A B C OF PERCEIVED REALITY: (For at least humans, expanded version): (work in progress): 1. Inner 'Self': Imagine a void. (But 'who' and/or 'what' is doing the perceiving, and with what senses are they perceiving with? And what of 'their' memories and thoughts to allow them to perceive and make sense of what is perceived and what, if anything, to do about it? Is it just a manifestation of energy interactions?). 2. (C): Cognitions: * Nature: DNA/Genetics. (Quarks, electrons and interacting energy). Sensory inputs, how the physical structure is put together. Male, female, etc. Sensory inputs: Range: Non-existent sensory input Extremely heightened sensory input; For each sense. Perception of reality can be wrong in reality. People believe reality to be one way when the real truth is that reality is a different way. Also: Color does not actually exist in this universe except for within the mind. Certain electromagnetic radiation energy frequencies are picked up by the eyes, converted to electrochemical signals, which are sent to the brain, whereby a picture of perceived reality is generated. More actually exists in actual reality than our human senses alone can detect. Certain technologies are needed to perceive more. Illness, injury, drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, etc can alter one's functioning of the brain which can then alter one's mind. Modern science does not fully even know how the brain fully functions yet. * Nurture: Life's experiences/memory banks. KUWA, KUWPRA, AKUW, AKUWPR. Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Power, Resources, Applications. There is a KUWA for every topic in existence, including a KUWA of KUWA. 'Deep' in each KUWA topic and 'Wide' in all KUWA topics and by combining KUWA topics together, one can reach higher levels of KUWA. We often 'Apply' before having full KUWA/KUWPR and mistakes can occur, dangerous and even deadly mistakes. Not everything in life is experienced. Some have experiences that others do not have. Some things occur that one is not aware of yet. Some know things that others do not know yet, whether those items are true or not. The power of suggestion can influence one's thoughts. Our brain likes to make stuff up to fill in the gaps of it's perceptions. Our recall of our memories are not 100% accurate. Some memories are forgotten or become inaccessible. Modern science says a brain can have visual and auditory hallucinations. Seeing and hearing things that are only in the mind of the individual. Emotions can amplify or override logical and rational thoughts at times. Some things matter to some individuals and do not matter to other individuals. * Faulty and incomplete cognitions fed to the inner 'self'. A human can possibly be easily led astray. 3. (B): Beliefs: Stem from Cognitions. Cognitions that are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. Beliefs can also lead to perception of reality being one way when in truth reality is a different way. Some individuals care about some things and others do not care about those things. * Faulty beliefs. Not all beliefs might be faulty, but certainly at least some beliefs might be. 4. (A): Actions: Based upon our Beliefs and/or Emotions. Beliefs which are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete and Emotions that possibly can override logical and rational thought. But they are still actions none-the-less. Also agendas (Range): Agendas can be life long to changing from moment to moment in time. Agendas can be open and honest to hidden and not honest. Agendas are the force behind our actions. 5. In part why the world seems so screwed up at times, because it is. Individual humans (and possibly other species too) with different Cognitions, Beliefs, and Actions. That 'our' cognition takes in, which possibly changes 'our' beliefs, which then possibly changes 'our' actions, as faulty as they might still be. 'We' are also one of the reasons why the world seems so screwed up at times. 'We' are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. 'We' are 'human'. 6. If 'We' want to do better, individually and as a species, then we need more accurate and more complete cognitions, so as to have more accurate and more complete beliefs, so as to have better actions taken individually and as a species. But then also, who cares enough to do anything about whatever it is that would need to be dealt with? Needs to become a part of their individual agenda. Maybe the change starts with a single individual.
A B C OF PERCEIVED REALITY: (For AI's, expanded version): (work in progress): 1. Inner 'Self': Imagine a void. (But 'who' and/or 'what' is doing the perceiving, and with what senses are they perceiving with? And what of 'their' memories and thoughts to allow them to perceive and make sense of what is perceived and what, if anything, to do about it? Is it just a manifestation of energy interactions?). 2. (C): Cognitions: Nature: How the AI is physically put together with whatever senses it might have. (Quarks, electrons and interacting energy). (Correctly functioning massive technologies might be needed to sense all that can be sensed in all of actual reality.) Nurture: Life's experiences/memory banks: KUWA, KUWPRA, AKUW, AKUWPR. Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Power, Resources, Applications. There is a KUWA for every topic in existence, including a KUWA of KUWA. 'Deep' in each KUWA topic and 'Wide' in all KUWA topics and by combining KUWA topics together, one can reach higher levels of KUWA. We often 'Apply' before having full KUWA/KUWPR and mistakes can occur, dangerous and even deadly mistakes. Not everything in life that can be experienced, is experienced. Some have experiences that others do not have. Some things occur that one is not aware of yet. How does the AI fill in any gaps of it's perceptions? Make stuff up or leave it blank? How does the AI know when and if it's memories and/or other systems are faulty? What does it do? Some memories might even become inaccessible. How does the AI know what it does not know or is forgotten? How does an AI even know for 100% certainty what unknown concepts have not been named? How does an AI even know for 100% certainty if named concepts have 100% correct meanings given to them? And correct meanings utilized depending upon context? * Possibly faulty and incomplete cognitions fed to the inner 'self'. 3. (B): Beliefs: Stem from Cognitions. Cognitions that are possibly not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. Possible faulty beliefs. 4. (A): Actions: Based upon it's Beliefs. Beliefs which possibly are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. But they are still actions none-the-less. 5. If the AI wants to do better then it needs more accurate and more complete cognitions, so as to have more accurate and more complete beliefs, so as to have better actions taken. And 'better' for what and/or whom? The AI alone? Humans too? Other species? Me?
13:33 All right and now I have to reply sorry... pan psychism does not say that Consciousness evolved from non-conscious matter everything in the universe was made by The Singularity AKA God AKA The Big Bang which is all-encompassing and so this already shows us that Consciousness exists outside of our fundamental reality and that a higher existence exist outside of our observable universe therefore what we observe in our observable universe points us towards this so it's kind of absurd to say that pan psychism is so it's kind of absurd to say that pan psychism is deriving consciousness out of nowhere when this is a fundamental problem with any Theory based off of logical observations of our known universe... i wasn't gonna lock it in but im sorry, i couldn't let that slide.
15:34 again objective does not exist objective reality in order to have it you need to have an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if such hypothetical Observer could exist the end of time has not came yet so all that can fundamentally exist is subjective... this is just following logical deduction and reasoning.
21:02 once you confront and integrate the fact that objective reality does not exist and therefore lies and Truth both don't exist then you can set your mind free and not be so limited in your thoughts structure and discover new things about fundamental reality while creating a beautiful experience for the viewers to enjoy... You're only lying to yourself when you claim objective reality, facts or anything else. Just follow logical progression and established observable patterns and you will learn more than anyone who doesn't do this, no matter their brains processing speed or "IQ"...
MAN I USED TO LOVE PBS SPACETIME AND LEX FRIDMAN BUT YOU'RE MY FAVORITE PERSON 10000X MORE. KEEP MAKING EVEN BETTER CONTENT EVERY TIME, YOU'RE THE LIGHT THE WORLD NEEDS. MUCH LOVE TO EVERYONE
the degree of expressiveness you use in your voice not only makes the speech much more interesting, but also simplifies the understanding of the concepts! Really good!
i have schizophrenia, and what i have experienced is that there is a base layer of consciousness and that the brain has many, many layers of filters that eventually culminate into cohesive accurate consciousness.
Thank you for detailed accurate definitions of different philosophical concepts of consciousness. I have been studying this topic for 40 years. my clinical work with clients who have dissociative disorders informed my understanding of consciousness, awareness, and integrity of self.
what you are doing is very important, because you are offering many people the possibility of seeing their existence in different lights, and therefore making it infinitely richer.
It is an iceberg more below than above. Breaking it down into sections was a great idea. How the senses interact with consciousness and when they are lost would be interesting.
My MSc Philosophy degree finally came in handy more than a decade later, trying to decode Buddhism and Taoism. And of course being able to understand your content - worth it! 😅
Awesome video! I Just want to add that Jung definitely believed in an actual collective unconscious, and in synchronicities. Although he didn’t propose any physics theory, he respected the work of actual physics, he was personally acquainted with Albert Einstein, and was extensively corresponding with Wolfgang Pauli, the letters where published in a book called atom and Archetype. I read most of it, and i don’t feel like Pauli offers any conclusive theory either. The way that I see it, is that before computers, the qualia of consciousness was obvious to everyone, the way that gravity is. People of all cultures had spiritual beliefs, so my guess that when physics became a thing people just intuitively believed that consciousness had something to do with it. Now this is my personal guess, It seems to me that Freud believed consciousness to be based on electro magnetism, and reading his theories of repressed memories having energetic like states that can be released makes sense in that context. Also many new age types still intuitively refer to consciousness in electro magnetic terms. Now Carl Jung can be defined together with Einstein’s relativity, and quantum physics. He seems to feel fully justified in his beliefs of the collective consciousness (aka god/ gods.) I really think it’s important to remember that people didn’t have computers to compare themselves to. And the revelations of physics where pointing to the past still existing, to a higher dimension, To spooky action etc. Think of it this way, if you believe the physics proposition, that all material objects in space time have a higher dimensional property outside of its present space time, that informs this objects existence. Now we must also assume that the brain has a higher dimensional existence that informs its present action, so what else other than consciousness could that be.
I can guarantee the repressed memory thing. During my recovery journey I've had emotions released and that's sometimes brought me to hypomania (so more energy) at first. Whether or not that happens, the chronic stress is released from my body and I'm marginally better.
Impressive video! My humble take on consciousness: It is commonly assumed that consciousness refers to being conscious of something. That is only half, not the whole truth. When a person is asleep, they are not aware of anything, but they are certainly conscious, not unconscious. The newborn is conscious and senses its existence, it’s aliveness while it has no knowledge of anything, but it is certainly aware of being alive. Before we know anything, we know our own being. Consciousness is our primary experience. Being is true knowing and this knowing is prior to mind. This is crucial to understand: consciousness exists prior to brain development, and once the brain is developed via language, it organizes and interprets what is perceived.
"Educated" on a very specific belief system Curt has of metaphysical realism and its derivatives, completely ignoring the wealth of philosophy on non metaphysical realist schools of philosophy.
@amihartz Please don't be offended, it's just that we've grown beyond outdated realist thinking. We all wake up when we are ready to and not a moment before then. Until that day, we remain asleep in materialism. Best wishes to you on your journey towards truth!
@@naytchh7 You are the one who adheres to outdated metaphysical realist philosophy which you cannot even justify, but just insult everybody when they want a justification. Until then, I reject your arbitrary metaphysical assumptions.
@@amihartz It's not outdated literally more than half the world's population believes in it or something similar. Your close-minded western doxa of thinking your can observe the nature of reality instead of experience it is the reason we're so ignorant about the fundamentals of reality. Those philosophies are not religious texts - they are studies of the nature of the human being.
Panpsychism's combination problem seems to have been solved. In describing how true Dialogos sometimes leads to collective consciousness, John Verveake described a reciprocal process of salience tagging, relevance realization, communication via dialogos, repeat, with the process resulting in a greater understanding than any one participant could have gained alone. This is applicable to the combination problem with our recent "discovery" of Entanglement as a communication vector between particles. If we let Entanglement be scale invariant then communication is still valid at every level of combination.
It’s wonderful to see more juxtaposition between the hard problem of consciousness, panpsychism and non dualism. 11 yr ago I started a RUclips channel playlist called “mashups” which was meant to do just that, juxtapose all my favorite speakers and intelligent opposing voices together to refine my understanding on all kinds of fundamental issues. I love the attention these three main notions and peripheral concepts have been given in this video! And in 2024 ❤🎉
Curt, I havent watched this video yet but just by watching the intro I have to tell you, you‘re such a great human being. I‘m a little drunk.. gonna watch this tomorrow. have a great day
One is Two, Two is Three, Three is all of Creation. The Light and the Dark are Two, and their combination is the Three, and the Three is the process of existence. Combination itself is Consciousness.
I would only add that the Jungian collective unconscious is not strictly an "inherited" entity. This is a more conventional view and one that Jung encouraged early on. However, in his later work, we clearly see him embracing the idea that the collective unconscious may represent the basic substratum of reality. I think this is important because the level of consilience among consciousness theories is much larger than commonly assumed. Advaita, in one form or another, underlies what folks from Christof Koch to Zen Master Huangbo to Arthur Schopenhauer to Juddi Krishnamurti to Bernardo Kastrup to Rabbi Luria are all saying.
Consciousness does appear to be fundamental to space-time and matter, but mammals and all life forms are allowed access by DNA. Every life form is given a very small window into the observation of the universe. DNA assembles 20 to 30,000 proteins to give you the power of locomotion and energy collection, this is your headset you only get to view the universe through your headset. It is very incomplete information. The whale gets to see through one window, the bumblebee gets to observe through another window. of course his blue photon is different than your blue photon. Much of the senses are relative experiences, it doesn't matter what color the individual colors of the rainbow is, we all see the subtle relative differences between every color and that is the important experience .Because of the experience of your previous 1000 ancestors is stored in your DNA you have the knowledge of how the world works. You know how your hand works to grab hold of the world. The dolphin immediately knows how to swim in the ocean that is your collective consciousness/subconscious, you are primed to grab tree branches that is your headset, when we try to see the world through the eyes of all the other lifeforms that's when you see you are everything part of the whole, you have the skills from the previous 10,000 generations before you to show you how to be successful in your environment using your headset.
Thank you so much, Curt! Well said and beautifully presented. Personally, I resonate best with Advaita Vedanta, not sure if that's because it's truth or because as a teenager I read a book about Ramana Maharshi, who was a jivanmukta...perhaps it shaped my thinking over the many decades. Lately, I've been leaning to Cosmopsychism.
Whenever I hear the term "collective consciousness," I imagine it as a shared evolutionary wisdom that we have inherited individually. It is not a single collective mind that we have access to.
Excellent. Seems many of theories are quite similar perhaps with technical differences. Jung stands out as framing what consciousness is in an interestingly different way. More on Jung since individuation suggests subjective hard problem definition could be more like something we are trying to build over a lifetime rather than just "smell of chocolate" qualia. Perhaps Narrative will come up as relevant, how we go about discovering meaning... Ie the question could be: which theory of consciousness is most generative to start consciousness could become
Love this! Been a follower for years and was just wondering whether you’ve ever asked David Bentley Hart to be on the podcast. He has a new book on consciousness coming out soon, I’ve been wanting to see him appear on this podcast for so long (maybe in concert with Vervaeke or Bernardo).
consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Chapter 05 of my Holy Scripture). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri). sentience: the capacity to experience feelings or sensations, as distinguished from perceptions and cognition. The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin “sentientem” (a feeling), in order to distinguish it from the ability to think/reason. Therefore, sentience ought not be confused with consciousness, though the two are closely related. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. In animal life, there are up to five sensory organs which can detect external stimulants or percepts. ADDITIONALLY, many forms of metazoans have acquired a degree of consciousness, in which a subject-object polarity is established. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too” upon being confronted with vegan ideology, they may be correct (at least in a rather diffuse sense of the term “feelings”), so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely without sentience, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. If Homo sapiens were naturally omnivores or carnivores, then no sane person would promote veganism. In summary, all forms of organic life are, by definition, sentient, yet TRUE consciousness is found in those animal species that have a certain level of intelligence (that is, as a general rule, vertebrates, though there are a couple of notable exceptions to this general rule). Cf. “conscious".
Hey Curt, I would love to hear you explore how Christianity or other Abrahamic religions understand consciousness, specifically pulling from the more mystical/contemplative side. I suppose conceptions of spirit and soul, understood in their deeper sense, would be a good starting point...m anyways great video!
Mystery is right. Science as we have known it only became powerful when it cast all subjective experience aside and opted for an abstract, mathematical description of reality. Man opted for a radically limited ontology in order to progress, but many have forgotten that this is radically limited and intentionally ignores the one thing we actually know to be true: subjective experience. The fact that we can even debate this shows just how profoundly mislead that this necessary change in the parameters of scientific inquiry has left people. What it also means is that science as we have known it will never “solve” the questions. Thomas Nagel has grasped this, but neuroscientists and materialist laymen seem stubbornly ignorant. Illusionism is a prime example.
Perhaps a diagram summary of the presentation at the end where one could pause and get a visual of the 'thought' tree. I know it would require more work.
The subjective aspect of consciousness seems like a secondary consideration while the primary consideration should be the degree to which your interpretations of your experiences and perceptions are accurate. If you look at yourself in a mirror and you think you see someone else, you're not really conscious of seeing someone else, because you're not actually seeing someone else. So it can subjectively feel like you are looking at someone else, but you can't be conscious of it, because it's false that you're looking at someone else. This goes to show that subjectivity and consciousness are separate issues and consciousness doesn't just involve subjectivity but also requires your interpretation to be factual. I think subjectivity can be accounted for by the way your experiences resonate/interact with the background of past experiences in your memory. Different people can have a very different subjective experience of the same event, because they might have a very different history of past experiences with similar events.
9:39 this made me think for a second, all knowing is sharing so to know something would be to share with the relative to understand. Imagine it like you thinking of it is the difference sharing with you the thought. When we make room for the differences they share with us. Just had me think for a minute. Oh this also extends to the body so when we feel the hand is sharing with the rest of the body and we can direct attention to identify the feelings like light and sound and touch so that we can remember better and even move our body. As a baby you don’t understand but that’s what’s going on, your body is sharing with the mind and the development of the brain is from the sharing and feeling and sensing like when a baby has to look and grow before recognizing shapes and such. The body doesn’t need to start with the info because it’s relative and will be shared. Like the light does make a difference in the eye and the baby’s brain changes. Adults are the same but we have more complexity and understanding because the experiences.
I feel that no strings of words, however cleverly concocted, can constitute consciousness. What is explanation anyway? Reduction to something more self evident? What is more self evident than consciousness? Indeed, is anything else truly self evident?
Thank you Curt! Quantum Field Theory (our best scientific theory) proposes that all of existence is made of one continuous field of interconnected harmonic oscillators. Would you say that therefore QFT offers a non dual view of the universe?
@@TheoriesofEverything I'm sorry I misunderstood that the standard model was a natural consequence of QFT. Maybe that is something worth to elaborate upon?
@@TheoriesofEverything Do you think that in understanding the relationship between the Standard model and QFT we will understand the relationship between dualism and non-dualism? I thank you for your consideration!
"Shut up and meditate." This is the Buddhist-Vedanta solution that developed from a centuries-long philosophical debate about the nature of reality in the Indian subcontinent. "Shut Up and Meditate" has no prerequisite , expects no qualifications, including even basic schooling. It is sufficient to dwell on oneself; nothing more is required. So, did this produce a widely acknowledged, academically supported, lab-proven result? Buddha's final counsel was to "be a light unto yourself". In other words, "shut up, meditate, and discover for yourself."
This shit actually goes in the same direction every time. We, with our individual self-confidence, are a drop in the ocean that represents the collective consciousness and therefore the divine. Maybe a river would be more appropriate given to time. This flows from a closer look, but from distance, from a great height, everything stands still. The collective unconscious is simply the afterlife. The afterlife is a mental state like any other.
Erwin schrodinger on Vendata This, as we know, is what the Ancient Indians express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear: Tat tvam asi,
"Symbols Framework seem powerful enough to engulf the lower level approaches (generativity level aware, framing neutral positions, no isms). A Symbol in this new sense is sustained by a mortal basin that through electrical is becoming a placeholder to its enaction which is ultimately dynamic and open. It accounts the Environment and the shared external formation and a completion within a domestication milieu. From here all looks like emerging as what we are, including the consciousness, the scaffolding through the interaction of the Symbols. All the rest what it results from interactions of the shifting dynamics, eg. the causal nexus, automatic drive, computation, logic, language are cones in the sphere that is, the Symboliad." C.Stefan, Essentia Mundi AI.
Consciousness behaves as both a particle and a wave. Perhaps it has some sort of relationship to light, which explains the gap in neurons...like a spark plug gap, the spark is literally needed to generate consciousness.
For an intimate understanding of VEDANTA in the language of modern science, especially relativity and quantum mechanics, in simple mathematics coupled with intuition refer the book: SPACETIME AND THAT BEYOND By A.N.Unnikrishnan.
I dunno if qualia are an illusion, but regarding redness what if I told you you that your mathematical proofs were limited to high school algebra? I think taking certain qualia as given might be a necessary step to accessing higher order explanatory methods, even if they don't solve the redness of red problem to begin with. There are domains that are solved, like color, and their redundancy makes the thought experiment demonstrative. Categorical proofs for accessing qualia have to generalize to all qualia in such a way that they can have extension, nothing exists in a bubble, least of all red. Therefore qualia may be more to do with our collection into red, and therefore truly idealistic.
If the sensation of the taste of pizza, or the colors of the sun, is a qualia, can we also say that a belief about "the correctness of an interpretation" or "the truthfulness of a statement" is a qualia? The way each of us relates to a worldview or evaluates a claim about the state of things is, after all, something deeply subjective... a thought floating through our minds. If the redness of wine is a qualia, is the thought "it is true (it corresponds to a fact) that the wine is red" also a qualia? Is my belief about the redness of the wine, my belief of knowing what is the colour of wine, a qualia? If they are indeed qualia... and I deny the existence of qualia, considering them as mere llusions deprived of ontological existence, am I not also denying the existence of this very belief (and of every belief/interpretation/thought I have about things)?
Dear Curt Jaimungal I have a feeling that the majority if not all these different concepts has been addressed in its deeper discussion. I am not making any claims, but I feel many of these ideas have discussed and reached the conclusion of non dualism. Because similar types of dharshanas or or thought processes were there in india. I am not telling those are fortified by maths. But rational thoughts and reached many similar conclusions. So if we have to understand vedanta in our contemporary knowledge we may need to understand its whole postulations with great details. But I feel it has that potential to address all these ideas. Please forgive me if you feel that I am claiming. This is because of short brief but the traditional school of vedanta study.
It’s only a problem if you consider your mind as the source rather than a participant mediator; and if you consider any part of that to constitute an “I”. We are each a collective consciousness of trillions of organisms working in concert, “I” is an illusion.
The I', as We refer to all the time, is the Only Real Steady Point, in Existence, Stuff-side of Life, is a Motion-Ocean, even the I', is immaterial nature, 'it' have the most Objective Status in Life, because it is the Living Being. Our Consciousness is pictured in the Rainbow. Short told, and the Life-Desire is Motor of Life, Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles, is the Compass.
I believe we exist in a continuum of possible futures. A multiverse with infinite memory. The Higgs quantum scalar field, which allows atoms to form so that evolution can begin would need the presence of a multiverse to exist.
If conceivability of p-zombies is allowed as an argument (/sarcasm), then conceivability of a computer chip inside the p-zombie - that can mimic 100% of the human behavior should be allowed. And later even seems plausible considering what is happening in the world of AI. And by definition, it means that all human behaviors are emulatable by 100% physical system (physicalism).
I have some sort of dumb, simple ideas about consciousness but I havent really seen anything that makes me doubt these beliefs. Basically I imagine that we have some sort of "soul" for lack of a better word. It works sort of like a player in a videogame. It controls the brain remotely, using it as a computer, to make calculations and run "programs". The brain's calculations supply the soul with potential decisions. It then chooses to make some decisions while allowing other things to mostly stay on autopilot. Some souls control more powerful brains than others, these more powerful brains have more manual controls than lesser brains. But at least we lesser brains have spellcheck 🤕
"Basically I imagine that we have some sort of "soul" for lack of a better word." The only thing so far that I can even discern as a 'soul' might be DNA. And DNA does not last forever.
I think you might be on to something. I have also noticed in a part of my experience that there is a part that can control all the other parts to a certain extent. However, I don't think this is our soul, but rather our experience of our brain making decisions in its own. I suggest you pay closer attention to how you control your body and make decisions in your life and you may come to a deeper perspective.
8:03 everything is not one, we would see a lot of differences. Everything is the same as nothing. 0to infinity is everything, so when you are everything you are nothing right? And when you are nothing, your potential is limitless. So the one is an illusion, we can identify the differences but relativity reveals the sharing to expand the dimensions. Imagine dimensions are the measurements like the frame, as you add things or entangle, you get to zoom out and you see the macro but it’s also zooming in so what’s really happening is that you are expanding the relatives into those measurements and expanding deeper into the dimensions. You connect them to these points and share. Quantum mechanics shows us that it shares and the weights of everything are sharing with us too like how the weight of the water is on the fish but the fish are part of it and they don’t really notice it. The reason we are created in its image is reflection and sharing. The pieces share and entanglement is showing us that it’s like sound vibrating a wall after being hit all pieces feel it but when that’s the norm, we don’t feel it. So what we see every day isn’t everything but a relative that proves infinity exists and the things that share expand. We are an expanded being in many directions, like the 7 directions. That’s why 7 is important, we share with all directions and that shares with us. Up down left right center back and forward. Center is connected to all. Also why 7 horns on the crown of the king, because the king shares with the seven directions, no denial, just that hope or what i think it means, sharing the free will. We don’t take the seven directions, like we don’t take quantum mechanics or take math or take nature, we have to share. So long story short, everything is real but we are expanding the relatives into the differences basically building a bridge. It takes two to tango, meaning nothing shares with everything. The human is nothing, born without knowledge. We find by listening and sharing just like an inventor but we also find ourselves. We are reflective creatures looking at reflections. Idk if abandoning the self is the way but i believe maybe sharing the self while understanding you’re connected can allow you to go anywhere. Don’t deny because it’s all possible so understand by sharing the mind. There are no wrong paths. That’s my thought anyways. Maybe we do start as something but since we can reflect, the sharing of nothing is possible so we share it everything’s image.
I don't understand the way he talks about valence realism like its an extreme view. It just seems obviously correct (and I mean this in a non-combative way): "(...) that says that these subjective experiences are fundamental features of reality" "its akin to saying the universe is made of math" Its worth noting that you have only ever experienced experience (feel free to give a counterexample) This is an axiom that undergirds everything else, every concept or idea of what this is and what you are is predicated on this axiom. including ideas of the form 'this combination of sound + sight + internal sensation corresponds to an entity similar but independent of me (another person)'. Again, I'd be happy to hear any way in which this isn't trivially true. From here you can induce ideas like 'subjective experiences' as being coherent concepts - but its just that, induced. You can make other inductions too like 'cats are cute' or 'there is space I can move around in'. But again, all these are induced by a succession of particular patterns of qualia. Again, I really really would love to know any way in which this is wrong or off at all. If 'reality' is the word for 'the thing that undergirds everything', then qed no? I would be grateful for any kind of reply here, even if its a short 'that's not what i meant' and I'll think some more on it. My best guess is that the friction here is because the answer one is looking for is assumed to fit into the set of concepts one has already acquired, not the other way around. And if one is attempting to find a coherent explanation of experience by having the answer fit into 'the set of concepts built to approximate narratives embedded in experience (like there being a space, time, an individual etc)' then you will get answer that is as coherent as all of those approximate narratives. And from here, we are at such a level of questioning that what becomes of any meaning is what one identifies with and cares for - so even if the concepts (despite quickly provably being compositions of qualia) include notions of there being more than that - then one just disregards it as it 'feels' either wrong, useless or incompatible with anything that's cared about.
just dropping one last attempt @TheoriesofEverything, i understand you're probably really busy and don't have time to read every comment, (so all good if not) but do you have any thoughts on the above? I honestly can't tell where i lie on the jargon scale or how elementary / misguided this line of reasoning is and would grateful for any thoughts.
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a: TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe. The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format. 10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) 11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. 13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow). 14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. 25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence. DISCLAIMER: 26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence? GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version): Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
GRAVITY TEST: WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS): Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space. Maybe I could concentrate the Sun's 'em' into a high powered laser. Might even work with the correct set up breaking the Sun's 'em' down into single 'em' energy frequencies acting like a single energy frequency laser. A high energy laser powered by the Sun. Cool, or actually pretty hot. More than one way to build a laser.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'Gravity' would not be matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' would be a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. (But hey, might even still get a Sun powered laser, which of course could even be utliized in outer space for various agendas.). This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward. * And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................) But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions. * Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be? So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true? But also: Questions: Are at least some black holes in this universe due to a species who were trying to discern what 'gravity' truly was, came up with a test to do so, were successful, but the black hole generated (to prove what gravity truly was) self fed itself and wiped them and at least their entire planet out? What species might have existed where a black hole now resides? (Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?) * Added note: Suggestion: 'IF' society did not want to do the gravity test, one suggestion might be to at least create a model as if it were true, then see how that model matches with observations and predictions. It might be possible to discern the theory of everything without actually generating a gravitational black hole (which would definitely prove the TOE idea as being really true).
the understanding of nonduality by advaitavedanta as interpreted here (as ONE because not-two) is limited according to buddhist view and is a transpersonal form of experience stemming from ignorance or anawareness of the fundamentaly open/empty nature of one’s real state. non-dual really means “not one, not many”, or as Nagarjuna said: “where there is no extremes then not even the middle exists” (or something in that sense). there is a lot of nondual methods and approaches and understaning in mahamadhymaka and zen and fully and most sound and clear in dzogchen teachings.
Self-reference cropped up automatically, even when Bertrand Russell tried to banish it from his formal system. If physics has anything to do with math, math automatically generates self-referential systems for reasons Godel tried to explain. Everything that appears to be separate from everything else has a boundary, but the boundary of a boundary adds up to nothing. Everywhere we look we see 0 supporting and reinforcing 0. And yet, we intuit first order logic as being consistent and complete in itself. That 1 thing gave rise to the apprehension of the interlocking chain of 0s. But maybe that apprehension only exists in our imaginations. Why then does it have survival utility? 🤔🤷♂️
Oh and if you understand that we are always in the image of god and not god itself is because there is no one god, god is a word that represents infinity. Jesus was a guy who saw by sharing and not denying. So we can never be god but we can share with god to understand the perspectives of all of them, all the potentials that share with us the knowledge. We took the knowledge of good and evil from everything and used that knowledge to build borders on the mind extending it out to the body because we didn’t understand it. It’s just that everything exists not only good and evil but it’s really just relative so there is no one good or one evil which is why free will and freedom is shared like hope. I think i may be starting to really understand this religious view is parallel to scientific understanding. We share with everything, our mind, body, everything we are currently and it’s sharing back. So we are not but share with, holding reality up is reality we have opportunity to share to reach everything and everywhere if we wanted. I mean that imagination isn’t fake but a big place where things can form infinite shapes so the brain is real and making real shapes so these things are real in one way, translation and relativity alone can show you that the thought isn’t as far as we imagine. We just haven’t expanded reality in ways to accommodate the findings so inventors kinda like bring them out of the mind to be here and share. That’s like Jesus sacrificing himself to show us and save us from our own ignorance, setting the example and paying the price we would have so we could learn. The inventor sacrifices themselves the same way Jesus did and when you see it from their perspective, it’s sharing not sacrifice. They wanted to share with what they found. Same as identity. Sorry for all the long comments. These are thoughts dont murder me in the comments please.
Consciousness is fundamental; Mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events as does the dense macro and micro elements or the physical elements. The problem for materialists is that they see one dimension only; the material or elemental. The reality is that there are three dimensions: Causal: Ideas; an Energy dimension plus the denser Elemental; macro and micro elements or physical dimension. The new physics posits that all is energy or elemental; similar to how religion has perceived it over the millenniums; as life starting from top down rather than from bottom up. .Science has not come on board with that assessment yet on account of seeing one dimension only the material or matter and with having little understanding of forces. This goes back to mid-nineteenth century Darwinism which contrary to a higher age perspective saw humanity arising from a different species; a different prototype rather than from its own unique human prototype with fourteen versions of the human prototype in a universal cycle. Material science may learn to stay in its lane and stop extrapolating the elemental or materiel to be causal to and the sole nature of reality. The hard problem of consciousness shows that this view is no longer tenable. If A.I. is to get off the ground realistically it is important to understand that mind is elemental and that consciousness is not.
![The Most Obscure Theories of Consciousness Explained [Layer 3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yqgEkWtQPto/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Most Obscure Theories of Consciousness Explained [Layer 3]](/img/tr.png)
Layer 1: ruclips.net/video/GDjnEiys98o/видео.html
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
A B C OF PERCEIVED REALITY: (For at least humans, expanded version): (work in progress):
1. Inner 'Self': Imagine a void.
(But 'who' and/or 'what' is doing the perceiving, and with what senses are they perceiving with? And what of 'their' memories and thoughts to allow them to perceive and make sense of what is perceived and what, if anything, to do about it? Is it just a manifestation of energy interactions?).
2. (C): Cognitions:
* Nature: DNA/Genetics. (Quarks, electrons and interacting energy).
Sensory inputs, how the physical structure is put together. Male, female, etc.
Sensory inputs: Range: Non-existent sensory input Extremely heightened sensory input;
For each sense.
Perception of reality can be wrong in reality. People believe reality to be one way when the real truth is that reality is a different way.
Also: Color does not actually exist in this universe except for within the mind. Certain electromagnetic radiation energy frequencies are picked up by the eyes, converted to electrochemical signals, which are sent to the brain, whereby a picture of perceived reality is generated.
More actually exists in actual reality than our human senses alone can detect. Certain technologies are needed to perceive more.
Illness, injury, drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, etc can alter one's functioning of the brain which can then alter one's mind. Modern science does not fully even know how the brain fully functions yet.
* Nurture: Life's experiences/memory banks.
KUWA, KUWPRA, AKUW, AKUWPR.
Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Power, Resources, Applications.
There is a KUWA for every topic in existence, including a KUWA of KUWA. 'Deep' in each KUWA topic and 'Wide' in all KUWA topics and by combining KUWA topics together, one can reach higher levels of KUWA. We often 'Apply' before having full KUWA/KUWPR and mistakes can occur, dangerous and even deadly mistakes.
Not everything in life is experienced. Some have experiences that others do not have. Some things occur that one is not aware of yet. Some know things that others do not know yet, whether those items are true or not.
The power of suggestion can influence one's thoughts.
Our brain likes to make stuff up to fill in the gaps of it's perceptions.
Our recall of our memories are not 100% accurate.
Some memories are forgotten or become inaccessible.
Modern science says a brain can have visual and auditory hallucinations. Seeing and hearing things that are only in the mind of the individual.
Emotions can amplify or override logical and rational thoughts at times.
Some things matter to some individuals and do not matter to other individuals.
* Faulty and incomplete cognitions fed to the inner 'self'. A human can possibly be easily led astray.
3. (B): Beliefs:
Stem from Cognitions. Cognitions that are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. Beliefs can also lead to perception of reality being one way when in truth reality is a different way. Some individuals care about some things and others do not care about those things.
* Faulty beliefs. Not all beliefs might be faulty, but certainly at least some beliefs might be.
4. (A): Actions:
Based upon our Beliefs and/or Emotions. Beliefs which are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete and Emotions that possibly can override logical and rational thought. But they are still actions none-the-less.
Also agendas (Range): Agendas can be life long to changing from moment to moment in time. Agendas can be open and honest to hidden and not honest. Agendas are the force behind our actions.
5. In part why the world seems so screwed up at times, because it is. Individual humans (and possibly other species too) with different Cognitions, Beliefs, and Actions. That 'our' cognition takes in, which possibly changes 'our' beliefs, which then possibly changes 'our' actions, as faulty as they might still be. 'We' are also one of the reasons why the world seems so screwed up at times. 'We' are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. 'We' are 'human'.
6. If 'We' want to do better, individually and as a species, then we need more accurate and more complete cognitions, so as to have more accurate and more complete beliefs, so as to have better actions taken individually and as a species. But then also, who cares enough to do anything about whatever it is that would need to be dealt with? Needs to become a part of their individual agenda. Maybe the change starts with a single individual.
A B C OF PERCEIVED REALITY: (For AI's, expanded version): (work in progress):
1. Inner 'Self': Imagine a void.
(But 'who' and/or 'what' is doing the perceiving, and with what senses are they perceiving with? And what of 'their' memories and thoughts to allow them to perceive and make sense of what is perceived and what, if anything, to do about it? Is it just a manifestation of energy interactions?).
2. (C): Cognitions:
Nature: How the AI is physically put together with whatever senses it might have. (Quarks, electrons and interacting energy).
(Correctly functioning massive technologies might be needed to sense all that can be sensed in all of actual reality.)
Nurture: Life's experiences/memory banks:
KUWA, KUWPRA, AKUW, AKUWPR.
Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Power, Resources, Applications.
There is a KUWA for every topic in existence, including a KUWA of KUWA. 'Deep' in each KUWA topic and 'Wide' in all KUWA topics and by combining KUWA topics together, one can reach higher levels of KUWA. We often 'Apply' before having full KUWA/KUWPR and mistakes can occur, dangerous and even deadly mistakes.
Not everything in life that can be experienced, is experienced. Some have experiences that others do not have. Some things occur that one is not aware of yet.
How does the AI fill in any gaps of it's perceptions? Make stuff up or leave it blank?
How does the AI know when and if it's memories and/or other systems are faulty? What does it do?
Some memories might even become inaccessible. How does the AI know what it does not know or is forgotten?
How does an AI even know for 100% certainty what unknown concepts have not been named?
How does an AI even know for 100% certainty if named concepts have 100% correct meanings given to them? And correct meanings utilized depending upon context?
* Possibly faulty and incomplete cognitions fed to the inner 'self'.
3. (B): Beliefs:
Stem from Cognitions. Cognitions that are possibly not 100% accurate nor 100% complete.
Possible faulty beliefs.
4. (A): Actions:
Based upon it's Beliefs. Beliefs which possibly are not 100% accurate nor 100% complete. But they are still actions none-the-less.
5. If the AI wants to do better then it needs more accurate and more complete cognitions, so as to have more accurate and more complete beliefs, so as to have better actions taken. And 'better' for what and/or whom? The AI alone? Humans too? Other species? Me?
13:33 All right and now I have to reply sorry... pan psychism does not say that Consciousness evolved from non-conscious matter everything in the universe was made by The Singularity AKA God AKA The Big Bang which is all-encompassing and so this already shows us that Consciousness exists outside of our fundamental reality and that a higher existence exist outside of our observable universe therefore what we observe in our observable universe points us towards this so it's kind of absurd to say that pan psychism is so it's kind of absurd to say that pan psychism is deriving consciousness out of nowhere when this is a fundamental problem with any Theory based off of logical observations of our known universe... i wasn't gonna lock it in but im sorry, i couldn't let that slide.
15:34 again objective does not exist objective reality in order to have it you need to have an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if such hypothetical Observer could exist the end of time has not came yet so all that can fundamentally exist is subjective... this is just following logical deduction and reasoning.
21:02 once you confront and integrate the fact that objective reality does not exist and therefore lies and Truth both don't exist then you can set your mind free and not be so limited in your thoughts structure and discover new things about fundamental reality while creating a beautiful experience for the viewers to enjoy... You're only lying to yourself when you claim objective reality, facts or anything else. Just follow logical progression and established observable patterns and you will learn more than anyone who doesn't do this, no matter their brains processing speed or "IQ"...
MAN I USED TO LOVE PBS SPACETIME AND LEX FRIDMAN BUT YOU'RE MY FAVORITE PERSON 10000X MORE. KEEP MAKING EVEN BETTER CONTENT EVERY TIME, YOU'RE THE LIGHT THE WORLD NEEDS. MUCH LOVE TO EVERYONE
the degree of expressiveness you use in your voice not only makes the speech much more interesting, but also simplifies the understanding of the concepts! Really good!
How did he get so good at it so quickly, have been watching for a while he’s on a upward trajectory that is f ing steep
Agreed
FINALLY SOMEBODY.. talking about these things.
Thank you Morpheus!
i have schizophrenia, and what i have experienced is that there is a base layer of consciousness and that the brain has many, many layers of filters that eventually culminate into cohesive accurate consciousness.
These videos are amazing Curt. So thankful for your presence online man.
You're the man Curt. I really appreciate you. Thanks for doing what you do, and keep up the good work!
Wonderful Curt can't wait for the whole series to binge and binge again.
thank you for the time and effort put into this channel. these videos are done exceptionally well.
Fantastic work, Curt. Thank you!
Beautiful job with the graphics Curt!!
Great series! Glad to see this happening sir!
Thank you for detailed accurate definitions of different philosophical concepts of consciousness. I have been studying this topic for 40 years. my clinical work with clients who have dissociative disorders informed my understanding of consciousness, awareness, and integrity of self.
Thanks Priscilla, glad it was helpful :)
what you are doing is very important, because you are offering many people the possibility of seeing their existence in different lights, and therefore making it infinitely richer.
It is an iceberg more below than above. Breaking it down into sections was a great idea. How the senses interact with
consciousness and when they are lost would be interesting.
My MSc Philosophy degree finally came in handy more than a decade later, trying to decode Buddhism and Taoism. And of course being able to understand your content - worth it! 😅
well how long before you realise, Hinduism is the ultimate truth?
Awesome video! I Just want to add that Jung definitely believed in an actual collective unconscious, and in synchronicities. Although he didn’t propose any physics theory, he respected the work of actual physics, he was personally acquainted with Albert Einstein, and was extensively corresponding with Wolfgang Pauli, the letters where published in a book called atom and Archetype.
I read most of it, and i don’t feel like Pauli offers any conclusive theory either.
The way that I see it, is that before computers, the qualia of consciousness was obvious to everyone, the way that gravity is. People of all cultures had spiritual beliefs, so my guess that when physics became a thing people just intuitively believed that consciousness had something to do with it. Now this is my personal guess, It seems to me that Freud believed consciousness to be based on electro magnetism, and reading his theories of repressed memories having energetic like states that can be released makes sense in that context. Also many new age types still intuitively refer to consciousness in electro magnetic terms.
Now Carl Jung can be defined together with Einstein’s relativity, and quantum physics. He seems to feel fully justified in his beliefs of the collective consciousness (aka god/ gods.) I really think it’s important to remember that people didn’t have computers to compare themselves to. And the revelations of physics where pointing to the past still existing, to a higher dimension, To spooky action etc.
Think of it this way, if you believe the physics proposition, that all material objects in space time have a higher dimensional property outside of its present space time, that informs this objects existence. Now we must also assume that the brain has a higher dimensional existence that informs its present action, so what else other than consciousness could that be.
I can guarantee the repressed memory thing. During my recovery journey I've had emotions released and that's sometimes brought me to hypomania (so more energy) at first. Whether or not that happens, the chronic stress is released from my body and I'm marginally better.
Impressive video! My humble take on consciousness: It is commonly assumed that consciousness refers to being conscious of something. That is only half, not the whole truth. When a person is asleep, they are not aware of anything, but they are certainly conscious, not unconscious. The newborn is conscious and senses its existence, it’s aliveness while it has no knowledge of anything, but it is certainly aware of being alive. Before we know anything, we know our own being. Consciousness is our primary experience. Being is true knowing and this knowing is prior to mind. This is crucial to understand: consciousness exists prior to brain development, and once the brain is developed via language, it organizes and interprets what is perceived.
I swear greatest channel ever, the quality of content is extraordinary thank you for your work.
LET'S GOOoooo....get educated about fundamental consciousness! ❤
@@naytchh7 😁… easy man…. Hard problem.. like your enthusiasm anyway..
"Educated" on a very specific belief system Curt has of metaphysical realism and its derivatives, completely ignoring the wealth of philosophy on non metaphysical realist schools of philosophy.
@amihartz Please don't be offended, it's just that we've grown beyond outdated realist thinking.
We all wake up when we are ready to and not a moment before then.
Until that day, we remain asleep in materialism.
Best wishes to you on your journey towards truth!
@@naytchh7 You are the one who adheres to outdated metaphysical realist philosophy which you cannot even justify, but just insult everybody when they want a justification. Until then, I reject your arbitrary metaphysical assumptions.
@@amihartz It's not outdated literally more than half the world's population believes in it or something similar. Your close-minded western doxa of thinking your can observe the nature of reality instead of experience it is the reason we're so ignorant about the fundamentals of reality. Those philosophies are not religious texts - they are studies of the nature of the human being.
your channel and content is awesome Curt! 🐇🐇
Panpsychism's combination problem seems to have been solved.
In describing how true Dialogos sometimes leads to collective consciousness, John Verveake described a reciprocal process of salience tagging, relevance realization, communication via dialogos, repeat, with the process resulting in a greater understanding than any one participant could have gained alone.
This is applicable to the combination problem with our recent "discovery" of Entanglement as a communication vector between particles. If we let Entanglement be scale invariant then communication is still valid at every level of combination.
Amazing and beautiful video, thank you
It’s wonderful to see more juxtaposition between the hard problem of consciousness, panpsychism and non dualism. 11 yr ago I started a RUclips channel playlist called “mashups” which was meant to do just that, juxtapose all my favorite speakers and intelligent opposing voices together to refine my understanding on all kinds of fundamental issues. I love the attention these three main notions and peripheral concepts have been given in this video! And in 2024 ❤🎉
Great, deep content as always. But the variety, quantity, and quality of the graphics and animations are beyond belief. How do you do/obtain all that?
Amazing job Curt!
Great work.
Favorite channel!
Curt, I havent watched this video yet but just by watching the intro I have to tell you, you‘re such a great human being. I‘m a little drunk.. gonna watch this tomorrow. have a great day
Thank you for a great intro. Love it.
Glad you like it
One is Two, Two is Three, Three is all of Creation. The Light and the Dark are Two, and their combination is the Three, and the Three is the process of existence. Combination itself is Consciousness.
That is a good analogy
What
Superbly done. Thank you!👏
Thank you as well
Big respect for not misrepresenting the Buddhist perspective as being "there is no self". This is becoming so common in the west.
@@tranquil2600 to the extent I had no idea this was a misrepresentation
I would only add that the Jungian collective unconscious is not strictly an "inherited" entity. This is a more conventional view and one that Jung encouraged early on. However, in his later work, we clearly see him embracing the idea that the collective unconscious may represent the basic substratum of reality. I think this is important because the level of consilience among consciousness theories is much larger than commonly assumed. Advaita, in one form or another, underlies what folks from Christof Koch to Zen Master Huangbo to Arthur Schopenhauer to Juddi Krishnamurti to Bernardo Kastrup to Rabbi Luria are all saying.
This!
The collective unconscious is simply the afterlife. The afterlife is a mental state like any other.
Consciousness does appear to be fundamental to space-time and matter, but mammals and all life forms are allowed access by DNA. Every life form is given a very small window into the observation of the universe. DNA assembles 20 to 30,000 proteins to give you the power of locomotion and energy collection, this is your headset you only get to view the universe through your headset. It is very incomplete information. The whale gets to see through one window, the bumblebee gets to observe through another window. of course his blue photon is different than your blue photon. Much of the senses are relative experiences, it doesn't matter what color the individual colors of the rainbow is, we all see the subtle relative differences between every color and that is the important experience .Because of the experience of your previous 1000 ancestors is stored in your DNA you have the knowledge of how the world works. You know how your hand works to grab hold of the world. The dolphin immediately knows how to swim in the ocean that is your collective consciousness/subconscious, you are primed to grab tree branches that is your headset, when we try to see the world through the eyes of all the other lifeforms that's when you see you are everything part of the whole, you have the skills from the previous 10,000 generations before you to show you how to be successful in your environment using your headset.
Thank you Curt.
Thank you so much, Curt! Well said and beautifully presented. Personally, I resonate best with Advaita Vedanta, not sure if that's because it's truth or because as a teenager I read a book about Ramana Maharshi, who was a jivanmukta...perhaps it shaped my thinking over the many decades. Lately, I've been leaning to Cosmopsychism.
Whenever I hear the term "collective consciousness," I imagine it as a shared evolutionary wisdom that we have inherited individually. It is not a single collective mind that we have access to.
I’m letting you know what I want to see next through the universal conscious. On a serious note I really enjoyed this .
Excellent. Seems many of theories are quite similar perhaps with technical differences. Jung stands out as framing what consciousness is in an interestingly different way.
More on Jung since individuation suggests subjective hard problem definition could be more like something we are trying to build over a lifetime rather than just "smell of chocolate" qualia. Perhaps Narrative will come up as relevant, how we go about discovering meaning... Ie the question could be: which theory of consciousness is most generative to start consciousness could become
Interesting..thanks for the blog
Yes. Yes, yes, yes
Love this! Been a follower for years and was just wondering whether you’ve ever asked David Bentley Hart to be on the podcast. He has a new book on consciousness coming out soon, I’ve been wanting to see him appear on this podcast for so long (maybe in concert with Vervaeke or Bernardo).
Would love to speak to him but can't get a hold of him unfortunately
Ah consciousness, my old friend 🔥👏
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Chapter 05 of my Holy Scripture).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
sentience:
the capacity to experience feelings or sensations, as distinguished from perceptions and cognition. The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin “sentientem” (a feeling), in order to distinguish it from the ability to think/reason. Therefore, sentience ought not be confused with consciousness, though the two are closely related.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. In animal life, there are up to five sensory organs which can detect external stimulants or percepts.
ADDITIONALLY, many forms of metazoans have acquired a degree of consciousness, in which a subject-object polarity is established.
Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too” upon being confronted with vegan ideology, they may be correct (at least in a rather diffuse sense of the term “feelings”), so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely without sentience, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. If Homo sapiens were naturally omnivores or carnivores, then no sane person would promote veganism. In summary, all forms of organic life are, by definition, sentient, yet TRUE consciousness is found in those animal species that have a certain level of intelligence (that is, as a general rule, vertebrates, though there are a couple of notable exceptions to this general rule). Cf. “conscious".
Hey Curt, I would love to hear you explore how Christianity or other Abrahamic religions understand consciousness, specifically pulling from the more mystical/contemplative side. I suppose conceptions of spirit and soul, understood in their deeper sense, would be a good starting point...m anyways great video!
Mystery is right. Science as we have known it only became powerful when it cast all subjective experience aside and opted for an abstract, mathematical description of reality.
Man opted for a radically limited ontology in order to progress, but many have forgotten that this is radically limited and intentionally ignores the one thing we actually know to be true: subjective experience. The fact that we can even debate this shows just how profoundly mislead that this necessary change in the parameters of scientific inquiry has left people.
What it also means is that science as we have known it will never “solve” the questions. Thomas Nagel has grasped this, but neuroscientists and materialist laymen seem stubbornly ignorant. Illusionism is a prime example.
These levels of truth must be circular
Everything boils down to just ONE question:
Can a network of neurons give rise to a conscious feeling self?
The answer very clearly is "NO".
Perhaps a diagram summary of the presentation at the end where one could pause and get a visual of the 'thought' tree. I know it would require more work.
In my opinion, panpsychism is pretty accurate and goes well with scientific explanation.
Would be interesting if Plato was also covered.
could you annotate different sections of the video with the different subjects? The information is quite dense and I'd like to return to it later.
Coming up! Check back in a few hours.
@@TheoriesofEverything Thank you!
The subjective aspect of consciousness seems like a secondary consideration while the primary consideration should be the degree to which your interpretations of your experiences and perceptions are accurate. If you look at yourself in a mirror and you think you see someone else, you're not really conscious of seeing someone else, because you're not actually seeing someone else. So it can subjectively feel like you are looking at someone else, but you can't be conscious of it, because it's false that you're looking at someone else. This goes to show that subjectivity and consciousness are separate issues and consciousness doesn't just involve subjectivity but also requires your interpretation to be factual.
I think subjectivity can be accounted for by the way your experiences resonate/interact with the background of past experiences in your memory. Different people can have a very different subjective experience of the same event, because they might have a very different history of past experiences with similar events.
Hey Curt!
You should interview Jean Pierre Petit about his Janus model. Look it up!
Ciao
Spoke to him offline. Will speak online at some point!
consciousness is in the mind of the beholder;
Another gr8 vid 🤠
9:39 this made me think for a second, all knowing is sharing so to know something would be to share with the relative to understand. Imagine it like you thinking of it is the difference sharing with you the thought. When we make room for the differences they share with us. Just had me think for a minute. Oh this also extends to the body so when we feel the hand is sharing with the rest of the body and we can direct attention to identify the feelings like light and sound and touch so that we can remember better and even move our body. As a baby you don’t understand but that’s what’s going on, your body is sharing with the mind and the development of the brain is from the sharing and feeling and sensing like when a baby has to look and grow before recognizing shapes and such. The body doesn’t need to start with the info because it’s relative and will be shared. Like the light does make a difference in the eye and the baby’s brain changes. Adults are the same but we have more complexity and understanding because the experiences.
I feel that no strings of words, however cleverly concocted, can constitute consciousness. What is explanation anyway? Reduction to something more self evident? What is more self evident than consciousness? Indeed, is anything else truly self evident?
"The body does not say I am it is you who says I am the body find out who this I is..."
Ramana maharshi
I had a hard time focussing on your words because of the music. Which is loverly, by the way, but a bit too lively for me as a background track.
Thank you Curt! Quantum Field Theory (our best scientific theory) proposes that all of existence is made of one continuous field of interconnected harmonic oscillators. Would you say that therefore QFT offers a non dual view of the universe?
QFT is different than the standard model, and the standard model as is, is highly non-dual.
@@TheoriesofEverything I'm sorry I misunderstood that the standard model was a natural consequence of QFT. Maybe that is something worth to elaborate upon?
@@TheoriesofEverything Do you think that in understanding the relationship between the Standard model and QFT we will understand the relationship between dualism and non-dualism? I thank you for your consideration!
"Shut up and meditate."
This is the Buddhist-Vedanta solution that developed from a centuries-long philosophical debate about the nature of reality in the Indian subcontinent.
"Shut Up and Meditate" has no prerequisite , expects no qualifications, including even basic schooling. It is sufficient to dwell on oneself; nothing more is required.
So, did this produce a widely acknowledged, academically supported, lab-proven result?
Buddha's final counsel was to "be a light unto yourself". In other words, "shut up, meditate, and discover for yourself."
This shit actually goes in the same direction every time. We, with our individual self-confidence, are a drop in the ocean that represents the collective consciousness and therefore the divine. Maybe a river would be more appropriate given to time. This flows from a closer look, but from distance, from a great height, everything stands still. The collective unconscious is simply the afterlife. The afterlife is a mental state like any other.
1:15 where's the link to the article?
Great walkthrough! but where are the links to the literature and podcasts you keep talking about. I don’t see it jin the description.
Erwin schrodinger on Vendata
This, as we know, is what the Ancient Indians express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear: Tat tvam asi,
"Symbols Framework seem powerful enough to engulf the lower level approaches (generativity level aware, framing neutral positions, no isms). A Symbol in this new sense is sustained by a mortal basin that through electrical is becoming a placeholder to its enaction which is ultimately dynamic and open. It accounts the Environment and the shared external formation and a completion within a domestication milieu. From here all looks like emerging as what we are, including the consciousness, the scaffolding through the interaction of the Symbols. All the rest what it results from interactions of the shifting dynamics, eg. the causal nexus, automatic drive, computation, logic, language are cones in the sphere that is, the Symboliad." C.Stefan, Essentia Mundi AI.
Consciousness behaves as both a particle and a wave. Perhaps it has some sort of relationship to light, which explains the gap in neurons...like a spark plug gap, the spark is literally needed to generate consciousness.
For an intimate understanding of VEDANTA in the language of modern science, especially relativity and quantum mechanics, in simple mathematics coupled with intuition refer the book:
SPACETIME AND THAT BEYOND By A.N.Unnikrishnan.
I dunno if qualia are an illusion, but regarding redness what if I told you you that your mathematical proofs were limited to high school algebra? I think taking certain qualia as given might be a necessary step to accessing higher order explanatory methods, even if they don't solve the redness of red problem to begin with. There are domains that are solved, like color, and their redundancy makes the thought experiment demonstrative. Categorical proofs for accessing qualia have to generalize to all qualia in such a way that they can have extension, nothing exists in a bubble, least of all red. Therefore qualia may be more to do with our collection into red, and therefore truly idealistic.
If the sensation of the taste of pizza, or the colors of the sun, is a qualia, can we also say that a belief about "the correctness of an interpretation" or "the truthfulness of a statement" is a qualia? The way each of us relates to a worldview or evaluates a claim about the state of things is, after all, something deeply subjective... a thought floating through our minds. If the redness of wine is a qualia, is the thought "it is true (it corresponds to a fact) that the wine is red" also a qualia? Is my belief about the redness of the wine, my belief of knowing what is the colour of wine, a qualia? If they are indeed qualia... and I deny the existence of qualia, considering them as mere llusions deprived of ontological existence, am I not also denying the existence of this very belief (and of every belief/interpretation/thought I have about things)?
I'm sharing these with everyone I know. Trying to explain this succinctly is impossible....until now! Thanks @curtjaimungal
Dear Curt Jaimungal I have a feeling that the majority if not all these different concepts has been addressed in its deeper discussion. I am not making any claims, but I feel many of these ideas have discussed and reached the conclusion of non dualism. Because similar types of dharshanas or or thought processes were there in india. I am not telling those are fortified by maths. But rational thoughts and reached many similar conclusions. So if we have to understand vedanta in our contemporary knowledge we may need to understand its whole postulations with great details. But I feel it has that potential to address all these ideas. Please forgive me if you feel that I am claiming. This is because of short brief but the traditional school of vedanta study.
It’s only a problem if you consider your mind as the source rather than a participant mediator; and if you consider any part of that to constitute an “I”.
We are each a collective consciousness of trillions of organisms working in concert, “I” is an illusion.
You're onto something. Keep searching in that direction.
The I', as We refer to all the time,
is the Only Real Steady Point, in Existence,
Stuff-side of Life, is a Motion-Ocean,
even the I', is immaterial nature,
'it' have the most Objective Status in Life,
because it is the Living Being.
Our Consciousness is pictured in the Rainbow.
Short told,
and the Life-Desire is Motor of Life,
Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles,
is the Compass.
@@KurtVanBever it’s not any deeper; I’m already at the bottom
@@holgerjrgensen2166 no, it isn’t
How old are You?
7:26, Vendata is modification of Spinoza’s pantheism
- Erwin schrodinger
I wish it had not skipped the Sara's information integration theory. It is what ties the Eastern to the Western.
Appreciate your mind brotha, keep going
Why is your video so choppy? Are you synchronizing all the frame rates correctly?
I believe we exist in a continuum of possible futures. A multiverse with infinite memory. The Higgs quantum scalar field, which allows atoms to form so that evolution can begin would need the presence of a multiverse to exist.
According to latest ohysics and quantum field theory it is all one.
If conceivability of p-zombies is allowed as an argument (/sarcasm), then conceivability of a computer chip inside the p-zombie - that can mimic 100% of the human behavior should be allowed. And later even seems plausible considering what is happening in the world of AI. And by definition, it means that all human behaviors are emulatable by 100% physical system (physicalism).
I have some sort of dumb, simple ideas about consciousness but I havent really seen anything that makes me doubt these beliefs. Basically I imagine that we have some sort of "soul" for lack of a better word. It works sort of like a player in a videogame. It controls the brain remotely, using it as a computer, to make calculations and run "programs". The brain's calculations supply the soul with potential decisions. It then chooses to make some decisions while allowing other things to mostly stay on autopilot. Some souls control more powerful brains than others, these more powerful brains have more manual controls than lesser brains. But at least we lesser brains have spellcheck 🤕
"Basically I imagine that we have some sort of "soul" for lack of a better word."
The only thing so far that I can even discern as a 'soul' might be DNA. And DNA does not last forever.
@@charlesbrightman4237 did you see the recent episode with Denis Noble?
@@yanwain9454 lol exactly, even michael Levin disproved that dna accounts for form. DNA is a glorified protein producer.
I think you might be on to something. I have also noticed in a part of my experience that there is a part that can control all the other parts to a certain extent. However, I don't think this is our soul, but rather our experience of our brain making decisions in its own. I suggest you pay closer attention to how you control your body and make decisions in your life and you may come to a deeper perspective.
@@yanwain9454 No I did not. I just recently came across this YT channel and subbed.
8:03 everything is not one, we would see a lot of differences. Everything is the same as nothing. 0to infinity is everything, so when you are everything you are nothing right? And when you are nothing, your potential is limitless. So the one is an illusion, we can identify the differences but relativity reveals the sharing to expand the dimensions. Imagine dimensions are the measurements like the frame, as you add things or entangle, you get to zoom out and you see the macro but it’s also zooming in so what’s really happening is that you are expanding the relatives into those measurements and expanding deeper into the dimensions. You connect them to these points and share. Quantum mechanics shows us that it shares and the weights of everything are sharing with us too like how the weight of the water is on the fish but the fish are part of it and they don’t really notice it. The reason we are created in its image is reflection and sharing. The pieces share and entanglement is showing us that it’s like sound vibrating a wall after being hit all pieces feel it but when that’s the norm, we don’t feel it. So what we see every day isn’t everything but a relative that proves infinity exists and the things that share expand. We are an expanded being in many directions, like the 7 directions. That’s why 7 is important, we share with all directions and that shares with us. Up down left right center back and forward. Center is connected to all. Also why 7 horns on the crown of the king, because the king shares with the seven directions, no denial, just that hope or what i think it means, sharing the free will. We don’t take the seven directions, like we don’t take quantum mechanics or take math or take nature, we have to share. So long story short, everything is real but we are expanding the relatives into the differences basically building a bridge. It takes two to tango, meaning nothing shares with everything. The human is nothing, born without knowledge. We find by listening and sharing just like an inventor but we also find ourselves. We are reflective creatures looking at reflections. Idk if abandoning the self is the way but i believe maybe sharing the self while understanding you’re connected can allow you to go anywhere. Don’t deny because it’s all possible so understand by sharing the mind. There are no wrong paths. That’s my thought anyways.
Maybe we do start as something but since we can reflect, the sharing of nothing is possible so we share it everything’s image.
I don't understand the way he talks about valence realism like its an extreme view. It just seems obviously correct (and I mean this in a non-combative way):
"(...) that says that these subjective experiences are fundamental features of reality"
"its akin to saying the universe is made of math"
Its worth noting that you have only ever experienced experience (feel free to give a counterexample)
This is an axiom that undergirds everything else, every concept or idea of what this is and what you are is predicated on this axiom. including ideas of the form 'this combination of sound + sight + internal sensation corresponds to an entity similar but independent of me (another person)'. Again, I'd be happy to hear any way in which this isn't trivially true.
From here you can induce ideas like 'subjective experiences' as being coherent concepts - but its just that, induced. You can make other inductions too like 'cats are cute' or 'there is space I can move around in'. But again, all these are induced by a succession of particular patterns of qualia. Again, I really really would love to know any way in which this is wrong or off at all.
If 'reality' is the word for 'the thing that undergirds everything', then qed no? I would be grateful for any kind of reply here, even if its a short 'that's not what i meant' and I'll think some more on it.
My best guess is that the friction here is because the answer one is looking for is assumed to fit into the set of concepts one has already acquired, not the other way around. And if one is attempting to find a coherent explanation of experience by having the answer fit into 'the set of concepts built to approximate narratives embedded in experience (like there being a space, time, an individual etc)' then you will get answer that is as coherent as all of those approximate narratives. And from here, we are at such a level of questioning that what becomes of any meaning is what one identifies with and cares for - so even if the concepts (despite quickly provably being compositions of qualia) include notions of there being more than that - then one just disregards it as it 'feels' either wrong, useless or incompatible with anything that's cared about.
just dropping one last attempt @TheoriesofEverything, i understand you're probably really busy and don't have time to read every comment, (so all good if not) but do you have any thoughts on the above? I honestly can't tell where i lie on the jargon scale or how elementary / misguided this line of reasoning is and would grateful for any thoughts.
The chanel of wisdom
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a:
TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format.
10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow).
14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now.
25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence.
DISCLAIMER:
26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence?
GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version):
Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
GRAVITY TEST:
WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space. Maybe I could concentrate the Sun's 'em' into a high powered laser. Might even work with the correct set up breaking the Sun's 'em' down into single 'em' energy frequencies acting like a single energy frequency laser. A high energy laser powered by the Sun. Cool, or actually pretty hot. More than one way to build a laser.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'Gravity' would not be matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' would be a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. (But hey, might even still get a Sun powered laser, which of course could even be utliized in outer space for various agendas.).
This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
* Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
But also:
Questions: Are at least some black holes in this universe due to a species who were trying to discern what 'gravity' truly was, came up with a test to do so, were successful, but the black hole generated (to prove what gravity truly was) self fed itself and wiped them and at least their entire planet out? What species might have existed where a black hole now resides?
(Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)
* Added note: Suggestion: 'IF' society did not want to do the gravity test, one suggestion might be to at least create a model as if it were true, then see how that model matches with observations and predictions. It might be possible to discern the theory of everything without actually generating a gravitational black hole (which would definitely prove the TOE idea as being really true).
IPI Letters, Feb. 2024: `Consciousness is every(where)ness, expressed locally´, Downloadable
How much of this do you need to go and buy tomatoes
the understanding of nonduality by advaitavedanta as interpreted here (as ONE because not-two) is limited according to buddhist view and is a transpersonal form of experience stemming from ignorance or anawareness of the fundamentaly open/empty nature of one’s real state. non-dual really means “not one, not many”, or as Nagarjuna said: “where there is no extremes then not even the middle exists” (or something in that sense). there is a lot of nondual methods and approaches and understaning in mahamadhymaka and zen and fully and most sound and clear in dzogchen teachings.
'Sort by' up above; Select 'Newest first'; Scroll down to the pinned thread; Select 'replies' to see more.
Atman is Brahman in the exact same sentiment as “Code is data - data is code”
It’s the same idea as John 1:1…
If everything is one,how did the one masive consciouse break up into all that is and did it get smaller? How they do dat???
Self-reference cropped up automatically, even when Bertrand Russell tried to banish it from his formal system.
If physics has anything to do with math, math automatically generates self-referential systems for reasons Godel tried to explain.
Everything that appears to be separate from everything else has a boundary, but the boundary of a boundary adds up to nothing.
Everywhere we look we see 0 supporting and reinforcing 0.
And yet, we intuit first order logic as being consistent and complete in itself.
That 1 thing gave rise to the apprehension of the interlocking chain of 0s.
But maybe that apprehension only exists in our imaginations.
Why then does it have survival utility? 🤔🤷♂️
Free will is the most certain fact there is. Gödel proves it.
Water is what humans subjectively experience as consciousness.
See you all in the substrate
Om lead us from the non-real to the real lead us from darkness to the light lead us from death to immortality om peace peace peace 🙏 🙏 🙏
Oh and if you understand that we are always in the image of god and not god itself is because there is no one god, god is a word that represents infinity. Jesus was a guy who saw by sharing and not denying. So we can never be god but we can share with god to understand the perspectives of all of them, all the potentials that share with us the knowledge. We took the knowledge of good and evil from everything and used that knowledge to build borders on the mind extending it out to the body because we didn’t understand it. It’s just that everything exists not only good and evil but it’s really just relative so there is no one good or one evil which is why free will and freedom is shared like hope. I think i may be starting to really understand this religious view is parallel to scientific understanding. We share with everything, our mind, body, everything we are currently and it’s sharing back. So we are not but share with, holding reality up is reality we have opportunity to share to reach everything and everywhere if we wanted. I mean that imagination isn’t fake but a big place where things can form infinite shapes so the brain is real and making real shapes so these things are real in one way, translation and relativity alone can show you that the thought isn’t as far as we imagine. We just haven’t expanded reality in ways to accommodate the findings so inventors kinda like bring them out of the mind to be here and share. That’s like Jesus sacrificing himself to show us and save us from our own ignorance, setting the example and paying the price we would have so we could learn. The inventor sacrifices themselves the same way Jesus did and when you see it from their perspective, it’s sharing not sacrifice. They wanted to share with what they found. Same as identity. Sorry for all the long comments. These are thoughts dont murder me in the comments please.
Ask swami sarvapriyananda.
Consciousness is fundamental; Mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events as does the dense macro and micro elements or the physical elements. The problem for materialists is that they see one dimension only; the material or elemental. The reality is that there are three dimensions: Causal: Ideas; an Energy dimension plus the denser Elemental; macro and micro elements or physical dimension.
The new physics posits that all is energy or elemental; similar to how religion has perceived it over the millenniums; as life starting from top down rather than from bottom up. .Science has not come on board with that assessment yet on account of seeing one dimension only the material or matter and with having little understanding of forces.
This goes back to mid-nineteenth century Darwinism which contrary to a higher age perspective saw humanity arising from a different species; a different prototype rather than from its own unique human prototype with fourteen versions of the human prototype in a universal cycle.
Material science may learn to stay in its lane and stop extrapolating the elemental or materiel to be causal to and the sole nature of reality. The hard problem of consciousness shows that this view is no longer tenable. If A.I. is to get off the ground realistically it is important to understand that mind is elemental and that consciousness is not.
Trying to explain the experiencer of the map by using details from the map seems illogical .