Dialogical wisdom is such a preferable medium to straight prose. DBH is a treasure to our age. I found this book at Barnes and Noble. I walked up to a young employee in her hijab and asked where I could find the DBH titles and she took me straight to this book! She said she had studied philosophy in France and loves this book, and I am grateful for young people whose minds and hearts are alive.
@@shmyeah, it goes to show the ecumenical appeal of David Bentley Hart. Although he’s Orthodox Christian, his writings appeal broadly to theists of various stripes.
As long as you can acknowledge that we can exchange the word puzzle for mystery. I can acknowledge that there are people who choose to be mystics but it is a choice.
I think most do. The problem I encounter is that if I agree that my agnostic/atheist position isn’t 100%, then everyone will take that to mean I will probably agree with their position if they try hard enough. My actual spiritual creed is: “I reject the idea that any human has a better perception of the mysterious than anyone else.” If I say that & don’t simply say “atheist who believes in science,” people will try to convince me their cat has an old soul. I may agree, but I agreed before they started talking. In addition, my position says I am the least informed (& most informed) speaker on the subject, so why would I engage in an ignorant performative debate.
Thank you. I've been interested and impressed by DBH since I bumped into his thinking a few years back. I've listened to some of his lectures and conversations, so far I've read nothing. Disclosure: I'm an "There is nothing but God" guy, and was already before finding DBH. Just wanted to make a comment: When you accept how impossible it is to account for consciousness from the mechanistic/naturalistic perspective, when you allow yourself to really admit how impossibly large the logical leaps that perspective makes are, you can at least then take the idealistic/theistic perspective seriously. But, what this does not mean is that everything is then suddenly explicable. It's really just that dualistic and strict physicalist accounts fail when it comes to consciousness - which is self-evidently real - and thus they fail fundamentally. Accepting this failure in fact frees us to be more scientific, more open, more awestruck by reality, to be excited about how much we still have to learn, how much wonder there is around us, within us, and ahead of us. I look forward to reading this book!
As a physicalist, never understood that argument. We don't know what consciousness is or how it is constructed. That's why we have books being written about it. So how do we know its not just an epiphenomenon of matter? It seems like you're saying "because we have this property X which we don't understand the nature or origin of, but because we can feel it, we can be certain that it has no material origin". Isn't this just a contradiction?
@@radscorpion8 No, we don't know what consciousness is, but we do know it exists because we make meaning and experience our reality. It is a black box, but it is there. I would argue that we don't know what matter is, either, but we know something is there. The question for both categories, then, is: What are we dealing with here? My conclusion is that we are dealing with one 'stuff', consciousness, before defining it in great detail. This is superior, in my view, to asserting the existence of two philosophically different categories that, because of the descriptive logic of those fundamental differences, in fact cannot interact. This dualistic position is, for me, fatally flawed in this regard. (Note this has nothing to do with science per se, which is a method for establishing how things function, more that it is a method for deducing what things are.) What we have tended to do philosophically - not scientifically - is assume matter as fundamental ahead of consciousness in a kind of ontological hierarchy. That hierarchy is mechanistic, or dead, in essence. Biological life is a downstream emergence of dead mechanistic processes, and as such is also dead, strictly speaking. So, not actually knowing what matter/energy is fundamentally, we philosophically impute to it a mechanistic lexis, grammar, reality, and conceive of consciousness as an emergent phenomena of dead processes. When you REALLY think about this, it makes no sense whatsoever. Alternatively, we can assert reality is alive, and that matter is an experience 'in' (of) consciousness, such that consciousness - whatever it is fundamentally - at least 'does' things like experience, interpret, prefer, and process data into information. From this ontological position, we can see matter and energy as information in the form of rules that are, e.g., processed by consciousness. I believe there is a discipline called information physics, and a phrase, "It from bit" that captures the essence of this position. All this really does is change the philosophical underpinning of science. The scientific method, which is termed falsificationism, remains unchanged. Quarks are information subject to rules, which are also information, or data - I'm not being disciplined with my terms here -, as are light and gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. It's simply a shift of perspective from death as fundamental, to life. A simple thing, but paradigmatically profound.
@@radscorpion8 idealism doesn't say that something is immaterial. It says that everything is a phenomenon of consciousness and is downstream from it. Physicalism cannot even approach to explain how we get an interior experience of QUALITIES (so called "qualia"), rather than quantities, let alone private COGNISANCE of having an interior experience. Not because there's not enough neuroscience data (there's plenty), but because the gap cannot be bridged. Calling something an "epiphenomenon" is just a white flag. I'll put it this way: there are black splotches on the white background (a page or a screen). What makes some splotches inkblots, some a jumble of letters, and some - literature? You may say, their mutual positions in a very specific arrangement. But without a conscious observer there's no difference between inkblots, garbled letters and sensible thoughts, it's all the same matter. So I'll allow myself to skip a few steps here, I've spent too much time in this comment section as it is, and go straight to this: for the Universe to make sense (to be filled with objects, to have space and time, to have regularity) there needs to be an eye of God looking at it. And you are (also) it.
Idealism is just as radical as materialism. It suffers from an analogous problem, i.e., the hard problem of matter. You don't get the material out of the mental, as all you can deduce from mental facts are more mental facts. As such, it is forced into a sort of eleminativism. We don't even need to go the dualistic route ala Descartes as we can simply say consciousness is a fundamental irreducible property. So reality is fundamentally psychophysical if that's the right term to use. Matter is not an experience in consciousness or an outcome of consciousness. Neither is consciousness an outcome of dead unconscious matter. Matter is conscious or alive.
@@anteodedi8937 even though that's pretty astute critique, and I concede that matter is necessary to be a substrate for mental facts (ideas without any material substrate is sentimental fantasy), I have to repeat my example from the above: a page with inkblots and a page with sensible writing on it are selfsame matter in almost imperceptibly different arrangement. Only in the mind of a conscious observer that difference is actualized, and the Universe becomes intelligible and the intelligence possible only in the mind of God (and its 8 billion splinters). I consider matter the record of past mental states of the Absolute (if you don't want to be distracted by an image of a ill-tempered Santa in the sky).
and yet the naturalists can make predictions about the world around us that actually deliver. this isn't an unqualified endorsement but it must be acknowledged that, whatever we've lost, it isn't the sacred world view that makes bouncing signals off of satellites into this network so you can see what i've written here possible- that was all the work of materialism
It doesn't take a naturalist to make predictions. It says nothing about naturalism per say. You are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
@@ponderingspirit But it's suspicious that not a single, well established, scientific explanation has ever been replaced by a supernatural one. The reverse has occurred relentlessly.
@drawn2myattention641 All explanations of physical phenomena are bound to be determined by the parameters of the method employed to begin with. Our conscious experience can be explained by the supernatural. It's beyond the mechanistic paradigm.
@@drawn2myattention641What are you talking about exactly? What has a natural explanation that used to have a supernatural explanation? There seems to be this common idea that everyone uses to walk around thinking everything they could not explain was fairies, ghost, and goblins, and that's just not true. Science has always been there in some capacity.
Sounds like a book I can enjoy. I've read a lot of behavioral biology and currently I'm studying Julian Jaynes. My own personal insights lead naturally to Jaynes work. Thank you for your review.
Theists usually project their own style of philosophical commitment on to philosophical naturalists. (12:25 to 15:00) Naturalists need make no leaps of faith; they can hold their beliefs and conclusions lightly, unafraid to follow reason wherever it leads; nothing is beyond critique. Contrast this with the theistic thinker who practically always has some prior religious commitment, some god or creed he dare not doubt, some lingering and distracting fear of hell.
Naturalists indeed make leaps of faith, in the human mind (as truth detector) and naturalism (as best truth detector OS). These are axioms that cannot be proven without circular bootstrapping.
@drawn2myattention641 Given nothing is beyond critique, I can prove naturalists need leaps of faith. The first big one is that our senses are reliable truth detectors.
Excellent review! I’m totally with you on this book standing the test of time. Honestly, it is relieving to have this level of firepower behind the non-reductionst view of consciousness.
Whatever and however 'consciousness' is and the various 'words' used to define and explain 'it' are, 'it' can never be contained and reduced by-and-to these verbal-linguistic symbols.
I love his books. Despite his love of linguistic flourishes and stylish bravado, if you pay attention, the seeming complexity resolves itself very concisely and with great clarity. Unfortunately, DBH sometimes does not recognize how very far most of us (even some of the best of us) are from his own intellect.
I always marvel at peoples' inability to imagine a subjective undercurrent to all things without attributing the characteristics of a "mind" to it. It seems like a failure to understand what the "hard problem" actually entails.
Constructive feedback: It doesn’t add much value to say « very well researched » « impressive ability to represent xyz » « I am biased based on the previous work of the author », these are all opinions, but don’t get to the substance of an analysis. Show the viewer an exemple of his ability to represent an author, what is impressive about this representation, compared to other representation, what makes this one stand out, etc. Not putting your work down. I’m sure you can answer these questions putting work into it.
People who dismiss the hard problem as nonsense or as a non-issue don’t understand the problem. It’s sad to see so much of that here in the comment section. Try and understand the problem before dismissing it. There is a reason every serious philosopher takes it seriously, even if they come to silly conclusions, like Daniel Dennett.
The Agora of Olympus The gods Psyche, Eros, Hermes, and Hephaestus convene in a shaded grove atop Mount Olympus, where the winds carry the scent of cedar and the sound of distant waterfalls. The golden light of Helios filters through the leaves as they settle to discuss the mysteries of consciousness and connection. --- Psyche: My brothers and sisters, what is this elusive thing we call consciousness, if not the soul’s perpetual yearning to know itself and its place in the cosmos? And yet, I wonder-what awakens it from its solitude to truly engage with the vast reality that encircles it? Eros: [Smiling languidly] Psyche, is it not I who stir such awakening? Love, as the divine flame of connection, bridges the chasm between the inner self and the outer world. Without love, the soul remains cloistered, its energies dormant. Does not the act of loving draw forth life itself? Hermes: [Leaning forward with a glint of mischief in his eyes] Ah, but Eros, is love alone sufficient? The spark you ignite must find expression, else it fades like an unspoken word. Communication-my domain-is the path upon which love travels. Through the craft of speech and the art of understanding, the soul encounters reality. Is connection not a dialogue, as much as it is a desire? Hephaestus: [Hammering softly on a golden ingot in his lap] You speak of sparks and words, but neither kindles form without creation. The engagement of the inner self with the outer world is no mere abstraction; it is the work of the hands and the heart. Through craftsmanship, we give shape to love and weave connection into the fabric of existence. A smith’s forge, I say, is a temple of transformation. Psyche: Hephaestus, your metaphor intrigues me. You suggest that connection is not merely felt or spoken but also wrought. Could it be that the act of creating-a poem, a pot, or even a city-fosters the engagement of the self with reality? Might creation itself be an act of love? Eros: [Nodding earnestly] Indeed, Psyche. For what is love if not the eternal impulse to unite? When Hephaestus wields his hammer, does he not infuse his creations with life energy, experienced as beauty and purpose? Love is the wellspring, but it finds fulfilment in form. Without form, love is but a formless ache. Hermes: And yet, let us not forget the role of the messenger! Between the soul and the world, between creator and beholder, stands communication. Without it, the forge’s light remains unseen, the poet’s words unspoken. Connection demands not only creation but also communion. Tell me, Eros, how often has a lover’s heart been stilled by silence? Hephaestus: [Pausing his work] Silence, Hermes, may carry its own eloquence. Consider the labourer who toils alone, shaping stone into a sanctuary. His hands speak where his tongue is silent. Creation, I say, is communication, even when words fail. Psyche: You each touch upon profound truths. Yet I wonder-if connection is the bridge between the inner self and reality, what is its ultimate purpose? Is it merely to satisfy desire, as Eros suggests, or to render the unseen seen, as Hephaestus claims? Or does it seek something greater, something beyond the immediate? Eros: [His voice softening] Connection, Psyche, seeks transcendence. Through love, the soul remembers its divine origin and glimpses eternity. It is the thread that binds the mortal to the immortal, the finite to the infinite. What greater purpose can there be than this? Hermes: [With a sly grin] And yet, Eros, love without understanding is but a tempest without direction. Connection must also enlighten. Through dialogue, the soul discerns its path and deepens its bond with the world. Wisdom, I say, is the compass of love. Hephaestus: And wisdom, Hermes, must be forged in the fires of effort. Love may inspire, and dialogue may guide, but only through the labour of creation does the soul fully engage with reality. Connection is not merely felt or spoken; it is made. Psyche: Then, let us agree that connection, in its truest form, is a harmony of all these elements: the life energy of love, the clarity of understanding, and the craft of creation. Together, they awaken the soul and bind it to the world, transforming both in the process. Eros: [Rising with a flourish] To love is to connect, Psyche, and to connect is to live. Let us ensure that we, as gods and as creators, continue to inspire such connection in the mortal hearts we cherish. Hermes: [Laughing lightly] And let us also remind them to speak of their love, to share their visions, and to build bridges of understanding. Hephaestus: [Lifting his hammer] And to shape their dreams into forms that endure, so that their connections may ripple across the ages. Psyche: Then let us return to our celestial tasks, kindling consciousness and connection wherever the human soul seeks to engage with reality. For in this, we find our own divine purpose. --- The gods depart, each carrying with them the light of the discussion, ready to weave their wisdom into the lives of mortals below.
@@BrianMosleyUK Psyche: Bro am I thinking or am I thinking that I'm thinking? Hephaestus: Bro wtf you a PC goddam boo what you be spittin? Eros: Ey yo don't talk to my boo like that 4 real bro imma get mad. Hephaestus: ooo, watcha gonna do with your little bow with those plastic arrows boy? Watcha gonna do? I got drones and I got the whole US military at my disposal by just pressing a button. Hermes: Guys, guys, please, consider your ways. This is def no cap NOT okay. You know what could be a great avenue for you both to partake in, like, for real? Hephaestus and Eros: [intrigued] What? Hermes: Well it's none other than today's sponsor: BetterHelp. With BetterHelp, you'll get the best- Psyche: Ey fellas, I might be quite stones, but I don't believe that I would regret the idea of killing this mfer, like, post hoc, like, in an a posterioristically kinda way. Hephaestus: Oh yeah let's kill this POS no doubt, Sykey (can I call u Sykey, lol?) Psyche: Well, I've been calling u Pheisty for like 500 pages and talking to you in the most holier-than-thou, reddit, spergy way, so I don't see why not! Hephaestus: [fortnite emoting] Nice! Hermes: Fellas, come on, you can't be serious... We're family? [To Psyche] are we not cousins or whatever? Psyche: Nope, I just got to Olympus like literally yesterday and started stealing your Wi-Fi. Eros, my love, you have been awfully silent. Dost thou holdesteth anyeth hesitation withinest your conscience? Eros: Nah I was buying explosive ammo, my sweetie cutie pie here comes honey boo boo! Psyche: aight let's get him And Hermes' fukin got blown up n shiet. That's how you do it.
My brain is too smooth to process DBH’s vocabulary. It is suffocatingly cluttered on the page. I appreciate his voice in our faith tradition though. Yours too Joel. I just finished your interview on the Grace Saves All podcast. It was really good. Have you read “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage” by Donald Dayton yet? It’s a great prequel to “Jesus and John Wayne” with completely different feelings it elicits.
This sounds like one of those books like The God Delusion. It's full of ideas that one can come up with on one's own and it's 1,000 pages of folksy diatribes that don't add to understanding as a whole. I'll try to check it out. The beginning of it is on google and I'll scope the local library to see if they have it.
Life is participatory, a person relates to something and can't not relate for an instant. Consciousness is a response to this, a sense of connection that bridges the gulf of mystery. Materialists call it incwrtsinty because that term holds their unspoken hope. Followers of mystery do not pursue a need for answers, we ask how much more mysterious things can possibly grow!?
I’m eagerly looking forward to reading this book, as I’ve loved this style of dialogue ever since I read Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter in the 1980s. That book is, of course, the most famous example of this format. I’m curious to see if DBH manages to pull it off in a similarly entertaining and thought-provoking way. I would at this point also recommend the books of Bernardo Kastrup who, in a less playful but much more compact and thus more accessible way deals with the 'big questions'. His 'Analytic Idealism' is the most convincing philosophical concept I came across in more than 40 years of dealing with philosophy - but he of course inherits a lot from idealists like Schopenhauer - which he openly admits.
Thanks for this, I agree that this is a very important book for our time. Materialism is the prevalent philosophical paradigm but it actually is a very poor basis for rationality and reason. Pretty obviously so in Dawkins image of humans as lumbering robots. The problems with this view should be astonishingly obvious, it does cause some reflection upon how we come to our world views.
The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" was created by our own confused thinking, the kind of thinking that leads directly to an infinite regression.
Each concept must derive from reality. Each idea must be contrasted against reality. One can construct hypotheses, but each of them will only become knowledge when they are verified in reality. If one hypothesizes the existence of something, that entity can only be considered existing when reality shows it. To consider that God needs to exist is to put the cart before the horse and will always remain an exercise to soothe existential fears.
What in the world would ‘verifying the existence of God in reality’ even look like? What are your standards for ‘verification’? To assume a materialist standard for verification from the outset will always remain an exercise in avoiding inconvenient aspects of reality you’d prefer to ignore 🙂
@@kevink5866 Alright! The first step would be to define God. Which God are we talking about? If it were the Christian God and He governed the universe, what happens in the universe should reflect the expected behavior according to the values corresponding to that God. God is infinitely good and would never produce unjustified suffering. In other words, in reality, there should be no natural cases of unjustified suffering that could only result from the intervention of that God. Thus, in reality, there should not be a case where a baby suffers agonizingly while burning to death as a result of an accident caused by nature. That indescribable suffering does not serve the development of that soul. The baby had no opportunity to learn anything good, to accept Jesus, etc. And it cannot be said that he and his agonizing pain served a necessary function. If the baby and his pain were used as a tool for some purpose, this would strip him of his human dignity and would prove that God is immoral. God created a human and a soul with no other purpose than for that creature to suffer infinitely. In a universe created by a Christian God, there should be no example of such circumstances. A proof of God's existence in reality would be the non-existence of unnecessary suffering.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vdtoo much assumptions of how God should be - not enough Bible reading. So the usual, "if God exists, why don't we live in paradise" while ignoring the book that explains why we don't. The same argument most people make who only thought about the problem on the most superficial of levels.
@@MrSeedi76 No. That a baby does not die in agony from pain while being burned alive is not expecting all of us to live in paradise. Suffering is supposed to respond to a need in the universe that God created. If it is unnecessary suffering, you can bet that God is not infinitely good. The necessity of suffering does not justify God creating unnecessary suffering. I don't see what your argument is. What levels do you distinguish in reality that justify the pain of that baby?
Joel, I read a comment that spoke about you being on a podcast. It would be nice to know when you step outside of your YT channel so we could listen/watch because you're an interesting person. I watch all of your videos and read many of the books you review.
It depends on your area of interest. If you want to try philosophy/metaphysics then try The Experience of God. If church history, then Atheist Delusions. Both will give you a good taste of his style without being too difficult (at least compared to his other books!).
Maybe you can upload a digital copy to chatgpt and have it summarize it? You should also be able to query it then and have a dialog about it. Worked well for me with fiction and business material already. And in any case it is better than not 'reading' such a book at all...
I am 120 pages into the book right now. What is the point you feel books miss and what are these real issues? Maybe I can confirm whether or not the book has (so far) made the same mistakes.
I'm unconvinced the "hard problem" exists. The underlying problem I have is one of physics and interaction, which no philosopher of mind ever addresses when they say that physical reality cannot account for consciousness. To me, it is like someone complaining about how their car won't start, and then you ask them if they put fuel in it... and they look at you like you're crazy. There are basic facts that they don't understand or incorporate into how they are analyzing reality, and it is immediately obvious they don't know what they're talking about.
Early on, sounded like he said, “scientists and flossers.” The book is clearly about dental health. Now I’ll listen to the rest. Consciousness fascinates me. Just joshin’ yah. (smile)
I think Trobisch is very close to right here. But I do have doubts...the gospel discrepancies are too great for them all to be one author. Just the genealogies and the ages of Jesus given are massively at odds (in Luke he's 30, and in John he's pushing 50). The failed predictions of the Second Coming in a generation and the tendency of Matthew and Luke to make Jesus more divine than Mark is also a problem. I think the answer is midway between Papias and Marcion.
I guess if, rather than read 500 pages of pro and con argument, you want to actually examine a theory of consciousness, one built upon a solution to the hard problem, look at "The Challenge to AI: Consciousness and Ecological General Intelligence."
I watched this video for two reasons: (#1) I am intensely interested in consciousness and (#2) I have NEVER understood the near cult-like fandom David Bentley Hart has. In my mind, there is no "there there" in almost all of David Bentley Hart's thoughts/writings, particularly consciousness. YMMV As I quickly realized, this video falls into #2, at least as far as I am concerned, so the conclusion the video has is almost a foregone conclusion.
@@christopherhamilton3621I haven't read this one yet but the closest I saw anyone "solve" the problem of consciousness was Gregory Bateson in "Angels Fear" by more or less declaring it unsolvable 😂. Still a highly recommended read.
@@MrSeedi76 I would never have it in me to be so certain about anything like that. I’ll definitely give it a read, but humanity doesn’t have a good track record of predicting what future humans can do or what they’re capable of.
First off I have to say that you/I none of us think. Period. We are not the thinkers we are the observes that observe that there are thoughts coming and going on autopilot. We are Consciousness/Awareness/Life call it what you will at our core or essence state. We are not individuals we are one. There is only one Conscioneness, One Awareness, One Life, One Source. These are just different names for the same one thing. You as Consciousness are behind every living sentient creature on this planet and on every planet in the Universe. You are every man, woman and child, every celebrity, every politician, that currently exists and that has passed beyond. All is you. There is no problem with Consciousness as Consciousness is all there is. The entire physical realm is nothing but an expression of Consciousness like the waves are an expression of the Ocean. We are no more separate or individual than waves upon the Ocean.
Sorry. I'll stick with reality and evidence. I'm 80 years old, and in my lifetime many mysteries have transitioned to rational, explainable reality. I have no time for blind faith and neither will the coming ASI.
How you manage to talk and yet say nothing about the subject is incredible. You say nothing about the ideas of the book. You just dance around the subject.
Just ordered it today - thanks for the recommendation! I'm interested to see if it compares to "Angels Fear" by Gregory Bateson which had slightly similar topics.
It seems that religionists and atheists depend on faith to arrive at their respective conclusions about a creator God. I see the temptation, of course, to wish for unknowable answers, to place faith in the unknowable. In my view, the vast majority of our energy and inquiry should be spent on the knowable, and to put faith in the knowable. What is it to be a good person, to live a good life together on this planet? These kinds of pursuits are knowable. We can have faith in ourselves to keep trying to do our best. All the while, anyone so inclined could spend their free time with idle speculations.
I am an atheist. This means that the idea 'God exists' has not formed in my mind. I do NOT think that God exists. It is the absence of an idea in my mind. I do not need 'faith' to lack an idea.
I also do not need faith to believe in the knowable. Even without belief in anything supernatural, it's ideas that shape the world and idle speculation is how we develop them.
@@MrSeedi76 In my opinion, reality shapes ideas. It is not possible for ideas to shape reality. If that were the case, you would have to justify what the basis is that forms ideas from outside of reality or consider that ideas have no origin at all.
Well, all the Christian books behind the speaker tells the story. It's someone looking for some rationality in the irrationality of faith in nonexistent god/gods. Looking up the author I see someone arguing with atheism. That's illogical. Therefore this author is illogical and can be dismissed.
@@klnrklnr4433 he means that they derive an "ought" from an "is." They don't become magical, like something sprinkled in pixie dust; rather, they engage in enchanted thinking because they must rely on the abstract to make models of what can never be directly observed, in this case morality and consciousness. Sam Harris is famous for this.
there's nothing magical to consciousness. it's a trick. an information processing network forms a subnetwork that contains a "story" of its sensory experience and to predict it. Over time, that kernel of a subnetwork grows to include an entire history of a character. Consciousness is the story that some information processing networks animate and sustain. In some people who suffer from multiple personalities, this kernel fragments at a traumatic event. One of my dearest friends had this condition - you should have witnessed the remarkable interplay of personalities. Another example is in split-brain medical cases where two distinct personalities coexist for better or worse. So to keep this comment short, there is nothing magical about consciousness. But the ability to create and sustain a personality does give the entity certain survival advantages.
@dazraf you failed to explain consciousness, I remain unconvinced you know how it works. Most Christians suppose God isn't mystified by our consciousness and probably works with it like any other construct - so in that sense even Christians believe you can fully explain it without disenchanting it. The model you propose isn't widely accepted, and is likely new. I have heard 3 "new" theories of consciousness from PHD nueroscientists this month. Maybe hold off your pronouncements until the field develops a stable consensus. 🤔
@@stetsonscott8209 the first time I read of this self-referential model was in the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter, published in 1979. I read it, 1985. During the 90s I worked in the field of AI, mostly in Defence as well as translation services. Turns out, it's not impossible to setup the conditions for a neural net to evolve self-referential feedback loops that learn and adapt. Just as Hofstadter proposed.
Dialogical wisdom is such a preferable medium to straight prose. DBH is a treasure to our age. I found this book at Barnes and Noble. I walked up to a young employee in her hijab and asked where I could find the DBH titles and she took me straight to this book! She said she had studied philosophy in France and loves this book, and I am grateful for young people whose minds and hearts are alive.
' young employee in her hijab'...what does that have to do with anything
@@shmyeahbecause this is religion, not science.
@@shmyeah, it goes to show the ecumenical appeal of David Bentley Hart. Although he’s Orthodox Christian, his writings appeal broadly to theists of various stripes.
@@shmyeah I think the commenter was noting DBH's wide appeal, as well as perhaps celebrating the beauty of religious diversity.
@@shmyeah Because he was wearing her hijab when he walked up.
Good arguments should make your opponent’s best case, not their worst. DBH does this so well. Great respect for him in this.
at some point folks need to acknowledge the mystery of things and be ok with it.
Check out the song 'Let the mystery be' by Iris deMent
As long as you can acknowledge that we can exchange the word puzzle for mystery. I can acknowledge that there are people who choose to be mystics but it is a choice.
Nah, far more fun to discover things
Most people aren't mature enough to say "I don't know".
I think most do. The problem I encounter is that if I agree that my agnostic/atheist position isn’t 100%, then everyone will take that to mean I will probably agree with their position if they try hard enough. My actual spiritual creed is: “I reject the idea that any human has a better perception of the mysterious than anyone else.” If I say that & don’t simply say “atheist who believes in science,” people will try to convince me their cat has an old soul. I may agree, but I agreed before they started talking. In addition, my position says I am the least informed (& most informed) speaker on the subject, so why would I engage in an ignorant performative debate.
Thank you. I've been interested and impressed by DBH since I bumped into his thinking a few years back. I've listened to some of his lectures and conversations, so far I've read nothing. Disclosure: I'm an "There is nothing but God" guy, and was already before finding DBH.
Just wanted to make a comment: When you accept how impossible it is to account for consciousness from the mechanistic/naturalistic perspective, when you allow yourself to really admit how impossibly large the logical leaps that perspective makes are, you can at least then take the idealistic/theistic perspective seriously. But, what this does not mean is that everything is then suddenly explicable. It's really just that dualistic and strict physicalist accounts fail when it comes to consciousness - which is self-evidently real - and thus they fail fundamentally. Accepting this failure in fact frees us to be more scientific, more open, more awestruck by reality, to be excited about how much we still have to learn, how much wonder there is around us, within us, and ahead of us.
I look forward to reading this book!
As a physicalist, never understood that argument. We don't know what consciousness is or how it is constructed. That's why we have books being written about it. So how do we know its not just an epiphenomenon of matter? It seems like you're saying "because we have this property X which we don't understand the nature or origin of, but because we can feel it, we can be certain that it has no material origin". Isn't this just a contradiction?
@@radscorpion8 No, we don't know what consciousness is, but we do know it exists because we make meaning and experience our reality. It is a black box, but it is there. I would argue that we don't know what matter is, either, but we know something is there. The question for both categories, then, is: What are we dealing with here? My conclusion is that we are dealing with one 'stuff', consciousness, before defining it in great detail. This is superior, in my view, to asserting the existence of two philosophically different categories that, because of the descriptive logic of those fundamental differences, in fact cannot interact. This dualistic position is, for me, fatally flawed in this regard. (Note this has nothing to do with science per se, which is a method for establishing how things function, more that it is a method for deducing what things are.)
What we have tended to do philosophically - not scientifically - is assume matter as fundamental ahead of consciousness in a kind of ontological hierarchy. That hierarchy is mechanistic, or dead, in essence. Biological life is a downstream emergence of dead mechanistic processes, and as such is also dead, strictly speaking. So, not actually knowing what matter/energy is fundamentally, we philosophically impute to it a mechanistic lexis, grammar, reality, and conceive of consciousness as an emergent phenomena of dead processes. When you REALLY think about this, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Alternatively, we can assert reality is alive, and that matter is an experience 'in' (of) consciousness, such that consciousness - whatever it is fundamentally - at least 'does' things like experience, interpret, prefer, and process data into information. From this ontological position, we can see matter and energy as information in the form of rules that are, e.g., processed by consciousness. I believe there is a discipline called information physics, and a phrase, "It from bit" that captures the essence of this position.
All this really does is change the philosophical underpinning of science. The scientific method, which is termed falsificationism, remains unchanged. Quarks are information subject to rules, which are also information, or data - I'm not being disciplined with my terms here -, as are light and gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. It's simply a shift of perspective from death as fundamental, to life. A simple thing, but paradigmatically profound.
@@radscorpion8 idealism doesn't say that something is immaterial. It says that everything is a phenomenon of consciousness and is downstream from it.
Physicalism cannot even approach to explain how we get an interior experience of QUALITIES (so called "qualia"), rather than quantities, let alone private COGNISANCE of having an interior experience. Not because there's not enough neuroscience data (there's plenty), but because the gap cannot be bridged. Calling something an "epiphenomenon" is just a white flag.
I'll put it this way: there are black splotches on the white background (a page or a screen). What makes some splotches inkblots, some a jumble of letters, and some - literature? You may say, their mutual positions in a very specific arrangement. But without a conscious observer there's no difference between inkblots, garbled letters and sensible thoughts, it's all the same matter.
So I'll allow myself to skip a few steps here, I've spent too much time in this comment section as it is, and go straight to this: for the Universe to make sense (to be filled with objects, to have space and time, to have regularity) there needs to be an eye of God looking at it.
And you are (also) it.
Idealism is just as radical as materialism. It suffers from an analogous problem, i.e., the hard problem of matter. You don't get the material out of the mental, as all you can deduce from mental facts are more mental facts. As such, it is forced into a sort of eleminativism.
We don't even need to go the dualistic route ala Descartes as we can simply say consciousness is a fundamental irreducible property. So reality is fundamentally psychophysical if that's the right term to use. Matter is not an experience in consciousness or an outcome of consciousness. Neither is consciousness an outcome of dead unconscious matter. Matter is conscious or alive.
@@anteodedi8937 even though that's pretty astute critique, and I concede that matter is necessary to be a substrate for mental facts (ideas without any material substrate is sentimental fantasy), I have to repeat my example from the above: a page with inkblots and a page with sensible writing on it are selfsame matter in almost imperceptibly different arrangement. Only in the mind of a conscious observer that difference is actualized, and the Universe becomes intelligible and the intelligence possible only in the mind of God (and its 8 billion splinters).
I consider matter the record of past mental states of the Absolute (if you don't want to be distracted by an image of a ill-tempered Santa in the sky).
and yet the naturalists can make predictions about the world around us that actually deliver. this isn't an unqualified endorsement but it must be acknowledged that, whatever we've lost, it isn't the sacred world view that makes bouncing signals off of satellites into this network so you can see what i've written here possible- that was all the work of materialism
It doesn't take a naturalist to make predictions. It says nothing about naturalism per say. You are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
Predictions about the material. Yes. Not about the Immaterial
@@ponderingspirit But it's suspicious that not a single, well established, scientific explanation has ever been replaced by a supernatural one. The reverse has occurred relentlessly.
@drawn2myattention641 All explanations of physical phenomena are bound to be determined by the parameters of the method employed to begin with. Our conscious experience can be explained by the supernatural. It's beyond the mechanistic paradigm.
@@drawn2myattention641What are you talking about exactly? What has a natural explanation that used to have a supernatural explanation? There seems to be this common idea that everyone uses to walk around thinking everything they could not explain was fairies, ghost, and goblins, and that's just not true. Science has always been there in some capacity.
Sounds like a book I can enjoy. I've read a lot of behavioral biology and currently I'm studying Julian Jaynes. My own personal insights lead naturally to Jaynes work. Thank you for your review.
As soon as I saw this video, I had to watch. I'm also studying Jaynes, fascinating theory.
Theists usually project their own style of philosophical commitment on to philosophical naturalists. (12:25 to 15:00) Naturalists need make no leaps of faith; they can hold their beliefs and conclusions lightly, unafraid to follow reason wherever it leads; nothing is beyond critique. Contrast this with the theistic thinker who practically always has some prior religious commitment, some god or creed he dare not doubt, some lingering and distracting fear of hell.
Naturalists indeed make leaps of faith, in the human mind (as truth detector) and naturalism (as best truth detector OS). These are axioms that cannot be proven without circular bootstrapping.
My friend, I am not sure what the point of your comment is. Did you read the book?
Naturalists are usually dogmatic.
Almost every page of the book is a refutation of this comment. Hope this helps!
@drawn2myattention641 Given nothing is beyond critique, I can prove naturalists need leaps of faith. The first big one is that our senses are reliable truth detectors.
Excellent review! I’m totally with you on this book standing the test of time. Honestly, it is relieving to have this level of firepower behind the non-reductionst view of consciousness.
The yogis and shamans solved consciousness, but without words.
And I have a girlfriend, but she lives in canada
Whatever and however 'consciousness' is and the various 'words' used to define and explain 'it' are, 'it' can never be contained and reduced by-and-to these verbal-linguistic symbols.
Correct. Fundamental reality can be experienced directly without "thought coverings", but cannot be contained in words or numbers.
For the next 5 days or so, this book is on sale on Audible for like 3 bucks. Can't pass that up!
As an agnostic atheist, I find this fascinating. Will find the book and read it. I will have to suspend my frame-of-reference.
I love his books. Despite his love of linguistic flourishes and stylish bravado, if you pay attention, the seeming complexity resolves itself very concisely and with great clarity. Unfortunately, DBH sometimes does not recognize how very far most of us (even some of the best of us) are from his own intellect.
I always marvel at peoples' inability to imagine a subjective undercurrent to all things without attributing the characteristics of a "mind" to it. It seems like a failure to understand what the "hard problem" actually entails.
It's about consciousness, and in the context of personal beings consciousness is called a mind. I agree there is some confusion there.
Constructive feedback: It doesn’t add much value to say « very well researched » « impressive ability to represent xyz » « I am biased based on the previous work of the author », these are all opinions, but don’t get to the substance of an analysis. Show the viewer an exemple of his ability to represent an author, what is impressive about this representation, compared to other representation, what makes this one stand out, etc. Not putting your work down. I’m sure you can answer these questions putting work into it.
I love your style and insights. Please keep up the good work. I’m going to order this book immediately. Thank you so much!
People who dismiss the hard problem as nonsense or as a non-issue don’t understand the problem. It’s sad to see so much of that here in the comment section. Try and understand the problem before dismissing it. There is a reason every serious philosopher takes it seriously, even if they come to silly conclusions, like Daniel Dennett.
Really enjoyed this review!
I still need to purchase and read DBH’s new book.
The Agora of Olympus
The gods Psyche, Eros, Hermes, and Hephaestus convene in a shaded grove atop Mount Olympus, where the winds carry the scent of cedar and the sound of distant waterfalls. The golden light of Helios filters through the leaves as they settle to discuss the mysteries of consciousness and connection.
---
Psyche: My brothers and sisters, what is this elusive thing we call consciousness, if not the soul’s perpetual yearning to know itself and its place in the cosmos? And yet, I wonder-what awakens it from its solitude to truly engage with the vast reality that encircles it?
Eros: [Smiling languidly] Psyche, is it not I who stir such awakening? Love, as the divine flame of connection, bridges the chasm between the inner self and the outer world. Without love, the soul remains cloistered, its energies dormant. Does not the act of loving draw forth life itself?
Hermes: [Leaning forward with a glint of mischief in his eyes] Ah, but Eros, is love alone sufficient? The spark you ignite must find expression, else it fades like an unspoken word. Communication-my domain-is the path upon which love travels. Through the craft of speech and the art of understanding, the soul encounters reality. Is connection not a dialogue, as much as it is a desire?
Hephaestus: [Hammering softly on a golden ingot in his lap] You speak of sparks and words, but neither kindles form without creation. The engagement of the inner self with the outer world is no mere abstraction; it is the work of the hands and the heart. Through craftsmanship, we give shape to love and weave connection into the fabric of existence. A smith’s forge, I say, is a temple of transformation.
Psyche: Hephaestus, your metaphor intrigues me. You suggest that connection is not merely felt or spoken but also wrought. Could it be that the act of creating-a poem, a pot, or even a city-fosters the engagement of the self with reality? Might creation itself be an act of love?
Eros: [Nodding earnestly] Indeed, Psyche. For what is love if not the eternal impulse to unite? When Hephaestus wields his hammer, does he not infuse his creations with life energy, experienced as beauty and purpose? Love is the wellspring, but it finds fulfilment in form. Without form, love is but a formless ache.
Hermes: And yet, let us not forget the role of the messenger! Between the soul and the world, between creator and beholder, stands communication. Without it, the forge’s light remains unseen, the poet’s words unspoken. Connection demands not only creation but also communion. Tell me, Eros, how often has a lover’s heart been stilled by silence?
Hephaestus: [Pausing his work] Silence, Hermes, may carry its own eloquence. Consider the labourer who toils alone, shaping stone into a sanctuary. His hands speak where his tongue is silent. Creation, I say, is communication, even when words fail.
Psyche: You each touch upon profound truths. Yet I wonder-if connection is the bridge between the inner self and reality, what is its ultimate purpose? Is it merely to satisfy desire, as Eros suggests, or to render the unseen seen, as Hephaestus claims? Or does it seek something greater, something beyond the immediate?
Eros: [His voice softening] Connection, Psyche, seeks transcendence. Through love, the soul remembers its divine origin and glimpses eternity. It is the thread that binds the mortal to the immortal, the finite to the infinite. What greater purpose can there be than this?
Hermes: [With a sly grin] And yet, Eros, love without understanding is but a tempest without direction. Connection must also enlighten. Through dialogue, the soul discerns its path and deepens its bond with the world. Wisdom, I say, is the compass of love.
Hephaestus: And wisdom, Hermes, must be forged in the fires of effort. Love may inspire, and dialogue may guide, but only through the labour of creation does the soul fully engage with reality. Connection is not merely felt or spoken; it is made.
Psyche: Then, let us agree that connection, in its truest form, is a harmony of all these elements: the life energy of love, the clarity of understanding, and the craft of creation. Together, they awaken the soul and bind it to the world, transforming both in the process.
Eros: [Rising with a flourish] To love is to connect, Psyche, and to connect is to live. Let us ensure that we, as gods and as creators, continue to inspire such connection in the mortal hearts we cherish.
Hermes: [Laughing lightly] And let us also remind them to speak of their love, to share their visions, and to build bridges of understanding.
Hephaestus: [Lifting his hammer] And to shape their dreams into forms that endure, so that their connections may ripple across the ages.
Psyche: Then let us return to our celestial tasks, kindling consciousness and connection wherever the human soul seeks to engage with reality. For in this, we find our own divine purpose.
---
The gods depart, each carrying with them the light of the discussion, ready to weave their wisdom into the lives of mortals below.
ShiteGPT
@ca7582 lol, let's see you do better.
@@BrianMosleyUK
Psyche: Bro am I thinking or am I thinking that I'm thinking?
Hephaestus: Bro wtf you a PC goddam boo what you be spittin?
Eros: Ey yo don't talk to my boo like that 4 real bro imma get mad.
Hephaestus: ooo, watcha gonna do with your little bow with those plastic arrows boy? Watcha gonna do? I got drones and I got the whole US military at my disposal by just pressing a button.
Hermes: Guys, guys, please, consider your ways. This is def no cap NOT okay. You know what could be a great avenue for you both to partake in, like, for real?
Hephaestus and Eros: [intrigued] What?
Hermes: Well it's none other than today's sponsor: BetterHelp. With BetterHelp, you'll get the best-
Psyche: Ey fellas, I might be quite stones, but I don't believe that I would regret the idea of killing this mfer, like, post hoc, like, in an a posterioristically kinda way.
Hephaestus: Oh yeah let's kill this POS no doubt, Sykey (can I call u Sykey, lol?)
Psyche: Well, I've been calling u Pheisty for like 500 pages and talking to you in the most holier-than-thou, reddit, spergy way, so I don't see why not!
Hephaestus: [fortnite emoting] Nice!
Hermes: Fellas, come on, you can't be serious... We're family? [To Psyche] are we not cousins or whatever?
Psyche: Nope, I just got to Olympus like literally yesterday and started stealing your Wi-Fi. Eros, my love, you have been awfully silent. Dost thou holdesteth anyeth hesitation withinest your conscience?
Eros: Nah I was buying explosive ammo, my sweetie cutie pie here comes honey boo boo!
Psyche: aight let's get him
And Hermes' fukin got blown up n shiet.
That's how you do it.
My brain is too smooth to process DBH’s vocabulary. It is suffocatingly cluttered on the page. I appreciate his voice in our faith tradition though. Yours too Joel. I just finished your interview on the Grace Saves All podcast. It was really good. Have you read “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage” by Donald Dayton yet? It’s a great prequel to “Jesus and John Wayne” with completely different feelings it elicits.
Thanks! Dayton's work is definitely on my radar but I haven't read any yet. You aren't the first to recommend!
So what's the solution?
This sounds like one of those books like The God Delusion. It's full of ideas that one can come up with on one's own and it's 1,000 pages of folksy diatribes that don't add to understanding as a whole. I'll try to check it out. The beginning of it is on google and I'll scope the local library to see if they have it.
Life is participatory, a person relates to something and can't not relate for an instant. Consciousness is a response to this, a sense of connection that bridges the gulf of mystery. Materialists call it incwrtsinty because that term holds their unspoken hope. Followers of mystery do not pursue a need for answers, we ask how much more mysterious things can possibly grow!?
Great talk, you hooked me into deciding to read this book.
Journey through your understanding Old Testament violence?
Would be an amazing video
You aren't the first to suggest that! Definitely something I'm chewing on....
@@JoelWentzme too. I see no other solution than admitting the authors were in error.
@@blikker8 Just curious if you've seen Gavin Ortland's videos on this topic.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I have, that’s a good one. The William Web view is probably the best defense within a traditional evangelical reading.
@@blikker8 If you're open to seeing error in Hebrew Scripture, are you willing to do so in the Greek one?
I’m eagerly looking forward to reading this book, as I’ve loved this style of dialogue ever since I read Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter in the 1980s. That book is, of course, the most famous example of this format. I’m curious to see if DBH manages to pull it off in a similarly entertaining and thought-provoking way.
I would at this point also recommend the books of Bernardo Kastrup who, in a less playful but much more compact and thus more accessible way deals with the 'big questions'. His 'Analytic Idealism' is the most convincing philosophical concept I came across in more than 40 years of dealing with philosophy - but he of course inherits a lot from idealists like Schopenhauer - which he openly admits.
Sounds like a fascinating book I’ll have to explore.
Thanks for this, I agree that this is a very important book for our time. Materialism is the prevalent philosophical paradigm but it actually is a very poor basis for rationality and reason. Pretty obviously so in Dawkins image of humans as lumbering robots. The problems with this view should be astonishingly obvious, it does cause some reflection upon how we come to our world views.
he writes really well, his opinions are also theologically more sound than the received opinion and take every kind of modern skepticism into account.
😂 take every kind of skepticism into account... No he doesnt...
@@matswessling6600 sticking your fingers into your ears and screaming "lalalalala", yes, he wasn't prepared for that.
@@mentalitydesignvideo ? No doesnt take ANY skeptisism into account.
The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" was created by our own confused thinking, the kind of thinking that leads directly to an infinite regression.
Each concept must derive from reality. Each idea must be contrasted against reality.
One can construct hypotheses, but each of them will only become knowledge when they are verified in reality.
If one hypothesizes the existence of something, that entity can only be considered existing when reality shows it.
To consider that God needs to exist is to put the cart before the horse and will always remain an exercise to soothe existential fears.
What in the world would ‘verifying the existence of God in reality’ even look like? What are your standards for ‘verification’?
To assume a materialist standard for verification from the outset will always remain an exercise in avoiding inconvenient aspects of reality you’d prefer to ignore 🙂
@@kevink5866 Alright! The first step would be to define God. Which God are we talking about? If it were the Christian God and He governed the universe, what happens in the universe should reflect the expected behavior according to the values corresponding to that God.
God is infinitely good and would never produce unjustified suffering.
In other words, in reality, there should be no natural cases of unjustified suffering that could only result from the intervention of that God.
Thus, in reality, there should not be a case where a baby suffers agonizingly while burning to death as a result of an accident caused by nature.
That indescribable suffering does not serve the development of that soul. The baby had no opportunity to learn anything good, to accept Jesus, etc. And it cannot be said that he and his agonizing pain served a necessary function. If the baby and his pain were used as a tool for some purpose, this would strip him of his human dignity and would prove that God is immoral.
God created a human and a soul with no other purpose than for that creature to suffer infinitely.
In a universe created by a Christian God, there should be no example of such circumstances. A proof of God's existence in reality would be the non-existence of unnecessary suffering.
@@kevink5866if you dont know how to falsify your hypotesis, how do you know it is true?
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vdtoo much assumptions of how God should be - not enough Bible reading. So the usual, "if God exists, why don't we live in paradise" while ignoring the book that explains why we don't. The same argument most people make who only thought about the problem on the most superficial of levels.
@@MrSeedi76 No. That a baby does not die in agony from pain while being burned alive is not expecting all of us to live in paradise. Suffering is supposed to respond to a need in the universe that God created. If it is unnecessary suffering, you can bet that God is not infinitely good.
The necessity of suffering does not justify God creating unnecessary suffering.
I don't see what your argument is. What levels do you distinguish in reality that justify the pain of that baby?
Joel, I read a comment that spoke about you being on a podcast. It would be nice to know when you step outside of your YT channel so we could listen/watch because you're an interesting person. I watch all of your videos and read many of the books you review.
I’ve never read DBH, but I’ve appreciated your videos about him. Where would you encourage someone to start reading him?
It depends on your area of interest. If you want to try philosophy/metaphysics then try The Experience of God. If church history, then Atheist Delusions. Both will give you a good taste of his style without being too difficult (at least compared to his other books!).
@@JoelWentz Thanks!
Judging by the number of views after three weeks, my guess is no.
iirc Hephaestus is not fully a representation of atheists, but DBH’s own doubts about his belief on consciousness
Yes, DBH acknowledges this in the forward of the book.
9:49 Six days in the book. I guess in the seventh we rest... ⛪✝️
I would want someone to write a simplified or summary edition.
Maybe you can upload a digital copy to chatgpt and have it summarize it? You should also be able to query it then and have a dialog about it. Worked well for me with fiction and business material already. And in any case it is better than not 'reading' such a book at all...
I need to read this book. But I'm wondering, simply based on your description, why this book isn't a very elaborate "God of the gaps" argument?
I'll have to check this out. Mechanistic worldview can be kind of a stumbling block for me.
I imagine a lot of people on reddit will accuse the author of sophistry, so naturally I'm interested.
Consciousness is only a problem to people who can't live with an unsolved mystery.
Hmmm sounds interesting. Sounds like I'll need to check it out after I finish "The World Behind the World" by Erik Hoel.
charlie manson and nikolas schrek cleared this in an interview
Sounds interesting, have you read Roberto Calasso?
Great Vid
Saving the day. I want to see a 20th anniversary dance. I can't bet on more. For me, not for you.
Check out David Eagleman books and inner cosmos videos too
For now, I quit reading books on consciousness because, to me, they all seem to miss the point and do not address the real issues.
I am 120 pages into the book right now. What is the point you feel books miss and what are these real issues? Maybe I can confirm whether or not the book has (so far) made the same mistakes.
@foodchewer Thank you for your comment. I will try to list some of the points that intrigue me the most.
@@Julio_Siqueira Please do.
Did anyone mention Gnosticism?
I'm unconvinced the "hard problem" exists. The underlying problem I have is one of physics and interaction, which no philosopher of mind ever addresses when they say that physical reality cannot account for consciousness.
To me, it is like someone complaining about how their car won't start, and then you ask them if they put fuel in it... and they look at you like you're crazy. There are basic facts that they don't understand or incorporate into how they are analyzing reality, and it is immediately obvious they don't know what they're talking about.
Early on, sounded like he said, “scientists and flossers.” The book is clearly about dental health. Now I’ll listen to the rest. Consciousness fascinates me. Just joshin’ yah. (smile)
Does he leave the quantum stone unturned?
Let's hope so since it isn't a thing.
@ quantum isn’t a thing?
consciousness has no problem 😊
Are MACHINES conscious? Could they ver be?
@@AlephCasarawhats a "machine"?
@@matswessling6600a Turing machine, I'm guessing.
@ thats doesnt answer the question. There are very very many other sorts of machines. We are machines. A machine is simply something that moves.
@@MrSeedi76 Someone asking for me?
2:30 Written in the Socratic style?
I think Trobisch is very close to right here. But I do have doubts...the gospel discrepancies are too great for them all to be one author. Just the genealogies and the ages of Jesus given are massively at odds (in Luke he's 30, and in John he's pushing 50). The failed predictions of the Second Coming in a generation and the tendency of Matthew and Luke to make Jesus more divine than Mark is also a problem. I think the answer is midway between Papias and Marcion.
Is Hart Christian biased?
Come on y'all know consciousness is awareness and the Brain can only work in the past and the future so basically we all have the Christ mind
I guess if, rather than read 500 pages of pro and con argument, you want to actually examine a theory of consciousness, one built upon a solution to the hard problem, look at "The Challenge to AI: Consciousness and Ecological General Intelligence."
It sounds like you're saying he has a really good god of the gaps argument.
He does write like he’s using a thesaurus to complicate the vocabulary, but not as bad as some deliberately obscure writers
Can’t finish this mate because all the ads every 5 minutes are annoying af
Appeals to the supernatural? Superstition is the answer? What an enormous waste of mental energy.
But Naturalistic gaps, you know. They can point to the “divine” (whatever they want that to mean) and the deed is done!
Anybody here ever heard of The Buddha? 😅
Honestly think about? Really?
Could have just read the Upanisads
I watched this video for two reasons: (#1) I am intensely interested in consciousness and (#2) I have NEVER understood the near cult-like fandom David Bentley Hart has. In my mind, there is no "there there" in almost all of David Bentley Hart's thoughts/writings, particularly consciousness. YMMV As I quickly realized, this video falls into #2, at least as far as I am concerned, so the conclusion the video has is almost a foregone conclusion.
Agreed. To imply DBH ‘solves consciousness’ is laughable.
@@christopherhamilton3621I haven't read this one yet but the closest I saw anyone "solve" the problem of consciousness was Gregory Bateson in "Angels Fear" by more or less declaring it unsolvable 😂. Still a highly recommended read.
@@MrSeedi76 I would never have it in me to be so certain about anything like that. I’ll definitely give it a read, but humanity doesn’t have a good track record of predicting what future humans can do or what they’re capable of.
@@MrSeedi76
What’s there to be solved, really?
First off I have to say that you/I none of us think. Period. We are not the thinkers we are the observes that observe that there are thoughts coming and going on autopilot. We are Consciousness/Awareness/Life call it what you will at our core or essence state. We are not individuals we are one. There is only one Conscioneness, One Awareness, One Life, One Source. These are just different names for the same one thing. You as Consciousness are behind every living sentient creature on this planet and on every planet in the Universe. You are every man, woman and child, every celebrity, every politician, that currently exists and that has passed beyond. All is you. There is no problem with Consciousness as Consciousness is all there is. The entire physical realm is nothing but an expression of Consciousness like the waves are an expression of the Ocean. We are no more separate or individual than waves upon the Ocean.
Or maybe that's just the ketamine talking.
Smoke enough weed and it's all about the munchies.
Drink enough alcohol and it's all about past regrets .
Sorry. I'll stick with reality and evidence. I'm 80 years old, and in my lifetime many mysteries have transitioned to rational, explainable reality. I have no time for blind faith and neither will the coming ASI.
Are their also dialogs between a tortise and a hare?
Just kidding
So inventing a god accounts for why we exist? Don't be ridiculous.
No, he didn’t.
A lot of fluff in this video. Get to the point
How you manage to talk and yet say nothing about the subject is incredible. You say nothing about the ideas of the book. You just dance around the subject.
All things are full of shit, except God.
Just ordered it today - thanks for the recommendation! I'm interested to see if it compares to "Angels Fear" by Gregory Bateson which had slightly similar topics.
You've never heard of Schrodinger and a Single Consciousness? 1933 Nobel Prove winner for Wave Function? You need to broaden your reading.
Hart drives me crazy. What a waste of intellect.
It seems that religionists and atheists depend on faith to arrive at their respective conclusions about a creator God. I see the temptation, of course, to wish for unknowable answers, to place faith in the unknowable. In my view, the vast majority of our energy and inquiry should be spent on the knowable, and to put faith in the knowable. What is it to be a good person, to live a good life together on this planet? These kinds of pursuits are knowable. We can have faith in ourselves to keep trying to do our best. All the while, anyone so inclined could spend their free time with idle speculations.
I am an atheist. This means that the idea 'God exists' has not formed in my mind. I do NOT think that God exists. It is the absence of an idea in my mind. I do not need 'faith' to lack an idea.
I also do not need faith to believe in the knowable. Even without belief in anything supernatural, it's ideas that shape the world and idle speculation is how we develop them.
@@MrSeedi76 In my opinion, reality shapes ideas. It is not possible for ideas to shape reality. If that were the case, you would have to justify what the basis is that forms ideas from outside of reality or consider that ideas have no origin at all.
an atheist depending on faith to arrive at a conclusion??????????
this literally makes zero sense.
Burden of proof is on the theists.
The book is fiction not philosophy
Philosophical fiction. 😎
Well, all the Christian books behind the speaker tells the story. It's someone looking for some rationality in the irrationality of faith in nonexistent god/gods. Looking up the author I see someone arguing with atheism. That's illogical. Therefore this author is illogical and can be dismissed.
Please cut your hair, Joel. Thanks.
FIRST!
Atheist all of sudden become magical when talking about consciousness and morality.
lol, wut?
@@klnrklnr4433 he means that they derive an "ought" from an "is." They don't become magical, like something sprinkled in pixie dust; rather, they engage in enchanted thinking because they must rely on the abstract to make models of what can never be directly observed, in this case morality and consciousness. Sam Harris is famous for this.
there's nothing magical to consciousness. it's a trick. an information processing network forms a subnetwork that contains a "story" of its sensory experience and to predict it. Over time, that kernel of a subnetwork grows to include an entire history of a character. Consciousness is the story that some information processing networks animate and sustain. In some people who suffer from multiple personalities, this kernel fragments at a traumatic event. One of my dearest friends had this condition - you should have witnessed the remarkable interplay of personalities. Another example is in split-brain medical cases where two distinct personalities coexist for better or worse. So to keep this comment short, there is nothing magical about consciousness. But the ability to create and sustain a personality does give the entity certain survival advantages.
@dazraf you failed to explain consciousness, I remain unconvinced you know how it works. Most Christians suppose God isn't mystified by our consciousness and probably works with it like any other construct - so in that sense even Christians believe you can fully explain it without disenchanting it. The model you propose isn't widely accepted, and is likely new. I have heard 3 "new" theories of consciousness from PHD nueroscientists this month. Maybe hold off your pronouncements until the field develops a stable consensus. 🤔
@@stetsonscott8209 the first time I read of this self-referential model was in the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter, published in 1979. I read it, 1985. During the 90s I worked in the field of AI, mostly in Defence as well as translation services. Turns out, it's not impossible to setup the conditions for a neural net to evolve self-referential feedback loops that learn and adapt. Just as Hofstadter proposed.
Gay
How profound.
get some help albert