I am a carpenter by trade with a dualistic worldview who believes vehemently that truth is universally accessible and comes only at the end of a personal excursion wrought with acts of courage that are focussed and determine. Fortunately, this currency of truth, which is bathe in intellectual humility and self-criticism, always seeks to give reasons, provide evidence and make arguments, lends itself easily to public consumption. This type of engagement that is typically absent from our current public discourse, features front and centre in your presentations thus far, Dr Kuhn and as a consequence, it has inspired me to publish my two cents, hopefully to bring us “Closer To Truth”.
Good sign. Doubt beckons exploration. Meditate in silence, the realizations will come. Those who are cocksure are stuck, unable to explore other horizons and possibilities, unable to evolve.
If truth was simple then excitement would wane, truth is a process of ever evolving understanding it's organic grownth. As you grow in knowledge you grow in wisdom. We have to be humble in seeking truth and be aware of forces within us who will try to arrogate themselves to perception of truth of some form or other. Just remember, All cognition is a kin to recognition.
23:08 - So, I'm having a bit of trouble following this last guy. Is he basically saying that the pattern of electrical activity we observe in the brain is just what consciousness "looks like" as a physical perception? That seems to be dodging the core issue, but it's still an interesting contention.
I remember when about 10 ,sitting in the back garden, I suddenly realised I was trapped inside this body and I think I've been a bit of a coward ever since
Thats a natural feeling, you should meditate for sure. You might just find the entire universe is actually in your mind. So your not trapped you are all of the universe
_ How about non-dualism (advaita - literally meaning NOT TWO)? _ Non-dualism points to consciousness as the only reality. _ Consciousness (often equated with Awareness), is the basis and foundation of everything appearing as the world of dualism. _ To the 'limited'/(fixed by conditioning) mind, the world of dualism 'appears' as reality, whereas it is actually a modulation of the 'infinite' mind which in essence is consciousness/awareness. _ Rupert Spira masterfully discusses consciousness in his book "The Nature of Consciousness"
@@BrotherChad _ Thank you. Sometimes it happens that appropriate words come forth. Letting it happen is a delightful experience. _ Thank you for your input on this subject.
CCT is one of the most prolific channels around. What a pleasure to wake up in the morning, with a cup of coffee, to pick on some old philosophical question. Here are some other considerations in the discussion. 1. Question the notion of "substance". This is one of the language traps (nouns and "things"). 2. I've been listening to some talks and interviews of Karl Friston. I think there is something to his description. It begins with some thermodynamic of "self" and "other". An oil drop illustrates this thermodynamic boundary. On the more animate side, there's the lipid bilayer of the cell wall. At its simplest, it includes "self" and "other" (environment), perception, motor control, inner representation mirroring the environment, the whole complex, acting together in a process. It is an "embodied" view. You can draw the line of for "consciousness" anywhere. Some talk in terms of "number of feedback loops" (e.g., Michio Kaku starts with a thermometer, then moves upwards). But a more intuitive dividing line might be the start of biological life. "Perception" is intimately related to consciousness. The bacterial cell has to sense its environment, then navigate it for "food" and survival. There is the outer reality and then some kind of internal modeling of it. Human beings have the latter in spades. They have a rich inner representation, a rich internal life. Human beings even have "meta-cognition", "model of a model of a model ...", "awareness of 'awareness'", awareness of "self" and its processes. Kurzgesagt has a nice explainer video on this. ruclips.net/video/H6u0VBqNBQ8/видео.html&
He really doesn’t want to get closer to the truth. They talk in circles. No one getting anywhere. All this channel is about is confusing people and making money.
I wish I was more academic so I could talk like these people but, when I try to understand their observations, it seems to me they're using fancy words and phrases to say they don't really have a clue. In some ways, this comforts me because I don't like the idea of missing out on something as crucial as what reality really is because I don't have a genius IQ.
Hey RIC, my guess is that you already possess all the intelligence needed. These academics, like all specialists, are simply more used to thinking along these lines and using these specialized words.
@@MichaelEhling Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes, I think these clever chaps like to use esoteric phraseology for self aggrandisement. If the message gets lost in that detail, then communication stops and ego is taking over... imho!
Most of these interviews have no substance, they just say they don't know or give unintuitive or nonsensical explanations. Richard Swinburne gave an excellent argument from epistemology that consciousness is primary and cannot be doubted to exist, whereas matter is a theory; but then he went on to his argument how splitting a brain does not account for the self, thus the self must exist? Seems pretty circular, since materialists say there is no such thing as self apart from the brain, and so yes there would be two selves. I think you only need one argument, regardless of how complex a computing system like a brain is, it cannot create something new, thus consciousness cannot be emergent but fundamental. That one pretty much closes the case for me, materialism is dead.
You explained it,,a lot of fancy words and degrees to say you don’t know,,it’s funny,,they’re hitting the walls of quantum physics,,some scientists are getting philosophical and turning to eastern religion for help,,
Mr. Kuhn is the perfect host for this show, not just because it’s his show , but he listens intently, and has the intellect to challenge these ego soaked “ academic” types.
Don't you think it unfair to describe the academicians he interviews as " ego soaked". He manages to conceal his own convictions and beliefs during the discussions in order to 'bring out' the different points of view of others. The uncomfortable realization that existence is a mystery drives us to look for and find an explanation ? It is as if Dr Kuhn is playing the role of our own minds in their search for search for the meaning of life and ultimate reality,
Bede: "It´s easy to see when someone is conscious?" Is it really? There is no consensus which lifeforms are conscious? We cannot tell if a person in a vegetative state has conscious experience?
Peter Forrest hit the nail right on the head in my opinion. Once you see how confused and indefinite our notions of “Physical” and “Mental” are, Monism seems so obvious that it’s difficult to understand how you didn’t realize it before. It’s like a breath of fresh air
@@Micscience Monism is opposed to dualism. Monism says there is only one fundamental aspect to reality but dualism there's something other, hence two different aspects that comprises reality. Idealists and physicalists, though diametrically opposed, are both monists. To the physicalist, there is only the natural, material world and consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of brain. The problem with that theory is that it still doesn't quantitatively describe what that emergent property is in the material sense. The idealist, being also a monist, believes there is only consciousness, and what we call the material world doesn't really exist or at least doesn't exist without consciousness. There's problems with that too or at least with how that theory isn't often compatible with our everyday experience. Then there's the dualist who thinks there's a real physical world, but there's something extra added, the immaterial soul which accounts for consciousness. Hope that helps.
@@geralddecaire6164 I always looked at dualism as there are two opposing realities countering each other. The positive and negative and a neutral I guess.
I still can’t understand consciousness. But I find Yijin’s philosophy too rigid. Like his tidy life and mind, every explanation requires an answer that can be tied up neatly in a bow. So that’s how he pursue his ‘truth’. But Life gets messy and often is. I steer towards Dualism.
AS Michael Egnor said in his video: Michael Egnor: the evidence against materialism: " the object that neuroscience studies the mind and the brain is best understood by dualism and i believe that neuroscientist need to become more acquainted with dualism and need to understand the limitations of materialism which are profound and which are holding the science back. The natural world can be much better understood if you assume it has purpose, you assume it has design.
25:40 - We all know that our minds can create extremely vivid dreams. The main difference between "real life" and dreams is that the dreams are generally more fuzzy and ephemeral - dream worlds don't seem to have the "rigor" of physical law. But consider the possibility that the "real world" would be a dream that's being shared by at least billions of separate consciousness minds. It's entirely possible that results in the rigorous, repeatable behavior. It's one thing for you to "mess around" in a dream that you're having alone - that doesn't necessarily mean you can do the same in a multi-billion-mind dream. I have no evidence to cite for this, but I see no reason to consider that idea implausible.
To people who say "I've never opened up the brain and saw a thought" I would respond with "I've never opened up a computer GPU and found an image." A computer is a very complicated machine composed of simple parts with the amazing ability to turn information into images, sound and more. Your brain is also a very complicated machine composed of simple parts with the amazing ability to turn information into images, sound and more.
@H D you're pretty much saying the same thing, except you're asserting that atoms are conscious and billions of atoms together form a more complex conscious. Why then are rocks not conscious?
The thought of person being machines (and everything else) is quite dangerous, and will not lead to any good. Take a look at this chap. A real Scientist. ruclips.net/video/HybPD0VsFP0/видео.html
@@rubiks6 that's because your brain is running very complex software built up over time specifically to process incoming data from your senses. Reductive materialism works just fine.
I'm surprised the Godfather of dualism was not mentioned - Descartes. He was, as I understand him, both the founder of the scientific method and a religious believer in God. Foot in both camps? Phil
Depends on how you interpret. "I think therefore I am" because I AM THOUGHT. That's where Descartes should have parked his car. And my book gives the full revelation, as delivered by the Mind that is All. Also, give me a "click" if you want the answer to this coronavirus thing....(I don't receive RUclips comments notifications, but those who want to reach me will discover how to do so.)
No left without right no right without left No material without immaterial Abstraction defined as contradiction (when opposites come together) and mono polarity
Are you claiming that the distinction between left & right coordinates is a product of abstraction, like, if we didn’t have abstracts then there wouldn’t be left & right coordinates? The very fact that the presentation of a sensible object is conditioned under such coordinates proves that they’re not; as the presentation of a sensible object is independent of abstracts, their coordinate properties, i.e., one part of the sensible object being to the left or right of another part of the sensible object, would therefore be too.
"Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise."(zen aphorism) It does appear that the nature of REALITY IN TOTALITY is beyond the strict categorization of any "ism". To know the mystery is to simply participate in it... without attempting to explain it. Cause you just can't! That's the beauty of it.
Below quote from St Francis cleared all my confusion Yoga says: Your true SELF is God. You just have to drop your chronic thinking 😃 Consciousness is God. Every living being is a reflection of God in an imperfect mirror Read "be as you are" by David Goodman
Consider the thought experiment were we exactly duplicate a man ( as in Trek TNG episode Second Chances) At the moment of duplication we have two bodies with identical atoms and identical electrical signals in their brains. But we have two completely separate and unique consciousnesses. How can this be explained using a materialistic interpretation?
That's one of my favorite thought experiments. You end up with two men and briefly they're identical in every way and they're both conscious and immediately after they're duplicated, their conscious experiences are exactly the same. They're both in exactly the same mood and thinking the same thing. Why is that hard for a materialist to explain? The brain makes the mind. If you duplicate the brain, then two brains will generate separate but identical minds.
Swinburne was only able to make the point that linguistically speaking, when we refer to 'me' or 'you', we are referring to more than simply the physical brain. His arguments did nothing to argue for the point that this psychology that we consider to be 'me' or 'you' could not be entirely explained in terms of physical causes and phenomena. Of course when we talk about 'me' or 'you' we don't just mean the brain - we mean the psychology and the personality that is linked to this body that we associate with it.
@Jon I don't agree with Swinburne's argument because I reject the dichotomy of mental and physical - since I believe that to have a 'mental' duplicate of myself, I am also drawing on physical and physiological identities. Swinburne's argument relies on the ability to separate mental and physical, which cannot be shown simply by the fact that we refer to them in different ways, or have separate concepts for these alleged classes. I wasn't suggesting that Swinburne was actively trying to use a linguistic trick, but pointing to the fact that, from a non-dualist standpoint, that is ultimately the only conclusion we can validly draw from the argument - because Swinburne's argument attempts to use our concepts to come to conclusions about reality, which ultimately depends on whether or not our linguistic and conceptual understanding of reality is accurate, which is not necessarily the case. I'm not going to suggest that you 'don't understand the argument', but simply that we have different starting points when analysing it, in terms of beliefs and concepts. Ultimately, I believe that arguments come to a stalemate on this matter, because from my point of view, as with most ontological arguments, we cannot draw certain conclusions about the metaphysical simply from what we ourselves deem to be logically possible. If you don't share that view then you will be able to accept many arguments that I reject on that basis.
@Jon but that is exactly the point - from my point of view, a physicalist one, I don't find the argument convincing because I understand that the arguments he is making is not really a danger to my belief, because it only works if you presuppose the truth of a dualist world. In this way, it can act as a means of confirmation for people who already believe in these views, i.e that have already accepted the _dualist_ dogma. It's not necessary for you to immediately jump to ad hominem arguments - while I am talking about the argument Swinburne makes and the assumptions required for you to accept it, you jump straight to me being a dogmatic physicalist who can't appreciate the possibility of other points of view. Your response is hypocritical, considering my previous reply, which was highlighting the exact point that you're trying to make towards me, but in a less aggressive way. I'm not attempting to criticise you for being a dualist who can't see the error of their ways, all I'm saying is that this argument only works by presupposing the dualist veiw, ie by begging the question, and so is not a compelling argument if the point is to do anything other than convincing people who already believe the final conclusion.
One must contend with a special idea in this context (but not only in this context, and that is important also). It is that monism is not as attractive an idea as it at first seems, but rather it is also not merely a "substance per se" that is what is at issue, either. There may be one "fundamental substance" say, and yet it matters what state it is in, as it cannot meaningfully generate some phenomenon without being in a particular state. That gives a special valence to the configuration of substance that exceeds the considerations of the substances per se (in themselves). That form has its own content, and merely that content extrapolates itself through formal articulations that add no dimensions of phenomena in their own right. This is also not incompatible with substance dualism, which raises the interest.
I enjoyed the show, engaging as always..I suspect MOST of the viewers of this channel accept Evolution through natural selection as the process that led from simpler life to us.. THEN why do people have a hard time accepting that consciousness EVOLVED complexity as well.. We see the same curve in animal species today! Metaphysical alternatives are impossible to falsify.. A naturalistic evolution in the complexity and gradualistic emergence of consciousness seems self- evident..Peace.
@@jordancox8294 Consciousness is the functioning of the reticular formation in the brain stem. Remove this structure and you are comatose! All biology, not woo woo!
@@jordancox8294 A CAREFUL reading of my comment gives the most likely description of what consciousness is.. An emergent property of the manner in which our brain processes, stores, and retrieves information.. A very SIMPLE naturalistic explanation with the highest probability of being correct.. Thanks for your comment friend..
@@GeoCoppens I would further suggest that a COMPULSION to understand the physical world is deeply rooted in our DNA.. When a logical (Or scientific) explanation is unavailable, ANY mental construct will suffice to assuage this irresistible compulsion.. ONE mans humble opinion..
Not so fast Bucko...Those ole Vedic monks have done empirical studies where they 'proved' they were conscious during deep sleep. My remembrance of the study was they were asked questions while in deep sleep (confirmed by brainwave states) and were asked to blink yes or no...And they blinked correctly. Not proof entirely but evidence that they remained conscious even in the deep sleep state. But it goes further because the lore of that tradition is that it's only the mastery of the deep sleep state that can get one out of this 'Bardo hell'.. See the Tibetan Book of The Dead...
@@666summerz Christian Gnostics are the irreverent hippies of Christendom and we don't take this place seriously...We are consistently murdered and our metaphysical narrative is consistently wiped off the face of the earth, though, so that much I take seriously... BTW: I think it's the Book Of Peter wherein it is said the Aeon Kristo was in hysterics when the Sanhedrin council tried to kill him...An impossibility! The Book of Judas suggests it was Yaldabaoth that tried to put him to death...It's also said in other writings that Yaldabaoth, at some time in cosmological history, was shown a vision of the Aeon Kristos (and rejected it) so this cosmological war was well in play 2000-years ago as it is today... Of course, this is all speculative cosmology.
Actually, we are, we just have no recollection of those conscious states; just like a child in the womb, at a certain point, is sentient or conscious but will have no recollection of it in life. Blacking out is another example, as a person who’s blacked out, say, from deep inebriation, has no recollection of it later but was nonetheless conscious during that whole time. So that a lack of a recollection of conscious states isn’t equivalent with a lack of conscious states.
What about emergence of behavior in complex system ? What we see is purely statistical effect on rigorous laws applied to very complex space of states ?
It seemed like the physicalists, at least some of them, kept trying to have aspects of dualism as an escape hatch while saying they weren’t dualists. Struggled with their positions.
@@danzigvssartre No personal offense intended friend.. You can "LIKE" your own comments, but it doesn't add any validity to your Bronze Age ideas.. Your beliefs in PURELY assumptive knowledge, puts you in an ever-dwindling minority of supernaturalists.. Even mainstream philosophy is largely abandoning the idea, but feel free to believe in ghosts and goblins..
18:45 'Does it make demands on anything outside the natural world?' But the natural world is only available to us through five senses. How can we be sure ALL that the natural world actually is? What if we had another one or two senses? What if consciousness IS another one of our senses? The five senses would tell us about the 'natural' world; consiousness being the sense that allows us to experience our Selves.
I think consciousness is like water. It behaves differently in various states. This could give the illusion of dualism when it is actually monism. Imagine a dream. You feel like you are a distinct consciousness within your dream. But what is the dream world made of? You consider the dream world to be distinct from your consciousness in the dream. But they are both consciousness.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL There are degrees of subtlety to consciousness and other factors to consider like memory which contribute to the recollection of being in the deeper meditative states, so any accounts of not being conscious is only a phenomenological interpretation after the fact. We could also call such states 'objectless consciousness'.
Consciousness is simply the result when Spirit interacts, or manifests as, Matter. Matter is Spirit at it's lower state, and vice versa. Ancient wisdom/knowledge, this is.
@@cango5679 Well, consciousness is consciousness, whether it pertains to the self or to some universal cosmic entity, is it not? The essential characteristics are the same.
@@Arunava_Gupta The essentials are the same, of course. But there is a big difference between a plant that is conscious of it's environment - it responds to the sun, the soil, the rain etc, - and being conscious that it is conscious. The manas, the thinking aspect is not there. Not until the human state of evolution you get that self consciousness. (and it keep evolving beyond our state, of course, into higher ways/states. ) But the principles are one and the same. That's at least what I have come to understand, in my ,very much limited, state.
@@cango5679 Thanks for replying. But, of course, there are stages and grades of evolution with varying degrees of consciousness, but all of this has reference to conscious personalities in embodied form. That's what ancient wisdom says. These are all purusas, spiritual personalities, with the essential characteristic of consciousness. But, sticks and stones, chairs and tables, jars and pots, all these belong to an altogether different ontological category with diametrically opposite essential characteristics (non-sentient, mutable, evolutive, etc.). These belong to the category of prakriti, not purusa; and this is what I was referring to.
Consciousness precedes life. When we die, we won’t actually die. We will just continue but in a different form. The brain is more of an antenna than a device that creates consciousness.
The brain isn't an antenna, that's just wishful thinking as you wish for your existence not to end. The brain looks nothing like a "device " that broadcasts "consciousness". It has many parts completing seprate functions, all of which is done continuously with the rest of the body. So saying it's an antenna is as ridiculous as saying the eye is an "antenna" for seeing.
@@2CSST2 Well, eye can actually be an antenna because the comment which u are seeing is processed in brain occipital lobe and eye is the medium of that.
Only your own experience can ever show you these truths. There is little that can be shown to convince anyone. Yet if you are truly open you can find ample evidence online and elsewhere from physicists, doctors, spiritual teachings, ancient wisdom, lay people, children, channeled material, books, recordings, and many many others all of which converge to the same truth. I too used to think this to be nonsense but I kept an open mind and questioned everything. Do your best to stay open and you WILL discover what many are now discovering about our (humans) true nature.
Yes, language is immaterial. Words exist even before we say them. They are immaterial, or numbers, which is even better example, they are just ideas and exist in an immaterial realm. Consciousness too is immaterial, it is a situation. A situation when material brain in in such and such position, means consciousness. And one more example is victory in football cup. Victory is immaterial, but is made by this atoms running around the field kicking the ball.
Is it possible that our strong survival instinct creates an idea that there's a part of ourselves that is not physical. It will not die (our 'spirit'). And that illusion is created in response to our inability to accept our mortality, or even more, the refusal to accept impermanence. Could it be a fear response?
Wow! Amazing how many ways you can see things! I keep it simple. I am conscious, and everything is experience, the profound well of insight, clarity, wisdom and understanding. I draw from that well through meditation. 🙏
Honestly, to me, that is simple, just not in the way you intended. It's simplistic. Try this: my brain draws data through my senses, which is stored in my brain. My brain stores and uses this data to send signals to every single part of my body and makes each part act according to the data that it has previously received. Genes are the same only in like a much bigger scale. Maybe you won't have to spend so much time meditating if you think of it like this. It makes me happy to think that I understand how my body and brain works and I want everybody to feel the same way. And as Lanier kind of said on the video we should just focus on what we can actually work with.
Is there possibilty of being in a dualist phase, going from only immaterial (idealist monism) to only material (physical monism)? Maybe why we can be shifty.
The perch description is one I can comprehend and while not the same reminds me of how I feel on a wall... ON one side the "woowoo" that I do not deny but also seek not to fall into.... but then to the other side seems dry, denying, less experience.... On the wall there is experience, there is questioning, there is possibility.
Personally I do feel that purely physical (as it is understood now) seems difficult. I believe in something of a consciousness... but I could say that it is a monistic or pan (dual/pan). I like that idea of organizing ignorance.
When, when, when is Kuhn going to interview Bernardo Kastrup about Idealism? Kuhn's failure to do so to date is ...well, a real failure. At some point, this failure will be more evidence of just how pathetically close-minded (and tribal) even the most allegedly open-minded seekers are.
After 15:07 Bede Rundle makes a comparison between "consciousness" and "kindness or carelessness and herein lies a fundamental error. This comparison is questionable in that kindness and carelessness are definable attributes whose respective meanings are largely and commonly known. All of us could give a definition albeit a partial one of what these things mean and they would all be similarly understood, not so with consciousness. Mr. Rundle also says that those who study this phenomenon consider consciousness as "some kind of stuff" albeit "subtle stuff." He says or alleges that others think of consciousness in this way. How does one respond to such inexact language? Is some kind of "subtle" stuff to be distinguished from some kind of unsubtle stuff? This mystery is not to be understood by analogies with other mental experiences suggesting that being "conscious" of something is the same as "consciousness" in its intrinsic essence, which is to say it is a mystery. Animals, even insects are conscious of their surroundings as clearly seen in their behavior but are incapable of imagination or profound thought. The central question remains and Mr. Rundle's optimism that more experiments are needed and in time empirical science will solve this inscrutable riddle is unrealistic in my opinion. Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and perhaps more fundamental than physical laws like gravity or magnetism. Consciousness is the necessary back drop wherein cognition and all awareness take place. We don't produce consciousness. We "experience" consciousness through cognition and all that cognition entails, sensation, memory, imagination and all mental phenomenon are made possible by our large brains, and it's because of our brains that we are able to inhabit consciousness, a consciousness that was present at the beginning of the universe. Oh dear I've spilled the beans haven't I? I just made a theological statement because that's the only statement that ties so many loose ends into a coherent whole. Like the theory of plate tectonics weaving so many disparate pieces of evidence together to reach a new level of understanding of earths geology, cosmology, quantum mechanics and theology are all attempting to describe the same ultimate reality. In the future, the line between science and theology will be blurred to the point of insignificance as one highly evolved synthesis of these two great pillars of human understanding emerges into a unified whole. My thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn for these engaging discussions. Michael Mckinney Christmas Eve 2023
only substance dualism makes sense. We should conceive a scientific soul that is interacting with physical matter of our body and brain. I have tried this in my book- consciousness explained scientifically by substance dualism: demonstrates the existence of the soul and God. This clearly tells that we can conceive a scientific soul.
Depends on what you mean by "make sense". The test of a scientific theory is if can make exact predictions that can be shown to be wrong. What would disprove your theory?
@@myothersoul1953 my theory predicts that we are alone in the universe. We can never find other life anywhere else. Also there cannot be a second chance of life on earth as well. If we ever find life anywhere else then my theory will prove wrong.
The Universe of your perceptions is a virtual-reality illusion, as max Planck understood. (See his 1944 Florence, Italy lecture on the nature of matter.) ALL IS THOUGHT IN A GREAT MIND. If you want to know more, including the answer to the coronavirus, give me a 'click".....
@@myothersoul1953 It should likely be true for all times if my theory built around soul is correct. It also provides a likely cause of the beginning of cosmos.
For selfawareness we need thought. For thought we need language. Hm, what then is exactly language? Our assumptions about these things are very limited. Language can take form and expressions that could at first sight appear to be utter nonsense. At least to us.
Empirical science is the closest thing to truth and knowledge we can ever have, other of course than the knowledge that you exist. It doesn't explain everything, but it paints a very extensive picture of the world and the way it works, and many ideas aren't compatible with what it's painting... like dualism
Max science “may be” the best tool leading us to truth and knowledge, yes, but that does not detract from my original statement that “empirical science cannot explain everything. If you like and request I can give you an example which will leave you dumbfounded or perhaps impressed.
If we accept the idea of logical constraints in the fundamental operations of reality, then consciousness is the only thing that needs to exist. In fact, consciousness itself defines the constraints.
Guided Meditation they have no relation whatsoever. That’s like saying , “fire is a gas, therefore consciousness is not spiritual or ethereal.” Doesn’t make sense really
Dualism is absolutely a very real possibility. Look around you, there is an equal and opposite to everything. Physical-Spiritual, Female-Male, Life-Death, Day-Night, Hot-Cold, Up-Down, positive-negative...everything you can think of. However, I think it is more than simply that because there is always the transition between the two extremes. Regardless, there is always one or the other as the ultimate goal or end point. I really feel there is our physical reality and experience, while equally there is a spiritual or afterlife that is equally as real (whatever your interpretation of what "real" means). There is also the transition that occurs between the two BUT we ultimately end up in one state or the other. Since we are energetic beings and you don't create energy, it always exists and just manifests in different ways. Our conscious energetic beings transition from one state to the other ALL the time.
My dear Sir/Madame, you are forgetting that between those two polar states are multiple continuous states! Everything seems to be "Flowing" from one state to another per unit time.
17:40..."Can you have thought without language?"..classical how we create a Tower Of Babel..Thought and language are the same type of inner neural activity. Or thought is essentially inner language.
Does consciousness sense the motion of distinct bodies, possibly through free will, such that consciousness is the sense of free will moving distinct bodies?
I think it very interesting to ask what is the now moment, the present moment. Is there such thing as an absolute now in the universe without awarness. Present moment is only subjective, if so can i claim than, someone who is dead for me at this moment could be alive in his or her now moment. can we say that consciousness not only exists simultaneously in different places but in different times as well. Had i waited longer to come into existence than someone who has born 20, 000 years ago, no. We came into existence at the same time.
When it comes to dualism it's really hard for me to get past how a head injury can effect consciousness, sense of self, level of awareness, personality, intelligence etc etc etc... If none of these count, what left that doesn't change for example with a coma or when one goes under anesthesia?
You could approach it from a sort of filter/radio analogy, sure you can damage the radio/filter to the point where the signal is garbled and messy, but the signal still exists.
I almost died from septic shock. My brain was very affected by a combination of almost no blood pressure and a raging temperature meant I didn’t understand what was going on. I was hallucinating and couldn’t see or hear properly. But I was always me. All this weird stuff was happening to me. That to me is the difference between thinking, seeing, or other brain processes and consciousness. If I became I’ll with Alzheimer’s it may get so I have brain functions so distorted and reduced I don’t know my own children. But it would still be me looking out at the world. I would like to ask whether, say, if the time comes that technology can replicate my brain exactly in every tiny respect and then ‘turned it on’ would I , me, suddenly find myself wondering what happened and why am I suddenly here again? I don’t know
One thing that thus far is not being distinguished is the difference between consciousness of objects of which material reality is understood and undifferentiated states of consciousness wherein mind and body are known as One. Our narrative here is great yet we need to study the terrain of undifferentiated states while being disinterested in objects knows the universe as a whole and within which our fullest relationships with the world are perceived and acted through.
I just can’t escape the impression that non-dualists all seek to either deny or downgrade consciousness, when, to most people, consciousness is the most immediate and certain thing that there is. In this sense, non-dualist approaches are all hopelessly lacking.
Especially people claiming the mind to be an illusion which would require a subject to be fooled and this subject is the same as the mind just claimed to be the illusion. Circular?
The first line of the kybalion is All is Mind. Maybe it's on to something? I'm getting more and more certain that man's "fall" is thinking dualistic. This is a very good channel.
Me too! Or at least get like really close to the point where we can determine a border separating what we clearly can perceive, understand and study and what we can not. I think there will always be such a limit, like right now our limit is the quantum world (planck is the smallest magnitude we can work with, if I'm not wrong).
What we mean physical ?. We can think (lemon) we right away experience water and different sensual changes in the body biology without seeing the lemon . 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
An extended structuralism takes care of all areas, layers, theories, perspectives, in context (and within their limits), often interlinked and translatable into each other. Many academics who are not proponents of a SINGLE model adopt some sort of model like that, which can also be deemed a standard model of academic rationality and openmindedness (often just tacit or implicit).
My instincts are to find irreconcilable the ideas that science can't explain everything and that consciousness is just an iterative milestone on the path of evolution. It feels like if you accept the latter, you reject the former. Accepting both seems reductive toward the mystery consciousness still presents us, as if whatever exists outside of it - which couldn't be explained by science - has no relationship to consciousness. How could it not?
Yes, if panpsychism is true. The belt of an atheist scientist isn't musing on how many carbs he ate for dinner. That kind of consciousness is not self-aware in the same way we are...But it does have its own kind of intelligence.
The word 'consciousness' has different meanings. One of which is self awareness, and another one is what in philosophy is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defined or connoted as follows. If there is anything it is like to be a certain entity, then the entity is conscious. In philosophy it is the latter sense of consciousness that is usually talked about, and not so much about self awareness.
Language is playing a vital role in the confusion around conciousness. Saying its an ilusion is insane, its nonsensical. But it doesn't seem insane if you understand the term differently. What is consciousness? is this a bad question? is it like asking why are we alive or why can't we divide by zero? the language is confusing. The idea that I find causes the most problems for me, is the idea of the "self" the idea of the observer, the eye of consciousness. the feeling that you are behind your eyes, making decisions and judgements. telling yourself a story about who you are, what you should do in the future and what you shouldn't have done in the past. Without the idea of the self, the problem of consciousness seems less confusing. A mystery nonetheless but a lot clearer. What do you guys think? am I missing something?
I'm at minute 8:30. The view of physicalism portrayed so far is basically neglecting that which we don't or can't know about due to our difficulty actually perceiving absolutely everything which is physical. It's simply taking us all back to wondering how do our thoughts work and why. We already know it takes place in the brain. We might not know how it all works exactly but I'm not going to throw the idea away just because it is merrier. Yet, after this, the man starts talking about hypothetical outcomes of messing around with brain parts, as if this was something we could trust blindly. It's clear to me that he uses the uncertainty in the example to make the audience feel like maybe there's something to understand there when there is not, unless you make assumptions like the ones he makes. Edit: what Jaron Lanier says from 12:00 to 12:15 is exactly what I meant only his wording summarizes it perfectly.
consciousness is the movement of the I, the me, the self, the observer, the experiencer, the interpreter, the controller, the chooser, the censor, the meditator, which is an illusion invented from the past conditioning of the brain. consciousness has many levels. Consciousness has no levels. consciousness is a chemical mechanical process of the brain. Consciousness IS NOT a chemical mechanical process of the brain. consciousness is a bundle of memory. Consciousness IS NOT a bundle of memory. consciousness originates in the brain. Consciousness DOES NOT originate in the brain. consciousness invents reality. Consciousness is the movement of Truth. Total Freedom from consciousness is the beginning of Consciousness. Consciousness is the movement of Inner Silent Space. When there is Consciousness, there is Perceiving without the lens of memories. It is Perceiving without the perceiver. This Consciousness is what we call Heart, Soul, Spirit. Then and only then is there Love, Peace, Joy, Goodness, Kindness, Compassion (Passion for All), Beauty, Creativity, Feeling, ExperiencING, Lucidity, Truth, and Wisdom. Then and only then is there Communication, Communion, Connection, Relationship with everyone and everything, for the very first time, in each and every moment of daily life.
Inner Total Freedom is actually being Totally Free of fear, anxiety, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Totally Free of beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, theories, opinions, perspectives, biases, prejudices, nationality, and identifications, which limit, color, shape & distort Perception, and therefore, prevent Lucidity. Totally Free of the I, the me, the self, the observer, the chooser, the experiencer, the interpreter, and the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain, which acts like an inner tyrant who tells you what to think, how to feel, and what to do. They actually treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give their dearest closest friend, lover, or child, without any sense of division, separation or distance in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Inner Total Freedom is actually Living Love, Peace, Joy, Truth, Creativity, Compassion (Passion for All). Communicating, Communing, Connecting with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life.
Inner Total Freedom does not take time. It is not of time. It is not the result of time or the things of time. It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet. It is not the result of any chemical. It is not the result of any process. There is no path to it. It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.
I am a carpenter by trade with a dualistic worldview who believes vehemently that truth is universally accessible and comes only at the end of a personal excursion wrought with acts of courage that are focussed and determine.
Fortunately, this currency of truth, which is bathe in intellectual humility and self-criticism, always seeks to give reasons, provide evidence and make arguments, lends itself easily to public consumption.
This type of engagement that is typically absent from our current public discourse, features front and centre in your presentations thus far, Dr Kuhn and as a consequence, it has inspired me to publish my two cents, hopefully to bring us “Closer To Truth”.
"..bathe in intellectual humility..?"
You should take a cold shower and rinse that empty "pretentious dirt."
I've watched many of these... oddly I feel farther from the truth just because I'm more aware of what we don't know.
Good sign. Doubt beckons exploration. Meditate in silence, the realizations will come.
Those who are cocksure are stuck, unable to explore other horizons and possibilities, unable to evolve.
That’s still closer to the truth my friend, welcome on the journey, hold on because the closer we get to truth, the crazier it will seem!
That’s a good thing and a huge step towards enlightenment
If truth was simple then excitement would wane, truth is a process of ever evolving understanding it's organic grownth. As you grow in knowledge you grow in wisdom. We have to be humble in seeking truth and be aware of forces within us who will try to arrogate themselves to perception of truth of some form or other. Just remember, All cognition is a kin to recognition.
That's great! Joy is not in finding answers. It is in the journey.
My favorite show on the internet, deeply intellectual, bravo!
I’m addicted to this series!
thanks for letting us know !
23:08 - So, I'm having a bit of trouble following this last guy. Is he basically saying that the pattern of electrical activity we observe in the brain is just what consciousness "looks like" as a physical perception? That seems to be dodging the core issue, but it's still an interesting contention.
I remember when about 10 ,sitting in the back garden, I suddenly realised I was trapped inside this body and I think I've been a bit of a coward ever since
Been there!
This is probably the most refreshing an honest comment I've read in a long time
@@czypauly07 thank you for that
i feel that too
Thats a natural feeling, you should meditate for sure. You might just find the entire universe is actually in your mind. So your not trapped you are all of the universe
_ How about non-dualism (advaita - literally meaning NOT TWO)?
_ Non-dualism points to consciousness as the only reality.
_ Consciousness (often equated with Awareness), is the basis and foundation of everything appearing as the world of dualism.
_ To the 'limited'/(fixed by conditioning) mind, the world of dualism 'appears' as reality, whereas it is actually a modulation of the 'infinite' mind which in essence is consciousness/awareness.
_ Rupert Spira masterfully discusses consciousness in his book "The Nature of Consciousness"
@@BrotherChad _ Thank you. Sometimes it happens that appropriate words come forth. Letting it happen is a delightful experience.
_ Thank you for your input on this subject.
Rupert is brilliant and explains the reality of our experience perfectly.
CCT is one of the most prolific channels around. What a pleasure to wake up in the morning, with a cup of coffee, to pick on some old philosophical question. Here are some other considerations in the discussion.
1. Question the notion of "substance". This is one of the language traps (nouns and "things").
2. I've been listening to some talks and interviews of Karl Friston. I think there is something to his description. It begins with some thermodynamic of "self" and "other". An oil drop illustrates this thermodynamic boundary. On the more animate side, there's the lipid bilayer of the cell wall. At its simplest, it includes "self" and "other" (environment), perception, motor control, inner representation mirroring the environment, the whole complex, acting together in a process. It is an "embodied" view.
You can draw the line of for "consciousness" anywhere. Some talk in terms of "number of feedback loops" (e.g., Michio Kaku starts with a thermometer, then moves upwards).
But a more intuitive dividing line might be the start of biological life. "Perception" is intimately related to consciousness. The bacterial cell has to sense its environment, then navigate it for "food" and survival. There is the outer reality and then some kind of internal modeling of it. Human beings have the latter in spades. They have a rich inner representation, a rich internal life. Human beings even have "meta-cognition", "model of a model of a model ...", "awareness of 'awareness'", awareness of "self" and its processes.
Kurzgesagt has a nice explainer video on this.
ruclips.net/video/H6u0VBqNBQ8/видео.html&
One of the best parts of this channel is how scientific and credible it is. No bullshit popular science, this is the real deal!
He really doesn’t want to get closer to the truth. They talk in circles. No one getting anywhere. All this channel is about is confusing people and making money.
I wish I was more academic so I could talk like these people but, when I try to understand their observations, it seems to me they're using fancy words and phrases to say they don't really have a clue. In some ways, this comforts me because I don't like the idea of missing out on something as crucial as what reality really is because I don't have a genius IQ.
Hey Romeo... I feel the same way. I'm pretty much a simple-minded person plus I have "chemo-brain" from cancer treatment side-effects.
Hey RIC, my guess is that you already possess all the intelligence needed. These academics, like all specialists, are simply more used to thinking along these lines and using these specialized words.
@@MichaelEhling Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes, I think these clever chaps like to use esoteric phraseology for self aggrandisement. If the message gets lost in that detail, then communication stops and ego is taking over... imho!
Most of these interviews have no substance, they just say they don't know or give unintuitive or nonsensical explanations. Richard Swinburne gave an excellent argument from epistemology that consciousness is primary and cannot be doubted to exist, whereas matter is a theory; but then he went on to his argument how splitting a brain does not account for the self, thus the self must exist? Seems pretty circular, since materialists say there is no such thing as self apart from the brain, and so yes there would be two selves. I think you only need one argument, regardless of how complex a computing system like a brain is, it cannot create something new, thus consciousness cannot be emergent but fundamental. That one pretty much closes the case for me, materialism is dead.
You explained it,,a lot of fancy words and degrees to say you don’t know,,it’s funny,,they’re hitting the walls of quantum physics,,some scientists are getting philosophical and turning to eastern religion for help,,
Mr. Kuhn is the perfect host for this show, not just because it’s his show , but he listens intently, and has the intellect to challenge these ego soaked “ academic” types.
Don't you think it unfair to describe the academicians he interviews as " ego soaked". He manages to conceal his own convictions and beliefs during the discussions in order to 'bring out' the different points of view of others. The uncomfortable realization that existence is a mystery drives us to look for and find an explanation ? It is as if Dr Kuhn is playing the role of our own minds in their search for search for the meaning of life and ultimate reality,
This bloke is amazing..what a channel 🙏
Magnificent show! Bravo and thank you to all concerned.
Bede: "It´s easy to see when someone is conscious?" Is it really? There is no consensus which lifeforms are conscious? We cannot tell if a person in a vegetative state has conscious experience?
I love the way he ends his videos by saying.. Closer to Truth.
I hope that one day he’ll end a video with, “The honey badger.”
Peter Forrest hit the nail right on the head in my opinion. Once you see how confused and indefinite our notions of “Physical” and “Mental” are, Monism seems so obvious that it’s difficult to understand how you didn’t realize it before. It’s like a breath of fresh air
I still don't understand what Monism is o.0
@@Micscience Monism is opposed to dualism. Monism says there is only one fundamental aspect to reality but dualism there's something other, hence two different aspects that comprises reality. Idealists and physicalists, though diametrically opposed, are both monists. To the physicalist, there is only the natural, material world and consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of brain. The problem with that theory is that it still doesn't quantitatively describe what that emergent property is in the material sense. The idealist, being also a monist, believes there is only consciousness, and what we call the material world doesn't really exist or at least doesn't exist without consciousness. There's problems with that too or at least with how that theory isn't often compatible with our everyday experience. Then there's the dualist who thinks there's a real physical world, but there's something extra added, the immaterial soul which accounts for consciousness. Hope that helps.
@@geralddecaire6164 I always looked at dualism as there are two opposing realities countering each other. The positive and negative and a neutral I guess.
@@Micscience ye that's another view with the same name that has nothing to do with the vid lol
@@philo2903 Uh yes it does, we are talking about world views.
That asian dude looks like he's about to say "Bro, Aliens."
I still can’t understand consciousness. But I find Yijin’s philosophy too rigid. Like his tidy life and mind, every explanation requires an answer that can be tied up neatly in a bow. So that’s how he pursue his ‘truth’.
But Life gets messy and often is. I steer towards Dualism.
AS Michael Egnor said in his video: Michael Egnor: the evidence against materialism: " the object that neuroscience studies the mind and the brain is best understood by dualism and i believe that neuroscientist need to become more acquainted with dualism and need to understand the limitations of materialism which are profound and which are holding the science back. The natural world can be much better understood if you assume it has purpose, you assume it has design.
25:40 - We all know that our minds can create extremely vivid dreams. The main difference between "real life" and dreams is that the dreams are generally more fuzzy and ephemeral - dream worlds don't seem to have the "rigor" of physical law. But consider the possibility that the "real world" would be a dream that's being shared by at least billions of separate consciousness minds. It's entirely possible that results in the rigorous, repeatable behavior. It's one thing for you to "mess around" in a dream that you're having alone - that doesn't necessarily mean you can do the same in a multi-billion-mind dream. I have no evidence to cite for this, but I see no reason to consider that idea implausible.
To people who say "I've never opened up the brain and saw a thought" I would respond with "I've never opened up a computer GPU and found an image."
A computer is a very complicated machine composed of simple parts with the amazing ability to turn information into images, sound and more.
Your brain is also a very complicated machine composed of simple parts with the amazing ability to turn information into images, sound and more.
Yes, it's a fine analogy.
@H D you're pretty much saying the same thing, except you're asserting that atoms are conscious and billions of atoms together form a more complex conscious. Why then are rocks not conscious?
@@rubiks6 As far as we know they are the same. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
The thought of person being machines (and everything else) is quite dangerous, and will not lead to any good. Take a look at this chap. A real Scientist. ruclips.net/video/HybPD0VsFP0/видео.html
@@rubiks6 that's because your brain is running very complex software built up over time specifically to process incoming data from your senses. Reductive materialism works just fine.
God, I love Jaron too much! What a treasure . I love the show and thankful for your show RLK!
this channel is an absolute gold mine
I'm surprised the Godfather of dualism was not mentioned - Descartes. He was, as I understand him, both the founder of the scientific method and a religious believer in God. Foot in both camps? Phil
maybe because he got rekt by Elisabeth of Bohemia
Depends on how you interpret. "I think therefore I am" because I AM THOUGHT. That's where Descartes should have parked his car. And my book gives the full revelation, as delivered by the Mind that is All. Also, give me a "click" if you want the answer to this coronavirus thing....(I don't receive RUclips comments notifications, but those who want to reach me will discover how to do so.)
Descartes ideas on mind and body are not what people like to remember about him, they were quickly outdated.
It would be very interesting to see thoughts on dualism/non-dualism from some of your guests after a large DMT experience.. 🤔😁
My thoughts exactly!
Groovy trip, no proof.
After DMT I no longer believe in dualism
Right!!!
Now there's an idea.
3:21 Sir, You may want to understand Sri Madhwacharya in the true dual (Dvaita) thesis is. I am happy to speak to you about this concept.
No left without right no right without left
No material without immaterial
Abstraction defined as contradiction (when opposites come together) and mono polarity
Are you claiming that the distinction between left & right coordinates is a product of abstraction, like, if we didn’t have abstracts then there wouldn’t be left & right coordinates? The very fact that the presentation of a sensible object is conditioned under such coordinates proves that they’re not; as the presentation of a sensible object is independent of abstracts, their coordinate properties, i.e., one part of the sensible object being to the left or right of another part of the sensible object, would therefore be too.
It's a very nice channel shedding light on many fundamental questions,I love it.
I'm a materialist when I'm sober.
Beyond that, things can get a little blurry.
Hol mehr Rum
Bring mir Wein.
Ein Mann wie ich
Darf nie nüchtern sein.
"Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise."(zen aphorism)
It does appear that the nature of REALITY IN TOTALITY is beyond the strict categorization of any "ism". To know the mystery is to simply participate in it... without attempting to explain it. Cause you just can't! That's the beauty of it.
Below quote from St Francis cleared all my confusion
Yoga says:
Your true SELF is God. You just have to drop your chronic thinking 😃
Consciousness is God. Every living being is a reflection of God in an imperfect mirror
Read "be as you are" by David Goodman
new ager where not god lol
@@Ravenstudios-s5o John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”
This channel should be on TV
Consider the thought experiment were we exactly duplicate a man ( as in Trek TNG episode Second Chances) At the moment of duplication we have two bodies with identical atoms and identical electrical signals in their brains. But we have two completely separate and unique consciousnesses. How can this be explained using a materialistic interpretation?
That's one of my favorite thought experiments. You end up with two men and briefly they're identical in every way and they're both conscious and immediately after they're duplicated, their conscious experiences are exactly the same. They're both in exactly the same mood and thinking the same thing. Why is that hard for a materialist to explain? The brain makes the mind. If you duplicate the brain, then two brains will generate separate but identical minds.
@@mytwocents7481 NOT
@@mytwocents7481 that is to ignore the true idea of consciousness which is that there is a ‘me’ inside the body.
@@clareshaughnessy2745 I'm not ignoring it. I'm assuming that the 'me' is generated by the activity of the brain.
@@mytwocents7481 hmm, but isn’t that the whole question we’re asking?
how would consciousness interact with physical brain in dualism?
Bravo Richard Swinburne, excellently stated, personhood is indeed more then just your brain.
Eric Day indeed Richard Swinburne impressed me as not only knowledgeable and educated but also very wise.
Swinburne was only able to make the point that linguistically speaking, when we refer to 'me' or 'you', we are referring to more than simply the physical brain. His arguments did nothing to argue for the point that this psychology that we consider to be 'me' or 'you' could not be entirely explained in terms of physical causes and phenomena. Of course when we talk about 'me' or 'you' we don't just mean the brain - we mean the psychology and the personality that is linked to this body that we associate with it.
@Jon I don't agree with Swinburne's argument because I reject the dichotomy of mental and physical - since I believe that to have a 'mental' duplicate of myself, I am also drawing on physical and physiological identities. Swinburne's argument relies on the ability to separate mental and physical, which cannot be shown simply by the fact that we refer to them in different ways, or have separate concepts for these alleged classes. I wasn't suggesting that Swinburne was actively trying to use a linguistic trick, but pointing to the fact that, from a non-dualist standpoint, that is ultimately the only conclusion we can validly draw from the argument - because Swinburne's argument attempts to use our concepts to come to conclusions about reality, which ultimately depends on whether or not our linguistic and conceptual understanding of reality is accurate, which is not necessarily the case.
I'm not going to suggest that you 'don't understand the argument', but simply that we have different starting points when analysing it, in terms of beliefs and concepts. Ultimately, I believe that arguments come to a stalemate on this matter, because from my point of view, as with most ontological arguments, we cannot draw certain conclusions about the metaphysical simply from what we ourselves deem to be logically possible. If you don't share that view then you will be able to accept many arguments that I reject on that basis.
@Jon but that is exactly the point - from my point of view, a physicalist one, I don't find the argument convincing because I understand that the arguments he is making is not really a danger to my belief, because it only works if you presuppose the truth of a dualist world. In this way, it can act as a means of confirmation for people who already believe in these views, i.e that have already accepted the _dualist_ dogma. It's not necessary for you to immediately jump to ad hominem arguments - while I am talking about the argument Swinburne makes and the assumptions required for you to accept it, you jump straight to me being a dogmatic physicalist who can't appreciate the possibility of other points of view. Your response is hypocritical, considering my previous reply, which was highlighting the exact point that you're trying to make towards me, but in a less aggressive way. I'm not attempting to criticise you for being a dualist who can't see the error of their ways, all I'm saying is that this argument only works by presupposing the dualist veiw, ie by begging the question, and so is not a compelling argument if the point is to do anything other than convincing people who already believe the final conclusion.
The same way a toaster is more than the sum of its parts.
One must contend with a special idea in this context (but not only in this context, and that is important also). It is that monism is not as attractive an idea as it at first seems, but rather it is also not merely a "substance per se" that is what is at issue, either. There may be one "fundamental substance" say, and yet it matters what state it is in, as it cannot meaningfully generate some phenomenon without being in a particular state. That gives a special valence to the configuration of substance that exceeds the considerations of the substances per se (in themselves). That form has its own content, and merely that content extrapolates itself through formal articulations that add no dimensions of phenomena in their own right. This is also not incompatible with substance dualism, which raises the interest.
I enjoyed the show, engaging as always..I suspect MOST of the viewers of this channel accept Evolution through natural selection as the process that led from simpler life to us.. THEN why do people have a hard time accepting that consciousness EVOLVED complexity as well.. We see the same curve in animal species today! Metaphysical alternatives are impossible to falsify.. A naturalistic evolution in the complexity and gradualistic emergence of consciousness seems self- evident..Peace.
Saying consciousness evolved doesn't tell us what consciousness is.
@@jordancox8294 Consciousness is the functioning of the reticular formation in the brain stem. Remove this structure and you are comatose! All biology, not woo woo!
@@jordancox8294 A CAREFUL reading of my comment gives the most likely description of what consciousness is.. An emergent property of the manner in which our brain processes, stores, and retrieves information.. A very SIMPLE naturalistic explanation with the highest probability of being correct.. Thanks for your comment friend..
@@GeoCoppens Right friend.. Consciousness is indeed a function of solely biological processes..
@@GeoCoppens I would further suggest that a COMPULSION to understand the physical world is deeply rooted in our DNA.. When a logical (Or scientific) explanation is unavailable, ANY mental construct will suffice to assuage this irresistible compulsion.. ONE mans humble opinion..
Would the necessity for a conscious observer in the settlement of a quantum event be the link to the physicalistic monism without dualism?
We are not conscious when we are in deep sleep. How can one expect to be conscious after death?
Not so fast Bucko...Those ole Vedic monks have done empirical studies where they 'proved' they were conscious during deep sleep. My remembrance of the study was they were asked questions while in deep sleep (confirmed by brainwave states) and were asked to blink yes or no...And they blinked correctly. Not proof entirely but evidence that they remained conscious even in the deep sleep state.
But it goes further because the lore of that tradition is that it's only the mastery of the deep sleep state that can get one out of this 'Bardo hell'..
See the Tibetan Book of The Dead...
@@andrewmarkmusic lol Bucko i like that one lol
@@666summerz Christian Gnostics are the irreverent hippies of Christendom and we don't take this place seriously...We are consistently murdered and our metaphysical narrative is consistently wiped off the face of the earth, though, so that much I take seriously...
BTW: I think it's the Book Of Peter wherein it is said the Aeon Kristo was in hysterics when the Sanhedrin council tried to kill him...An impossibility! The Book of Judas suggests it was Yaldabaoth that tried to put him to death...It's also said in other writings that Yaldabaoth, at some time in cosmological history, was shown a vision of the Aeon Kristos (and rejected it) so this cosmological war was well in play 2000-years ago as it is today...
Of course, this is all speculative cosmology.
Look it up.
Actually, we are, we just have no recollection of those conscious states; just like a child in the womb, at a certain point, is sentient or conscious but will have no recollection of it in life. Blacking out is another example, as a person who’s blacked out, say, from deep inebriation, has no recollection of it later but was nonetheless conscious during that whole time. So that a lack of a recollection of conscious states isn’t equivalent with a lack of conscious states.
What about emergence of behavior in complex system ? What we see is purely statistical effect on rigorous laws applied to very complex space of states ?
It seemed like the physicalists, at least some of them, kept trying to have aspects of dualism as an escape hatch while saying they weren’t dualists. Struggled with their positions.
Go where the evidence leads. The overlap isn't a bad thing if it means their wells are drilling to the same oil.
That's more a problem with labels than anything. Listen to what they are saying, not get hung up on specific words. It's not a competition.
I don't know a single PHYSICALIST who believes in dualism.. Escape hatch or otherwise..
@@billnorris1264 That's because their ignorant of their own dualism.
@@danzigvssartre No personal offense intended friend.. You can "LIKE" your own comments, but it doesn't add any validity to your Bronze Age ideas.. Your beliefs in PURELY assumptive knowledge, puts you in an ever-dwindling minority of supernaturalists.. Even mainstream philosophy is largely abandoning the idea, but feel free to believe in ghosts and goblins..
The journey to understanding begins and ends at the same place.
I love smart people that rock dreads ;) 🙏🏻
18:45 'Does it make demands on anything outside the natural world?' But the natural world is only available to us through five senses. How can we be sure ALL that the natural world actually is? What if we had another one or two senses? What if consciousness IS another one of our senses? The five senses would tell us about the 'natural' world; consiousness being the sense that allows us to experience our Selves.
I think consciousness is like water. It behaves differently in various states. This could give the illusion of dualism when it is actually monism. Imagine a dream. You feel like you are a distinct consciousness within your dream. But what is the dream world made of? You consider the dream world to be distinct from your consciousness in the dream. But they are both consciousness.
Well said. Dreams within dreams.
They are not "consciousness".
They are what one is conscious of.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Deep enough meditation and you will find that there is no distinction between the seer and the seen.
@@Ndo01 Deep enough meditation and one will not be conscious.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL There are degrees of subtlety to consciousness and other factors to consider like memory which contribute to the recollection of being in the deeper meditative states, so any accounts of not being conscious is only a phenomenological interpretation after the fact. We could also call such states 'objectless consciousness'.
How do you explain 'locked in' patients playing MRI tennis?
Richard Swinburne was pretty creepy about the brains, but the explanation was unique and conclusive.
Agree, he made the point though 😊
12:10 ORGANIZE YOUR IGNORANCE!
Consciousness is simply the result when Spirit interacts, or manifests as, Matter. Matter is Spirit at it's lower state, and vice versa. Ancient wisdom/knowledge, this is.
So, stones and pebbles, chairs and tables are spirit? I don't think ancient philosophy says this.
@@Arunava_Gupta You may be confusing "Spirit" with "self consciousness".
@@cango5679 Well, consciousness is consciousness, whether it pertains to the self or to some universal cosmic entity, is it not? The essential characteristics are the same.
@@Arunava_Gupta The essentials are the same, of course. But there is a big difference between a plant that is conscious of it's environment - it responds to the sun, the soil, the rain etc, - and being conscious that it is conscious. The manas, the thinking aspect is not there. Not until the human state of evolution you get that self consciousness. (and it keep evolving beyond our state, of course, into higher ways/states. ) But the principles are one and the same. That's at least what I have come to understand, in my ,very much limited, state.
@@cango5679 Thanks for replying. But, of course, there are stages and grades of evolution with varying degrees of consciousness, but all of this has reference to conscious personalities in embodied form. That's what ancient wisdom says. These are all purusas, spiritual personalities, with the essential characteristic of consciousness. But, sticks and stones, chairs and tables, jars and pots, all these belong to an altogether different ontological category with diametrically opposite essential characteristics (non-sentient, mutable, evolutive, etc.). These belong to the category of prakriti, not purusa; and this is what I was referring to.
might unity of conscious experience require everything to be all based on one thing?
Consciousness precedes life. When we die, we won’t actually die. We will just continue but in a different form. The brain is more of an antenna than a device that creates consciousness.
anyone can say anything without evidence
Utter rubbish! Provide evidence!
The brain isn't an antenna, that's just wishful thinking as you wish for your existence not to end. The brain looks nothing like a "device " that broadcasts "consciousness". It has many parts completing seprate functions, all of which is done continuously with the rest of the body. So saying it's an antenna is as ridiculous as saying the eye is an "antenna" for seeing.
@@2CSST2 Well, eye can actually be an antenna because the comment which u are seeing is processed in brain occipital lobe and eye is the medium of that.
Only your own experience can ever show you these truths. There is little that can be shown to convince anyone. Yet if you are truly open you can find ample evidence online and elsewhere from physicists, doctors, spiritual teachings, ancient wisdom, lay people, children, channeled material, books, recordings, and many many others all of which converge to the same truth. I too used to think this to be nonsense but I kept an open mind and questioned everything. Do your best to stay open and you WILL discover what many are now discovering about our (humans) true nature.
Can language be researched, along with awareness, to see if consciousness might be immaterial? Does language have something immaterial?
Yes, language is immaterial. Words exist even before we say them. They are immaterial, or numbers, which is even better example, they are just ideas and exist in an immaterial realm. Consciousness too is immaterial, it is a situation. A situation when material brain in in such and such position, means consciousness. And one more example is victory in football cup. Victory is immaterial, but is made by this atoms running around the field kicking the ball.
"Mysteries solved by mysticism seem too neat." :)
how might physical brain correlate with consciousness?
Consciousness can only be explained after a lifetime of staring into your belly button
Is it possible that our strong survival instinct creates an idea that there's a part of ourselves that is not physical. It will not die (our 'spirit'). And that illusion is created in response to our inability to accept our mortality, or even more, the refusal to accept impermanence. Could it be a fear response?
Wow! Amazing how many ways you can see things!
I keep it simple. I am conscious, and everything is experience, the profound well of insight, clarity, wisdom and understanding. I draw from that well through meditation. 🙏
Honestly, to me, that is simple, just not in the way you intended. It's simplistic. Try this: my brain draws data through my senses, which is stored in my brain. My brain stores and uses this data to send signals to every single part of my body and makes each part act according to the data that it has previously received. Genes are the same only in like a much bigger scale.
Maybe you won't have to spend so much time meditating if you think of it like this. It makes me happy to think that I understand how my body and brain works and I want everybody to feel the same way. And as Lanier kind of said on the video we should just focus on what we can actually work with.
Is there possibilty of being in a dualist phase, going from only immaterial (idealist monism) to only material (physical monism)? Maybe why we can be shifty.
Bartender, 'I'll have a double dualism, please!"...
On the rocks
@@helensmith7596 Cheers!
I'd recomend a Dalmore 15!
I think they each need to define what they considered as consciousnesses. Each seems to be slightly different
No, but idealism can.
Well yes and yes, although idealism seems tobhave the evidence more on its side.
Richard Swinburne. I may not agree with what he says, but I like the way he says it.
He's a brilliant sophist, haha. Just kidding I admire the cordiality everyone has but I really, really, disagree with him.
Robert, please have a discussion with Sadhguru! I would love to hear you two have this conversation.
The perch description is one I can comprehend and while not the same reminds me of how I feel on a wall... ON one side the "woowoo" that I do not deny but also seek not to fall into.... but then to the other side seems dry, denying, less experience.... On the wall there is experience, there is questioning, there is possibility.
Personally I do feel that purely physical (as it is understood now) seems difficult.
I believe in something of a consciousness... but I could say that it is a monistic or pan (dual/pan).
I like that idea of organizing ignorance.
I agree that the universe does surprise us and that we are far from wrapping it all up... the macro/micro comes to mind
When, when, when is Kuhn going to interview Bernardo Kastrup about Idealism? Kuhn's failure to do so to date is ...well, a real failure. At some point, this failure will be more evidence of just how pathetically close-minded (and tribal) even the most allegedly open-minded seekers are.
After 15:07 Bede Rundle makes a comparison between "consciousness" and "kindness or carelessness and herein lies a fundamental error. This comparison is questionable in that kindness and carelessness are definable attributes whose respective meanings are largely and commonly known. All of us could give a definition albeit a partial one of what these things mean and they would all be similarly understood, not so with consciousness.
Mr. Rundle also says that those who study this phenomenon consider consciousness as "some kind of stuff" albeit "subtle stuff." He says or alleges that others think of consciousness in this way. How does one respond to such inexact language? Is some kind of "subtle" stuff to be distinguished from some kind of unsubtle stuff?
This mystery is not to be understood by analogies with other mental experiences suggesting that being "conscious" of something is the same as "consciousness" in its intrinsic essence, which is to say it is a mystery. Animals, even insects are conscious of their surroundings as clearly seen in their behavior but are incapable of imagination or profound thought. The central question remains and Mr. Rundle's optimism that more experiments are needed and in time empirical science will solve this inscrutable riddle is unrealistic in my opinion.
Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and perhaps more fundamental than physical laws like gravity or magnetism. Consciousness is the necessary back drop wherein cognition and all awareness take place. We don't produce consciousness. We "experience" consciousness through cognition and all that cognition entails, sensation, memory, imagination and all mental phenomenon are made possible by our large brains, and it's because of our brains that we are able to inhabit consciousness, a consciousness that was present at the beginning of the universe.
Oh dear I've spilled the beans haven't I? I just made a theological statement because that's the only statement that ties so many loose ends into a coherent whole. Like the theory of plate tectonics weaving so many disparate pieces of evidence together to reach a new level of understanding of earths geology, cosmology, quantum mechanics and theology are all attempting to describe the same ultimate reality.
In the future, the line between science and theology will be blurred to the point of insignificance as one highly evolved synthesis of these two great pillars of human understanding emerges into a unified whole.
My thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn for these engaging discussions.
Michael Mckinney Christmas Eve 2023
only substance dualism makes sense. We should conceive a scientific soul that is interacting with physical matter of our body and brain. I have tried this in my book- consciousness explained scientifically by substance dualism: demonstrates the existence of the soul and God. This clearly tells that we can conceive a scientific soul.
Depends on what you mean by "make sense". The test of a scientific theory is if can make exact predictions that can be shown to be wrong. What would disprove your theory?
@@myothersoul1953 my theory predicts that we are alone in the universe. We can never find other life anywhere else. Also there cannot be a second chance of life on earth as well. If we ever find life anywhere else then my theory will prove wrong.
The Universe of your perceptions is a virtual-reality illusion, as max Planck understood. (See his 1944 Florence, Italy lecture on the nature of matter.) ALL IS THOUGHT IN A GREAT MIND. If you want to know more, including the answer to the coronavirus, give me a 'click".....
@@sanjeevjain5519 So far your theory fits the data.
@@myothersoul1953 It should likely be true for all times if my theory built around soul is correct. It also provides a likely cause of the beginning of cosmos.
Can we understand the dimensions? Why don't we take into consideration a dimension as a source that is not recognised as of now?
I've watched so much of these shows and all I know for certain is one plus one equals two. Everything else is a theory of more or less merit.
If you still believe that, perhaps you might enjoy reading up on the philosophy of mathematics, then :P
And evermore shall be so.
@@zynphull Bertrand Russell said it's so!..oh,don't ruin my last bastion of truth in reality.
For selfawareness we need thought. For thought we need language. Hm, what then is exactly language? Our assumptions about these things are very limited. Language can take form and expressions that could at first sight appear to be utter nonsense. At least to us.
One thing is sure: Empirical science cannot explain everything.....
Empirical science is the closest thing to truth and knowledge we can ever have, other of course than the knowledge that you exist. It doesn't explain everything, but it paints a very extensive picture of the world and the way it works, and many ideas aren't compatible with what it's painting... like dualism
Max science “may be” the best tool leading us to truth and knowledge, yes, but that does not detract from my original statement that “empirical science cannot explain everything. If you like and request I can give you an example which will leave you dumbfounded or perhaps impressed.
zempath that is BS- I just explained your comment.....obviously you do not comprehend my comment but come up with stupid nonsensical lines....
zempath lol....FOFF stupid
If we accept the idea of logical constraints in the fundamental operations of reality, then consciousness is the only thing that needs to exist. In fact, consciousness itself defines the constraints.
Water can be a solid, liquid and a gas. Consciousness can be physical solid, spiritual and ethereal.
Guided Meditation they have no relation whatsoever. That’s like saying , “fire is a gas, therefore consciousness is not spiritual or ethereal.”
Doesn’t make sense really
What's the difference between spiritual and ethereal?
Dualism is absolutely a very real possibility. Look around you, there is an equal and opposite to everything. Physical-Spiritual, Female-Male, Life-Death, Day-Night, Hot-Cold, Up-Down, positive-negative...everything you can think of. However, I think it is more than simply that because there is always the transition between the two extremes. Regardless, there is always one or the other as the ultimate goal or end point. I really feel there is our physical reality and experience, while equally there is a spiritual or afterlife that is equally as real (whatever your interpretation of what "real" means). There is also the transition that occurs between the two BUT we ultimately end up in one state or the other. Since we are energetic beings and you don't create energy, it always exists and just manifests in different ways. Our conscious energetic beings transition from one state to the other ALL the time.
My dear Sir/Madame, you are forgetting that between those two polar states are multiple continuous states! Everything seems to be "Flowing" from one state to another per unit time.
There is one honest answer: W.E.D.O.N.T.K.N.O.W...
We do know, idealism is true.
@@dazedmaestro1223 Woo-hoo...Another Luciferian!
Although there is a fine line between Woo-hoo and Woo-woo..
@@andrewmarkmusic, what woo-hoo, wooooooooohaheahfhfghsm, or zlkfsjkfzdhfs khkhuksfhuudkshuk?
S.O.S
Dualism is the only vehicle which can somewhat explain conciousness
17:40..."Can you have thought without language?"..classical how we create a Tower Of Babel..Thought and language are the same type of inner neural activity. Or thought is essentially inner language.
My dog thinks I will give him some food if he looks into my eyes and wags his tail.
Your elegance is so elegantly elegant.
Does consciousness sense the motion of distinct bodies, possibly through free will, such that consciousness is the sense of free will moving distinct bodies?
Consciousness is flow of energy
It baffles me how ancient India delved into such issues even 8000 years ago. Samkhya and Advait are both so profound.
I think it very interesting to ask what is the now moment, the present moment. Is there such thing as an absolute now in the universe without awarness. Present moment is only subjective, if so can i claim than, someone who is dead for me at this moment could be alive in his or her now moment. can we say that consciousness not only exists simultaneously in different places but in different times as well. Had i waited longer to come into existence than someone who has born 20, 000 years ago, no. We came into existence at the same time.
eternalism
ruclips.net/video/_9khd_PNSkg/видео.html
When it comes to dualism it's really hard for me to get past how a head injury can effect consciousness, sense of self, level of awareness, personality, intelligence etc etc etc... If none of these count, what left that doesn't change for example with a coma or when one goes under anesthesia?
You could approach it from a sort of filter/radio analogy, sure you can damage the radio/filter to the point where the signal is garbled and messy, but the signal still exists.
@@DarthT15 then when you die and your brain shuts down, your consciousness becomes useless ?
@@DarthT15 The signal still exists outside of the receiver even when the receiver is totally kaput and unusable .
Imagine consciousness as the screen in a cinema. The screen is still there, when the projector has been turned off.
I almost died from septic shock. My brain was very affected by a combination of almost no blood pressure and a raging temperature meant I didn’t understand what was going on. I was hallucinating and couldn’t see or hear properly. But I was always me. All this weird stuff was happening to me. That to me is the difference between thinking, seeing, or other brain processes and consciousness. If I became I’ll with Alzheimer’s it may get so I have brain functions so distorted and reduced I don’t know my own children. But it would still be me looking out at the world.
I would like to ask whether, say, if the time comes that technology can replicate my brain exactly in every tiny respect and then ‘turned it on’ would I , me, suddenly find myself wondering what happened and why am I suddenly here again? I don’t know
One thing that thus far is not being distinguished is the difference between consciousness of objects of which material reality is understood and undifferentiated states of consciousness wherein mind and body are known as One. Our narrative here is great yet we need to study the terrain of undifferentiated states while being disinterested in objects knows the universe as a whole and within which our fullest relationships with the world are perceived and acted through.
I just can’t escape the impression that non-dualists all seek to either deny or downgrade consciousness, when, to most people, consciousness is the most immediate and certain thing that there is. In this sense, non-dualist approaches are all hopelessly lacking.
Especially people claiming the mind to be an illusion which would require a subject to be fooled and this subject is the same as the mind just claimed to be the illusion. Circular?
Exactly. Especially as it is the single most important thing we will ever have
The first line of the kybalion is All is Mind. Maybe it's on to something? I'm getting more and more certain that man's "fall" is thinking dualistic.
This is a very good channel.
I think that physical and natural science will eventually answer what constitutes consciousness, where it comes from, & what it can be used for.
Me too! Or at least get like really close to the point where we can determine a border separating what we clearly can perceive, understand and study and what we can not. I think there will always be such a limit, like right now our limit is the quantum world (planck is the smallest magnitude we can work with, if I'm not wrong).
What we mean physical ?. We can think (lemon) we right away experience water and different sensual changes in the body biology without seeing the lemon . 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
self consciousness is the biggest smoke and mirror trick since the beginning of time.
Unbelievably amazing
Interview Leo gura, he's got some profound opinions
即使世界上存在非物質的事物，也不一定非得是二元論吧，我滿喜歡一個數學題目，0-1之間，如果隨機取一個數，請問取到無理數和有理數的機率。取到無理數的機率是1。有理數的機率是0。但是如果在數軸上標出一個點，卻一定是有理數，因為無理數只能用兩端去逼近，不可能標出一個確定的點。所以數軸上滿滿的都是無理數，實際上卻只能找到有理數，真是奇妙。有理數就像是唯物世界，無理數就是非唯物的世界，有著一樣的本質，並非二元相對。
An extended structuralism takes care of all areas, layers, theories, perspectives, in context (and within their limits), often interlinked and translatable into each other. Many academics who are not proponents of a SINGLE model adopt some sort of model like that, which can also be deemed a standard model of academic rationality and openmindedness (often just tacit or implicit).
My instincts are to find irreconcilable the ideas that science can't explain everything and that consciousness is just an iterative milestone on the path of evolution.
It feels like if you accept the latter, you reject the former.
Accepting both seems reductive toward the mystery consciousness still presents us, as if whatever exists outside of it - which couldn't be explained by science - has no relationship to consciousness.
How could it not?
Is there a difference between Consciousness and Self Awareness?
Yes, if panpsychism is true. The belt of an atheist scientist isn't musing on how many carbs he ate for dinner. That kind of consciousness is not self-aware in the same way we are...But it does have its own kind of intelligence.
The word 'consciousness' has different meanings. One of which is self awareness, and another one is what in philosophy is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defined or connoted as follows.
If there is anything it is like to be a certain entity, then the entity is conscious.
In philosophy it is the latter sense of consciousness that is usually talked about, and not so much about self awareness.
Language is playing a vital role in the confusion around conciousness. Saying its an ilusion is insane, its nonsensical. But it doesn't seem insane if you understand the term differently. What is consciousness? is this a bad question? is it like asking why are we alive or why can't we divide by zero? the language is confusing.
The idea that I find causes the most problems for me, is the idea of the "self" the idea of the observer, the eye of consciousness. the feeling that you are behind your eyes, making decisions and judgements. telling yourself a story about who you are, what you should do in the future and what you shouldn't have done in the past. Without the idea of the self, the problem of consciousness seems less confusing. A mystery nonetheless but a lot clearer. What do you guys think? am I missing something?
It's tricky and I am simple minded but... How can a house have properties that we dont see in bricks...do we need to add a 'shelter' spirit?
I'm at minute 8:30. The view of physicalism portrayed so far is basically neglecting that which we don't or can't know about due to our difficulty actually perceiving absolutely everything which is physical. It's simply taking us all back to wondering how do our thoughts work and why. We already know it takes place in the brain. We might not know how it all works exactly but I'm not going to throw the idea away just because it is merrier.
Yet, after this, the man starts talking about hypothetical outcomes of messing around with brain parts, as if this was something we could trust blindly. It's clear to me that he uses the uncertainty in the example to make the audience feel like maybe there's something to understand there when there is not, unless you make assumptions like the ones he makes.
Edit: what Jaron Lanier says from 12:00 to 12:15 is exactly what I meant only his wording summarizes it perfectly.
To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland, "I've seen brains without a thought, but never a thought without a brain! Curiouser and curiouser"
I am such a fan of Jaron Lanier
There is consciousness and then there is Consciousness.
consciousness is the movement of the I, the me, the self, the observer, the experiencer, the interpreter, the controller, the chooser, the censor, the meditator, which is an illusion invented from the past conditioning of the brain.
consciousness has many levels.
Consciousness has no levels.
consciousness is a chemical mechanical process of the brain.
Consciousness IS NOT a chemical mechanical process of the brain.
consciousness is a bundle of memory.
Consciousness IS NOT a bundle of memory.
consciousness originates in the brain.
Consciousness DOES NOT originate in the brain.
consciousness invents reality.
Consciousness is the movement of Truth.
Total Freedom from consciousness is the beginning of Consciousness.
Consciousness is the movement of Inner Silent Space.
When there is Consciousness, there is Perceiving without the lens of memories. It is Perceiving without the perceiver.
This Consciousness is what we call Heart, Soul, Spirit.
Then and only then is there Love, Peace, Joy, Goodness, Kindness, Compassion (Passion for All), Beauty, Creativity, Feeling, ExperiencING, Lucidity, Truth, and Wisdom.
Then and only then is there Communication, Communion, Connection, Relationship with everyone and everything, for the very first time, in each and every moment of daily life.
Inner Total Freedom is actually being Totally Free of fear, anxiety, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice in daily life, once and for all, now forever.
Totally Free of beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, theories, opinions, perspectives, biases, prejudices, nationality, and identifications, which limit, color, shape & distort Perception, and therefore, prevent Lucidity.
Totally Free of the I, the me, the self, the observer, the chooser, the experiencer, the interpreter, and the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain, which acts like an inner tyrant who tells you what to think, how to feel, and what to do.
They actually treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give their dearest closest friend, lover, or child, without any sense of division, separation or distance in daily life, once and for all, now forever.
Inner Total Freedom is actually Living Love, Peace, Joy, Truth, Creativity, Compassion (Passion for All). Communicating, Communing, Connecting with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life.
Inner Total Freedom does not take time.
It is not of time.
It is not the result of time or the things of time.
It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet.
It is not the result of any chemical.
It is not the result of any process.
There is no path to it.
It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light.
Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.
How do I arrive at Truth?
Every now and again one of these philosophers refers to it as "conciness" when their brain-tongue synapse gets tired, it always makes me smile