. You can't create a schedule because it would be boring to be perfect.
A basic concept in Tibetan Buddhism. "We are what we think. All that we are arises in our thoughts, and with our thoughts we make the world." (Dhammapada)
@@jefflindeman So it's true what they say, "narcissism is the new normal"! (I have this feeling this thread is going to turn into a "narcissism vs BPD" debate)
If it's all a simulation (again IF), then an afterlife could be another program and lack of God(s) could be entirely possible. As possible, and I would even say as obvious as the lack we see in this reality.
@@Scott83016 "nothing" "something" doesn't matter. No one knows what happens after death. I find it humorous that humans all think they know something about an afterlife. Hey guess what guys.....YOU KNOW NOTHING.
Except it's more like a puddle wakes up and finds that it's made of water and not in any of the infinite other formless conditions under which it ought to have found itself-generally an undifferentiated, ever-expanding mass of subatomic particles. Of course, Adams, an atheist, would have had to surmise that the only possibility is that there are an infinite number of universes, and that, specifically, is why the puddle only became aware of itself in this particular one with the proper configuration of forces in which it exists. Setting aside the irony that is an atheist believing in something with even less supporting evidence than there is for a Creator (made even more ironic by virtue of the fact that all the multiverse theory has going for it is the allowances it provides for a universe without a Creator, which should tell you something about those who choose it over something requiring far less mental gymnastics, cognitive dissonance, and intellectual dishonesty), how does a puddle of water become sentient? It's a dumb analogy, because though Adams was a brilliant and absolutely hilarious writer, he wasn't especially profound. People who quote him as a philosopher betray their superficial understanding of existence in kind.
Reshpeck TL;DR there’s always one who thinks they’re more profound and has to comment an essay to get shove their point in someone’s face, it’s just a fun comment, you need to chill 😂
@@sosig8332 You consider four paragraphs an essay? Do you think four pumps is a good lay? I also have to wonder about a person who criticizes another for expressing his ideas in depth... in the comments section of a video that is specifically intended to help its viewers think more deeply about the topic. Rather ironic really, but you wouldn't understand because TLDR, right?
I've been pretty skeptical all my life but simultaneously in the "I WANT TO BELIEVE" pool when it comes to the supernatural and this kind of thing really lets my imagination fly! Whenever there's a haunting the entities end goal appears to be isolation by keeping people out but we could also interpret that as avoiding observation. Supposing these kinds of things exist, maybe just by being present and by extension observing we destabilize what/where they are or whatever condition allows them to exist in the first place. This sort of threat on their existence would certainly provoke the kind of behavior we're used to hearing in stories. If we really wanted to amp this up we can bring the simulation in and wonder if these things live in memory but start bugging out once loaded in by observation. As for the main topic, I've always played with the idea that consciousness had an impact on reality but has been diluted over time by our growing population basically rendering this impact inert. Maybe Gods or fantastic creatures really did once exist when the population was small and less aware but beliefs more localized/concentrated. We are much more aware now, even when a concentration of people believe the same thing we are still highly connected and aware of a wide variety of others beliefs thus reality settled into a neutral state as our understandings combined and canceled each other out.
It's like the old Zen saying, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" That can be interpreted two ways. The biocentric view that the conscious observer literally creates that reality. Or the (I can't remember the word for it) view that our senses and brain give order and meaning to the world. So an object we label as a tree does fall and percussion waves are produced in the air, but it isn't a "sound" with any sort of meaning until it encounters an ear drum (or other suitable auditory receptor) and a brain to make sense of it.
The tree falling produces shock waves which will "collapse into sound" if picked up by an auditory mechanism. If it isn't picked up by an auditory mechanism then its just an uncollapsed potentiality that isn't realized (i.e. no sound).
I understand the concept, but I contend that there is no tree without animals, or insects or something with an ear close enough to hear it fall. So it’s an interesting thought experiment, but technically impossible. To say that only human ears count, is a bit biased.
I've never been able to shake the idea of solipsism from my mind. When I was around 13-15, I remember sitting around and thinking that everything I see and experience is just a mix of signals my brain is sending in order to make existence easier to comprehend and survive in. That outside of my own thoughts, there's no way I could ever fully trust anything, including even this body I've had to lug around since birth. When I was a little older and found out that not only had people thought about this before, it's more or less a popular thought and has even been named, "solipsism". I didn't know how to pronounce it for years (lol) but I was so stunned and it has never left me to this day. It's almost like a thought poison tbh lol
I don't think what you're talking about is really solipsism, more like the 'veil of perception' or indirect realism the idea that you can't truly trust your senses. Solipsism is related, but it goes way further and states that you can't even be sure that anyone else's mind exists, only your own; therefore the entirely of reality could just be a creation of your own mind and you are the only conscious being in existence. For this reason the adjective 'solipsistic' sometimes gets used to describe a person or idea that is construed as being overly self-centered, as they are acting as if they are the only person who matters.
The unfalsifiability issue is what happens when theories of ontology go from the how into the why realm. Joe I thought this was a great video. You're right to find idealism interesting. I watched this after your video that touched upon Rare Earth hypothesis My IQ has risen 10 points
Ahhh good ole unfalsifiable propositions and confirmation bias. Aren't we primates just adorable? "I don't know how it could have happened therefore "God". Lmao. Oh...and um...he's outside of space and time yet everywhere at all times. All powerful. All knowing....and pretty much unfalsifiable bullsh.t. lol
Is falsifiability falsifiable where unity is concerned? I'm reminded of the quote: "There is no trail. Trails are made by walking". I think this Biocentrism boils down to the idea that we affect the Universe. How far this goes is debatable. If there is an absolute unity of consciousness with reality there is nothing outside of reality that can be used to prove or disprove it (because there is nothing beyond all of reality). It is thus not falsifiable. Does this mean that the Biocentrism is junk, or is falsifiability itself simply not applicable in certain circumstances, particularly where unity is concerned? Falsifiability regarding unity may be like a dog forever chasing its own tail, never reachable, yet seemingly nearby. You can't have more than everything, and if everything is one with consciousness, there is no other bottom line. Is it problematic that Biocentrism is not falsifiable, or is falsifiability itself falsifiable where unity is involved???? Should all of nature adhere to mankind's tests, or should the standards of testing change due to circumstances? If one could uncouple and disconnect from all reality, perhaps reality would appear as probability waves only. However, is the reason why nature abhors a vacuum because when unity tries to disconnect from unity there is a reaction and refilling that goes on as compensation? If we are indeed tethered to unity, escape may be impossible. All we will know is that when we try to disconnect, we fail.
@@mace9930 "..is falsifiability itself falsifiable, where unity is concerned?" A fascinating question. It appears to be a question with a category mistake. How might one determine that falsifiability is falsifiable within biocentricity without using the exact methods within biocentricity for determining falsifiability in the first place? It can also be asked this way, "is unfalsifiability itself unfalsifiable, where unity is concerned?"
@@coffeetalk924 Yes. In either case, two negatives make a positive. Like the group YES said, the ultimate answer is YES". Not Yes and No, but only YES in totality.
In "The Tao of Physics" it shows how eastern mystics like Lao Tzu understood certain natures of the universe and quantum mechanics in the same way that Einstein did...some of the observations are almost verbatim, but are coming from 800 BC and understood through meditation instead of an empirical view of the physics. Explain that...
Einstein literally pioneered general relativity and was notably “irritated” by quantum mechanics bc it “disproves” many aspects of general relativity...... sooo... I’m with it but bad example?
@@pixelate5447 God doesn't play dice with the universe, except for the 2 sided die he uses which when rolled can land on either 0, or 1, or 0 and 1, or neither 0 nor 1...
'The Tao of Pooh' is better... (Or *'QUANTUM ENIGMA: **_Physics Encounters Conciousness'_* ) or.. *'The Secret Melody: **_and MAN created the UNIVERSE'_*
@@deevnn hey there David Olson, pretty brave talking smack to someone you don't know.... However, Iike most of your kind, you talk big shit online when you know damn well you wouldn't have the nuts to say such things in person. Just a suggestion for future reference there friend, one should not talk stupid shit to those you know nothing about, as it isn't healthy. There are plenty of unhinged people in this big ol world we live in. And one day you just might meet someone whom is just waiting for a dumbass like yourself to make their day. And you will deserve everything that comes with it. But luckily for you I am not that person, nor is this that moment. So in the future try and be a little more respectful when speaking to someone, Even if you disagree. But I appreciate the morning amusement. Carry on
@John Stroud He reviews the MMO version of Life. I heard the OWG and the MMO version were both developed from and old abandoned version called "Universe 1.0". Rumors say that the game was so buggy, it wouldn't even launch. So they scrapped it and gave both Blizzard and Bioware a copy of the dev build to figure things out. Not sure what studio worked on it Universe 1.0, but I think it was Atari.
Psychedelics make me feel this is so, strongly. I've often felt like I created what I was observing. Which, looking back, was just a product of my observation 🤔 This is quite the rabbithole.
What I find absolutely astonishing is that so many people have no issues whatsoever with accepting the simulation theory as a possible basis for reality but push away any form of spiritual explanation/additional context. Why does it feel so much more right for humans to belittle their existence, to decrease the significance their existence has? Is it because science tells us that only provable facts are important and worth research? Is it because society is rewarding egocentric behavior? Is it because our brain uses categories and labels to navigate the huge amount of perceived signals? Science works on the principle of proving itself wrong until you get to the right answer. But over time we have learned that there isn’t always just one right answer. So many factors influence the results. Even those who say people interpret the term consciousness in the double slit experiment/quantum theory wrong are biased without acknowledging it. How do you know that a photon doesn’t care about consciousness when you don’t know if each particle itself bears consciousness or if the fact _some_ form of consciousness will observe the results to a random point in time? Maybe it’s enough to change the outcome if a scientist or computer looks at the data in the future because there is no such thing as time in the quantum world. To be honest, I think we should finally move away from drawing this random line between respected science fields and fringe ideas. What once was fringe science is now the basis of all research. Who knows, maybe we could make some breakthroughs if we only accepted that consciousness exists. There’s not just a crisis in cosmology, there’s a crisis in science. Do you know how many medical, psychological and nutritional research was disproven recently? From flawed data to biased researchers, funding only supporting very specific and biased research, highly flawed set ups of experiments and much more. So, so much research, which we worked with for decades, suddenly isn’t replicable. Meta data analysis shows opposites are often as true as the original outcome. I wouldn’t be surprised if we‘d see something similar in other fields if we had the ability to observe things on both a broader spectrum but also from a very individual perspective.
Biocentrism does match the available data, but that doesn't mean it's true. There are plenty of hypotheses that match data that end up being completely bogus. Interesting idea, though.
my favourite one was proposed by the philosopher Russell, who claimed that there was a tea pot orbiting Jupiter. (I'm pretty confident Russell was British...)
I spoke to Lanza at a conference where we were both speaking about a couple mistakes he made in his book, including where he contradicted himself between two main chapters. Surprisingly, he didn't want to talk about it. ;-) And just while we're here, yes the collapse is affected by consciousness, but it isn't just human consciousness that performs the observation. Hugs!
Yes Consciousness, whatever else it is, it is "of" something. That's the fundamental contradiction in all "primacy of consciousness" ideas. We're assigning an a posteriori property to an a priori thing. Incoherent. We might all be Boltzmann brains, but that is still contingent upon and conscious of quantum fields.
I think I heard Joe mention animal consciesness as well. Any living thing could play part on the collapse of the wave function. I don't see any logical problem there.
this channel is seriously underrated I love his puns and his videos so informational with making me feel like I forgot it all and about to fail the exam the next day lol. but yes love your channel and the video editor great job :)
You asked what constitutes observation, in quantum mechanics. Good question. In the double slit experiment, a collapse of the wave function is seen even when the experiment is done on the slit the particle has not gone through. The experiment, in those cases, neither observe not interfere with anything,, and yet an effect is still seen. This implies that the important part of the experiment isn't the act of observing/interfering, but whether knowledge can be gained about the state of the system (see also the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment). Knowledge is ultimately what quantum mechanics seems to be dealing with- not whether or not a particle has been observed/interfered with. From this point of view of knowledge, then, it seems consciousness may play a role that seems hard to separate from the experiment itself. In that sense, there is no "out there". Perhaps, as Max Planck said, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
By having a detector on the slit that the photon doesnt pass through, you are ensuring that the wave function cant go through both slits and interfere with itself, since doing so would require the wave function to be observed.
@@causaestmalleus4605 yes, the real problem is if you consider all the atoms of the entire universe interfering with themselves, what is causing the wave function to collapse? it's either collapsing in all the possible possibilities (the many worlds hypothesis) or there's consciousness outside deciding to observe just one of the possibilities.
@@monad_tcpIts not a problem at all, if you understand what an observer is in quantum mechanics. Do you understand what an observer is in quantum mechanics? If you do, then you should be able to tell me if an observer has to have consciousness in quantum mechanics.
"In the double slit experiment, a collapse of the wave function is seen even when the experiment is done on the slit the particle has not gone through. The experiment, in those cases, neither observe not interfere with anything,, and yet an effect is still seen. This implies that the important part of the experiment isn't the act of observing/interfering, but whether knowledge can be gained about the state of the system" Incorrect.. The very act of obtaining knowledge, of *doing* the experiment on the slit the particle hasn't passed through, IS IN ITSELF, MAKING AN OBSERVATION.
I myself have at least 2 extremely vivid, realistic dreams every week. Everything always seems so real, yet in the dream there is always at least one thing that does not work as it should had it been actual reality, but with the dreams being so realistic my brain doesn’t pick up on these what I believe are clues from my brain trying to tell me it is in fact a dream, but thankfully I do not have nightmares with this realism. What if these dreams are another version of us, in another universe and our conscious is picking up on the frequencies and our brains pick it up like an am/fm radio and play it in our minds.
I had two of those dreams in my life. I'm 31 years old and the last time that happened was around the age of 18. I have no Idea why I made those dreams at all as it doesn't seem connected to anything relevant with my life. I don't remember much now, but the first time I dreamt I was walking in the streets of a city and it was pouring rain. I took refuge in a saloon. The feeling and coldness of the rain felt 100% real, down to the reaction of my skin. The second time and the weirdest was a plane flying over me, not any plane mind you. It looked like future tech not quite sci-fi looking but like something the military could do in the next 50 years or so that passed through the sky while I was walking in a forest. There was so much details and it seemed so real that when I woke up I really tried to remember how it was made and looked like. In this one, its the details on the plane and the sound/vibrations that made it so real.
@@albertloan396 I will look it up, but i'm not sure why this as anything to do with an 'abduction experience'. It was totally human-made looking, just years ahead of its time compared to current fighter planes. But yeah tanks for the suggestion it could be an interesting read.
@@PromethorYT We often interpret our experience with reference to the familiar--especially when having experiences far outside the norm. Memory is a tricky thing, and one feature of these abduction experiences is the common feature that subjects found themselves in a suggestible state induced by their captors and suggestions were used to repress or change memory to something ordinary and less traumatic. I am not making a case for abduction--a highly unlikely scenario, but your story does sound like the many told within Mack's work.
I had a dream as real as this only once in my life. I met a woman, I was lucid dreaming and didnt have the heart to tell her she wasnt real. So as I was looking into her eyes I told her "you are real" then the next four seconds that "real" feeling increased and increased until it matched waking life, then she looked away and I snapped back to feeling like I was in a dream
I had a dream that really stunned me in my middle teens. I dreamt that I fell in love, got married, had children, lived my life and then died. A bit of overwhelming confusion when I awoke. 40 years later still remember that dream. (Plus some irony when Finn had same type of experience in the animated show "Adventure Time")
I just watched the video on "is there a god?". Now, I am new to the channel and in my "spiritual searching " throughout my life have seen and heard just about everything. But to my surprise , Joe's simple yet honest reflection of lifelong memories he has and how it has influenced his concept on "God", really struck a chord for me. Thank you sir! Your point of view really explains exactly how I feel on this topic. It was refreshing and sparks a whole new "investigation" for me.🐾
There is “a way, a truth, a light” in this universe, by any other name…we know it when we “see” it and experience it. When we act in service to that truth, the universe thrives. We thrive. It’s what all religions teach. Be kind and loving to the universe and it will reward you with it’s peace and love in return. That is truth. I’m a practicing Catholic but I respect all religions who strive to teach and practice the truth.
lol "im lookin at you Aristotle" i love his videos they are one of a kind. and I love quantum mechanics and that was the best description of the double slit experiment I've heard
9:48 Just last week one of my children tested this theory, leaving a stopped up sink running, then exiting the room. The wave function broke down when I went in to discover a flooded bathroom.
The theory of Biocentrism, in a way, harks back to the ancient's theory of vision - that light doesn't strike an object and enter our eyes, but our eyes emit beams that illuminate the world, effectively revealing it. I watched this a few days ago, so can't remember if it was this or another of your videos that talked about how observing a patch of space effectively "creates" everything - all the stars and galaxies - we see there in that patch. It's the same kind of thing.
You just gave one of the most concise, succinct explanations for dreaming I've ever encountered, and one which is compelling; so much so that it almost seems self-evident.
I had a dream where Danny Devito gave me life advice and I swear it is the most profound moment of my life. If only I could remember what are those advice
you ever dreamt the meaning of life and then forgot it the moment you woke, but remember that you knew it? but can remeber just enough fragments for it to he incomprehensible? yeah...
@@dadefrost2059 I have dream songs with lyrics like this sometimes...getting in the habit of keeping a dream journal helps to retain a little bit, but it's a practice that seems like it needs to be kept up for it to work effectively
Biocentrism is based off of the fact that consciousness causes a waveform function to collapse? Okay so basically Biocentrism is based off a misunderstanding of how quantum mechanics work then. I didn't watch the whole video so I'm not sure if that was just an unjustifiably simplified explanation or not, but just based off that excerpt, if it's an accurate summary of the theory, it is a theory that is flawed. Say it with me: Photons👏do👏not👏care👏about👏conscious👏observers👏 In the double slit experiment, the "observer" is NOT the person recording the results. The "observer" is the photon sensor that detects the photon. The photon will still end up behaving like a wave, and collapsing into a point whether or not someone is recording the results or not. The observer doesn't even have to be any sort of detection hardware. it could simply be a wall that you are shining a flashlight on. This is a very common misunderstanding due to a few very poorly worded academic research papers, but I really just need people to understand this because the amount of times I hear this misconception on a monthly basis is just infuriating.
thank you for the backwards analogy about "wow our hands i built perfectly to fit these gloves" Been looking for a way to express that frustration about the goldilocks zone for some years and you nailed it.
I wouldn't talk to Deepak Chopra about hard sciences though. He's all woo all the time. I don't think he means to deceive, exactly, but he's pretty goofy. Edit: I guess you all have convinced me, Chopra probably knows that he's full of it.
Roger Penrose was pretty far out there too...read a book by him years ago...or should I say I materialized a book that seemed to be written by a Roger Penrose...🤷🏼♀️
Deepak Chopra is 100% charlatan. He starts from an erroneous assumption (That he is capable of understanding reality), just grabs a bunch of misunderstood concepts and throws them in a verbal blender, and says "Presto Chango" and arrives at his forgone conclusion (reality is an illusion created by the mind). There are plenty of dead people who thought they could warp reality to avoid being killed by their stupid ideas, but gravity/explosions/snake bites refused to bend to their will.
@@MTerrance Yeah, but I often actually admire charlatans, even some politicians, who can tap into something in weak human minds, of which there is an over-abundance, and make a buck from them, more or less "legally". And they say: "that's my opinion, and it needs to be yours." Such as "cow farts are a danger to the planet", for example!! I protect my self from them by reminding myself that both they and I have the same "ape-man roots" in the fossil record!! Ha! :D
@bsandy.com There is a logic to flat-eartherism They want to observe the Earth is something for themselves, not take someone elses word for it Can you prove to them the Earth is round, without taking anyone elses word for it? Without pointing to any expert? Without pointing to any photograph or video, so they can see it unfiltered with their own eyes? I use ocean tides and gravity myself
@@D3sertStorm...and they both are alive and dead until you open the box. After they put a lion by accident into a box containing an ant and got an antlion, they are now terrified they could accidentally de-entangle a dragonfly.
Rocks are concious, water is concious, trees are concious, animals are concious and we are too. To say that conciousness creates the universe is in no way human centric, unless you do not understand that rocks are concious but they merely have a different time scale and abilities then humans do.
That's a paradox in its own... If consciousness never existed there would be no perceived universe lol basically if a tree falls in a forest while nobody is around, does it make a sound
I always wonder if our world looks different from what we see. Everything we see is our brains interpretation of it. It's a very interesting simulation we're living in.
Love your videos but when you do videos like these I get a little creeped out. Lol Keep it up. Obviously you are doing something right if you make people think.
@@pohkeee I don't know if your universe would go poof. But parts of the Universe I am aware of would go '...sigh, one one less Joe who helped create the Universe as we know it...'
@@pohkeee And for further comparing and contrast: If a nuclear power plant dies does that mean that it didn't create the stored nuclear waste? As long as someone knows where it is it is now part of the known Universe. If no one knows where it is it is part of the unknown Universe that remains to be discovered.
if I put a pizza in a preheated/running oven, and then go into a room out of visual range, the behaviors of the pizza+oven system/waveforms are deterministic enough that, even without observing the system directly, the scent of a cooking, finished, or burnt pizza will "render" in my nostrils as a function of time (barring, eg, an open kitchen window preventing airflow from kitchen to nostrils). Whether or not the visual representation of the system exists while unobserved, the system still exists deterministically enough to generate observations, both for conscious (human) and unconscious observers (eg if the pizza burns long enough, the smoke alarm will announce its measurements). Whether the system is actually extant vs a highly probable quantum state when unobserved seems to be moot if it generates passive observations through things like airflow (a chaotic system which would itself lend a "render pressure" to the system - if every new collision between an N2 or O2 molecule and a cheese molecule that might loft a cheese scent molecule on its way to my nose changes the scent waveform, any system where its distribution of entropy is being messed with seems to be getting observed.) Sidenote: the Schrodinger's cat experiment doesn't usually specify the cage/box the cat is in is soundproof... I'd argue that the potential for such an observation would inherently collapse the waveform even if the sounds of the cat blended with random background noise before it got to human ears or mechanical ones - conveyance of information (the antithesis of entropy) collapses any macroscopic waveform IMO, regardless of observation/receipt of information.
Experiencing scent is a human experience, and as such a form of human observation in the broader sense. So logically the box is assumed to be soundproof, smell proof, of non transparent material, no holes to put your hand in to feel the cat inside even though none of those are specifically stated in the description. A good listener only needs half a word. For a bad listener all the words in the world ever spoken might still not be enough.
I think the fact that observations collapse wave functions has less to do with consciousness and more to do with the method of observation; as you stated, we use photons to detect things, and those photons have to interact with the quantum particle we're trying to observe, which alters the state of what we're observing.
I have an absurdly strong connection with this theory, please hear me out. I'm 18 now but since when I was a kid I have been really really fascinated with the universe and how it works. I slowly developed "theories" and explanations that outside of the context in my head will sound absolutely insane. Now I watch this video and realized a lot of my thinking corresponds to the research done in biocentrism. I have NEVER read anything about bio centrism or any of these ideas prior to this video so this is kind of a brain fuck for me. I do not believe that the answers of the universe lie within our actual physical world but in the world of consciousness. I wish I can convey better the feeling (for a lack of better word) that I have toward this subject. I don't know why I wrote this comment anymore except that I want answers or clues or something; seeing a FULL ASS theory fall in line with what I've been trying to shake off as "crazy nigga thoughts" really makes me think there is more to this.
What if everything goes even beyond? For example: Leonardo DaVinci, a genius, tried his whole life to make a flying machine. He failed and died without ever seeing his dream come true. You might think he wasn't smart enough or was missing some kind of knowledge... Then how come the Wright brothers invented it?? I don't think they were smarter than him or more versed in aerodynamics. Maybe, just maybe, they made it true because they thought they could. I mean... maybe DaVinci's real thoughts was that it was impossible so he was never successful. Maybe the universe laws were written when the Wright brothers "invented" the plane. Maybe they really did invented as in bringing it into reality. Maybe the laws of physics are discovered only when somebody becomes convinced of them. Maybe they are abolished when somebody convince everyone they are false. Maybe they become permanent when people accept them as "common sense". If you think about it like that, maybe Zeus and Gilgamesh were real but they are impossible nowadays with current laws of physics. I leave you with a thought experiment: Imagine you hold an Egg in your hand. Imagine somehow you convinced yourself to the point you were 100% sure, you knew, that if you let it fall it would fall upside and crash against your ceiling. Would it really happen? It's impossible to prove, because your common sense tells you it will fall to the floor, and there is nothing you can do to change your mind.
Hinduism has almost the opposite belief: that consciousness (of Vishnu, if my memory serves) created the universe. Some Christians, in turn, believe that God made the universe, but is not *in* it; in a way, that's consistent with the Hindu belief. The (occasional) points of intersection between religion and science are fascinating.
For Hindus Brahman is the universal consciesness, the ultimate reality, the cosmic principle from which Atman (Self/Soul) emerges. Maya is the the illusion Atman crates which we call reality. So it's all in your head people lol.
1:35 "it was philosophers that created our view of reality ... then science came around and proved them wrong" Actually philosophers still shape our view of reality, it's just that they got much better in Math, and we call them theoretical physicists ;)
Once I had a dream about being on a game show, and was asked what was Elvis Presley’s first album named. I answered “it was self named Elvis Presley”. I know nothing about Elvis and have never listened to him. My question is can you dream an answer you really don’t know or did I maybe hear it when I was a baby or something?
I thought decoherence shows that consciousness is _not_ required for collapse? And thats why quantum effects don't scale to the macro world. And that the measurement apparatus is just as good at collapsing waveforms. Now, many worlds and quantum immortality? That's cool. And I'm immortal. And so are you. Except my you isn't And your me isn't either.
@peter Here's a fun one. Given your, I dunno, plank length of time between two instants where two blobs of matter are you and a continuation of you. Let's call them ty0 and ty1. What happens if, somewhere in the universe, completely by chance, a blob happens to match ty1. Do you wake up on another planet and there's two yous? Are we more than a set of vectors in the standard model fields from QFT? What happens if it matches ty1 but in a thousand years? Do you perceive a sudden 1000 year jump? What happens if ty1 is in the past?
The feeling of individuality (ego) is a construct made by by the brain. It's illusory to begin with, so it (you/I) can't - really - die. It's possible though to recognize it's illusory nature, but no one can recognize that. As soon as a person claims ego death, or a state of enlightenment, the ego is reaffirmed. There's little to say about ego death without it turning into a religion, a path between right and wrong. There's no path, only an apparent one. Ego death is a non-happening, like waking up from a dream realizing you were not only the character in the dream, but also the road you were walking on and the air you were breathing. You were everything in the dream pretending to be different things. Nothing - real - changes when you wake up. Since you/I are in essence everything, the word 'you'/'I' points to an illusion. (Nothing wrong with an illusion)
Nah. I think the surface of Mars existed before it was sensed. It also was not covered in canals when we thought it had canals. It's always been the surface of Mars. It's all a fun thing to think about. I do always side-eye any idea that puts us at the top/most important position, though.
Joe, please keep doing videos on less mainstream science videos. There are a lot of science youtubers who have covered every mainstream topic in every way. This is the first video I've seen on this topic!
The seventh principle makes me think of the object permanence theory. When a child is very young they think that things don't exist when they can't see them (if someone is hiding, to them it means they don't exist). As we grow, we learn they do still exist. However, when I experienced derealization it was as if I had unlearned object permanence and the possibility that something that wasn't directly in front of me still existed just didn't make sense. Really weird to explain if you haven't had or can't remember having derealization (which most people will experience).
Yes, it obviously distorts the air as it falls, converting kinetic energy into SOUND among other thing. Sound waves of air molecules. To argue that the tree didn't make a sound is to argue that the tree didn't fall. The only way around this is to pedantically define sound as air waves interacting with ears, which would make the premise moot.
@@draketrading2044 Yeah, it all comes down to language. The definitions of things. The tree doesn't create a sound, it creates sound waves. Sound is a sensory experience of sound waves received into ear and processed by the brain.
I'm a scientist & think everything has a logical explanation. Yet I've also experienced many "Astral Projections" thru meditation. The experience is so real it's beyond words.
Biocentrism isn't saying that the kitchen downstairs doesn't exist when no one is there. It's saying that the upstairs + downstairs + your body are all part of consciousness which you essentially are. In this analogy you are the house (consciousness) AND everything inside including the body labelled Joe. Another way to look at it is within our body we have baroreceptors (a type of sensor) that measure blood pressure and prevent it from going too high or low. So in essence Joe is made of sensors that measure Joe. So the sensors are a part Joe but so there's more to Joe ie the blood and the rest of the body. In the same way the human body is a sensor that is within the "body" of consciousness. Consciousness is the whole and it is that which is aware. The human body is a sensor within consciousness but it's not all of it, there is also the world (that which is sensed). Combined the sensor and that which is sensed makes the whole ie consciousness. The weird part about this is that we generally believe and feel that our consciousness is limited to the range of our body (I can not smell what your nose is doing or hear what your ears hear or see what your brain is thinking) and that all bodies have separate consciousnesses. That would be akin to saying that each sensor in the body has an individual consciousness because it can't read or be aware of the other ones signals when in reality we know that they are all sending signals to the same brain. If the above makes sense then the claim is that the consciousness with which different minds are aware is the same consciousness even though each mind has different information (what you are smelling/hearing/thinking). In essence the consciousness is not located in the body! For more info I'd check out Bernardo Kastrup (phd in philosophy and computer engineering) as he does a great job explaining this in he course on youtube. Another good scientist to check out is Donald Hoffman.
I dream very rarely and never visually but only in terms of sounds and 'knowing what's going on'. (When awake, I have perfectly normal eyesight.) So what does that mean?
Most of philosophy uses a deficient method that only pretends to be logical. They would do well to replace it with science, which multiple philosophers have already successfully used.
@@guitaristxcore You're actually using both _science_ and _philosophy._ in two incompatible senses, and assuming the meanings don't change. In the first, you can replace both with the equivalent method (philosophical and scientific) and the meaning shouldn't change. In the second, they both are branches of study. The second sentence being true does not imply the first being true. I suggest you try again.
I would state, it's the other way around. Philosophy is a method in science. However, in the quantum world, nothing makes sense, apparantly. Therefore, philosophy is not as helpfull in that area. It is not as much a part of science as it used to be.
I agree with your take on biocentrism. We can't know anything about the unobserved and therefore can't make any firm assertions about the unobserved BUT this doesn't mean the unobserved doesn't exist at all; it simply doesn't exist TO US (until we observe it). Another great video.
100% Agree. Well adjusted people should find their way out of that paper-bag by their teens. Anything else is just empty headed Gen-X'ers confusing their acid trip with reality
@@draketrading2044 Nothing is more real than an acid trip my friend :) And while it does sound like Solipsism, without having read the book, I'm quite positive there is a difference. I might be wrong of course.
@@randomnumbers84269 Let's see... If I understand this right, according to biocentrism, there is nothing but the mind. Solipsism says there is no mind and no observer, but everything else is real. In other words, Solipsism is opposite of biocentrism. If I understand this right. That's what I think @Thomas Darby pointed out.
@Radek Marcinko You've got Solipsism backwards. From Wikipedia: "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, Solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist."
Questions that trouble me: 1.) How does a quantum particle know that it is being observed? (Is there subatomic consciousness?); 2.) How can particles know that they WILL BE observed so that they can be in a specific state in time to be observed?; 3.) How do they know to stay in that specific state?
These principles sound to me like being made up after reading only the visible layer of modern science. Some quantum entanglement here, a little space contraction there... Then taking a broad view at their implications, and connecting the dots. Voilà, an elegant theory has born. It's just my intuition. I'm not trying to prove anything here.
The "mind over reality" principle is a really old hermetic principle called mentalism. So while Robert Lanza undoubtedly based his principles on more modern sciences, it was not a totally new perspective on the world perse. Not that you said that, but I thought I'd add this information to show to people that "mentalism" is an older principle than 2005. It's even quite a wellknown philosophy in many traditions.
This video, and all the references to books and theories by obviously intelligent people, even Joe, not to mention those of many commenters here reminds me of a segment in the original "Cosmos" by the great astrophysicist Carl Sagan. He was reviewing a bunch of astronomical theories and their proponents down through history, by obviously the recognized experts in their field at the time, that turned out to be totally erroneous, and therefore useless in our quest to understand the nature of the Universe. Sagan said, words to the effect, in his blunt and direct manner: "High intelligence is no sure protection against being dead wrong!"
That is a consequence of the fact that no one knows what the hell is going on. My intuition tells me that this is closer to explaining the world than other theories, but still lacking the full picture.
The only possible universe that you can live in is this one. This means that the only possible universe with you is this one and you would not be married to Cheryl Cole.
In my personal cosmology, and this makes a whole lot more sense to me, an individual awareness IS the universe as well as a piece of the universe in the same. What we experience as the 'self' is a partition of the whole of reality. That partition operates in a certain space and time. What we call experience is our supra-awareness navigating the whole of reality as a fragment...yet, ultimately that fragment has access to everything. 'Past lives' are just experiences of that partition within another frame of reference (space and time). Enlightenment is just the liberation of that partition to freely move any where and any time within the everything. What Buddhists call nirvana is the dissolution of that partition, thusly becoming an individual becoming everything and being selfless, but I don't think that's the point of life at all. Awarenesses, like humans, have arisen in the universe because of the principle of self-organization. Our role is to experience, and what that experience actually is is our partition focusing the everything into a definable point thusly bringing order to chaos which allows enhanced energy flow...enhanced as in layers of order wrapped around a kernel of pure chaos as opposed to just pure chaos which is all energy going everywhere in every time.. What we call the 'universe' is really that chaos which connects all awarenesses to all other awareness (in zero time). What we see as stable physical constructs, meaning that they preserver when we aren't 'directly' observing them, are simply patterns that we transmit to ourselves and to each other through the pure transmission medium that is the true nature of the universe at large. The universe does nothing but transmit, though it is a primordial and incomprehensibly powerful 'transmitter'.
Thanks for doing all the research and presenting interesting topics in a thoughtful and entertaining way. Please please please don't let your sponsorships influence your content in any way.
The weirdest dreams are when you are aware of being in a dream but being confused to weak up. And the starting questioning if your in a dream in a dream.
Once a man dreampt he was a butterfly flying about. Then he awoke to find himself a man only to wonder if he was a man who dreampt himself a butterfly or a butterfly that deampt itself a man.
Reminds me of a poem/riddle I wrote years ago. When the last star fades, its body decays, no longer beautifuly bright. What of its light, consumed by the night, when nothing with sight remains?
@@mace9930 My assumption was that I WAS reality, and if the world was black for me, then it was black for everyone too. So I guess for your question, it was more the former rather than the latter.
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”
― Bill Hicks
Happened to me on a long distance run
One of my all time favorite songs
@@richardrahl7531 same
@@MISFITaddict I like you already
Bhudda 🙏
Hey Joe, thanks for allowing me to create this video by watching it!
lol
You're welcome, Joe.
Wait. did we create the same video?
@@quantumbits yes 'lol entanglement'
@@quantumbits , No, YOU created the video and these comments :)
I've often thought about the idea my mind creates reality as it is able to be processed (observed). Didn't know there was a whole "-ism" attached to that idea...very interesting. And honestly...seems to be un-provable. I like when things can likely never be proven. Keeps us grounded knowing there are forces at work far beyond the human scope.
I think if the limitations exist, it is within our mind, and not within the universe.
We are limited by our flawed meatsack. The universe may be ineffable to us.
"I've never been on a pirate ship" is exactly what a former pirate would say!
Also, Zeno finally vindicated!
What do you think his old job was?
I never said I was a pirate, I was just on a pirate ship. Don't assume my pirate-ness.
When I was a kid it was a thing to hold your tongue with your fingers and say "I was born on a pirate ship" and then to get as many unsuspecting people to do the same. I'm only slightly more mature 30 years later.
Just in case anyone is trying to work it out, you would then say to the person who just tried it "What? You were born on a pile of .... ? Bwahahahaha"
hold your tongue and say I was born on a pirate ship
Zeno was vindicated 20 years ago*. Wait, wrong Zeno!
* Also Chrysippus.
My mind cannot create a schedule, let alone a universe .
Maybe you perceive it in the wrong Order. You can't create a schedule BECAUSE you already have the burden to create the universe in the first place.
That just proves your mind sucks at creating schedule, not everything else. ;)
off topic: you should make your profile picture same as youtube dark theme background
there is a thing called Subconsciousness, so...
Maybe your mind creates a universe with imperfect actors because that's more interesting. You can't create a schedule because it would be boring to be perfect.
I like how you stick to scientific principles without completely dismissing out of the box ideas out of respect for life's many wonders...
A basic concept in Tibetan Buddhism.
"We are what we think. All that we are arises in our thoughts, and with our thoughts we make the world." (Dhammapada)
The thought is father to the deed.
Yes. And even back then it was already gobbledygook.. ;)
I got one with everything at Wrigley Field.
Competing thoughts making parallel universes, or deadadis (nature of war)
Thats why Tibet is the greatest superpower in the world...
I feel cheated. Should've never learned object permanence as a toddler
lol
One thing is sure. Object Permanence beats Gender Fluidity any day! Hehheh
I learned about that when falling asleep at a party :/
@@jefflindeman So it's true what they say, "narcissism is the new normal"!
(I have this feeling this thread is going to turn into a "narcissism vs BPD" debate)
@@PeterKnagge I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it
Biocentrism: justifying the idea of an afterlife without gods, or: how i learned to stop worrying and love my mind.
Same.
Glad to know when u die u think ul turn into nothing lol. Maybe u will.
Dr. SelfLove
If it's all a simulation (again IF), then an afterlife could be another program and lack of God(s) could be entirely possible. As possible, and I would even say as obvious as the lack we see in this reality.
@@Scott83016 "nothing" "something" doesn't matter. No one knows what happens after death. I find it humorous that humans all think they know something about an afterlife. Hey guess what guys.....YOU KNOW NOTHING.
"The universe is fine tuned for life"? Read Douglas Adams' description of the puddle waking up and finding itself in a perfect hole. :)
Woah I''ve tried to explain this for years and my favorite author has a perfect analogy for it
Except it's more like a puddle wakes up and finds that it's made of water and not in any of the infinite other formless conditions under which it ought to have found itself-generally an undifferentiated, ever-expanding mass of subatomic particles.
Of course, Adams, an atheist, would have had to surmise that the only possibility is that there are an infinite number of universes, and that, specifically, is why the puddle only became aware of itself in this particular one with the proper configuration of forces in which it exists.
Setting aside the irony that is an atheist believing in something with even less supporting evidence than there is for a Creator (made even more ironic by virtue of the fact that all the multiverse theory has going for it is the allowances it provides for a universe without a Creator, which should tell you something about those who choose it over something requiring far less mental gymnastics, cognitive dissonance, and intellectual dishonesty), how does a puddle of water become sentient?
It's a dumb analogy, because though Adams was a brilliant and absolutely hilarious writer, he wasn't especially profound. People who quote him as a philosopher betray their superficial understanding of existence in kind.
Reshpeck TL;DR there’s always one who thinks they’re more profound and has to comment an essay to get shove their point in someone’s face, it’s just a fun comment, you need to chill 😂
@@sosig8332 You consider four paragraphs an essay? Do you think four pumps is a good lay?
I also have to wonder about a person who criticizes another for expressing his ideas in depth... in the comments section of a video that is specifically intended to help its viewers think more deeply about the topic.
Rather ironic really, but you wouldn't understand because TLDR, right?
Reshpeck you’re so arrogant, bet you have loads of friends and lots of lays 😂👏
WHAT FULL CAPS COMMENTS? THERE ARE NO FULL CAPS COMMENTS HERE!
Zoltan Peter -I AM A PESIMIST! I SEE THE WORLD GOING TO CRAP! THEREFORE MY MIND MUST BE GOD OF ALL Y'ALLS!
WHISPERING
HUH, WHAT WAS THAT?
ONLY BARBARIANS TYPE IN ALL CAPS _real mean type in italics!_
WHY HE DREAM OF BEING A PIRATE. THE STUPIDEST DREAM TO HAVE.
I've been pretty skeptical all my life but simultaneously in the "I WANT TO BELIEVE" pool when it comes to the supernatural and this kind of thing really lets my imagination fly! Whenever there's a haunting the entities end goal appears to be isolation by keeping people out but we could also interpret that as avoiding observation. Supposing these kinds of things exist, maybe just by being present and by extension observing we destabilize what/where they are or whatever condition allows them to exist in the first place. This sort of threat on their existence would certainly provoke the kind of behavior we're used to hearing in stories. If we really wanted to amp this up we can bring the simulation in and wonder if these things live in memory but start bugging out once loaded in by observation.
As for the main topic, I've always played with the idea that consciousness had an impact on reality but has been diluted over time by our growing population basically rendering this impact inert. Maybe Gods or fantastic creatures really did once exist when the population was small and less aware but beliefs more localized/concentrated. We are much more aware now, even when a concentration of people believe the same thing we are still highly connected and aware of a wide variety of others beliefs thus reality settled into a neutral state as our understandings combined and canceled each other out.
This channel should be called "existential crisis Mondays"
(please don't stop making these science and philosophical videos)
It's like the old Zen saying, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?"
That can be interpreted two ways. The biocentric view that the conscious observer literally creates that reality. Or the (I can't remember the word for it) view that our senses and brain give order and meaning to the world. So an object we label as a tree does fall and percussion waves are produced in the air, but it isn't a "sound" with any sort of meaning until it encounters an ear drum (or other suitable auditory receptor) and a brain to make sense of it.
The tree falling produces shock waves which will "collapse into sound" if picked up by an auditory mechanism. If it isn't picked up by an auditory mechanism then its just an uncollapsed potentiality that isn't realized (i.e. no sound).
I understand the concept, but I contend that there is no tree without animals, or insects or something with an ear close enough to hear it fall. So it’s an interesting thought experiment, but technically impossible. To say that only human ears count, is a bit biased.
I've never been able to shake the idea of solipsism from my mind. When I was around 13-15, I remember sitting around and thinking that everything I see and experience is just a mix of signals my brain is sending in order to make existence easier to comprehend and survive in. That outside of my own thoughts, there's no way I could ever fully trust anything, including even this body I've had to lug around since birth. When I was a little older and found out that not only had people thought about this before, it's more or less a popular thought and has even been named, "solipsism". I didn't know how to pronounce it for years (lol) but I was so stunned and it has never left me to this day. It's almost like a thought poison tbh lol
I don't think what you're talking about is really solipsism, more like the 'veil of perception' or indirect realism the idea that you can't truly trust your senses. Solipsism is related, but it goes way further and states that you can't even be sure that anyone else's mind exists, only your own; therefore the entirely of reality could just be a creation of your own mind and you are the only conscious being in existence. For this reason the adjective 'solipsistic' sometimes gets used to describe a person or idea that is construed as being overly self-centered, as they are acting as if they are the only person who matters.
Thanks for covering this, Joe. The mind-benders are my favorite videos.
Glad you dug it!
The unfalsifiability issue is what happens when theories of ontology go from the how into the why realm.
Joe I thought this was a great video.
You're right to find idealism interesting.
I watched this after your video that touched upon Rare Earth hypothesis
My IQ has risen 10 points
He says whilst mismatching his punctuation.
Ahhh good ole unfalsifiable propositions and confirmation bias. Aren't we primates just adorable? "I don't know how it could have happened therefore "God". Lmao. Oh...and um...he's outside of space and time yet everywhere at all times. All powerful. All knowing....and pretty much unfalsifiable bullsh.t. lol
Is falsifiability falsifiable where unity is concerned? I'm reminded of the quote: "There is no trail. Trails are made by walking". I think this Biocentrism boils down to the idea that we affect the Universe. How far this goes is debatable. If there is an absolute unity of consciousness with reality there is nothing outside of reality that can be used to prove or disprove it (because there is nothing beyond all of reality). It is thus not falsifiable. Does this mean that the Biocentrism is junk, or is falsifiability itself simply not applicable in certain circumstances, particularly where unity is concerned? Falsifiability regarding unity may be like a dog forever chasing its own tail, never reachable, yet seemingly nearby. You can't have more than everything, and if everything is one with consciousness, there is no other bottom line. Is it problematic that Biocentrism is not falsifiable, or is falsifiability itself falsifiable where unity is involved???? Should all of nature adhere to mankind's tests, or should the standards of testing change due to circumstances? If one could uncouple and disconnect from all reality, perhaps reality would appear as probability waves only. However, is the reason why nature abhors a vacuum because when unity tries to disconnect from unity there is a reaction and refilling that goes on as compensation? If we are indeed tethered to unity, escape may be impossible. All we will know is that when we try to disconnect, we fail.
@@mace9930 "..is falsifiability itself falsifiable, where unity is concerned?" A fascinating question. It appears to be a question with a category mistake. How might one determine that falsifiability is falsifiable within biocentricity without using the exact methods within biocentricity for determining falsifiability in the first place? It can also be asked this way, "is unfalsifiability itself unfalsifiable, where unity is concerned?"
@@coffeetalk924 Yes. In either case, two negatives make a positive. Like the group YES said, the ultimate answer is YES". Not Yes and No, but only YES in totality.
In "The Tao of Physics" it shows how eastern mystics like Lao Tzu understood certain natures of the universe and quantum mechanics in the same way that Einstein did...some of the observations are almost verbatim, but are coming from 800 BC and understood through meditation instead of an empirical view of the physics. Explain that...
Einstein literally pioneered general relativity and was notably “irritated” by quantum mechanics bc it “disproves” many aspects of general relativity...... sooo... I’m with it but bad example?
@Frak Cadillac That is a beautiful burn.
@@pixelate5447 God doesn't play dice with the universe, except for the 2 sided die he uses which when rolled can land on either 0, or 1, or 0 and 1, or neither 0 nor 1...
'The Tao of Pooh' is better... (Or *'QUANTUM ENIGMA: **_Physics Encounters Conciousness'_* ) or.. *'The Secret Melody: **_and MAN created the UNIVERSE'_*
@@ohtheblah God confiscated those dice as a punishment off of some guy who kept putting his cat in a box. What a monster.
The double slit experiment: exists
Scientists: you could make a religion out of this.
Watch my video on Dr emoto water experiment you will change your mind.
they did in The there body Problem.
Eddie is right and you are wrong. There I just made it simple for someone, such as yourself, who is too ignorant to vote and too stupid to live,
@@deevnn hey there David Olson, pretty brave talking smack to someone you don't know.... However, Iike most of your kind, you talk big shit online when you know damn well you wouldn't have the nuts to say such things in person. Just a suggestion for future reference there friend, one should not talk stupid shit to those you know nothing about, as it isn't healthy. There are plenty of unhinged people in this big ol world we live in. And one day you just might meet someone whom is just waiting for a dumbass like yourself to make their day. And you will deserve everything that comes with it. But luckily for you I am not that person, nor is this that moment. So in the future try and be a little more respectful when speaking to someone, Even if you disagree. But I appreciate the morning amusement. Carry on
Check out the Munro Institute.
Didn't know the universe relied on PS1 era rendering techniques to save on memory. Also, does this mean that life is the largest open-world game?
it is ...thats the point
@@andymouse Then I'm glad it isn't developed by Ubisoft. Can't imagine having to climb a radio tower to get my GPS working...
@@NorthEevee Unfortunately, it seems to be developed by Electronic Arts, hence the grinding and endless microtransactions.
@@Datan0de Well, at least Bethesda didn't work on it either. Never found a random T-posing human on the street before and I like to keep it that way.
@John Stroud He reviews the MMO version of Life. I heard the OWG and the MMO version were both developed from and old abandoned version called "Universe 1.0". Rumors say that the game was so buggy, it wouldn't even launch. So they scrapped it and gave both Blizzard and Bioware a copy of the dev build to figure things out. Not sure what studio worked on it Universe 1.0, but I think it was Atari.
Psychedelics make me feel this is so, strongly. I've often felt like I created what I was observing. Which, looking back, was just a product of my observation 🤔
This is quite the rabbithole.
This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Nobody really knows what's going on and that's awesome.
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields Forever
What I find absolutely astonishing is that so many people have no issues whatsoever with accepting the simulation theory as a possible basis for reality but push away any form of spiritual explanation/additional context. Why does it feel so much more right for humans to belittle their existence, to decrease the significance their existence has?
Is it because science tells us that only provable facts are important and worth research? Is it because society is rewarding egocentric behavior? Is it because our brain uses categories and labels to navigate the huge amount of perceived signals?
Science works on the principle of proving itself wrong until you get to the right answer. But over time we have learned that there isn’t always just one right answer. So many factors influence the results.
Even those who say people interpret the term consciousness in the double slit experiment/quantum theory wrong are biased without acknowledging it. How do you know that a photon doesn’t care about consciousness when you don’t know if each particle itself bears consciousness or if the fact _some_ form of consciousness will observe the results to a random point in time? Maybe it’s enough to change the outcome if a scientist or computer looks at the data in the future because there is no such thing as time in the quantum world.
To be honest, I think we should finally move away from drawing this random line between respected science fields and fringe ideas. What once was fringe science is now the basis of all research. Who knows, maybe we could make some breakthroughs if we only accepted that consciousness exists.
There’s not just a crisis in cosmology, there’s a crisis in science. Do you know how many medical, psychological and nutritional research was disproven recently? From flawed data to biased researchers, funding only supporting very specific and biased research, highly flawed set ups of experiments and much more. So, so much research, which we worked with for decades, suddenly isn’t replicable. Meta data analysis shows opposites are often as true as the original outcome.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we‘d see something similar in other fields if we had the ability to observe things on both a broader spectrum but also from a very individual perspective.
Yes, i'm creating the universe and i like red.
Proof? My bank account.
That's nothing. I'm creating an universe and I'm not invited in.
Fortunately, I prefer green.
@@whez08 you won. 🤣
Makes sense. 😐
@@whez08 *a universe,
I see why you weren't invited.
The longer, the better!! Love your 15 min+ vids
Glad you like them. They are extra work though...
when i learned about observer effect, that was my first thought and somehow i feel somewhere deep inside that this is true
I agree
Biocentrism does match the available data, but that doesn't mean it's true. There are plenty of hypotheses that match data that end up being completely bogus. Interesting idea, though.
my favourite one was proposed by the philosopher Russell, who claimed that there was a tea pot orbiting Jupiter. (I'm pretty confident Russell was British...)
@@sebastiangrandis545 Lol. Yeah, if he were an American it would have been a coffee pot.
@@sebastiangrandis545 At some point in development all 3d engines have tea pot in them :)
Gtfo ur nowhere near the guy who made biocentrism
based on those "claims" summed up by Joe in the video it's not even properly defined.. let alone matching any data
I spoke to Lanza at a conference where we were both speaking about a couple mistakes he made in his book, including where he contradicted himself between two main chapters. Surprisingly, he didn't want to talk about it. ;-) And just while we're here, yes the collapse is affected by consciousness, but it isn't just human consciousness that performs the observation. Hugs!
Yes
Consciousness, whatever else it is, it is "of" something.
That's the fundamental contradiction in all "primacy of consciousness" ideas. We're assigning an a posteriori property to an a priori thing. Incoherent.
We might all be Boltzmann brains, but that is still contingent upon and conscious of quantum fields.
I think I heard Joe mention animal consciesness as well. Any living thing could play part on the collapse of the wave function. I don't see any logical problem there.
this channel is seriously underrated I love his puns and his videos so informational with making me feel like I forgot it all and about to fail the exam the next day lol. but yes love your channel and the video editor great job :)
If my mind is creating a universe, then why does it hate me?
Cause you edgy
Change the fillter
As a man thinketh, so is he. ~ James Allen
Not only your, our mind, all mind...
Karma maybe. Try having loving-heartedness towards 7 billion people on 🌍 . It might clean the karma
You asked what constitutes observation, in quantum mechanics. Good question. In the double slit experiment, a collapse of the wave function is seen even when the experiment is done on the slit the particle has not gone through. The experiment, in those cases, neither observe not interfere with anything,, and yet an effect is still seen.
This implies that the important part of the experiment isn't the act of observing/interfering, but whether knowledge can be gained about the state of the system (see also the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment). Knowledge is ultimately what quantum mechanics seems to be dealing with- not whether or not a particle has been observed/interfered with.
From this point of view of knowledge, then, it seems consciousness may play a role that seems hard to separate from the experiment itself. In that sense, there is no "out there".
Perhaps, as Max Planck said, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
By having a detector on the slit that the photon doesnt pass through, you are ensuring that the wave function cant go through both slits and interfere with itself, since doing so would require the wave function to be observed.
@@causaestmalleus4605 yes, the real problem is if you consider all the atoms of the entire universe interfering with themselves, what is causing the wave function to collapse? it's either collapsing in all the possible possibilities (the many worlds hypothesis) or there's consciousness outside deciding to observe just one of the possibilities.
@@monad_tcpIts not a problem at all, if you understand what an observer is in quantum mechanics.
Do you understand what an observer is in quantum mechanics? If you do, then you should be able to tell me if an observer has to have consciousness in quantum mechanics.
Karen Reddy Are you a physicist?
"In the double slit experiment, a collapse of the wave function is seen even when the experiment is done on the slit the particle has not gone through. The experiment, in those cases, neither observe not interfere with anything,, and yet an effect is still seen. This implies that the important part of the experiment isn't the act of observing/interfering, but whether knowledge can be gained about the state of the system"
Incorrect.. The very act of obtaining knowledge, of *doing* the experiment on the slit the particle hasn't passed through, IS IN ITSELF, MAKING AN OBSERVATION.
I myself have at least 2 extremely vivid, realistic dreams every week. Everything always seems so real, yet in the dream there is always at least one thing that does not work as it should had it been actual reality, but with the dreams being so realistic my brain doesn’t pick up on these what I believe are clues from my brain trying to tell me it is in fact a dream, but thankfully I do not have nightmares with this realism. What if these dreams are another version of us, in another universe and our conscious is picking up on the frequencies and our brains pick it up like an am/fm radio and play it in our minds.
Bro I think about this all the time that's crazy
I had two of those dreams in my life. I'm 31 years old and the last time that happened was around the age of 18. I have no Idea why I made those dreams at all as it doesn't seem connected to anything relevant with my life. I don't remember much now, but the first time I dreamt I was walking in the streets of a city and it was pouring rain. I took refuge in a saloon. The feeling and coldness of the rain felt 100% real, down to the reaction of my skin.
The second time and the weirdest was a plane flying over me, not any plane mind you. It looked like future tech not quite sci-fi looking but like something the military could do in the next 50 years or so that passed through the sky while I was walking in a forest. There was so much details and it seemed so real that when I woke up I really tried to remember how it was made and looked like. In this one, its the details on the plane and the sound/vibrations that made it so real.
Your plane "dream" seems like a classic abduction experience. Look up the work of John E. Mack of Harvard.
@@albertloan396 I will look it up, but i'm not sure why this as anything to do with an 'abduction experience'. It was totally human-made looking, just years ahead of its time compared to current fighter planes. But yeah tanks for the suggestion it could be an interesting read.
@@PromethorYT We often interpret our experience with reference to the familiar--especially when having experiences far outside the norm. Memory is a tricky thing, and one feature of these abduction experiences is the common feature that subjects found themselves in a suggestible state induced by their captors and suggestions were used to repress or change memory to something ordinary and less traumatic. I am not making a case for abduction--a highly unlikely scenario, but your story does sound like the many told within Mack's work.
I had a dream as real as this only once in my life. I met a woman, I was lucid dreaming and didnt have the heart to tell her she wasnt real. So as I was looking into her eyes I told her "you are real" then the next four seconds that "real" feeling increased and increased until it matched waking life, then she looked away and I snapped back to feeling like I was in a dream
I had a dream that really stunned me in my middle teens. I dreamt that I fell in love, got married, had children, lived my life and then died. A bit of overwhelming confusion when I awoke. 40 years later still remember that dream. (Plus some irony when Finn had same type of experience in the animated show "Adventure Time")
My brain can’t even wake itself up when the alarm clock goes off, how is it supposed to create a universe 😂
Yep
@jigga jaw true, being asleep doesn't mean complete lost of consciousness
maybe is so busy creating the universe it can't wake up itself when the alarm clock goes off
Just mean loss of awareness 💀
And always the same one.
I just watched the video on "is there a god?". Now, I am new to the channel and in my "spiritual searching " throughout my life have seen and heard just about everything. But to my surprise , Joe's simple yet honest reflection of lifelong memories he has and how it has influenced his concept on "God", really struck a chord for me. Thank you sir! Your point of view really explains exactly how I feel on this topic. It was refreshing and sparks a whole new "investigation" for me.🐾
God created the universe with his infinite wisdom and power. And he created it to be kind.
There is “a way, a truth, a light” in this universe, by any other name…we know it when we “see” it and experience it. When we act in service to that truth, the universe thrives. We thrive. It’s what all religions teach. Be kind and loving to the universe and it will reward you with it’s peace and love in return. That is truth.
I’m a practicing Catholic but I respect all religions who strive to teach and practice the truth.
lol "im lookin at you Aristotle" i love his videos they are one of a kind. and I love quantum mechanics and that was the best description of the double slit experiment I've heard
9:48 Just last week one of my children tested this theory, leaving a stopped up sink running, then exiting the room. The wave function broke down when I went in to discover a flooded bathroom.
The theory of Biocentrism, in a way, harks back to the ancient's theory of vision - that light doesn't strike an object and enter our eyes, but our eyes emit beams that illuminate the world, effectively revealing it. I watched this a few days ago, so can't remember if it was this or another of your videos that talked about how observing a patch of space effectively "creates" everything - all the stars and galaxies - we see there in that patch. It's the same kind of thing.
You just gave one of the most concise, succinct explanations for dreaming I've ever encountered, and one which is compelling; so much so that it almost seems self-evident.
I had a dream where Danny Devito gave me life advice and I swear it is the most profound moment of my life. If only I could remember what are those advice
@Bongusta Mondo What's with Danny Devito invading people's dreams and giving them advices?
you ever dreamt the meaning of life and then forgot it the moment you woke, but remember that you knew it? but can remeber just enough fragments for it to he incomprehensible?
yeah...
I had the same reoccurring dream that Danny Divito and another guy kidnapped me from a Dentist office lmao
@@dadefrost2059 I have dream songs with lyrics like this sometimes...getting in the habit of keeping a dream journal helps to retain a little bit, but it's a practice that seems like it needs to be kept up for it to work effectively
Nah probably one of those quick book ads he does . Good investment begins with Danny devito
Biocentrism is based off of the fact that consciousness causes a waveform function to collapse? Okay so basically Biocentrism is based off a misunderstanding of how quantum mechanics work then. I didn't watch the whole video so I'm not sure if that was just an unjustifiably simplified explanation or not, but just based off that excerpt, if it's an accurate summary of the theory, it is a theory that is flawed.
Say it with me: Photons👏do👏not👏care👏about👏conscious👏observers👏
In the double slit experiment, the "observer" is NOT the person recording the results. The "observer" is the photon sensor that detects the photon.
The photon will still end up behaving like a wave, and collapsing into a point whether or not someone is recording the results or not. The observer doesn't even have to be any sort of detection hardware. it could simply be a wall that you are shining a flashlight on. This is a very common misunderstanding due to a few very poorly worded academic research papers, but I really just need people to understand this because the amount of times I hear this misconception on a monthly basis is just infuriating.
Hahah thank you, came here to say the same thing
thank you for the backwards analogy about "wow our hands i built perfectly to fit these gloves" Been looking for a way to express that frustration about the goldilocks zone for some years and you nailed it.
Does that mean OJ is actually from another universe?!
I wouldn't talk to Deepak Chopra about hard sciences though. He's all woo all the time. I don't think he means to deceive, exactly, but he's pretty goofy.
Edit: I guess you all have convinced me, Chopra probably knows that he's full of it.
Hey, it’s his universe, he gets to create it his way 🤷🏼♀️
Roger Penrose was pretty far out there too...read a book by him years ago...or should I say I materialized a book that seemed to be written by a Roger Penrose...🤷🏼♀️
Deepak Chopra is 100% charlatan. He starts from an erroneous assumption (That he is capable of understanding reality), just grabs a bunch of misunderstood concepts and throws them in a verbal blender, and says "Presto Chango" and arrives at his forgone conclusion (reality is an illusion created by the mind). There are plenty of dead people who thought they could warp reality to avoid being killed by their stupid ideas, but gravity/explosions/snake bites refused to bend to their will.
@@MTerrance Yeah, but I often actually admire charlatans, even some politicians, who can tap into something in weak human minds, of which there is an over-abundance, and make a buck from them, more or less "legally". And they say: "that's my opinion, and it needs to be yours." Such as "cow farts are a danger to the planet", for example!! I protect my self from them by reminding myself that both they and I have the same "ape-man roots" in the fossil record!! Ha! :D
Deepak Chopra is a fountain of nonsense. He is good at sounding clever, but what he says makes no sense when closely examined.
I love your "I'm the Centre of the Universe" theories.
Makes perfect sense to me that this video is actually my creation.
The Earth doesn't exist, I knew it!
#noearthsociety
The Earth absolutely exists. THe more impure the object, the less likely it is to enter a quantum superstate. This theory why intriguing is wrong.
@bsandy.com
Not XVI century, people knew that the Earth is round for 2000+ years.
@bsandy.com
There is a logic to flat-eartherism
They want to observe the Earth is something for themselves, not take someone elses word for it
Can you prove to them the Earth is round, without taking anyone elses word for it? Without pointing to any expert?
Without pointing to any photograph or video, so they can see it unfiltered with their own eyes?
I use ocean tides and gravity myself
quantum world be like: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a lion
According to the world of quantum, it's both a duck and a lion in a superposition.
LMAO
It's a wavefunction of a duck.
@@D3sertStorm...and they both are alive and dead until you open the box.
After they put a lion by accident into a box containing an ant and got an antlion, they are now terrified they could accidentally de-entangle a dragonfly.
Yes, exactly! But what flavor?
3:02 - who said that reality required HUMAN consciousness? Why is everybody so anthropocentric?
No, a bee creates his bee-world, a horse its horse-world, an earthworm a worm-world. For the worm, there are no spades.
Rocks are concious, water is concious, trees are concious, animals are concious and we are too. To say that conciousness creates the universe is in no way human centric, unless you do not understand that rocks are concious but they merely have a different time scale and abilities then humans do.
@@tomkelly8827 Please note the time mark that I´ve set. He explicitely says HUMAN consciousness. That´s what I was referring to.
That's a paradox in its own... If consciousness never existed there would be no perceived universe lol basically if a tree falls in a forest while nobody is around, does it make a sound
have u even watched whole vid? 11:42 he talks about tht
This is what we do. We question and contemplate. It's all good Joe.
I always wonder if our world looks different from what we see. Everything we see is our brains interpretation of it.
It's a very interesting simulation we're living in.
When the Dreamer awakens, do we disappear.
Azathoth
No since we are the dreamers.
@@Tripskiii but not the only ones...
Hp lovecraft?
@@Tripskiii If we're the dreamers, how could we be made of universe stuff? How comes a dream creates its own dreamers?
Love your videos but when you do videos like these I get a little creeped out. Lol Keep it up. Obviously you are doing something right if you make people think.
He's creating the universe....
MrEmeraldviking : his universe...if he dies do we go poof? ...or if I die does this Joe go poof?..................or if you......
@@pohkeee I don't know if your universe would go poof. But parts of the Universe I am aware of would go '...sigh, one one less Joe who helped create the Universe as we know it...'
@@pohkeee And for further comparing and contrast: If a nuclear power plant dies does that mean that it didn't create the stored nuclear waste? As long as someone knows where it is it is now part of the known Universe. If no one knows where it is it is part of the unknown Universe that remains to be discovered.
I like to think I do many things right, but it's probably just one thing. ;)
You are my favorite person to watch right now. Glad to have found you. Brain candy. :D
Ive spent months over the last few years pondering on deep questions . Everything is more incredible than we realize.
You should get an orb. They are the best things you can ponder.
@@TempleGuitarsu were ahead of ur time.
I like Robin Williams comment best, "Reality, what a concept."
No Truer Words Spoken.
miss his comedic genius. "Comedy" is dead and buried today!
My favourite (and partially relevant) Robin Williams joke is: Buddhist goes up to a hot dog vendor and says, "Make me one with everything."
@@aitchpea6011 wonderful, I'm sad he's gone!
@@ronschlorff7089 Indeed, but he left us enough joy and wonder to keep us going to the end of time.
if I put a pizza in a preheated/running oven, and then go into a room out of visual range, the behaviors of the pizza+oven system/waveforms are deterministic enough that, even without observing the system directly, the scent of a cooking, finished, or burnt pizza will "render" in my nostrils as a function of time (barring, eg, an open kitchen window preventing airflow from kitchen to nostrils). Whether or not the visual representation of the system exists while unobserved, the system still exists deterministically enough to generate observations, both for conscious (human) and unconscious observers (eg if the pizza burns long enough, the smoke alarm will announce its measurements). Whether the system is actually extant vs a highly probable quantum state when unobserved seems to be moot if it generates passive observations through things like airflow (a chaotic system which would itself lend a "render pressure" to the system - if every new collision between an N2 or O2 molecule and a cheese molecule that might loft a cheese scent molecule on its way to my nose changes the scent waveform, any system where its distribution of entropy is being messed with seems to be getting observed.)
Sidenote: the Schrodinger's cat experiment doesn't usually specify the cage/box the cat is in is soundproof... I'd argue that the potential for such an observation would inherently collapse the waveform even if the sounds of the cat blended with random background noise before it got to human ears or mechanical ones - conveyance of information (the antithesis of entropy) collapses any macroscopic waveform IMO, regardless of observation/receipt of information.
Experiencing scent is a human experience, and as such a form of human observation in the broader sense. So logically the box is assumed to be soundproof, smell proof, of non transparent material, no holes to put your hand in to feel the cat inside even though none of those are specifically stated in the description.
A good listener only needs half a word. For a bad listener all the words in the world ever spoken might still not be enough.
I think the fact that observations collapse wave functions has less to do with consciousness and more to do with the method of observation; as you stated, we use photons to detect things, and those photons have to interact with the quantum particle we're trying to observe, which alters the state of what we're observing.
I have an absurdly strong connection with this theory, please hear me out.
I'm 18 now but since when I was a kid I have been really really fascinated with the universe and how it works. I slowly developed "theories" and explanations that outside of the context in my head will sound absolutely insane. Now I watch this video and realized a lot of my thinking corresponds to the research done in biocentrism. I have NEVER read anything about bio centrism or any of these ideas prior to this video so this is kind of a brain fuck for me. I do not believe that the answers of the universe lie within our actual physical world but in the world of consciousness. I wish I can convey better the feeling (for a lack of better word) that I have toward this subject.
I don't know why I wrote this comment anymore except that I want answers or clues or something; seeing a FULL ASS theory fall in line with what I've been trying to shake off as "crazy nigga thoughts" really makes me think there is more to this.
What if everything goes even beyond? For example: Leonardo DaVinci, a genius, tried his whole life to make a flying machine. He failed and died without ever seeing his dream come true. You might think he wasn't smart enough or was missing some kind of knowledge... Then how come the Wright brothers invented it?? I don't think they were smarter than him or more versed in aerodynamics.
Maybe, just maybe, they made it true because they thought they could. I mean... maybe DaVinci's real thoughts was that it was impossible so he was never successful. Maybe the universe laws were written when the Wright brothers "invented" the plane. Maybe they really did invented as in bringing it into reality. Maybe the laws of physics are discovered only when somebody becomes convinced of them. Maybe they are abolished when somebody convince everyone they are false. Maybe they become permanent when people accept them as "common sense".
If you think about it like that, maybe Zeus and Gilgamesh were real but they are impossible nowadays with current laws of physics.
I leave you with a thought experiment:
Imagine you hold an Egg in your hand. Imagine somehow you convinced yourself to the point you were 100% sure, you knew, that if you let it fall it would fall upside and crash against your ceiling. Would it really happen? It's impossible to prove, because your common sense tells you it will fall to the floor, and there is nothing you can do to change your mind.
There's a very ancient philosophy called
Advait Vedant which suggests the same views as expressed by you
Very like the Buddhist view of the ultimate nature of reality called emptiness
Hinduism has almost the opposite belief: that consciousness (of Vishnu, if my memory serves) created the universe. Some Christians, in turn, believe that God made the universe, but is not *in* it; in a way, that's consistent with the Hindu belief. The (occasional) points of intersection between religion and science are fascinating.
For Hindus Brahman is the universal consciesness, the ultimate reality, the cosmic principle from which Atman (Self/Soul) emerges. Maya is the the illusion Atman crates which we call reality. So it's all in your head people lol.
I thought about Bill Murray immediately.
Mahayanist*
@@d-dh2143 yeah
I searched Biocentrism concerning the environment and yet here I am being deeply invested in this theory.
We project the World. Wherever we are the World is.
1:35 "it was philosophers that created our view of reality ... then science came around and proved them wrong"
Actually philosophers still shape our view of reality, it's just that they got much better in Math, and we call them theoretical physicists ;)
Once I had a dream about being on a game show, and was asked what was Elvis Presley’s first album named. I answered “it was self named Elvis Presley”. I know nothing about Elvis and have never listened to him. My question is can you dream an answer you really don’t know or did I maybe hear it when I was a baby or something?
I thought decoherence shows that consciousness is _not_ required for collapse?
And thats why quantum effects don't scale to the macro world.
And that the measurement apparatus is just as good at collapsing waveforms.
Now, many worlds and quantum immortality?
That's cool.
And I'm immortal.
And so are you.
Except my you isn't
And your me isn't either.
@peter
Here's a fun one.
Given your, I dunno, plank length of time between two instants where two blobs of matter are you and a continuation of you.
Let's call them ty0 and ty1.
What happens if, somewhere in the universe, completely by chance, a blob happens to match ty1. Do you wake up on another planet and there's two yous?
Are we more than a set of vectors in the standard model fields from QFT?
What happens if it matches ty1 but in a thousand years?
Do you perceive a sudden 1000 year jump?
What happens if ty1 is in the past?
Hey Joe! I would love to see a video on ego death. Can you make one, please?
Nightquaker sounds interesting. What have you found so far??
His "research" on the subject should be interesting, he could film that ;)
Caused by DMT?
The feeling of individuality (ego) is a construct made by by the brain. It's illusory to begin with, so it (you/I) can't - really - die. It's possible though to recognize it's illusory nature, but no one can recognize that. As soon as a person claims ego death, or a state of enlightenment, the ego is reaffirmed. There's little to say about ego death without it turning into a religion, a path between right and wrong. There's no path, only an apparent one. Ego death is a non-happening, like waking up from a dream realizing you were not only the character in the dream, but also the road you were walking on and the air you were breathing. You were everything in the dream pretending to be different things. Nothing - real - changes when you wake up. Since you/I are in essence everything, the word 'you'/'I' points to an illusion. (Nothing wrong with an illusion)
I feel like I've mentioned it here or there, but never done a full video about it.
Nah. I think the surface of Mars existed before it was sensed. It also was not covered in canals when we thought it had canals. It's always been the surface of Mars.
It's all a fun thing to think about. I do always side-eye any idea that puts us at the top/most important position, though.
Joe, please keep doing videos on less mainstream science videos. There are a lot of science youtubers who have covered every mainstream topic in every way. This is the first video I've seen on this topic!
Agreed. This was a fascinating topic. Lots of food for thought
Go and have a watch of Roger Penrose videos :-) Hint, play at 1.5 speed.
I'd love to hear his take on ancient megalithic structures; the pyramids and the sphinx, Gobekli Tepi, and the like.
Welcome to Joe's universe!!
this is mainstream science why have none of you heard of this?
This is such an underrated channel
It has almost a million subs, how is this underrated?
Not much views compared to subs
The seventh principle makes me think of the object permanence theory. When a child is very young they think that things don't exist when they can't see them (if someone is hiding, to them it means they don't exist). As we grow, we learn they do still exist. However, when I experienced derealization it was as if I had unlearned object permanence and the possibility that something that wasn't directly in front of me still existed just didn't make sense. Really weird to explain if you haven't had or can't remember having derealization (which most people will experience).
Enjoyed the topic... can't help to think of the the of - If a tree fall in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
of course it doesn't
What tree? 😉
No, because it wasn't the tree that fell. It was your brain.
Yes, it obviously distorts the air as it falls, converting kinetic energy into SOUND among other thing. Sound waves of air molecules. To argue that the tree didn't make a sound is to argue that the tree didn't fall. The only way around this is to pedantically define sound as air waves interacting with ears, which would make the premise moot.
@@draketrading2044 Yeah, it all comes down to language. The definitions of things. The tree doesn't create a sound, it creates sound waves. Sound is a sensory experience of sound waves received into ear and processed by the brain.
I'm a scientist & think everything has a logical explanation. Yet I've also experienced many "Astral Projections" thru meditation. The experience is so real it's beyond words.
I know man I know.. There must be a link we are missing that connects our physical world to our subconscious
Biocentrism isn't saying that the kitchen downstairs doesn't exist when no one is there. It's saying that the upstairs + downstairs + your body are all part of consciousness which you essentially are. In this analogy you are the house (consciousness) AND everything inside including the body labelled Joe.
Another way to look at it is within our body we have baroreceptors (a type of sensor) that measure blood pressure and prevent it from going too high or low. So in essence Joe is made of sensors that measure Joe. So the sensors are a part Joe but so there's more to Joe ie the blood and the rest of the body.
In the same way the human body is a sensor that is within the "body" of consciousness. Consciousness is the whole and it is that which is aware. The human body is a sensor within consciousness but it's not all of it, there is also the world (that which is sensed). Combined the sensor and that which is sensed makes the whole ie consciousness.
The weird part about this is that we generally believe and feel that our consciousness is limited to the range of our body (I can not smell what your nose is doing or hear what your ears hear or see what your brain is thinking) and that all bodies have separate consciousnesses. That would be akin to saying that each sensor in the body has an individual consciousness because it can't read or be aware of the other ones signals when in reality we know that they are all sending signals to the same brain.
If the above makes sense then the claim is that the consciousness with which different minds are aware is the same consciousness even though each mind has different information (what you are smelling/hearing/thinking). In essence the consciousness is not located in the body!
For more info I'd check out Bernardo Kastrup (phd in philosophy and computer engineering) as he does a great job explaining this in he course on youtube.
Another good scientist to check out is Donald Hoffman.
this video cured my depression, thanks Joe♥️
I really think it's liberating as well.
YOUR mind creates MY universe, Joe! ( wipes brown smudge off nose)...
Be careful when you eat chocolate cake.
@@silverninja1001 Be chocolate cake when you are careful.
@@douglasthompson1724 Be you when chocolate cake are careful.
silverninja1001 Butt cake!
@@madmancv favorite pun of the day :)
Ur brain is so used to making these things up that when u sleep ur brain tries to keep the process going
And you can prove that how?
Making what things up?
@@corydorastube you can prove literally anything how?
Its tge interpreter module
I dream very rarely and never visually but only in terms of sounds and 'knowing what's going on'. (When awake, I have perfectly normal eyesight.) So what does that mean?
Science is fundamentally a philosophical method. It is wrong to imply that it is somehow a replacement to philosophy.
Most of philosophy uses a deficient method that only pretends to be logical. They would do well to replace it with science, which multiple philosophers have already successfully used.
@@tibfulv you cant replace philosophy with science. Science is a branch of philosophy.
@@guitaristxcore
You're actually using both _science_ and _philosophy._ in two incompatible senses, and assuming the meanings don't change. In the first, you can replace both with the equivalent method (philosophical and scientific) and the meaning shouldn't change. In the second, they both are branches of study. The second sentence being true does not imply the first being true. I suggest you try again.
I would state, it's the other way around.
Philosophy is a method in science.
However, in the quantum world, nothing makes sense, apparantly.
Therefore, philosophy is not as helpfull in that area.
It is not as much a part of science as it used to be.
Science is philosophy with a reality filter. Without that filter, you end up with theology and Derridarhea.
Great topic! This is the kind of stuff that runs through my mind while I'm shaving in the morning. Really, you hit a nerve with me. Thanks!
Same here especially the connection to simulation theory.
I agree with your take on biocentrism. We can't know anything about the unobserved and therefore can't make any firm assertions about the unobserved BUT this doesn't mean the unobserved doesn't exist at all; it simply doesn't exist TO US (until we observe it). Another great video.
This whole thing sounds a lot like the psychological aberration known as Solipsism.
100% Agree. Well adjusted people should find their way out of that paper-bag by their teens. Anything else is just empty headed Gen-X'ers confusing their acid trip with reality
@@draketrading2044 Nothing is more real than an acid trip my friend :)
And while it does sound like Solipsism, without having read the book, I'm quite positive there is a difference. I might be wrong of course.
@@randomnumbers84269 Let's see... If I understand this right, according to biocentrism, there is nothing but the mind. Solipsism says there is no mind and no observer, but everything else is real. In other words, Solipsism is opposite of biocentrism. If I understand this right. That's what I think @Thomas Darby pointed out.
@Radek Marcinko You've got Solipsism backwards. From Wikipedia: "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, Solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist."
@@MariusPartenie Oh, thank you. Should've googled that...
Biocentrism might be how it is, but I really doubt it. It's fun to think about, I guess, but how could we know? What could be the mechanism?
Questions that trouble me: 1.) How does a quantum particle know that it is being observed? (Is there subatomic consciousness?); 2.) How can particles know that they WILL BE observed so that they can be in a specific state in time to be observed?; 3.) How do they know to stay in that specific state?
The universe I created smells like pizza right now. Mmmm pizza.
Sorry, it's not pizza you smell, it's bacon. Mmmmm 🥓
My reality hats me
I'd like to have a piece of that pie.
Awesome work and channel Joe! Keep up the good work! Thank you for making me look forward to my Mondays! Greetings from Brazil!
Ive had dreams where Ive hurt myself and woke up in that pain until my brain woke up
Something similar JUST happened to me.
Did I miss the part about DMT??
Just look into it
Lol
Biocentrism sounds like the spiritualist ethic in Stellaris, Weird.
It isn't that weird if you know that this is not a new concept at all. The oldest of philosophies and religions talk about it.
Zen Buddhism also talked about this
Thought provoking thanks!
These principles sound to me like being made up after reading only the visible layer of modern science. Some quantum entanglement here, a little space contraction there... Then taking a broad view at their implications, and connecting the dots. Voilà, an elegant theory has born.
It's just my intuition. I'm not trying to prove anything here.
The "mind over reality" principle is a really old hermetic principle called mentalism. So while Robert Lanza undoubtedly based his principles on more modern sciences, it was not a totally new perspective on the world perse. Not that you said that, but I thought I'd add this information to show to people that "mentalism" is an older principle than 2005. It's even quite a wellknown philosophy in many traditions.
This video, and all the references to books and theories by obviously intelligent people, even Joe, not to mention those of many commenters here reminds me of a segment in the original "Cosmos" by the great astrophysicist Carl Sagan. He was reviewing a bunch of astronomical theories and their proponents down through history, by obviously the recognized experts in their field at the time, that turned out to be totally erroneous, and therefore useless in our quest to understand the nature of the Universe. Sagan said, words to the effect, in his blunt and direct manner: "High intelligence is no sure protection against being dead wrong!"
That is a consequence of the fact that no one knows what the hell is going on. My intuition tells me that this is closer to explaining the world than other theories, but still lacking the full picture.
If my mind created the universe, I’d be married to Cheryl Cole.
..............or,.. would not have married my first two wives!!
The only possible universe that you can live in is this one. This means that the only possible universe with you is this one and you would not be married to Cheryl Cole.
#universegoals
In my personal cosmology, and this makes a whole lot more sense to me, an individual awareness IS the universe as well as a piece of the universe in the same. What we experience as the 'self' is a partition of the whole of reality. That partition operates in a certain space and time. What we call experience is our supra-awareness navigating the whole of reality as a fragment...yet, ultimately that fragment has access to everything.
'Past lives' are just experiences of that partition within another frame of reference (space and time). Enlightenment is just the liberation of that partition to freely move any where and any time within the everything.
What Buddhists call nirvana is the dissolution of that partition, thusly becoming an individual becoming everything and being selfless, but I don't think that's the point of life at all. Awarenesses, like humans, have arisen in the universe because of the principle of self-organization. Our role is to experience, and what that experience actually is is our partition focusing the everything into a definable point thusly bringing order to chaos which allows enhanced energy flow...enhanced as in layers of order wrapped around a kernel of pure chaos as opposed to just pure chaos which is all energy going everywhere in every time..
What we call the 'universe' is really that chaos which connects all awarenesses to all other awareness (in zero time). What we see as stable physical constructs, meaning that they preserver when we aren't 'directly' observing them, are simply patterns that we transmit to ourselves and to each other through the pure transmission medium that is the true nature of the universe at large. The universe does nothing but transmit, though it is a primordial and incomprehensibly powerful 'transmitter'.
Started watching your videos this year, and I’m definitely not disappointed. So basically what I’m saying is, good shit Joe! Lol
@PTD Well, of course you would say that: You created it :-D and Joe, and he kitchen, this comment, and thus me. Thank you, PTD!
Jens Krabbe Or did you create my comment and me and joe? 🤔 lmao 😂
@@randomshow3 The only person whose conscious existence I can verify is my own, so I'm guessing that I created both of you. Go me!
Reality is unfalsifiable, got it!
That’s what most of my dreams are like. It’s why I wake up groggy and feel the emotions from my dream for awhile.
Love your videos Joe! Keep up the good work. I'm glad to see you succeed.
Thanks!
Thanks for doing all the research and presenting interesting topics in a thoughtful and entertaining way. Please please please don't let your sponsorships influence your content in any way.
14:59
My favorite part of the video, keep the content and knowledge bombs coming my friend!
My lucid dreams create the universe.
In that case could you include a working right eye for me in the next one... Ta muchly 😊
Check out Edgar Cayce,Robert Waggoner,Jeffrey Mishlove,Bruce Greyson,Tom Campbell,Brian Weiss,... for advanced consciousness exploration/evolution.
The weirdest dreams are when you are aware of being in a dream but being confused to weak up. And the starting questioning if your in a dream in a dream.
This happened to me actually and it was scary
Once a man dreampt he was a butterfly flying about. Then he awoke to find himself a man only to wonder if he was a man who dreampt himself a butterfly or a butterfly that deampt itself a man.
Reminds me of a poem/riddle I wrote years ago. When the last star fades, its body decays, no longer beautifuly bright. What of its light, consumed by the night, when nothing with sight remains?
When I was a kid I would close my eyes and I thought no one could see me.
You could not control reality, or you could not leave reality?
@@mace9930 My assumption was that I WAS reality, and if the world was black for me, then it was black for everyone too. So I guess for your question, it was more the former rather than the latter.
@@ravenlord4 Well you could still perceive others around you, which means they still exist.
@@bobbyb4024 Exactly! Which is why it is something that kids do, and not adults. Congratulations on being smarter than a child.