I propose that consciousness is an emergent property of large neural networks. Just as a traffic jam cannot occur with only a few cars, consciousness cannot be explained by single particles but is a byproduct of a complex interaction of many particles, specifically synapses connecting neurons. Now to this Video: It's concerning and potentially dangerous to mix real science with speculative philosophy in this manner. This can confuse people and erode trust in genuine scientific research. Please consider clearly distinguishing your speculative thoughts from established science when presenting to the public. Additionally, the title is misleading. "Discovered" is certainly the wrong term. At the very least, a question mark should be added. Otherwise, this is misleading and toxic misinformation.
My channel endeavors to mesh Christianity with science. Therefore, it is inevitable that I incorporate supernatural concepts such as the soul and God. Nonetheless, I truly value your perspective. Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts!
@@biochemistadrift of course you try to mix religion and science. You end of with an abortion of pseudoscience and bad religion. Your first mistake is inventing fake science. Real science is based on evidence. Yours is not since you have to fabricate things to bridge the two. Your second mistake is religion failing. Religion is supposed to be based on faith. When you invent pseudoscience to prop up weak faith you do not grow in faith but false science beliefs which results in a very weak religion. So you end up with fake science and a lousy religion. You destroyed two things at once with your Fabrications.
@@biochemistadrift no shit. I already told you that. Anybody who boasts lies about science has to believe they have an invisible magic friend who will torture you forever because he loves you, LOL. ITS A LOAD OF HORSE SHIT.
No one finds it more peculiar than I do. However, I can discover no alternative path to consciousness. Both emergence and illusion prove inadequate. Thank you for watching and for your comments!
@@biochemistadrift "However, I can discover no alternative path to consciousness." Perhaps you should first explain why the _existing_ explanations from neurology etc. don't work...?
You were correct; the term “discovered” was not the most appropriate word choice. Given that the topic is theoretical, the revised title better reflects the nature of the particle, "New Elementary Particle Proposed." I appreciate your feedback.
@@biochemistadrift it called muscles, LOL. Your imaginary particles: A. Do not exist. B. Have ZERO evidence to back up your outlandish claims. SCIENCE IS BASED ON EVIDENCE AND YOU SUPPLIED NONE. You are not doing science at all but simply preaching. I don't know if you're completely ignorant about science or just lying to fool people. Either way, your behavior is horrendous and a fine example of how harmful religion is.
@@biochemistadrift you should learn about how the human nervous system works. It is well understood by scientists, one of which you are not, well documented and does not work at all on how you purport. So are you just ignorant or intentionally spreading lies?
I have introduced the particle here. Currently, there are no papers to reference, as I have yet to write one. You might consider examining the work of David Chalmers, who posits that there is more to the world than what is currently known by scientists. I appreciate you watching and commenting !
@@biochemistadrift Chalmers is a dualist, and his ideas are metaphysical bunk, and not at all scientific. Construct whatever models of mind that you like, but don't wrap it in the trappings of particle physics or really any science.
The mind/body problem arises at the intersection of the mental and physical realms. How can we resolve it without delving into physical aspects such as particle physics? I am in search of answers and welcome your ideas. Thank you for your input.
I have been attempting to comprehend the connection between the mind and body for many years. To me, it’s not merely random nonsense. How do you believe your mind controls your body? I'm open to suggestions. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Calling elementary particles "the smallest building blocks of energy" makes little sense. A bad start for the video right away. "it explains how they interact through various forces" Actually, the force _carriers_ are themselves particles and part of the standard model, so saying that the standard model explains how the particles interact via various forces also makes little sense. 0:30 Why you don't bother to mention even _one_ _single_ of these "unexplained phenomena"...? 0:35 Where is your evidence that consciousness has _anything_ to do with an additional elementary particle? How _exactly_ does the existence of such a particle explains consciousness? How _exactly_ does it interact with the other known particles, i. e. what is the term for that new particle in the Lagrangian for the Standard Model? etc. etc. etc. You have lots of words here, but absolutely _no_ math! Physics does not work like that! 1:10 What you describe here about quarks having no defined size or shape is not only true for "some" elementary particles, but for _all_ of them. And no, quarks (and essentially all elementary particles) are in most cases _not_ "localized". 1:50 Quarks are not "indescribable", they can be described perfectly well using _math_. What _you_ actually mean is "they can't be compared in any sensible way to objects in the macroscopic world". But from that it does _not_ follow that physicists have no clue what quarks are! 2:10 That the sense of self is shared by other persons and even a lot of animals is not "unclear", this can actually be _tested_ by psychologists. And, surprise, this _has_ been tested extensively by psychologists. So let's add psychology to the topics you don't know much about, additionally to quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics. 2:15 Neither consciousness nor energy are "elements", and you have no presented no evidence at all that they are the only two "fundamental" things in the universe. According to essentially everyone actually working scientifically on the topic, it's quite clear that consciousness is _not_ fundamental, but an emergent property of certain systems, i. e. it is based on more fundamental physics. And what do you mean here with the "interaction" of energy and consciousness?!? 2:30 What exactly does "linked" mean here? And why (apparently) only the quarks in a proton, but not the ones in a neutron? And: How do you describe all of that _mathematically_, i. e. how does the term in the Lagrangian look like? 2:35 So you also propose a new force, additional to the known ones? Apparently you are _completely_ unaware that each of the known forces is carried by its own particle(s)?!? So if you propose a new force, you not only propose _one_ new particle (the trifle), but also additionally at least one new particle which carries that force! Didn't you notice that point at all?!? Seriously? 2:40 How exactly does that force "maintain" a certain distance? Usual forces do _not_ work like that! Forces change momentum, they don't maintain a distance! Don't you even know what "force" means in physics?!? And what is meant by "optimal" here? And why do you show a spring which constantly _changes_ its length, i. e. the _opposite_ of "maintaining" a distance? "This dynamic relationship allows for a flow of information to your brain." This is simply babbling. Nothing is explained, no definitions for crucial words like "information" are given, no mechanism is provided, no math, no evidence is presented for any of the several assertions in this short sentence. Why isn't the _known_ connection of cells, tissues etc. to the brain via electrochemistry (signal transfer by neurons) enough?!? Why do you need to invent a completely new particle and additionally a completely new force, for both of which there is not the slightest shred of evidence?!? 3:15 "energy is an extension of mental intention" makes no sense at all, for lots of reasons. The most obvious one: Obviously energy existed _before_ humans existed, i. e. before anyone had any mental intentions!
You have a number of excellent points here. I agree that describing elementary particles mathematically and as disruptions in their respective fields is the best scientific approach. However, many people want a more intuitive way to grasp the universe and, especially, their existence in it. One of the key questions that inspired this channel was the question of consciousness. Emergence and illusion are two common answers, but those didn't quite do it for me. So I was trying to throw out an idea to connect the mind with quantum field theory. I can see that the attempt failed. It didn't create open-minded discussion as I intended. Thanks for watching and thorough comments.
@@biochemistadrift Elementary particles are not described as "disruptions" in their fields, but _excitations_ in their field. Suggestion: Before you make any further videos about particle physics, _please_ first learn the _absolute basics_ of the topic! I looked a bit at your homepage, e. g. at one of your article about the Big Bang singularity. Same there: It is clear that you do not even know and/or understand the absolute basics of the topic! I'm a physicist myself, and I would not dare to make any videos about biochemistry. I suggest you think about that fact a bit, and apply it to your own situation. "Emergence and illusion are two common answers, but those didn't quite do it for me." Why not? I have the strong suspicion that the reason is simply that you don't actually understand these explanations.
have you heard of the penrose quantum consciousness? it was recently confirmed by a third party. my source is sabine hossenfielder. who references the paper. my idea is derivative of panpsychsm. i think all that can be measured has the potential to measure. thats how ive liked to think of it so far. do you have any religous views? id be interested in your take on some there philosophy. especially dharmic inquiry.
I am familiar with Penrose’s concept, though I must admit I have not studied it in depth. This video does seem to echo the principles of panpsychism, which suggests that consciousness is a property of all entities. My perspective, however, leans more towards the belief that there is a person behind everything. Just as you are connected to your body and I am to mine, God is connected to everything else. It all has a purpose.
Why was this in my feed? In other news, do you want to buy a crystal that magnifies the trifle power?
I’m not quite sure how RUclips targets potential viewers. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Nonetheless, I appreciate you watching!
I propose that consciousness is an emergent property of large neural networks. Just as a traffic jam cannot occur with only a few cars, consciousness cannot be explained by single particles but is a byproduct of a complex interaction of many particles, specifically synapses connecting neurons.
Now to this Video:
It's concerning and potentially dangerous to mix real science with speculative philosophy in this manner. This can confuse people and erode trust in genuine scientific research. Please consider clearly distinguishing your speculative thoughts from established science when presenting to the public.
Additionally, the title is misleading. "Discovered" is certainly the wrong term. At the very least, a question mark should be added. Otherwise, this is misleading and toxic misinformation.
I agree. This seems like an argument by a theist trying to justify a soul.
My channel endeavors to mesh Christianity with science. Therefore, it is inevitable that I incorporate supernatural concepts such as the soul and God. Nonetheless, I truly value your perspective. Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts!
@@GoogleSucks-i1d I'm definitely a theist trying to incorporate the soul with the scientist's viewpoint.Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@biochemistadrift of course you try to mix religion and science. You end of with an abortion of pseudoscience and bad religion.
Your first mistake is inventing fake science. Real science is based on evidence. Yours is not since you have to fabricate things to bridge the two.
Your second mistake is religion failing. Religion is supposed to be based on faith. When you invent pseudoscience to prop up weak faith you do not grow in faith but false science beliefs which results in a very weak religion.
So you end up with fake science and a lousy religion. You destroyed two things at once with your Fabrications.
@@biochemistadrift no shit. I already told you that. Anybody who boasts lies about science has to believe they have an invisible magic friend who will torture you forever because he loves you, LOL.
ITS A LOAD OF HORSE SHIT.
The weird is strong in this one.
No one finds it more peculiar than I do. However, I can discover no alternative path to consciousness. Both emergence and illusion prove inadequate. Thank you for watching and for your comments!
@@biochemistadriftI think he finds it weird the strange and unsupported claims you make.
I've noticed that the farther south you go the more IQ goes down. My father thought there may be something in the water
@@biochemistadrift "However, I can discover no alternative path to consciousness."
Perhaps you should first explain why the _existing_ explanations from neurology etc. don't work...?
Kids, don't eat red muchrooms with white dots... trust me, just don't.
Thanks for watching!
This guy claims to discover elementary particles without a particle accelerator. He can do it with his imagination! LOLOLOL
You were correct; the term “discovered” was not the most appropriate word choice. Given that the topic is theoretical, the revised title better reflects the nature of the particle, "New Elementary Particle Proposed." I appreciate your feedback.
@@biochemistadrift Thank you for admitting you lied. Now you need to acknowledge the other lies.
@@GoogleSucks-i1dno gives a fuck what you think.
WARNING: Kook alert!! 😅😂🤣😂😅
Evidence strongly suggests that you move your body based on your mental choices. How do you believe this process occurs?
@@biochemistadrift it called muscles, LOL. Your imaginary particles:
A. Do not exist.
B. Have ZERO evidence to back up your outlandish claims.
SCIENCE IS BASED ON EVIDENCE AND YOU SUPPLIED NONE.
You are not doing science at all but simply preaching. I don't know if you're completely ignorant about science or just lying to fool people.
Either way, your behavior is horrendous and a fine example of how harmful religion is.
@@biochemistadrift you should learn about how the human nervous system works. It is well understood by scientists, one of which you are not, well documented and does not work at all on how you purport.
So are you just ignorant or intentionally spreading lies?
@@biochemistadrift The things that allow you to move your body are called muscles, LOLOL
First graders know this, you can learn from them.
@biochemistadrift I like your channel
babe wake up new particle dropped
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Do you have any references to this particle? any papers where its theorised? id like to read it.
I have introduced the particle here. Currently, there are no papers to reference, as I have yet to write one. You might consider examining the work of David Chalmers, who posits that there is more to the world than what is currently known by scientists. I appreciate you watching and commenting !
@@biochemistadrift Chalmers is a dualist, and his ideas are metaphysical bunk, and not at all scientific. Construct whatever models of mind that you like, but don't wrap it in the trappings of particle physics or really any science.
Yup an angel told him in his sleep... (just random bs)
The mind/body problem arises at the intersection of the mental and physical realms. How can we resolve it without delving into physical aspects such as particle physics? I am in search of answers and welcome your ideas. Thank you for your input.
I have been attempting to comprehend the connection between the mind and body for many years. To me, it’s not merely random nonsense. How do you believe your mind controls your body? I'm open to suggestions. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Calling elementary particles "the smallest building blocks of energy" makes little sense. A bad start for the video right away.
"it explains how they interact through various forces"
Actually, the force _carriers_ are themselves particles and part of the standard model, so saying that the standard model explains how the particles interact via various forces also makes little sense.
0:30 Why you don't bother to mention even _one_ _single_ of these "unexplained phenomena"...?
0:35 Where is your evidence that consciousness has _anything_ to do with an additional elementary particle? How _exactly_ does the existence of such a particle explains consciousness? How _exactly_ does it interact with the other known particles, i. e. what is the term for that new particle in the Lagrangian for the Standard Model? etc. etc. etc. You have lots of words here, but absolutely _no_ math! Physics does not work like that!
1:10 What you describe here about quarks having no defined size or shape is not only true for "some" elementary particles, but for _all_ of them. And no, quarks (and essentially all elementary particles) are in most cases _not_ "localized".
1:50 Quarks are not "indescribable", they can be described perfectly well using _math_. What _you_ actually mean is "they can't be compared in any sensible way to objects in the macroscopic world". But from that it does _not_ follow that physicists have no clue what quarks are!
2:10 That the sense of self is shared by other persons and even a lot of animals is not "unclear", this can actually be _tested_ by psychologists. And, surprise, this _has_ been tested extensively by psychologists.
So let's add psychology to the topics you don't know much about, additionally to quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics.
2:15 Neither consciousness nor energy are "elements", and you have no presented no evidence at all that they are the only two "fundamental" things in the universe. According to essentially everyone actually working scientifically on the topic, it's quite clear that consciousness is _not_ fundamental, but an emergent property of certain systems, i. e. it is based on more fundamental physics.
And what do you mean here with the "interaction" of energy and consciousness?!?
2:30 What exactly does "linked" mean here? And why (apparently) only the quarks in a proton, but not the ones in a neutron? And: How do you describe all of that _mathematically_, i. e. how does the term in the Lagrangian look like?
2:35 So you also propose a new force, additional to the known ones? Apparently you are _completely_ unaware that each of the known forces is carried by its own particle(s)?!? So if you propose a new force, you not only propose _one_ new particle (the trifle), but also additionally at least one new particle which carries that force! Didn't you notice that point at all?!? Seriously?
2:40 How exactly does that force "maintain" a certain distance? Usual forces do _not_ work like that! Forces change momentum, they don't maintain a distance! Don't you even know what "force" means in physics?!? And what is meant by "optimal" here? And why do you show a spring which constantly _changes_ its length, i. e. the _opposite_ of "maintaining" a distance?
"This dynamic relationship allows for a flow of information to your brain."
This is simply babbling. Nothing is explained, no definitions for crucial words like "information" are given, no mechanism is provided, no math, no evidence is presented for any of the several assertions in this short sentence.
Why isn't the _known_ connection of cells, tissues etc. to the brain via electrochemistry (signal transfer by neurons) enough?!? Why do you need to invent a completely new particle and additionally a completely new force, for both of which there is not the slightest shred of evidence?!?
3:15 "energy is an extension of mental intention" makes no sense at all, for lots of reasons. The most obvious one: Obviously energy existed _before_ humans existed, i. e. before anyone had any mental intentions!
You have a number of excellent points here. I agree that describing elementary particles mathematically and as disruptions in their respective fields is the best scientific approach. However, many people want a more intuitive way to grasp the universe and, especially, their existence in it. One of the key questions that inspired this channel was the question of consciousness. Emergence and illusion are two common answers, but those didn't quite do it for me. So I was trying to throw out an idea to connect the mind with quantum field theory. I can see that the attempt failed. It didn't create open-minded discussion as I intended. Thanks for watching and thorough comments.
@@biochemistadrift Elementary particles are not described as "disruptions" in their fields, but _excitations_ in their field.
Suggestion: Before you make any further videos about particle physics, _please_ first learn the _absolute basics_ of the topic!
I looked a bit at your homepage, e. g. at one of your article about the Big Bang singularity. Same there: It is clear that you do not even know and/or understand the absolute basics of the topic!
I'm a physicist myself, and I would not dare to make any videos about biochemistry. I suggest you think about that fact a bit, and apply it to your own situation.
"Emergence and illusion are two common answers, but those didn't quite do it for me."
Why not? I have the strong suspicion that the reason is simply that you don't actually understand these explanations.
have you heard of the penrose quantum consciousness? it was recently confirmed by a third party. my source is sabine hossenfielder. who references the paper. my idea is derivative of panpsychsm. i think all that can be measured has the potential to measure. thats how ive liked to think of it so far. do you have any religous views? id be interested in your take on some there philosophy. especially dharmic inquiry.
I am familiar with Penrose’s concept, though I must admit I have not studied it in depth. This video does seem to echo the principles of panpsychism, which suggests that consciousness is a property of all entities. My perspective, however, leans more towards the belief that there is a person behind everything. Just as you are connected to your body and I am to mine, God is connected to everything else. It all has a purpose.
Is this satire? I seriously hope so! 😂😂
Thanks for watching!
Is this a joke? 😂😂😂😂😂
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Nonsense
Thanks for watching and commenting!
👍
Thanks!!