I appreciate Robert opening up to the silliness of all this. He doesn’t believe in some immaterial realm but he hopes for it. Hope is good. Doesn’t make it real, but the honesty of his motivation is refreshing.
Exactly! And materialists (esp many physicists) speak so confidently about some physical realm independent of consciousness without even realizing that everything they know about the “physical” exists entirely within their own freaking consciousness! 😂 Also notice that physics (the most fundamental physical science) is described entirely by the language of mathematics (which even more fundamentally is just a form of information). Now profoundly note that information is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT without consciousness! I’ll wait ad infinitum for a materialist to define a physical reality without implicitly invoking consciousness 🙂
@@joecaner I think rizdekd3912 is saying, 'scientist will never explain' is logically equivalent to 'given enough time... scientist will explain' and so both are faith statements.
There is already a perfectly understandable and convincing explanation. This is it: The physical consists of two parts. These are: 1 Material Existence and 2 Movement Movement is immaterial. Of course the existence of Movement is utterly dependent on Material Existents but Movements and Material Existents are self evidently not the same 'thing'. Put another way, Matter is the Substrate of Movement (the necessary substrate (obviously)). It's not much of a leap to understand, if thoughts and minds are immaterial as they seem to be, then Movement is the perfect candidate from which thoughts and minds may be constituted. It's not the material existence of neurons that constitute thoughts but it may be neurons' temporally patterned discharge activity that encodes them. (Note: 'activity' is another word for Movement). Think about it and if anyone needs more explanation I am willing to discuss.
This question makes only sense, when you believe that physical matter and consciousness are separate things, and consciousness somehow emerges from matter. What if this is not the case, and consciousness is the reality of the universe, and biology is what it looks like from a localized perspective of consciousness (aka humans and animals)? Consciousness would not emerge from anything, but be conscious of those things instead. So consciousness could not be constructed.
But as he says toward the end....that still doesn't explain consciousness like many want physicalists to 'explain' consciousness. That seems to just push it back a step...out of the reach of any research/study.
@@rizdekd3912 you reach this problem with any question about the fundamental nature of anything, even if they are physical. What is light? Light is... photons. What are photons? Quantum particles of... the electromagnetic force? What is the electromagnetic force? Interactions within the electromagnetic field? What is that field? (I'm not a physicist so I really don't know and don't quote me on any of this) And on and on, it's like the kid asking their parents "why" over and over again until the parents get exasperated and run out of answers. I imagine that consciousness as a phenomenon is no different if you keep peeling back the layers.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
There is already a perfectly understandable and convincing explanation. This is it: The physical consists of two parts. These are: 1 Material Existents and 2 Movement Movement is immaterial. Of course the existence of Movement is utterly dependent on Material Existents but Movements and Material Existents are self evidently not the same 'thing'. Put another way, Matter is the Substrate of Movement (the necessary substrate (obviously)). It's not much of a leap to understand, if thoughts and minds are immaterial as they seem to be, then Movement is the perfect candidate from which thoughts and minds may be constituted. It's not the material existence of neurons that constitute thoughts but it may be neurons' temporally patterned discharge activity that encodes them. (Note: 'activity' is another word for Movement). Think about it and if anyone wants to I am happy to discuss.
The direction to take is to explain how 'emergence' works. For instance, how do storms emerge from the averaged energy the sun provides from individual fusion reactions? From the quantum religion angle; how does order emerge from supposed chaos of indeterminism?
Our current understanding of matter is insufficient to explain the mind-body problem, or even abiogenesis. It seems that there’s a significant property of matter we haven’t yet discovered or perhaps are unable to perceive.
@@mnrvaprjct Using the word "emergence" has about the same magical quality as the color green emerging from number theory. Or Unicorns actually existing.
@@mnrvaprjctmaybe if we understood what does not emerge better we might have a more honest picture of what is really happening. Relying on emergence to give us the whole picture is like victors telling us history.
The main issue is the nobody knows what ‘consciousness’ actually means. As with Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where he posited the question “What’s the answer to life the universe and everything?”. The answer was 42… it makes no sense, because the question is too vague.
"Forty-two is the ASCII code for the symbol * also known as the asterisk. This symbol is often thought to translate to anything or everything. In this instance, 42 = everything, the meaning of life."
The Materialists have it right with monism, wrong regarding what that monism actually is. Reminds me of a quote from Werner Heisenberg: "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." Heisenberg also remarked, "Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible."
Consciousness doesn't need to be able to interact with the physical world, I think. We don't know what consciousness exactly is, it could be an observation function without providing any feedback.
@@anhta9001 "Consciousness doesn't need to be able to interact with the physical world, I think. We don't know what consciousness exactly is, it could be an observation function without providing any feedback." Isn't that epiphenomenalism? It would seem odd that consciousness does no work, ie provides no value and doesn't aid in our long term decision-making process but rather is merely a movie screen with us watching our lives happen. It's possible. But how does the physical cause it to 'seem to' be a useful version of the world around us? I realize that concept of the world around us is NOT anything like what the world is at the quantum or even the atomic level. IE it's a mental construct. But It seems to be solid enough that billions of other creatures react pretty much to the same 'conception.' IOW, it is obvious a tree 'interacts' with the what we perceive as soil and its components which means the tree 'sees' it much as we do...with what appears to be dirt with a solid structure with water/nutrients it uses to grow.
Regarding Ned Block's rather cheesy rejection of panpsychism at 6:26 - "Why is it that the consciousness in the molecule in my thumb is a part of, you know, my consciousness?" DNA replication implies a solution to the binding problem, because 1) Within any one body, all the DNA molecules within cells are identical & this relates to *quantum indistinguishability* , and 2) The manner of DNA replication, as the creation of a pair of identical molecules from a parent, might be the molecular equivalent of the interaction required between two photons in a laser that is essential in achieving entanglement. Bottom line: We have good reason to take DNA entanglement seriously, despite the alleged "decoherence in warm, wet environments" that is reflexively taken for granted. DNA entanglement might be fundamental to understanding the two biggest problems in the life/mind sciences: 1) The binding problem and 2) The mind-body problem. Also *Quantum Contextuality* is a new development in QM that has been gaining traction in the past decade or so. Reference: de Barros, J. A., Holik, F., & Krause, D. (2019, June 24). Indistinguishability and the origins of contextuality in physics. Quantum Physics, 1-18.
>Bottom line: We have good reason to take DNA entanglement seriously, despite the alleged "decoherence in warm, wet environments" that is reflexively taken for granted. Decoherence is measurable. If it wasn't quantifiable and controllable, quantum computing wouldn't be possible. Once a theory becomes a tool we use in engineering systems, it's hard to see how anyone can still claim it isn't verified at least at some level.
@@simonhibbs887 I'm not suggesting that decoherence is irrelevant, far from it. My concern is, has decoherence been taken seriously enough? I'm an engineer by formal training, and I look for solutions that work. The DNA entanglement conjecture would be exceptionally compelling, were it not for decoherence. Hence my suspicion that they've gotten something wrong. Can I prove it? No, I can't. But nothing else works. Call it an engineer's hunch. QM is heavily grounded in physicalist assumptions, and they are disinclined to factor in questions of phenomenology/ontology at the quantum level. The conversation needs to go there, & the relatively new field of quantum contextuality is, hopefully, a step in that direction.
@@TheTroofSayer But what has DNA to do with my being conscious (beyond the fact that it participates in the process that builds the body that serves as the substrate of my being conscious process)?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Do you want my long-form, tldr version or the short-form answer? On this Saturday night of casual indulgence, I offer you the short: The modern, human-plastic city, comprised of people making choices, is an ideal metaphor for the neuro-plastic brain, comprised of neurons making choices. Cities form into functional specialisations just like brains do. It also relates to Alexei Sharov's (2018) agency theory. This relates to my "bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains" thesis. A *colony* of DNA-entangled neurons can only ever be way more efficient than a collection of unentangled neurons. The simulation that proves this is the modern, human-plastic city, where telecommunications simulates the effects of entanglement. Telecommunications, in effect, provides every person in the city with immediate access to collective information, to thus enable the city to act as a giant brain. DNA entanglement does for brains what telecommunications does for cities. The long-form answer requires you to know about semiotic theory and a whole bunch of other stuff, so if your not up to scratch with those, your kinda stuck :( Hope that helps. REFERENCE: Sharov, A. (2018). Mind, agency and biosemiotics. Journal of Cognitive Science, 19(2), 195-228.
@@TheTroofSayer I understand the human-plastic city metaphor very clearly but it seems very clear to me that neurons do not make choices (except of course collectively). A brain neuron's temporal discharge pattern is controlled by, on average, 20,000 synapses whose effects are influenced by the temporal discharge patterns of up to 20,000 other neurons (chemical milieu effects disregarded). To my way of thinking (about which I wouldn't be surprised if it reflects convention), 'temporal discharge pattern' is the means by which representations are encoded. Dendrites and axons very much like wires and synapses very much like telephones. If one of those temporal-discharge-pattern-implemented-representations should happen to be the self then its easy to imagine its modulations being that of which we are conscious. See?
Good video. The only issue I can see is naive using of extrapolation. If physicalism was successful in vast cases, it doesn't mean at all, that it will allow to solve all cases, and the problem is just to have enough of time. Extrapolating is often a mistake. What's more, more we know, more we see we can't find some answers like how life come into being, like how universe moves (dark matter and dark energy are just "names" for description of our lack of explanation of 95% reasons for observed move of galactics. We even don't know how pigeons find the way to home, except some observations that disturbance of magnetic field make them unsure about direction. More we know, more we amazed what we don't know :)
What extrapolation do you mean? Extrapolating that consciousness may eventually be explainable by physicalism or extrapolating that everything we can't explain is always explainable by something nonphysical? In either case one must make an extrapolation so...is it really a mistake or a place holder?
>" Extrapolating is often a mistake." When we don't have definitive evidence, every proposed solution is extrapolation. On Abiogenesis, we're continually making progress on that from both the bottom up and the top down approaches. Work on autocatalytic sets is very interesting, showing how natural chemical systems naturally evolve feedback processes to propagate themselves. From the top down, there are several projects ongoing to construct entirely artificial single celled organisms. We have not yet found all the answers, but we are finding more and more of them all the time. >dark matter and dark energy are just "names" for description of our lack of explanation of 95% reasons for observed move of galactics OK, so we have observations of behaviour and you are quite reasonably skeptical of proposed explanations for that behaviour that propose novel phenomena we have no other evidence for. Let's look at dualism. We have a phenomenon, consciousness, and proposals for a non-physical substance, which is just a 'name' for a description of our lack of explanation. Now you know why I'm skeptical of dualism.
@@rizdekd3912 By extrapolation I meant the conviction, that if we explain a lot by "so called" pysicallism, than after some time we will able to explain any phenomenon by such approach.
@@simonhibbs887"On Abiogenesis, we're continually making progress" Yeah, yeah... No. :) That's just an opinion. Maybe a thesis. Just a dream, some want to materialize, and in case it didn't they create opinion. I have no idea what conscious is. Maybe explanation is not possible from our current point of consciousness, our thinking etc? I just see no reason to assume, that it's an effect of (randomly?) (cooperating?) physical particles. The very idea of physicality was questioned by Max Planck in his Nobel speech. So... no. "When we don't have definitive evidence, every proposed solution does not have to be extrapolation. After so many years Laplace gave his famous answer to Napoleon, his hope and claim remain invalid.
@@zbyszeks3657 Simon exaggerates regarding any progress made scientifically with Abiogenesis, unless one counts as progress the realization by biologists just how immensely complex and difficult the problem actually is. Another item that Simon and his Darwin oriented buddies rarely talk about is there still appears significant holes/gaps in the adaptive transition forms predicted by Darwin, and even more interestingly, there appears to be quite a bit of "nonadaptive" order throughout, order unexplained by old-school Darwinists like Dawkins.
"biological" is a concept we use to explain a particular set of experiences. It comes way after the capacity for experience that we call consciousness. The connection suggested in the title of this video is backwards.
My feeling is that a field of consciousness that pervades spacetime, just as the other fields do, could be hypothesized, as a physical means to generate awareness. This would NOT preclude religion - as with all religions, it would just require an adjustment of religious views.
The fundamental underlying "problem" that gives rise to the "explanatory gap" goes to the heart of unique and peculiar feature of consciousness: it can not be studied directly with the scientific method upon which all of modern science has been built. A being's consciousness can only be directly experienced by that being itself - in our experience, a live animal. There is no 3rd person way to confirm if a being is conscious, or if observations of that being's reported or measured experience are identical to the being's conscious experience.
Even describing hunger based on chemistry would be unsatisfying to someone feeling hunger. But that doesn't mean there's magic going on. I've always thought consciousness was just a by-product of complexity. It's why humans probably feel consciousness more vividly than bees. As we build more complex computer systems that become conscious, we might understand the causes, even if we cannot understand how the machines actually 'feel'.
we've mapped out bees brains very well and thoroughly understand their neural correlate activity, yet have never once observed any emergent property consciousness in any of their neural correlates ie. the thing they are claimed to be the property of.
@@5piles "we've mapped out bees brains very well and thoroughly understand their neural correlate activity, yet have never once observed any emergent property consciousness in any of their neural correlates ie. the thing they are claimed to be the property of." What would it look like? By 'emerge' do you mean exist outside the cells of the bee's brain? Why assume it extends out beyond the actual cells?
@@rizdekd3912 it would look like whatever the emergent property is said to be. for example a pattern is said to be an emergent property of the shell. it is not something additional to the shell, it is the shell itself, the shell itself having developed a new property. when the shell is observed, its emergent property is necessarily observed. similarly physical blue is said to be an emergent property of the neural correlate, or anywhere inside the skull. if true then the when the basis of emergence ie. the neural correlate is observed, its emergent property is necessarily observed. this is the main point of metaphysical physicalism's philosophy, illusionism, namely qualia red does not exist what actually only exists is physical red. that it appears as something other than physical red is an illusion. it never occurs to physicalists that they are equivalent to pre-galileo scholars practising folk astronomy prior to galileo developing rigorous methods of observing the phenomenon he wanted to understand. likewise we are using folk introspection and instead of developing rigorous methods of observing the phenomenon we want to understand ie. the mind instead we use our folk introspection as proofs for illusionism and physicalism, just like the medieval scholars did, and which the birth of science rebelled against.
You are almost certainly correct, Duncan. Consciousness arises/emerges from complex information processing and involves physical processes ONLY.. Nothing immaterial, nothing supernatural, and NO superstitious elements involved.. Trouble is a lot of commenters on this topic seem stuck in bronze age dualism.. Peace..
Robert - your hope that there might be something non-physical about consciousness seems a odd. We are part of the world as is our consciousness, and there is a physics that describes our world that will include consciousness -- our current physics does not yet do this. Assuming that such a physics exists -- whether you and I are around to see it arrive or not -- if it includes new, currently unknown and undefined, "fields" or "features" that will alter, expand, amend, or modify our current physics to one which includes (explains the behavior of) consciousness -- would that then make consciousness non-physical? If so -- would electromagnetic and quantum field theories also be "non-physical"?
Thats a great questions, because bilogical is the ultimate evolutions of an autonomous mechanic system in atomic scale. However the question has it flaws or incomplete in such details, no such thing ever seeing beyond physicalism. The Questions has to be unwrapped the meaning of consciousness it self which is difficult.
Electromagnetic fields arising or associated with moving particles is accepted. Why not consciousness as simply a field arising or associated with neural activity? It doesn’t require dualism.
"Non physical" - we very likely know that now : AI If sophisticated processing (of any kind) produces consciousness Then it is the processing, the arrangements that allow "emergence" of consciousness That would pretty much separate consciousness from physical A "critical density" of processing may be necessary for a "phase change" to occur Something like that
Explanatory gap: In the philosophy of mind and consciousness, the explanatory gap is the difficulty that physicalist philosophies have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel subjectively when they are experienced. It is a term introduced by philosopher Joseph Levine. Wikipedia
But there is also an explanatory gap in explaining how the non physical gives rise to the way things feel subjectively when they are experienced, right?
@@rizdekd3912 I don't know very much about the explanatory gap so I can't answer that, but my opinion is that maybe our life experiences are from and relayed from God, kind of like as if God is the mainframe (where the actual operating system for us is located) and we are like wireless satellite computers connected to the mainframe. God's spirit is in all of us and so we are always connected to him and it's why if we do something to someone else it's like we've done it also to the Lord. Matthew 25:31-40 KJV Also, according to John 15:5 KJV we can't do anything without God.
*How does supernaturalism explain consciousness?* I have never heard that scenario questioned on this channel. How, under supernaturalism, do we better understand consciousness?
The lowest strata in physics is information. Physical systems are information processors. Information processing is basic to nature. Consciousness is one such phenomenon. There is no explanatory gap that does not relate to our lack of a full grasp of how consciousness works, but work it does. The answers lie in simplest form somewhere along the path from single cell chemotaxis to multicellular animal brain function. Probably the largest enabler is the development of memory and recall; i.e., mapping external stimuli to survival outcome valences, yielding learned as opposed to genetically deterministic survival behavior. IOW, the rise of animal agency based on past experience as an evolutionary advantage.
So if you put 100 pieces of a watch together on a table and come back 15 billion years later will that watch have put itself together without a watchmaker?
You can use Integrated Information Theory to say that, in the case of panpsychism, the little consciousness in your "thumb" does not contribute at all to your consciousness, because it's not part of a system which integrates information in a system, like your brain is.
Great subject. If everything is a function of fields, then consciousness is a function of fields (in the brain and possibly out), then physicalism seems blatantly wayward in its orientation. ??
Ned Block says "Some people propose Panpsychism but that of course has the you know unsolvable problem of how the little bits of Consciousness combine into a big consciousness. Um you know why is it that the Consciousness in the molecule in my thumb is part of um you know my Consciousness?" I'm not a proponent of Panpsychism, but to answer his question with a better question and answer: How does the space inside a cup combine with the space outside the cup? Answer: The cup never divided the space inside from the space outside it. The same is true for Consciousness, but it is important to distinguish between the activity of what takes place in the mind, and Consciousness, which is not a product of biology.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “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). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above. So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Cont...
Descartes caused this schism with the mind/body problem. Which informed a dualism that mind is not 'matter' and vice versa, but my experience of seeing the universe is that complementarity is more prevalent than separability. The idea that mind is non-physical is completely wrong. It evidently is present as an aspect of the physical world. Is the information in. hard drive physical? Small, light and indiscernible things are still here, however so slight.
No one see the mind, but with patience you learn to listen, observe, and apply. This is the whole existence of beings. The moment you understand the simple principle of being, you either sell or you have to achieve the very best or take it easy, learning and applying what you know. Please i dont want you to agree with me in any way shape or form. The best things that represent M are movers and shakers. Fs also movers and shakers but they are the ones that ruin the earth the most and beings the most.
@@RobCaldera But dont forces have a physical basis? For example gravitons? Although my understanding is that these so called particles have never veen discovered, they are still thought to be particulate!
@@stufordDepends on how you define physical. Light is made up of photons. Is light physical? And gravitons are just a theory. Also, everything that exists are only quantum fluctuations that don’t become real until an observer collapses the wave form so the notion of anything being physical requires a conscious observer.
Being able to explain biological processes and functions is far from explaining the life that exists to keep those functions running. It's like quatum physics. And then metaphysics. Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
This idea that just any material object in the world can possess consciousness is wrong. A computer or a robot can never be conscious in the way that a human being or an animal is conscious. Consciousness is a physical biological property of the human brain.
Why do you think so? What's so special about the arrangement of the atoms in a brain that it's impossible to reproduce all its functions with silicon chips?
It's amazing that seemingly everyone in science has relegated the amazing and bizarre phenomenon of life to "just chemistry," so you see really smart people organizing conferences and writing articles about how computers are going to basically come to life and try to take over the world. There's a movie called The Creator coming out at the end of the month that explores that exact scenario. I wasn't going to go see it because the whole concept of a conscious computer is so dumb, but since that means that it is really just science fiction, I may go see it anyway, even though, in the back of my mind, I will be appalled at the very concept. Sometimes I am a glutton for punishment.
@@brothermine2292 The phrase "just chemistry" has a long and storied past. It goes back to 1828 when Urea was first synthesized in the lab and the battle against mysticism was declared won. Now, almost 200 years later, we have serious scientists talking about "quantum life" since there is no sign of anything but chemistry in organic chemistry, as you certainly know. I think it is a little premature to start talking about quantum life when there are five or six orders of magnitude between a cell and an atom. We mostly have no access to the effects that can happen at these levels. In any case, consciousness is a property of life, so asking about non-biological consciousness shows a closed minded belief system, ie. "just chemistry."
@@caricue : I've never heard of "quantum life" and googling it for a minute didn't turn up anything by "serious scientists." Do you mean Roger Penrose's weird idea about brain microtubules in quantum superposition somehow producing consciousness? You say "consciousness is a property of life." But we have no evidence that ALL life is conscious, and it hasn't been established that ONLY (biological) living things can be conscious. Here's a thought experiment for you: Suppose a person undergoes a series of surgeries that replaces one neuron at a time with an artificial, inorganic, functionally equivalent device of the same size, including all its input & output connections (synapses, axons, dendrites, neurotransmitters). At what point, if any, in the series would he become a non-conscious zombie?
Life and consciousness aren't things themselves. Life and consciousness are simple ways of grouping similar observed sets of dynamic aspects of our experiences. For a system to be considered conscious I believe it requires the states or modes of unconsciousness that conscience life has, such as sleeping and dreaming. I am not aware of anything being described as conscious life that doesn't also sleep, dream or have a mode of operating with similar aspects. I also believe that for consciousness to exist it requires a fundamental function to increase itself by acquiring or growing or duplicating. Without a existential fundamental function to fulfill of increasing itself and the ability to have states similar to unconsciousness, it would not have the features that all conscious life has. Aspects that are present in all systems of a type tend to be required (probably a logical fail in reasoning on my part but there is...).
Good points r.e. Sleep and dreaming. Obviously you are conscious when you are awake. What about dreaming? Are you conscious when you dream? In some dreams (lucid dreams) you are - you are aware you are dreaming, you can alter things in your dream, and you can remember your dream the next morning. In ordinary dreams, you are not conscious. You may think you are when you wake up in the morning or awakened during a dream. You can remember a short segment of the dream. What you remember is in your working memory, just like when you are awake. But you can’t remember your whole dream. So to be conscious, you must be able to access your working memory - which is self-reflection. That requires activity in the prefrontal cortex. That’s basically what consciousness is - the ability to review what just happened and relate it to your long-term memory and/or present experience.
The only thing that could go beyond axon to dendron communication is quantum entanglement, I am a-guessing....? Or something else PHYSICAL (quantum stuff IS physical as energy or matter).
Consciousness is fundamental. Matter and energy are derivative. Even Max Planck understood this in the 30’s. His example of life is self defeating as the study of abiogenesis has not only defeated science but has set it further back decade after decade. Scientists have less of a clue than ever. Time to grown some courage and loose the arrogance…
We can understand more if we consider that the Relation is an activ force and not a passive result as we consider now. In fact we can consider the Relation as the unique Creator in the Universe, it creates New Properties that we do not find in any of elements involved in Relation. Among those properties is a new kind of Intelligence with the capacity to administrate the participants. The Relation among neurons creates our Conscoiusness but everywhere in the Univers we can find Intelligence as a product of Relation. Let s think about Kepler's laws of planetary motion,Hegel, Marx's transformation of quantities in a new quality, Le Bon etc
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL can we accept that a representation is a material form as a symbol ,it represents an Abstract Model or Idea? This means a Relation (Connection). The representation is a Relation with the Abstract Model. I can give you a basic example how Relation can create a coherence manifestation that controls all the individuals participants
@@mihaimagheru3428 I suspect we may be in agreement but you phrase it very differently than I would. Seems to me Relation that is not a physical activity is an abstract notion. Everything is related to everything if one is thinking in that abstract kind of way.
so good to see a scientist slap any sort of ridiculous religious hocus pocus argument away in the most polite way... so no, Mr intelligent design... you can keep trying but you wont be slipping in any scientific door soon...
Couldn't consciousness simply be our experience of our functioning brain? Perhaps a brain experiencing itself functioning? I'm don't really understand what is being sought after in the pursuit of non-physical explanations.
It's the idea that how can you take an assortment of particles, arrange them in a special way, and then get inner experience out of it. I am leaning towards the physicalists but it is the "hard problem" for a reason.
Science believes representation (using ideas and language) equates to presentation (direct experience) which leads to assumptions like knowing the territory because they believe their map is real.
Ned is absolutely right on this. You can't have a consciousness that can examine and interact with reality that is not a biological consciousness or an Artificial Intelligence that was created by one. Consciousness is emergent from biology and free will thought processes.
The unconscious is larger and more important than consciousness. Our conscious mind is like the visible tip of an iceberg, or like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. It's 100% natural. The mind (conscious and unconscious) is a meat by-product. Crickets can do it too.
@@bozo5632 Observations are great. But correlation is not causation. You got plenty of correlations, but that's all you got. No, actually it is not "obvious". There is nothing "obvious" about the nature of consciousness.
@@bozo5632 the absence of observing the emergent property color blue when observing the neural correlate from which it is claimed to emerge proves contrary to your claim. its like saying you are observing a pattern on a shell but are not observing the shell. thats not how physical emergent properties function. we cannot find a single emergent property in even the tiniest brain or artificially created and structured set of neurons. you have the exact opposite of observing the thing you claim.
@@5piles "we cannot find a single emergent property in even the tiniest brain or artificially created and structured set of neurons." How do 'we' know what to look for and where to look? What would consciousness 'look like?' I don't envision consciousness being 'out there' in some sort of aura around the brain but occurring INSIDE the cells of the brain. So no amount of study outside the brain will ever pick it up. What does magnetism look like from the outside? If we study individual iron atoms, we can't 'see' magnetism. And if we didn't expose one specific substance...ie iron, to something magnetic, we'd never know magnetism existed. And where does gravity occur? If we study individual atoms, we cannot detect gravity...does that mean it's not physical and not due to matter/energy? "the absence of observing the emergent property color blue when observing the neural correlate from which it is claimed to emerge proves contrary to your claim." Why would the conscious perception of blue 'look like' the color of blue light as is detected by the cells in the back of our eyes? It's happening inside and among cells involving neural impulses and chemical reactions. But more importantly what IS consciousness? How DOES the color blue transition to the concept blue? And if it's not something physical happening in the brain...what is it and how would you know it's not happening in and due to the brain?
Fair enough, you currently do not see any approach that bridges the explanatory gap. That being the case, you and all your colleagues of like minds should desist from your dogmatism - that there is nothing beyond the physical. Be open to any possibilities and continue the search for answers in an honest way.
Ned says - if we we exhaust all other possibilities in the future THEN you could consider the possibility of dualism. So, what's the problem with investigating both possibilities at the same time? It seems hard core materialists want a totally materialistic approach - UNTIL at some unknown point in the future it can't be explained by their approach - THEN, consider other options. Seems a bit shallow from that perspective. MAYBE, hardcore materialists and traditional religions BOTH have it wrong! (A very real possibility).
Regarding OoL research, virtually everything that the OoL scientists appear to be doing is Intelligent Design (i.e. use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence); then claiming Methodological Naturalism (i.e. non-use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence). *_”In biology, abiogenesis … or the origin of life (OoL) is the natural (i.e. non-intervention of consciousness or mind) process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event…”_* (Wikipedia) *_”This more traditional concept of natural things that can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind.”_* ( Wikipedia) In order for OoL experiments to be a valid explanation for abiogenesis, then only “Prebiotically Relevant Chemistry” must be applied in the experiments. Investigator Interference or Intervention through the use of man-made chemicals, processes, equipment, etc. invalidates experiments from being considered pre-biotically relevant (i.e. before biology like the human mind).
It is a given that you simply cannot explain consciousness in terms of physical functions of the brain via nerve synapses and similar physical mechanisms. That is just one way of understanding the brain function and how it is related the whole process of consciousness. Consciousness is not a single entity or a thing that we can grasp like a table or a living being like a tree or a human being itself. It is an ongoing process that is resulted from the actions of the physical properties, the same way the process of flying is a result of the bird having a particular shape of a body and feathers etc. However, we can't explain the process of flying by analysing the feathers into it's smaller parts and how they work together in microscopic terms. It is how the body and feathers interact with the environment that creates the process of flying. Consciousness is similar in that sense the brain functions itself won't help us creating an accurate and understandable picture of how it gives birth to the self, being, mind or consciousness. We must try to understand consciousness with the biological brain, the inputs the brain get from the senses and how it process and interpret all that in relation to the physical world(or whatever) that is out there. Ultimately, the sense of self or consciousness may be an illusion just like the interpretation of the world out there by our brain, but it is abundantly obvious that we are not biologically programmed to live without that illusion. Zombie is a concept, but may not be accurate or a false concept. If we create a life with sufficient coordination of biological processes to maintain it's life under the laws of biology, then it may be inevitable it will be conscious. Sense of self may be fundamental to all biological life, possible in higher and lower states of it. We would never know for real whether a single cell life like has some form of self or consciousness. Some things may be ultimately unknowable other than assuming or believing. A dog or a cat is conscious because we can "feel" it and we believe that they must be because they respond to us and form relationships with us. In that sense a single cell life may be conscious in some level because they form some form of relationship with us or other life forms. Consciousness is a mystery if we want it to be a mystery because it is the consciousness itself that asks these questions or make assumptions. Consciousness is the ultimate axiom because it is the consciousness that creates all these world views, knowledge , questions and answers. I think that any chance of us grasping the concept of consciousness and building a viable theory will depend on taking consciousness outside the brain synapses and connecting the brain and synapses part of the consciousness to the rest of the world out there. A good thought experiment would be growing a human brain on it's own in a laboratory without giving any sensory inputs to it. Would it grow normally or would it grow at all? Would it develop the consciousness as we know it? How can we find out? How can we communicate with such a brain? Such a brain may only have a primary sense of self(if it has it at all) because withtout the sensory inputs it won't have the ability to develop the thought process. We may uncover these answers in future. Another thought experiment would be to keep a human brain alive in a laboratory while the rest of the body has died. What would happened to the person who would be ultimately "trapped" inside that brain as long as we keep the brain alive? The thought process and the consciousness will be there because that brain has already learned the "self" via lifetime of sensory inputs and interpretations of the brain. Or we may be simply find ways in future to chemically/medically temporarily disconnect all the sensory inputs to the brain while the brain is still conscious and aware without any adverse effects for the body or the brain and study the consciousness of the person that way. Only time can tell.
I understand what "non-biological" means (a rock, for example). But I don't understand what "non-physical" even means. Doesn't everything that exists depend upon physical being or physical properties in one form or another? Even a mathematical equation needs a living, educated brain to conceive it and written symbols to express it. 😮
you might know what biological means in 1850s based models of physcis. but have no clue what biological or physical means in modern physics where these things are probability abstractions. you can call it physical but its kind of a joke. oh and the leading theoretical physicists now no longer even consider spacetime as fundamental. minor point.
@@jamenta2 The problem Plato was struggling with was that he had no formal concept of information to work with. We can see that he was aware of the problems through his own withering criticism of the theory of forms in Parmenides. Nowadays we can express the same ideas more consistently in terms of descriptions. So we have a description of a circle, and anything that conforms to this description is a circle. Likewise for any other proposed form. We don't need to suppose any exotic form of existence or alternate dimensions. Straightforward descriptions and conformance to those descriptions solves the problem nicely. It's also extensible to any conceivable structure or state, without needing to suppose that such things have any kind of hypothetical existence in any other sense. They are simply possible.
@@simonhibbs887 whats more likely, plato not being able to conceive your primary school concept of descriptions, or that he obviously did and is trying to indicate something far more profound. spoilers, anyone who has developed sufficient authentic samadhi can empirically confirm platos refined realm of perfect form geometry and ideals. this is has been replicated millions of times and was already well established and much better explained for literally 1000s of years before plato.
check out a book by John Bennett called - Energies - he lists 12 energies organized in 3 categories with 4 levels each. The second level is the animate level and the third level is the cosmic level, Conscioiusness is the lower level of the cosmic level, its not even in the realm that we exist in.
You have to propose a theory, an explanation and discuss it...other wise it is just blablabla...when he says that he went around all religions,philosophy, system of thoughts I have serious douts...The major unifying concept among the old ones is the concept of spiritual body or bodies....and it has been weighted in scientific reaseachs to around 20 grams that could be detected whenever a person would ieave the physical body or simply died. Now the bioplasmic body (modern term to please scientifics) means a total new level of organisation in an other reality more subtil... The people from old India,Egypt and all ancient traditions could be considered as dreamers by modern science but the question is right there...what is a dreamer s dream...if not consciensous out of physical body...
The "explanatory gap" is like the weather; everyone is talking about, but no one is doing anything about it. Unless you believe in ghost, consciousness is all biological.
@@rizdekd3912 Sometimes - assuming you have other evidence that demonstrates a reducibility or derivation - which after 50 years of neuroscience, brain scientists and biologists have not produced any other corroborating evidence of derivation - they have only demonstrated correlation - which is about what you would find in a radio attempting to find the causation of a broadcast - the radio parts are correlated with a broadcast, but are not a broadcast. An alternative that is routinely denigrated by Skeptic materialists or marginalized (and Kuhn is guilty of it as well) is the last 30+ years of scientific research into NDE's (Near Death Experiences). There are now over 65+ worldwide legitmate scientific studies - some multiple years long, of all age groups and backgrounds and ethnicities. But this research is never really taken seriously by the "neuroscience" crowd of materialists. Instead they continue to pursue their own version of what they believe consciousness must be - and they have not found anything - no scientific proof other than correlations. Pretty much what I would define as a type of dogmatism if not a modern day religion.
"If consciousness is 100% physical, we would have to conclude that the same kind of consciousness that we experience as humans..." Not only as humans, but as animals, which share analogous structures and functions. A physical pattern is repeated and shared among complex life. The conclusion would be that all animals have consciousness, and if the pattern is repeated mechanically, the mechanism will also have consciousness.
I agree. It's the pattern of connections that create the circuits of consciousness, not the nerve cells themselves but their higher-level arrangement and ways of transmitting signals. Those arrangements and functions can be implemented with things other than nerve cells in principle.
@@johnskujins8870 I too agree but the key concept necessary for understanding the being conscious process seems to me to be the ability of neurons to 'represent' via their ability to encode information as temporal discharge patterns. Representation is the 'essence'. A thought is 'about' something, something that the thought is not... in all cases except one. The exception, self evidently, is the thought that is about its self and this thought is to what the word 'self' refers in the sentence, 'It is my self that is conscious', or equivalently, 'I am conscious', the sole assertion about which I am absolutely certain. You too I imagine. (I can include my body in my conception of my self because I know all thoughts are utterly dependent for their immaterial existence on a material substrate. I suspect that when the being conscious process first manifests in a growing human, the representation at the core of the process is probably a representation of the body. (Vague and ancient memories tip my thoughts in that direction)).
Biology is the consequence of Matter. Consciousness is the property of Biology. Biological properties can not claim independent existence bypassing physical properties and laws. So Consciousness too is a physical property which should be existing in Non Biological Matter ( Inorganic). All the possibilities of life and consciousness are existing in Matter. Matter , either living or inorganic should have all the essence of Consciousness acting at the subtlest plane.
Still an open question. But for many of us - a single life (and many do suffer throughout their life) a single life on a road that goes nowhere ultimately has little meaning to it. But of course, that doesn't prove there is a spiritual realm. But the materialistic Skeptic faith is one of nihilism - they believe consciousness an accidentally produced byproduct of evolution - and death a complete obliteration of one's individuality forever. Literally, a road to nowhere: a nihilistic faith.
@@jamenta2 Why does the phenomenal production of consciousness from evolution a nihilistic faith? In your own words, what does nihilism mean to you? And how would it make a difference if, instead of this remarkable and rare occurrence of nature self organizing into life which will end, we were made by some super being who will keep us...or a part of us... alive for eternity. How does 'it'll last for eternity' help make what you see as a nihilistic existence any better? That sounds like eternal nihilism.
You will never see what you dismiss out of hand as not relevant. So we go on another 10,000 years attempting to close the explanatory gap by only looking where the answer isn't.
To Robert’s opening statement, I would respond: any movement by our species toward an overall religious view would be a mistake. A very bad one. If we haven’t learned that lesson yet as a species, we’re a sorry lot indeed.
"The structure and physiology of the brain furnish no explanation of the psychic process. The psyche has a peculiar nature which cannot be reduced to anything else." ~Carl Jung #UndiscoveredSelf #p46
Dear Mr. Robert, Thank you for the interview. Perhaps, it's possible to understand that the statistical nature of reality implies that nothing can cause or describe itself. In other words, the cause of any reality, regardless of its scale, cannot be determined by itself. At the same time, diversity and complexity increase as the scale of reality increases. This means that a single point cannot explain the content of an entire surface, and so forth. Similarly, a drop can never explain the ocean. Without this fundamental principle, science as we know it would not exist. However, this same statistical nature shows a progressive convergence towards an external cause in everything because it is not possible to identify a boundary to the micro or macro cosmos. This way, everything must be an effect of a previous set of internal causes, which are also effects of previous internal causes guided by an external primary cause because of the same principle. Dear Mr. Robert, science as it is today, will never explain reality but I believe you already know that and much more. Once again, thank you.
@@fredm5180 first you make a bunch of vague yet far-reaching claims based on - I don’t know - feelings? Intuition? Then you want to take me pointing this out as some kind of confirmation? I’ll be generous and call this lazy thinking.
Hi Kesty, thank you. I'm sorry for this. As it is possible to know, mathematics has already proven that no system is not capable of justifying itself. Chemistry and biology suggest that complexity and diversity grow according to the scale of manifestation. Quantum physics argues that reality is somehow a matter of probability. If we put these and other things together, if we research and study, we will be able to see that what is internal and external is just a matter of reference in any realm if we move the scale. Furthermore, determinism in our universe can only be overcome by a metaphysical reality as some particles are suggesting. Also, in fact, matter does not exist on any scale. In the same way, boundaries. Well, maybe I was lazy. Sorry, but don't you think denying without justification might be lazier? Not exploring another's point of view can give me an argument to be correct? If I cannot reach a similar region of understanding can I believe I hold the truth? Are the biggest syntheses of science reached for people without feelings and intuitions? Thanks mate.
I can't help but think that given enough afferent and efferent neurons that basically enter and exit a "CPU" (either biological or non biological) that a critical mass is reached at the level of higher order animals (and future computers) such that consciousness will arise. There is a spectrum of conscious states from the most basic organisms that react with their environment in the most basic way, to highly intelligent humans that are more aware and able to process their connection with the universe than the rest of us.
Once an organism can differentiate itself from its surroundings it becomes conscious. To do that the organism must have sensory inputs and capacity to process those inputs. Consciousness emerges from the outcome of the processing of sensory information, so consciousness is a property of that organism and does mot survive the dead of the organism. We are able to make an organism unconscious by knocking out a physical communication pathway of the organism so stop looking for consciousness outside an organism.
This question is one of those that illustrated pretty well the "Magical Thinking". Besides the path becomes furthermore narrower we keep returning to the "God of the gaps" !... 🤔 😌 🙄
The case for "Dualism" is based upon the notion that "Nuron Activity" cannot explain Consciousness. Even IF you could demonstrate that there is a "Dual" element to consciousness, you still have All Your Work Ahead of You to explain HOW this External Element gives us consciousness. Dualism is like God, an appeal to an Even Greater Mystery.
Skip dualism. Stick with monism - just idealism, rather than physicalism. Then you don't need to explain consciousness. Consciousness IS, just like matter IS in the physicalist system.
It is a fanciful and fun idea that consciousness could exist in a non-biological context, but the only real support for this idea, at this point in time, is that we don't fully understand consciousness yet, and how any arrangement of dead atoms can make the leap to living self-awareness. We should not put much stock in ideas simply because they are fanciful and fun. That is religion's job. What we do know about consciousness can be put to experimental test. If someone hands me a scalpel, I can attempt some amateur brain surgery, randomly rearranging human brain tissues to see this causes the patient to lose consciousness. If it does, then we can safely conclude that 1) consciousness requires some degee of complex organization, and 2) amateur brain surgery is a bad idea. Any volunteers?
Thank you for all these types of videos. what is your opinion on exorcisms and things like that that seem to be real? is that just psychological issues or is there a chance that there is some Supernatural element going on
Anything supernatural is undetectable by definition. Seems to me it's all too easy to confuse a product of imagination with an actuality. 'Time' is a good example.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Why is the supernatural undetectable by definition? I don't understand that to be the case. If someone insists that they've seen a ghost, aren't they insisting that they've detected the supernatural?
Theoretically, yes, consciousness can be non-biological, but practically, only a reasonable approximation to subjective awareness will be non-biological.
The simple answer is...NO. Hmmm ! Why would we be the only biological life with this non-physical connection ? Was it too make room for gods...to remove us from the strictly evolutionary connection that binds all life on this planet... or just to stroke our all too fragile egoes ? To convince ourselves that our short pathetically insignificant lives must somehow be important to the universe and/or a god ? At what point in our long evolutionary history did we pick up a non-physical connection ? Did our many extinct relatives also have this connection ? Or are we simply special pleading it into existence ?
Maybe it's not "beyond" the physical world, but part of the physical world, however...a part we merely are not yet aware of, haven't yet discovered...but it remains in the physical world, nevertheless.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL movement requires a direction of time, which isn't well developed as fundamental. A more mainstream school of thought is that we are in some 4D "thing in itself" and time is simply a perception rather than an innate direction of time. This would have to be resolved before turning to movement as any sort of answer as movement is innately space time dependent.
@@LorenzoDeprado Time is not an actuality in the universe. Time is a concept only. Now, imagine an object moving through empty space relative to a collection of nearby objects without applying the concept of time to the situation. You may find this thought experiment a little tricky to accomplish because a lifetime of believing that time is a something might get in the way. Please let me know your results.
LLM behaves like consciousness and models a neutral network. Unless consciousness is not objectively measurable, then it seems we already know emergence from matter.
3:33 ... could you ever be convinced that a physical explanation of consciousness would be impossible. NB: I could considerably be convinced that you know God was speaking to me out of a burning bush that was burnt without being consumed enough miracles and I'd give up. 3:01
Hope? Not truth? The countless NDEs give some indication that consciousness is not biological. But I guess this is hard to research and observe. Interesting topic.
Can Consciousness be Non-Biological? I strongly believe that this is true. I think the people that CTT talk to about Consciousness are all very smart people. However, I think their definition of Consciousness is completely wrong. What drives me crazy about this is...just how simple Consciousness is.
Science is _science of the gaps._ Reductivists are being squeezed into smaller corners of denial every year. Physicists are leaning strongly toward a realization the universe itself is a non-physical proposition, but not selling off their stocks in reductive materialism just yet. It has more to do with being overburdened with undue caution within a small academic community than it has to do with science.
Well Consciousness must be non-biological because mine has extended beyond my body - namely - non-local consciousness - namely out of body experience. Period.
His arguments are very convenient to maintain, but at some point, all the findings that lack satisfying materialist language descriptions will begin to add up and combined with all the funerals, arguments like his will have become more obviously unreasonable. That is to say, from my perspective, his arguments are more convenient than reasonable.
To my mind the reductionist approach is unlikely to provide an explanation of consciousness, in much that same way as an investigation of the individual components of a motor vehicle could explain how it they could combine to take a family on holiday.
Consciousness may be a model of a systems environment, one which is an emergent property of information being processed in a differentiated and integrated system, so not the substrate per se. However, the systems substrate may play a role in type of consciousness which emerges. So a consciousness from a model generated by a biological system should be a completely different form of consciousness from a model generated by an AI.
Computer AI cannot produce consciousness because consciousness is not a quantitative phenomena, it is qualitative. Emergent theory is like believing the funny money in a monopoly game is real. Probably one of the more silly theories materialists have come up with in recent times - but it's the latest and greatest rage, piece of hope, "a matter of faith". Seems to be more and more like that for Materialists these days ... no scientific evidence supporting your concocted out-of-thin air ideas, so all you have to go on is "it will be discovered scientifically in the future." Every day, more and more it appears Materialism is becoming like any other religion in human history. Dogmatic. Lacking objectivity. Orthodox and mediocre.
Consciousness is based on biology. You can't prove that dust or clouds or planets are conscious. Those are a type of physical matter. Watches are mechanical but not conscious.
I saw a mural today of a gorgeous, coral reef at the pool. It was recognizable as a colorful object, but as I drew closer, it was clearly made of tiny individual elements of ceramic tile. There is no need to make the leap of some kind of pre-existing gap of phenomenon, it is simply the aggregate of tiny units that together, compose something recognizable and meaningful.
That's a good analogy. And the ceramic tiles are made of aggregates of smaller particles; which are composed of molecular networks; which are comprised of atoms; which are made of electrons, protons, and neurons; which arise from more fundamental particles; etc., etc...... Maybe eventually we'll hit something beyond the physical, whatever that might be, but, until then, non-physical explanations add nothing to our understanding of existence.
I think the other way around. The universe is not really an aggregate of different objects. I'ts just one thing but when you start analyzing it you take it apart and create different things/concepts. It is the mind that separates one thing from another, but nothing really exists on it's own.
@@Apebek Memory is fuzzy but I believe some philosophers have explored the ideas of 'for me', 'for others' and 'in itself' kinds of existence. (Seems to me intelligence is hugely dependent on memory, dammit).
Yea, except we've dove deeper, decades ago... turns out the most fundamental thing we know of isn't material...The real question is why are statements like yours still tolerated when we've known about the non physical beginnings of all matter for nearly a century????
I appreciate Robert opening up to the silliness of all this. He doesn’t believe in some immaterial realm but he hopes for it. Hope is good. Doesn’t make it real, but the honesty of his motivation is refreshing.
Ironically nobody really knows what “physical” is
Olivia Newton-John did.
Nope, not a clue
Exactly! And materialists (esp many physicists) speak so confidently about some physical realm independent of consciousness without even realizing that everything they know about the “physical” exists entirely within their own freaking consciousness! 😂
Also notice that physics (the most fundamental physical science) is described entirely by the language of mathematics (which even more fundamentally is just a form of information). Now profoundly note that information is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT without consciousness! I’ll wait ad infinitum for a materialist to define a physical reality without implicitly invoking consciousness 🙂
@@ififif31
You nailed it. 100%
@@brentwinfield5713
But no argument. Thanks!
The Questions asked in your videos are Profound.
"One day ... given enough time... scientist will explain... " is faith.
Yes, and? Saying otherwise is faith too.
@@rizdekd3912 It sounds like you're saying that 'Science' is a religion.
@@joecaner
I think rizdekd3912 is saying,
'scientist will never explain' is logically equivalent to
'given enough time... scientist will explain' and
so both are faith statements.
There is already a perfectly understandable and convincing explanation.
This is it:
The physical consists of two parts.
These are:
1 Material Existence and
2 Movement
Movement is immaterial.
Of course the existence of Movement is utterly dependent on Material Existents but
Movements and Material Existents are self evidently not the same 'thing'.
Put another way,
Matter is the Substrate of Movement (the necessary substrate (obviously)).
It's not much of a leap to understand,
if thoughts and minds are immaterial as they seem to be,
then Movement is the perfect candidate from which
thoughts and minds may be constituted.
It's not the material existence of neurons that constitute thoughts but
it may be neurons' temporally patterned discharge activity that
encodes them.
(Note: 'activity' is another word for Movement).
Think about it and
if anyone needs more explanation I am willing to discuss.
This question makes only sense, when you believe that physical matter and consciousness are separate things, and consciousness somehow emerges from matter. What if this is not the case, and consciousness is the reality of the universe, and biology is what it looks like from a localized perspective of consciousness (aka humans and animals)? Consciousness would not emerge from anything, but be conscious of those things instead. So consciousness could not be constructed.
But as he says toward the end....that still doesn't explain consciousness like many want physicalists to 'explain' consciousness. That seems to just push it back a step...out of the reach of any research/study.
@@rizdekd3912 you reach this problem with any question about the fundamental nature of anything, even if they are physical. What is light? Light is... photons. What are photons? Quantum particles of... the electromagnetic force? What is the electromagnetic force? Interactions within the electromagnetic field? What is that field? (I'm not a physicist so I really don't know and don't quote me on any of this) And on and on, it's like the kid asking their parents "why" over and over again until the parents get exasperated and run out of answers. I imagine that consciousness as a phenomenon is no different if you keep peeling back the layers.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
There is already a perfectly understandable and convincing explanation.
This is it:
The physical consists of two parts.
These are:
1 Material Existents and
2 Movement
Movement is immaterial.
Of course the existence of Movement is utterly dependent on Material Existents but
Movements and Material Existents are self evidently not the same 'thing'.
Put another way,
Matter is the Substrate of Movement (the necessary substrate (obviously)).
It's not much of a leap to understand,
if thoughts and minds are immaterial
as they seem to be,
then Movement is the perfect candidate from which
thoughts and minds may be constituted.
It's not the material existence of neurons that constitute thoughts but
it may be neurons' temporally patterned discharge activity that
encodes them.
(Note: 'activity' is another word for Movement).
Think about it and
if anyone wants to I am happy to discuss.
The direction to take is to explain how 'emergence' works. For instance, how do storms emerge from the averaged energy the sun provides from individual fusion reactions? From the quantum religion angle; how does order emerge from supposed chaos of indeterminism?
Our current understanding of matter is insufficient to explain the mind-body problem, or even abiogenesis. It seems that there’s a significant property of matter we haven’t yet discovered or perhaps are unable to perceive.
What’s missing is an understanding of dialectics - emergence does explain a lot, more so it’s about understanding the laws that govern emergence
@@mnrvaprjct Using the word "emergence" has about the same magical quality as the color green emerging from number theory. Or Unicorns actually existing.
@@jamenta2 makes no sense, chemistry emerges out of physics, biology emerges out of (geo)chemistry so on and so forth -
@@mnrvaprjct Quite the psychological projection.
@@mnrvaprjctmaybe if we understood what does not emerge better we might have a more honest picture of what is really happening. Relying on emergence to give us the whole picture is like victors telling us history.
The main issue is the nobody knows what ‘consciousness’ actually means. As with Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where he posited the question “What’s the answer to life the universe and everything?”. The answer was 42… it makes no sense, because the question is too vague.
I like that. The problem isn’t the answer, it’s that we haven’t even figured out what the right question is yet.
Сознание это квалиа
yawn, tukdam taipei 2020
mind-body problem was solved millennia ago.
"Forty-two is the ASCII code for the symbol * also known as the asterisk. This symbol is often thought to translate to anything or everything. In this instance, 42 = everything, the meaning of life."
@@paranoid_andrewd That's great, thank you. I've been a Douglas Adams fan since the radio show and I never knew that.
Ned believes that the hard problem is hard 🙂
For it to be really appealing, consciousness has not only to be non-physical, but has to able to interact with the physical world
The Materialists have it right with monism, wrong regarding what that monism actually is.
Reminds me of a quote from Werner Heisenberg: "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." Heisenberg also remarked, "Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible."
Consciousness doesn't need to be able to interact with the physical world, I think. We don't know what consciousness exactly is, it could be an observation function without providing any feedback.
Так и происходит,сознание коррелят
@@anhta9001мы знаем,что такое сознание,это опыт и выводы от первого лица
@@anhta9001 "Consciousness doesn't need to be able to interact with the physical world, I think. We don't know what consciousness exactly is, it could be an observation function without providing any feedback."
Isn't that epiphenomenalism? It would seem odd that consciousness does no work, ie provides no value and doesn't aid in our long term decision-making process but rather is merely a movie screen with us watching our lives happen. It's possible. But how does the physical cause it to 'seem to' be a useful version of the world around us? I realize that concept of the world around us is NOT anything like what the world is at the quantum or even the atomic level. IE it's a mental construct. But It seems to be solid enough that billions of other creatures react pretty much to the same 'conception.' IOW, it is obvious a tree 'interacts' with the what we perceive as soil and its components which means the tree 'sees' it much as we do...with what appears to be dirt with a solid structure with water/nutrients it uses to grow.
Regarding Ned Block's rather cheesy rejection of panpsychism at 6:26 - "Why is it that the consciousness in the molecule in my thumb is a part of, you know, my consciousness?"
DNA replication implies a solution to the binding problem, because 1) Within any one body, all the DNA molecules within cells are identical & this relates to *quantum indistinguishability* , and 2) The manner of DNA replication, as the creation of a pair of identical molecules from a parent, might be the molecular equivalent of the interaction required between two photons in a laser that is essential in achieving entanglement.
Bottom line: We have good reason to take DNA entanglement seriously, despite the alleged "decoherence in warm, wet environments" that is reflexively taken for granted.
DNA entanglement might be fundamental to understanding the two biggest problems in the life/mind sciences: 1) The binding problem and 2) The mind-body problem.
Also *Quantum Contextuality* is a new development in QM that has been gaining traction in the past decade or so. Reference: de Barros, J. A., Holik, F., & Krause, D. (2019, June 24). Indistinguishability and the origins of contextuality in physics. Quantum Physics, 1-18.
>Bottom line: We have good reason to take DNA entanglement seriously, despite the alleged "decoherence in warm, wet environments" that is reflexively taken for granted.
Decoherence is measurable. If it wasn't quantifiable and controllable, quantum computing wouldn't be possible. Once a theory becomes a tool we use in engineering systems, it's hard to see how anyone can still claim it isn't verified at least at some level.
@@simonhibbs887 I'm not suggesting that decoherence is irrelevant, far from it. My concern is, has decoherence been taken seriously enough? I'm an engineer by formal training, and I look for solutions that work. The DNA entanglement conjecture would be exceptionally compelling, were it not for decoherence. Hence my suspicion that they've gotten something wrong. Can I prove it? No, I can't. But nothing else works. Call it an engineer's hunch. QM is heavily grounded in physicalist assumptions, and they are disinclined to factor in questions of phenomenology/ontology at the quantum level. The conversation needs to go there, & the relatively new field of quantum contextuality is, hopefully, a step in that direction.
@@TheTroofSayer
But what has DNA to do with my being conscious
(beyond the fact that it participates in the process that builds
the body that serves as the substrate of my being conscious process)?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Do you want my long-form, tldr version or the short-form answer? On this Saturday night of casual indulgence, I offer you the short:
The modern, human-plastic city, comprised of people making choices, is an ideal metaphor for the neuro-plastic brain, comprised of neurons making choices. Cities form into functional specialisations just like brains do. It also relates to Alexei Sharov's (2018) agency theory.
This relates to my "bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains" thesis. A *colony* of DNA-entangled neurons can only ever be way more efficient than a collection of unentangled neurons. The simulation that proves this is the modern, human-plastic city, where telecommunications simulates the effects of entanglement. Telecommunications, in effect, provides every person in the city with immediate access to collective information, to thus enable the city to act as a giant brain. DNA entanglement does for brains what telecommunications does for cities.
The long-form answer requires you to know about semiotic theory and a whole bunch of other stuff, so if your not up to scratch with those, your kinda stuck :(
Hope that helps.
REFERENCE: Sharov, A. (2018). Mind, agency and biosemiotics. Journal of Cognitive Science, 19(2), 195-228.
@@TheTroofSayer
I understand the human-plastic city metaphor very clearly but
it seems very clear to me that neurons do not make choices
(except of course collectively).
A brain neuron's temporal discharge pattern is controlled by,
on average, 20,000 synapses whose effects are influenced by the temporal discharge patterns of up to 20,000 other neurons (chemical milieu effects disregarded).
To my way of thinking
(about which I wouldn't be surprised if it reflects convention),
'temporal discharge pattern' is the means by which representations are encoded.
Dendrites and axons very much like wires and
synapses very much like telephones.
If one of those temporal-discharge-pattern-implemented-representations
should happen to be the self then
its easy to imagine its modulations being that of which we are conscious.
See?
Stop sayingthe brain. Consciousness requires the entire sensory system and more in the body
Good video. The only issue I can see is naive using of extrapolation. If physicalism was successful in vast cases, it doesn't mean at all, that it will allow to solve all cases, and the problem is just to have enough of time. Extrapolating is often a mistake. What's more, more we know, more we see we can't find some answers like how life come into being, like how universe moves (dark matter and dark energy are just "names" for description of our lack of explanation of 95% reasons for observed move of galactics. We even don't know how pigeons find the way to home, except some observations that disturbance of magnetic field make them unsure about direction. More we know, more we amazed what we don't know :)
What extrapolation do you mean? Extrapolating that consciousness may eventually be explainable by physicalism or extrapolating that everything we can't explain is always explainable by something nonphysical? In either case one must make an extrapolation so...is it really a mistake or a place holder?
>" Extrapolating is often a mistake."
When we don't have definitive evidence, every proposed solution is extrapolation.
On Abiogenesis, we're continually making progress on that from both the bottom up and the top down approaches. Work on autocatalytic sets is very interesting, showing how natural chemical systems naturally evolve feedback processes to propagate themselves. From the top down, there are several projects ongoing to construct entirely artificial single celled organisms. We have not yet found all the answers, but we are finding more and more of them all the time.
>dark matter and dark energy are just "names" for description of our lack of explanation of 95% reasons for observed move of galactics
OK, so we have observations of behaviour and you are quite reasonably skeptical of proposed explanations for that behaviour that propose novel phenomena we have no other evidence for.
Let's look at dualism. We have a phenomenon, consciousness, and proposals for a non-physical substance, which is just a 'name' for a description of our lack of explanation. Now you know why I'm skeptical of dualism.
@@rizdekd3912 By extrapolation I meant the conviction, that if we explain a lot by "so called" pysicallism, than after some time we will able to explain any phenomenon by such approach.
@@simonhibbs887"On Abiogenesis, we're continually making progress" Yeah, yeah... No. :) That's just an opinion. Maybe a thesis. Just a dream, some want to materialize, and in case it didn't they create opinion.
I have no idea what conscious is. Maybe explanation is not possible from our current point of consciousness, our thinking etc?
I just see no reason to assume, that it's an effect of (randomly?) (cooperating?) physical particles.
The very idea of physicality was questioned by Max Planck in his Nobel speech.
So... no. "When we don't have definitive evidence, every proposed solution does not have to be extrapolation. After so many years Laplace gave his famous answer to Napoleon, his hope and claim remain invalid.
@@zbyszeks3657 Simon exaggerates regarding any progress made scientifically with Abiogenesis, unless one counts as progress the realization by biologists just how immensely complex and difficult the problem actually is.
Another item that Simon and his Darwin oriented buddies rarely talk about is there still appears significant holes/gaps in the adaptive transition forms predicted by Darwin, and even more interestingly, there appears to be quite a bit of "nonadaptive" order throughout, order unexplained by old-school Darwinists like Dawkins.
"biological" is a concept we use to explain a particular set of experiences. It comes way after the capacity for experience that we call consciousness. The connection suggested in the title of this video is backwards.
My feeling is that a field of consciousness that pervades spacetime, just as the other fields do, could be hypothesized, as a physical means to generate awareness. This would NOT preclude religion - as with all religions, it would just require an adjustment of religious views.
Can you hypothesize about how 'a field of consciousness' might be constituted?
The fundamental underlying "problem" that gives rise to the "explanatory gap" goes to the heart of unique and peculiar feature of consciousness: it can not be studied directly with the scientific method upon which all of modern science has been built.
A being's consciousness can only be directly experienced by that being itself - in our experience, a live animal. There is no 3rd person way to confirm if a being is conscious, or if observations of that being's reported or measured experience are identical to the being's conscious experience.
Even describing hunger based on chemistry would be unsatisfying to someone feeling hunger. But that doesn't mean there's magic going on. I've always thought consciousness was just a by-product of complexity. It's why humans probably feel consciousness more vividly than bees. As we build more complex computer systems that become conscious, we might understand the causes, even if we cannot understand how the machines actually 'feel'.
Этот побочный эффект влияет на весь организм и нейроны мозга 😅
we've mapped out bees brains very well and thoroughly understand their neural correlate activity, yet have never once observed any emergent property consciousness in any of their neural correlates ie. the thing they are claimed to be the property of.
@@5piles "we've mapped out bees brains very well and thoroughly understand their neural correlate activity, yet have never once observed any emergent property consciousness in any of their neural correlates ie. the thing they are claimed to be the property of."
What would it look like? By 'emerge' do you mean exist outside the cells of the bee's brain? Why assume it extends out beyond the actual cells?
@@rizdekd3912 it would look like whatever the emergent property is said to be. for example a pattern is said to be an emergent property of the shell. it is not something additional to the shell, it is the shell itself, the shell itself having developed a new property. when the shell is observed, its emergent property is necessarily observed.
similarly physical blue is said to be an emergent property of the neural correlate, or anywhere inside the skull. if true then the when the basis of emergence ie. the neural correlate is observed, its emergent property is necessarily observed.
this is the main point of metaphysical physicalism's philosophy, illusionism, namely qualia red does not exist what actually only exists is physical red. that it appears as something other than physical red is an illusion.
it never occurs to physicalists that they are equivalent to pre-galileo scholars practising folk astronomy prior to galileo developing rigorous methods of observing the phenomenon he wanted to understand. likewise we are using folk introspection and instead of developing rigorous methods of observing the phenomenon we want to understand ie. the mind instead we use our folk introspection as proofs for illusionism and physicalism, just like the medieval scholars did, and which the birth of science rebelled against.
You are almost certainly correct, Duncan. Consciousness arises/emerges from complex information processing and involves physical processes ONLY.. Nothing immaterial, nothing supernatural, and NO superstitious elements involved.. Trouble is a lot of commenters on this topic seem stuck in bronze age dualism.. Peace..
In this video, Ned Block may be the first of Robert’s guests where I wholeheartedly agreed with everything he said.
Yes, but what is it that we've agreed to?
@@danielp2937that the competing philosophical models are all clearly insufficient
Consciousness has never been proven to be physical. So this sounds like another biased scientist.
He holds a strong opinion about something unproven.
Robert - your hope that there might be something non-physical about consciousness seems a odd.
We are part of the world as is our consciousness, and there is a physics that describes our world that will include consciousness -- our current physics does not yet do this.
Assuming that such a physics exists -- whether you and I are around to see it arrive or not -- if it includes new, currently unknown and undefined, "fields" or "features" that will alter, expand, amend, or modify our current physics to one which includes (explains the behavior of) consciousness -- would that then make consciousness non-physical?
If so -- would electromagnetic and quantum field theories also be "non-physical"?
Thats a great questions, because bilogical is the ultimate evolutions of an autonomous mechanic system in atomic scale.
However the question has it flaws or incomplete in such details, no such thing ever seeing beyond physicalism.
The Questions has to be unwrapped the meaning of consciousness it self which is difficult.
Electromagnetic fields arising or associated with moving particles is accepted. Why not consciousness as simply a field arising or associated with neural activity? It doesn’t require dualism.
"Non physical" - we very likely know that now : AI
If sophisticated processing (of any kind) produces consciousness
Then it is the processing, the arrangements that allow "emergence" of consciousness
That would pretty much separate consciousness from physical
A "critical density" of processing may be necessary for a "phase change" to occur
Something like that
Explanatory gap:
In the philosophy of mind and consciousness, the explanatory gap is the difficulty that physicalist philosophies have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel subjectively when they are experienced. It is a term introduced by philosopher Joseph Levine. Wikipedia
But there is also an explanatory gap in explaining how the non physical gives rise to the way things feel subjectively when they are experienced, right?
@@rizdekd3912 I don't know very much about the explanatory gap so I can't answer that, but my opinion is that maybe our life experiences are from and relayed from God, kind of like as if God is the mainframe (where the actual operating system for us is located) and we are like wireless satellite computers connected to the mainframe. God's spirit is in all of us and so we are always connected to him and it's why if we do something to someone else it's like we've done it also to the Lord. Matthew 25:31-40 KJV Also, according to John 15:5 KJV we can't do anything without God.
So, explain the double slit experiment. Or the DNA phantom experiment. Consciousness is fundamental, IMO
*How does supernaturalism explain consciousness?* I have never heard that scenario questioned on this channel.
How, under supernaturalism, do we better understand consciousness?
Of course it’s possible! Look at this insane place we exist in!
Yes
The lowest strata in physics is information. Physical systems are information processors. Information processing is basic to nature. Consciousness is one such phenomenon. There is no explanatory gap that does not relate to our lack of a full grasp of how consciousness works, but work it does. The answers lie in simplest form somewhere along the path from single cell chemotaxis to multicellular animal brain function. Probably the largest enabler is the development of memory and recall; i.e., mapping external stimuli to survival outcome valences, yielding learned as opposed to genetically deterministic survival behavior. IOW, the rise of animal agency based on past experience as an evolutionary advantage.
So if you put 100 pieces of a watch together on a table and come back 15 billion years later will that watch have put itself together without a watchmaker?
You can use Integrated Information Theory to say that, in the case of panpsychism, the little consciousness in your "thumb" does not contribute at all to your consciousness, because it's not part of a system which integrates information in a system, like your brain is.
Great subject. If everything is a function of fields, then consciousness is a function of fields (in the brain and possibly out), then physicalism seems blatantly wayward in its orientation. ??
A deep dive with this one.
Ned Block says "Some people propose Panpsychism but that of course has the you know unsolvable problem of how the little bits of Consciousness combine into a big consciousness. Um you know why is it that the Consciousness in the molecule in my thumb is part of um you know my Consciousness?"
I'm not a proponent of Panpsychism, but to answer his question with a better question and answer: How does the space inside a cup combine with the space outside the cup?
Answer: The cup never divided the space inside from the space outside it. The same is true for Consciousness, but it is important to distinguish between the activity of what takes place in the mind, and Consciousness, which is not a product of biology.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “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). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity.
See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system.
A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness.
The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above.
So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Cont...
Descartes caused this schism with the mind/body problem. Which informed a dualism that mind is not 'matter' and vice versa, but my experience of seeing the universe is that complementarity is more prevalent than separability. The idea that mind is non-physical is completely wrong. It evidently is present as an aspect of the physical world. Is the information in. hard drive physical? Small, light and indiscernible things are still here, however so slight.
No one see the mind, but with patience you learn to listen, observe, and apply. This is the whole existence of beings. The moment you understand the simple principle of being, you either sell or you have to achieve the very best or take it easy, learning and applying what you know.
Please i dont want you to agree with me in any way shape or form. The best things that represent M are movers and shakers. Fs also movers and shakers but they are the ones that ruin the earth the most and beings the most.
But how can a possible non physical consciousness interact with the physical receptors etc in the brain?
Non-physical forces (gravity, magnetism) interact with physical things all the time.
@@RobCaldera But gravity and magnetism are both physical too.
@@stufordThey are forces, properties of physics. I wouldn’t consider them physical.
@@RobCaldera But dont forces have a physical basis? For example gravitons? Although my understanding is that these so called particles have never veen discovered, they are still thought to be particulate!
@@stufordDepends on how you define physical. Light is made up of photons. Is light physical? And gravitons are just a theory. Also, everything that exists are only quantum fluctuations that don’t become real until an observer collapses the wave form so the notion of anything being physical requires a conscious observer.
Being able to explain biological processes and functions is far from explaining the life that exists to keep those functions running.
It's like quatum physics.
And then metaphysics.
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
This idea that just any material object in the world can possess consciousness is wrong. A computer or a robot can never be conscious in the way that a human being or an animal is conscious. Consciousness is a physical biological property of the human brain.
Why do you think so? What's so special about the arrangement of the atoms in a brain that it's impossible to reproduce all its functions with silicon chips?
It's amazing that seemingly everyone in science has relegated the amazing and bizarre phenomenon of life to "just chemistry," so you see really smart people organizing conferences and writing articles about how computers are going to basically come to life and try to take over the world. There's a movie called The Creator coming out at the end of the month that explores that exact scenario. I wasn't going to go see it because the whole concept of a conscious computer is so dumb, but since that means that it is really just science fiction, I may go see it anyway, even though, in the back of my mind, I will be appalled at the very concept. Sometimes I am a glutton for punishment.
@@caricue : Why the quote marks around "just chemistry?" What did you mean by that phrase? Organic chemistry is amazing.
@@brothermine2292 The phrase "just chemistry" has a long and storied past. It goes back to 1828 when Urea was first synthesized in the lab and the battle against mysticism was declared won. Now, almost 200 years later, we have serious scientists talking about "quantum life" since there is no sign of anything but chemistry in organic chemistry, as you certainly know.
I think it is a little premature to start talking about quantum life when there are five or six orders of magnitude between a cell and an atom. We mostly have no access to the effects that can happen at these levels. In any case, consciousness is a property of life, so asking about non-biological consciousness shows a closed minded belief system, ie. "just chemistry."
@@caricue : I've never heard of "quantum life" and googling it for a minute didn't turn up anything by "serious scientists." Do you mean Roger Penrose's weird idea about brain microtubules in quantum superposition somehow producing consciousness?
You say "consciousness is a property of life." But we have no evidence that ALL life is conscious, and it hasn't been established that ONLY (biological) living things can be conscious.
Here's a thought experiment for you: Suppose a person undergoes a series of surgeries that replaces one neuron at a time with an artificial, inorganic, functionally equivalent device of the same size, including all its input & output connections (synapses, axons, dendrites, neurotransmitters). At what point, if any, in the series would he become a non-conscious zombie?
Life and consciousness aren't things themselves. Life and consciousness are simple ways of grouping similar observed sets of dynamic aspects of our experiences. For a system to be considered conscious I believe it requires the states or modes of unconsciousness that conscience life has, such as sleeping and dreaming. I am not aware of anything being described as conscious life that doesn't also sleep, dream or have a mode of operating with similar aspects. I also believe that for consciousness to exist it requires a fundamental function to increase itself by acquiring or growing or duplicating. Without a existential fundamental function to fulfill of increasing itself and the ability to have states similar to unconsciousness, it would not have the features that all conscious life has.
Aspects that are present in all systems of a type tend to be required (probably a logical fail in reasoning on my part but there is...).
Good points r.e. Sleep and dreaming. Obviously you are conscious when you are awake. What about dreaming? Are you conscious when you dream? In some dreams (lucid dreams) you are - you are aware you are dreaming, you can alter things in your dream, and you can remember your dream the next morning. In ordinary dreams, you are not conscious. You may think you are when you wake up in the morning or awakened during a dream. You can remember a short segment of the dream. What you remember is in your working memory, just like when you are awake. But you can’t remember your whole dream. So to be conscious, you must be able to access your working memory - which is self-reflection. That requires activity in the prefrontal cortex. That’s basically what consciousness is - the ability to review what just happened and relate it to your long-term memory and/or present experience.
The only thing that could go beyond axon to dendron communication is quantum entanglement, I am a-guessing....?
Or something else PHYSICAL (quantum stuff IS physical as energy or matter).
Consciousness is fundamental.
Matter and energy are derivative.
Even Max Planck understood this in the 30’s.
His example of life is self defeating as the study of abiogenesis has not only defeated science but has set it further back decade after decade.
Scientists have less of a clue than ever.
Time to grown some courage and loose the arrogance…
We can understand more if we consider that the Relation is an activ force and not a passive result as we consider now. In fact we can consider the Relation as the unique Creator in the Universe, it creates New Properties that we do not find in any of elements involved in Relation. Among those properties is a new kind of Intelligence with the capacity to administrate the participants. The Relation among neurons creates our Conscoiusness but everywhere in the Univers we can find Intelligence as a product of Relation. Let s think about Kepler's laws of planetary motion,Hegel, Marx's transformation of quantities in a new quality, Le Bon etc
You might find it interesting to replace Relation with Representation and do a rethink.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Ok, let's "rethink"...the problem is that a representation is nothing more than a form of Relation
@@mihaimagheru3428
"a representation is... a form of Relation"
How so?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL can we accept that a representation is a material form as a symbol ,it represents an Abstract Model or Idea? This means a Relation (Connection). The representation is a Relation with the Abstract Model. I can give you a basic example how Relation can create a coherence manifestation that controls all the individuals participants
@@mihaimagheru3428
I suspect we may be in agreement but
you phrase it very differently than I would.
Seems to me Relation that is not a physical activity
is an abstract notion.
Everything is related to everything
if one is thinking in that abstract kind of way.
so good to see a scientist slap any sort of ridiculous religious hocus pocus argument away in the most polite way... so no, Mr intelligent design... you can keep trying but you wont be slipping in any scientific door soon...
Couldn't consciousness simply be our experience of our functioning brain? Perhaps a brain experiencing itself functioning? I'm don't really understand what is being sought after in the pursuit of non-physical explanations.
It's the idea that how can you take an assortment of particles, arrange them in a special way, and then get inner experience out of it. I am leaning towards the physicalists but it is the "hard problem" for a reason.
Science believes representation (using ideas and language) equates to presentation (direct experience) which leads to assumptions like knowing the territory because they believe their map is real.
The religion called materialism....
you seem weak in your faith. What if it's all BS?
Ned is absolutely right on this. You can't have a consciousness that can examine and interact with reality that is not a biological consciousness or an Artificial Intelligence that was created by one. Consciousness is emergent from biology and free will thought processes.
The unconscious is larger and more important than consciousness. Our conscious mind is like the visible tip of an iceberg, or like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.
It's 100% natural. The mind (conscious and unconscious) is a meat by-product. Crickets can do it too.
Nice faith you have in your religion, but no scientific proof.
@@jamenta2 It's not a religion, it's an observation.
IDK what's controversial about it. Isn't it obvious?
@@bozo5632 Observations are great. But correlation is not causation. You got plenty of correlations, but that's all you got. No, actually it is not "obvious". There is nothing "obvious" about the nature of consciousness.
@@bozo5632 the absence of observing the emergent property color blue when observing the neural correlate from which it is claimed to emerge proves contrary to your claim.
its like saying you are observing a pattern on a shell but are not observing the shell. thats not how physical emergent properties function. we cannot find a single emergent property in even the tiniest brain or artificially created and structured set of neurons.
you have the exact opposite of observing the thing you claim.
@@5piles "we cannot find a single emergent property in even the tiniest brain or artificially created and structured set of neurons."
How do 'we' know what to look for and where to look? What would consciousness 'look like?' I don't envision consciousness being 'out there' in some sort of aura around the brain but occurring INSIDE the cells of the brain. So no amount of study outside the brain will ever pick it up.
What does magnetism look like from the outside? If we study individual iron atoms, we can't 'see' magnetism. And if we didn't expose one specific substance...ie iron, to something magnetic, we'd never know magnetism existed.
And where does gravity occur? If we study individual atoms, we cannot detect gravity...does that mean it's not physical and not due to matter/energy?
"the absence of observing the emergent property color blue when observing the neural correlate from which it is claimed to emerge proves contrary to your claim."
Why would the conscious perception of blue 'look like' the color of blue light as is detected by the cells in the back of our eyes? It's happening inside and among cells involving neural impulses and chemical reactions.
But more importantly what IS consciousness? How DOES the color blue transition to the concept blue? And if it's not something physical happening in the brain...what is it and how would you know it's not happening in and due to the brain?
Fair enough, you currently do not see any approach that bridges the explanatory gap. That being the case, you and all your colleagues of like minds should desist from your dogmatism - that there is nothing beyond the physical. Be open to any possibilities and continue the search for answers in an honest way.
00:29 It's not the case 🙂. I'm sorry! 😬
Ned says - if we we exhaust all other possibilities in the future THEN you could consider the possibility of dualism. So, what's the problem with investigating both possibilities at the same time? It seems hard core materialists want a totally materialistic approach - UNTIL at some unknown point in the future it can't be explained by their approach - THEN, consider other options. Seems a bit shallow from that perspective. MAYBE, hardcore materialists and traditional religions BOTH have it wrong! (A very real possibility).
Look at the real data on reincarnation cases
Regarding OoL research, virtually everything that the OoL scientists appear to be doing is Intelligent Design (i.e. use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence); then claiming Methodological Naturalism (i.e. non-use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence).
*_”In biology, abiogenesis … or the origin of life (OoL) is the natural (i.e. non-intervention of consciousness or mind) process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event…”_* (Wikipedia)
*_”This more traditional concept of natural things that can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind.”_* ( Wikipedia)
In order for OoL experiments to be a valid explanation for abiogenesis, then only “Prebiotically Relevant Chemistry” must be applied in the experiments. Investigator Interference or Intervention through the use of man-made chemicals, processes, equipment, etc. invalidates experiments from being considered pre-biotically relevant (i.e. before biology like the human mind).
It is a given that you simply cannot explain consciousness in terms of physical functions of the brain via nerve synapses and similar physical mechanisms. That is just one way of understanding the brain function and how it is related the whole process of consciousness. Consciousness is not a single entity or a thing that we can grasp like a table or a living being like a tree or a human being itself. It is an ongoing process that is resulted from the actions of the physical properties, the same way the process of flying is a result of the bird having a particular shape of a body and feathers etc. However, we can't explain the process of flying by analysing the feathers into it's smaller parts and how they work together in microscopic terms. It is how the body and feathers interact with the environment that creates the process of flying. Consciousness is similar in that sense the brain functions itself won't help us creating an accurate and understandable picture of how it gives birth to the self, being, mind or consciousness. We must try to understand consciousness with the biological brain, the inputs the brain get from the senses and how it process and interpret all that in relation to the physical world(or whatever) that is out there.
Ultimately, the sense of self or consciousness may be an illusion just like the interpretation of the world out there by our brain, but it is abundantly obvious that we are not biologically programmed to live without that illusion. Zombie is a concept, but may not be accurate or a false concept. If we create a life with sufficient coordination of biological processes to maintain it's life under the laws of biology, then it may be inevitable it will be conscious.
Sense of self may be fundamental to all biological life, possible in higher and lower states of it. We would never know for real whether a single cell life like has some form of self or consciousness. Some things may be ultimately unknowable other than assuming or believing. A dog or a cat is conscious because we can "feel" it and we believe that they must be because they respond to us and form relationships with us. In that sense a single cell life may be conscious in some level because they form some form of relationship with us or other life forms. Consciousness is a mystery if we want it to be a mystery because it is the consciousness itself that asks these questions or make assumptions.
Consciousness is the ultimate axiom because it is the consciousness that creates all these world views, knowledge , questions and answers. I think that any chance of us grasping the concept of consciousness and building a viable theory will depend on taking consciousness outside the brain synapses and connecting the brain and synapses part of the consciousness to the rest of the world out there. A good thought experiment would be growing a human brain on it's own in a laboratory without giving any sensory inputs to it. Would it grow normally or would it grow at all? Would it develop the consciousness as we know it? How can we find out? How can we communicate with such a brain? Such a brain may only have a primary sense of self(if it has it at all) because withtout the sensory inputs it won't have the ability to develop the thought process. We may uncover these answers in future. Another thought experiment would be to keep a human brain alive in a laboratory while the rest of the body has died. What would happened to the person who would be ultimately "trapped" inside that brain as long as we keep the brain alive? The thought process and the consciousness will be there because that brain has already learned the "self" via lifetime of sensory inputs and interpretations of the brain. Or we may be simply find ways in future to chemically/medically temporarily disconnect all the sensory inputs to the brain while the brain is still conscious and aware without any adverse effects for the body or the brain and study the consciousness of the person that way. Only time can tell.
I understand what "non-biological" means (a rock, for example). But I don't understand what "non-physical" even means. Doesn't everything that exists depend upon physical being or physical properties in one form or another? Even a mathematical equation needs a living, educated brain to conceive it and written symbols to express it. 😮
Look up Plato. Or better yet, look up quantum wave function.
@@jamenta2
I could do that, but I already know that Plato and the quantum function crowd is/were physically based guys.
you might know what biological means in 1850s based models of physcis.
but have no clue what biological or physical means in modern physics where these things are probability abstractions.
you can call it physical but its kind of a joke. oh and the leading theoretical physicists now no longer even consider spacetime as fundamental. minor point.
@@jamenta2 The problem Plato was struggling with was that he had no formal concept of information to work with. We can see that he was aware of the problems through his own withering criticism of the theory of forms in Parmenides. Nowadays we can express the same ideas more consistently in terms of descriptions. So we have a description of a circle, and anything that conforms to this description is a circle. Likewise for any other proposed form. We don't need to suppose any exotic form of existence or alternate dimensions. Straightforward descriptions and conformance to those descriptions solves the problem nicely. It's also extensible to any conceivable structure or state, without needing to suppose that such things have any kind of hypothetical existence in any other sense. They are simply possible.
@@simonhibbs887 whats more likely, plato not being able to conceive your primary school concept of descriptions, or that he obviously did and is trying to indicate something far more profound.
spoilers, anyone who has developed sufficient authentic samadhi can empirically confirm platos refined realm of perfect form geometry and ideals. this is has been replicated millions of times and was already well established and much better explained for literally 1000s of years before plato.
check out a book by John Bennett called - Energies - he lists 12 energies organized in 3 categories with 4 levels each. The second level is the animate level and the third level is the cosmic level, Conscioiusness is the lower level of the cosmic level, its not even in the realm that we exist in.
Harry Potter books are also fun
You have to propose a theory, an explanation and discuss it...other wise it is just blablabla...when he says that he went around all religions,philosophy, system of thoughts I have serious douts...The major unifying concept among the old ones is the concept of spiritual body or bodies....and it has been weighted in scientific reaseachs to around 20 grams that could be detected whenever a person would ieave the physical body or simply died. Now the bioplasmic body (modern term to please scientifics) means a total new level of organisation in an other reality more subtil... The people from old India,Egypt and all ancient traditions could be considered as dreamers by modern science but the question is right there...what is a dreamer s dream...if not consciensous out of physical body...
Everything communicates via some method or another. Put it on a large enuff scale and that constant communication evolves into a consciousness...
One must take care
to not confuse 'reactivity' with the 'being conscious process'
(at whose core there is 'representation').
@@REDPUMPERNICKELPlease elucidate on "representation"...
@@cautiousoptimist
I mean 'representation' in a way analogous to the way this sentence represents my thought.
The "explanatory gap" is like the weather; everyone is talking about, but no one is doing anything about it.
Unless you believe in ghost, consciousness is all biological.
Correlation is not causation.
if you believe only in folk introspection, you can only comprehend nonbiological awareness as a ghost.
@@jamenta2 But sometimes it is evidence of causation. What is the alternative and why attribute consciousness to THAT?
@@rizdekd3912 Sometimes - assuming you have other evidence that demonstrates a reducibility or derivation - which after 50 years of neuroscience, brain scientists and biologists have not produced any other corroborating evidence of derivation - they have only demonstrated correlation - which is about what you would find in a radio attempting to find the causation of a broadcast - the radio parts are correlated with a broadcast, but are not a broadcast.
An alternative that is routinely denigrated by Skeptic materialists or marginalized (and Kuhn is guilty of it as well) is the last 30+ years of scientific research into NDE's (Near Death Experiences). There are now over 65+ worldwide legitmate scientific studies - some multiple years long, of all age groups and backgrounds and ethnicities. But this research is never really taken seriously by the "neuroscience" crowd of materialists. Instead they continue to pursue their own version of what they believe consciousness must be - and they have not found anything - no scientific proof other than correlations.
Pretty much what I would define as a type of dogmatism if not a modern day religion.
"If consciousness is 100% physical, we would have to conclude that the same kind of consciousness that we experience as humans..."
Not only as humans, but as animals, which share analogous structures and functions. A physical pattern is repeated and shared among complex life. The conclusion would be that all animals have consciousness, and if the pattern is repeated mechanically, the mechanism will also have consciousness.
I agree. It's the pattern of connections that create the circuits of consciousness, not the nerve cells themselves but their higher-level arrangement and ways of transmitting signals. Those arrangements and functions can be implemented with things other than nerve cells in principle.
@@johnskujins8870
I too agree but
the key concept necessary for understanding the being conscious process
seems to me to be the ability of neurons to
'represent' via their ability to encode information as temporal discharge patterns.
Representation is the 'essence'.
A thought is 'about' something,
something that the thought is not... in all cases except one.
The exception,
self evidently,
is the thought that is about its self and
this thought is to what the word 'self' refers in the sentence,
'It is my self that is conscious', or equivalently,
'I am conscious',
the sole assertion about which I am absolutely certain.
You too I imagine.
(I can include my body in my conception of my self because
I know all thoughts are utterly dependent for their immaterial existence
on a material substrate.
I suspect that
when the being conscious process first manifests in a growing human,
the representation at the core of the process is probably
a representation of the body.
(Vague and ancient memories tip my thoughts in that direction)).
@@johnskujins8870what is consciousness?
That is the premise to define first. Otherwise everybody is just dancing around 🙄
well, you would say that though, wouldn't you ??
Biology is the consequence of Matter.
Consciousness is the property of Biology.
Biological properties can not claim independent existence bypassing physical properties and laws.
So Consciousness too is a physical property which should be existing in Non Biological Matter ( Inorganic).
All the possibilities of life and consciousness are existing in Matter.
Matter , either living or inorganic should have all the essence of Consciousness acting at the subtlest plane.
Is the brain/body the creator of the spiritual realm, or our interface?
Still an open question. But for many of us - a single life (and many do suffer throughout their life) a single life on a road that goes nowhere ultimately has little meaning to it. But of course, that doesn't prove there is a spiritual realm. But the materialistic Skeptic faith is one of nihilism - they believe consciousness an accidentally produced byproduct of evolution - and death a complete obliteration of one's individuality forever. Literally, a road to nowhere: a nihilistic faith.
@@jamenta2 Why does the phenomenal production of consciousness from evolution a nihilistic faith? In your own words, what does nihilism mean to you? And how would it make a difference if, instead of this remarkable and rare occurrence of nature self organizing into life which will end, we were made by some super being who will keep us...or a part of us... alive for eternity. How does 'it'll last for eternity' help make what you see as a nihilistic existence any better? That sounds like eternal nihilism.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
You will never see what you dismiss out of hand as not relevant. So we go on another 10,000 years attempting to close the explanatory gap by only looking where the answer isn't.
Thank you for understanding that to find the answers, one must turn to the true creator. Praise Shivakamini Somakandarkram!
To Robert’s opening statement, I would respond: any movement by our species toward an overall religious view would be a mistake. A very bad one. If we haven’t learned that lesson yet as a species, we’re a sorry lot indeed.
And Scientism isn't a mistake? Good grief.
Consciousness is simply a protective mechanism built into a biological system in order that reproduction and survival of that entity is maintained
The mediocre sophistry of believing everything is reducible to a carrot.
"The structure and physiology of the brain furnish no explanation of the psychic process. The psyche has a peculiar nature which cannot be reduced to anything else." ~Carl Jung #UndiscoveredSelf #p46
Argument from ignorance. Sad to see it in a philosopher....
@@peter9477 To catch a flea needs be a dog?
Dear Mr. Robert,
Thank you for the interview. Perhaps, it's possible to understand that the statistical nature of reality implies that nothing can cause or describe itself. In other words, the cause of any reality, regardless of its scale, cannot be determined by itself. At the same time, diversity and complexity increase as the scale of reality increases. This means that a single point cannot explain the content of an entire surface, and so forth. Similarly, a drop can never explain the ocean. Without this fundamental principle, science as we know it would not exist. However, this same statistical nature shows a progressive convergence towards an external cause in everything because it is not possible to identify a boundary to the micro or macro cosmos. This way, everything must be an effect of a previous set of internal causes, which are also effects of previous internal causes guided by an external primary cause because of the same principle. Dear Mr. Robert, science as it is today, will never explain reality but I believe you already know that and much more. Once again, thank you.
These are unsupported ( and probably unfounded) assertions
Hi Kesty, thanks for your time. Please let me know your arguments. Somehow, your denial may just be confirming my claims. All the best.
@@fredm5180 first you make a bunch of vague yet far-reaching claims based on - I don’t know - feelings? Intuition? Then you want to take me pointing this out as some kind of confirmation? I’ll be generous and call this lazy thinking.
Hi Kesty, thank you. I'm sorry for this. As it is possible to know, mathematics has already proven that no system is not capable of justifying itself. Chemistry and biology suggest that complexity and diversity grow according to the scale of manifestation. Quantum physics argues that reality is somehow a matter of probability. If we put these and other things together, if we research and study, we will be able to see that what is internal and external is just a matter of reference in any realm if we move the scale. Furthermore, determinism in our universe can only be overcome by a metaphysical reality as some particles are suggesting. Also, in fact, matter does not exist on any scale. In the same way, boundaries. Well, maybe I was lazy. Sorry, but don't you think denying without justification might be lazier? Not exploring another's point of view can give me an argument to be correct? If I cannot reach a similar region of understanding can I believe I hold the truth? Are the biggest syntheses of science reached for people without feelings and intuitions? Thanks mate.
Sorry, I mean "no system is capable of...". Once more thanks.
I can't help but think that given enough afferent and efferent neurons that basically enter and exit a "CPU" (either biological or non biological) that a critical mass is reached at the level of higher order animals (and future computers) such that consciousness will arise. There is a spectrum of conscious states from the most basic organisms that react with their environment in the most basic way, to highly intelligent humans that are more aware and able to process their connection with the universe than the rest of us.
The Materialist version of Adam and Eve in the proverbial garden. Consciousness magically emerged ... all a matter of faith.
You made a statement of faith.
Once an organism can differentiate itself from its surroundings it becomes conscious. To do that the organism must have sensory inputs and capacity to process those inputs. Consciousness emerges from the outcome of the processing of sensory information, so consciousness is a property of that organism and does mot survive the dead of the organism. We are able to make an organism unconscious by knocking out a physical communication pathway of the organism so stop looking for consciousness outside an organism.
Interesting ideas but no scientific evidence for it.
This question is one of those that illustrated pretty well the "Magical Thinking". Besides the path becomes furthermore narrower we keep returning to the "God of the gaps" !... 🤔 😌 🙄
The case for "Dualism" is based upon the notion that "Nuron Activity" cannot explain Consciousness. Even IF you could demonstrate that there is a "Dual" element to consciousness, you still have All Your Work Ahead of You to explain HOW this External Element gives us consciousness. Dualism is like God, an appeal to an Even Greater Mystery.
Skip dualism. Stick with monism - just idealism, rather than physicalism. Then you don't need to explain consciousness. Consciousness IS, just like matter IS in the physicalist system.
Consciousness is a process not an entity. Machine learning provides a starting point for development.
In as much as many don't think anything of the unseen. Treasures in earthen vessels or Treasures in Clay jar. 2 Corinthians 4:18
It is a fanciful and fun idea that consciousness could exist in a non-biological context, but the only real support for this idea, at this point in time, is that we don't fully understand consciousness yet, and how any arrangement of dead atoms can make the leap to living self-awareness.
We should not put much stock in ideas simply because they are fanciful and fun. That is religion's job.
What we do know about consciousness can be put to experimental test. If someone hands me a scalpel, I can attempt some amateur brain surgery, randomly rearranging human brain tissues to see this causes the patient to lose consciousness. If it does, then we can safely conclude that 1) consciousness requires some degee of complex organization, and 2) amateur brain surgery is a bad idea. Any volunteers?
Absolutely
Thank you for all these types of videos. what is your opinion on exorcisms and things like that that seem to be real? is that just psychological issues or is there a chance that there is some Supernatural element going on
all are explainable by materialist approach. no Supernatural element ever have been approved
Anything supernatural is undetectable by definition.
Seems to me it's all too easy
to confuse a product of imagination with an actuality.
'Time' is a good example.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL or by exclusion
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Why is the supernatural undetectable by definition? I don't understand that to be the case. If someone insists that they've seen a ghost, aren't they insisting that they've detected the supernatural?
Block had no answer, he just presumes that it will be explainable one day
Theoretically, yes, consciousness can be non-biological, but practically, only a reasonable approximation to subjective awareness will be non-biological.
The simple answer is...NO.
Hmmm ! Why would we be the only biological life with this non-physical connection ? Was it too make room for gods...to remove us from the strictly evolutionary connection that binds all life on this planet... or just to stroke our all too fragile egoes ? To convince ourselves that our short pathetically insignificant lives must somehow be important to the universe and/or a god ?
At what point in our long evolutionary history did we pick up a non-physical connection ? Did our many extinct relatives also have this connection ? Or are we simply special pleading it into existence ?
Perhaps Quantum Mechanics bridges 'the gap' but the dualistic materialism of the brain and other dimensions of reality.
The video was great, as always, but: oh my god what is that insane Rube Goldberg looking contraption behind them???
Maybe it's not "beyond" the physical world, but part of the physical world, however...a part we merely are not yet aware of, haven't yet discovered...but it remains in the physical world, nevertheless.
panpsychism and various non-duality supporters would agree
Movement is part of the physical world yet
movement is immaterial so
movement may be the perfect candidate for a base of explanation.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL movement requires a direction of time, which isn't well developed as fundamental. A more mainstream school of thought is that we are in some 4D "thing in itself" and time is simply a perception rather than an innate direction of time. This would have to be resolved before turning to movement as any sort of answer as movement is innately space time dependent.
@@LorenzoDeprado
Time is not an actuality in the universe.
Time is a concept only.
Now,
imagine an object moving through empty space
relative to a collection of nearby objects
without applying the concept of time
to the situation.
You may find this thought experiment a little tricky to accomplish
because a lifetime of believing that time is a something
might get in the way.
Please let me know your results.
LLM behaves like consciousness and models a neutral network. Unless consciousness is not objectively measurable, then it seems we already know emergence from matter.
What is it, that experiences the illusion?
3:33 ... could you ever be convinced that a physical explanation of consciousness would be impossible. NB: I could considerably be convinced that you know God was speaking to me out of a burning bush that was burnt without being consumed enough miracles and I'd give up. 3:01
Hope? Not truth? The countless NDEs give some indication that consciousness is not biological. But I guess this is hard to research and observe. Interesting topic.
Can Consciousness be Non-Biological? I strongly believe that this is true. I think the people that CTT talk to about Consciousness are all very smart people. However, I think their definition of Consciousness is completely wrong. What drives me crazy about this is...just how simple Consciousness is.
We have 1) the inanimate nature and 2) the animate nature. Consciousness is about only 2).
Science is _science of the gaps._ Reductivists are being squeezed into smaller corners of denial every year. Physicists are leaning strongly toward a realization the universe itself is a non-physical proposition, but not selling off their stocks in reductive materialism just yet. It has more to do with being overburdened with undue caution within a small academic community than it has to do with science.
Well Consciousness must be non-biological because mine has extended beyond my body - namely - non-local consciousness - namely out of body experience.
Period.
His arguments are very convenient to maintain, but at some point, all the findings that lack satisfying materialist language descriptions will begin to add up and combined with all the funerals, arguments like his will have become more obviously unreasonable.
That is to say, from my perspective, his arguments are more convenient than reasonable.
To my mind the reductionist approach is unlikely to provide an explanation of consciousness, in much that same way as an investigation of the individual components of a motor vehicle could explain how it they could combine to take a family on holiday.
Consciousness may be a model of a systems environment, one which is an emergent property of information being processed in a differentiated and integrated system, so not the substrate per se. However, the systems substrate may play a role in type of consciousness which emerges. So a consciousness from a model generated by a biological system should be a completely different form of consciousness from a model generated by an AI.
Computer AI cannot produce consciousness because consciousness is not a quantitative phenomena, it is qualitative.
Emergent theory is like believing the funny money in a monopoly game is real. Probably one of the more silly theories materialists have come up with in recent times - but it's the latest and greatest rage, piece of hope, "a matter of faith". Seems to be more and more like that for Materialists these days ... no scientific evidence supporting your concocted out-of-thin air ideas, so all you have to go on is "it will be discovered scientifically in the future." Every day, more and more it appears Materialism is becoming like any other religion in human history. Dogmatic. Lacking objectivity. Orthodox and mediocre.
Consciousness is based on biology. You can't prove that dust or clouds or planets are conscious. Those are a type of physical matter. Watches are mechanical but not conscious.
I saw a mural today of a gorgeous, coral reef at the pool. It was recognizable as a colorful object, but as I drew closer, it was clearly made of tiny individual elements of ceramic tile. There is no need to make the leap of some kind of pre-existing gap of phenomenon, it is simply the aggregate of tiny units that together, compose something recognizable and meaningful.
That's a good analogy.
And the ceramic tiles are made of aggregates of smaller particles; which are composed of molecular networks; which are comprised of atoms; which are made of electrons, protons, and neurons; which arise from more fundamental particles; etc., etc......
Maybe eventually we'll hit something beyond the physical, whatever that might be, but, until then, non-physical explanations add nothing to our understanding of existence.
I think the other way around. The universe is not really an aggregate of different objects. I'ts just one thing but when you start analyzing it you take it apart and create different things/concepts. It is the mind that separates one thing from another, but nothing really exists on it's own.
@@Apebek
Memory is fuzzy but I believe some philosophers have explored
the ideas of 'for me', 'for others' and 'in itself' kinds of existence.
(Seems to me intelligence is hugely dependent on memory, dammit).
Was it as gorgeous as the real thing?
Yea, except we've dove deeper, decades ago... turns out the most fundamental thing we know of isn't material...The real question is why are statements like yours still tolerated when we've known about the non physical beginnings of all matter for nearly a century????
The answer is in higher dimensions.
That's a faith statement, not "The answer".
It is faith until the question is answered, at which point it becomes fact - or "The answer" -- I just pointed my finger to a direction.
@@algalgod159
Then don't claim "the answer".
@@bowieupland6112 i didn't claim it i just know where it can be found - not xactly the same thing
@@algalgod159
LOL! You know nothing, you're just guessing.
Mind=an advanced coherent destiny field.
Brilliant! Well, that's that problem solved.
Consciousness discussing consciousness.