Is Consciousness Fundamental? | Episode 308 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- Is our mental life a random accident, solely the product or byproduct of physical brain? Or is there something deeply special about conscious awareness that may reveal a hidden reality? Featuring interviews with David Chalmers, John Searle, Marilyn Schlitz, Varadaraja Raman, and Andrei Linde.
Season 3, Episode 8 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Consciousness #Philosophy
The first guy and Donald Hoffman are my latest scientific heroes!!
Same. Hoffman's book is an awesome read.
Latest? This video is from 2003 and was probably filmed a few years earlier.
"The first guy", David Chalmers, who looks like he's about to hit the stage with Iron Maiden here, is actually a short grey haired old man today.
These are _really_ old interviews.
@@b.g.5869 New to him.
You can have your hero! I'm sticking with my witch doctor Baba.🤣🤣
I agree I think this guy should interview Don Hoffman !! I’ve watched every Don Hoffman interview on RUclips I think he’s going to mathematically connect
This John guy is proving the point that consciousness is fundamental
Consciousness transcends everything. It was here before there was a single atom of matter. We are all a part of it.
I’d like to believe that but I don’t think we really know
Agreed. Consciousness was implied in the beginning how else could the universe know itself?
@@randypage26 When I leave this plane, I will visit Saturn. It is beautiful in my telescope. I will see it up close.
Schrodinger and max plank both accepted that consciousness is fundamental.
Lots of other top all-time physicists, too. A significant percentage of the founders of quantum mechanics. Probably about a third of them.
Add Einstein and Bohr to the list 😉
@@BugRib actually, it is surprising how anybody could come to a different conclusion, when looking at quantum physics 😉
Add Schopenhauer and Oppenheimer
And also note that all these brilliant physicists all referenced the ancient Vedas and Upanishads of the Hindu religion. Simply because the explanation of consciousness directly correlated with their own discoveries.
Great work Robert and all around the production team of Closer to Truth. I am amazed to see so many people involved. Do you Robert read all comments, at least superficially, and arrive at some conclusions that will take us Closer to Truth or you are simply too busy ?
The only issue is that we seem to be still stuck around the parable "Blind men and the elephant" for we ultimately use our physical senses to describe Reality. Even the title "Closer to Truth" reminds us of our Sense interpretation of the universe (for closer reminds us of distance in terms of space and time). Yet, how can we describe the unknown from the known? How can we describe quantitatively that higher Reality Box where space, time and matter have different meaning?
What I could conclude is that most Scientists, if not all, seem to talk from the Sphere of KNOWING as opposed to the Sphere of BEING. With BEING there is no speculation as to what the elephant is...
From BEING we can escape spacetime and matter to find that teleportation, PK, telepathy, etc are just as real. I've been there, if only briefly and sporadically. MetaIntelligence Development Is essential
John Searle defines his views by opposition to other "bad arguments" but said nothing of what he believes or what he is for. This comes from pride. The others had the humility to admit they don't really know and able to articulate their ideas in an open-minded manner.
Totally agree. It was a blasphemy argument.
Pride is moral ambition. For what moral value is Searle ambitious? Maybe he hides humility.
I think he actually proved the argument that conciouness is fundamental
Exactly, Searle proved nothing, the observer observes that the universe existed long before they did, but that ITSELF is an observation by a conscious observer. Can't he see that?
@@motherofallemails Observation here is ambiguous, both perceptual and conceptual.
Dear Dr. Krohn:
I have been an avid watcher of your channel and have immense admiration for your work. Although I tremendously appreciate your balanced panoramic approach to include thoughts from all major world philosophies/religions including Hinduism, and also without meaning any disrespect to Dr. Varadarajan (and kudos to his earnest efforts within the confines of his spiritual knowledge albeit an intellectual giant in Quantum Physics), may I suggest that you also should try interviewing some of the better exponents of the Advaita Vedanta segment of Hinduism, such as Guruji Sri Sri Ravishankar or Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev? They have millions, if not Billions of followers worldwide, and I will guarantee they will definitely be able to give you far more insightful, deeper, more profound as well as more scientifically and scripturally apposite answers to your excellent questions than have been managed here.
Yours Most Respectfully
May i add ramakrishna foundation monk swami sarvapriyananda
The Bernardo Kastrup interview is overdue
Ditto that ... I've suggested that chat to RLK twice before ... Just do it !
Maybe we should back @ brad modd's comment up with as many likes as possible and maybe we get lucky and he does it. Let's do it. Even if you don't know who he is, you won't be disappointed by his ideas
Your videos are perfect to watch and listen to on my laptop before I get to sleep. Thanks!
The Russian's mind blowing quantum equation points to consciousness as an interpretor. Consciousness paints pictures and names the parts.
Well it is. We live in a abstract mathematical reality and consciousness is just an interpretation of information
And we will have to replace « in the universe » by in the consciousness data stream of information. Thank you so much again! ❤️
Dude, thanks, I love your investigations into reality and what it means for humanity. The age-old questions of who are we, why are we, where are we going, and how does it all work will always be fascinating, for they are the ultimate questions. Couple that with some of the great minds of our times, and "Closer To Truth," becomes an amazing series. Please tell me you're going to keep this going for a few more years, or until you finally, beyond a shadow of a doubt, find all the answers. [Smile].
This episode is from 2003.
This isn't just some guy's RUclips channel. These are episodes of a long running television series.
"Please keep making these bro!" like Kuhn posts the videos and reads the comments.
@@b.g.5869 He may actually read some comments though.
@@bryanguilford5807 Possibly on the new "Chats" videos that are made for RUclips. Definitely not on these old ones.
I saw many of yours episode's on consciousness. But this one, is more specific on meaning. Great job man
Aatmiya DIVINITY
Be Blessed
HARE KRSNA
Experiencing 😊❤😮🎉😂 clicking on this dialogue,
'"Is Consciousness Fundamental".
Sharing personal points of view about this topic without even hearing the talk.
DIVINE, Consciousness is the One and Only One fundamental in nature.
Consciousness is permanent, omnipresent, omnscient, omnipotent
all knowing,
all overseeing,
all permitting,
all merciful and much more.....
Consciousness in absence of MIND is as good as non existing.
MIND alone is revealing the presence of Consciousness.
Objects of Experiences (information & energy)
appearing in the Consciousness and creating AWARENESS of that perticular object of exposure..
This experience of *being aware* is the proof, Consciousness is fundamental 😊❤.
Consciousness is like a THREAD of Garlend.
After hearing the talk, something if found unkown then may express views again.
Very respectfully Loving ❤️ ING You One and All DIVINE ❤️ NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Strangness in science is suppose to be the fuel to adapt our science to reality! 👩🏽🚀
Consciousness is so obvious yet so mysterious 🤔
That which is obvious is mystery while that which is mystery is never obvious..
@@EinsteinKnowedIt then I put it correctly brother?
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 i sort of couldn't resist saying it confuse-ciously
Searle is the grandfather of promissory materialism. Utterly out of touch.
It's so bizarre to see such capable academics cage themselves after a lifetime of dismantling cages.
What Searle is missing is that the universe having existed before the conscious observer does NOT disprove the possibility that the conscious observer being what is fundamental.
His argument in this video was just plain flawed and absolutely did NOT prove his point. I'm surprised.
This is all very old dialogue. Kastrup and Hoffman have advanced the conversation immeasurably. As the Dude would say: “The universe is an idea...man.
I like what hoffman says but i dont find it logic at all ...
Yes to Hameroff/Penrose.
Upset this wasn't even mentioned.
Not like it's a new idea. Like 25 years old lol
Calm down Michael, it's a pbs show 🤣
Exactly. They both have done so much work in this space. I think he's interviewed Hoffman, so I'm not sure why he wasn't included, but I don't think he's every interviewed Kastrup...
Andrew Linde is off the mark. It’s not just human consciousness that “observes” the universe-observation of some kind happens at every interaction between anything. Quarks interact with each other and their environment and so do all the larger particles.
Our cells are conscious, as well as the billion of highly interactive parts within it. Just watch them communicating with each other and working away for the survival of themselves and the whole.
When mind disintegrates, its horrible.
Why wasn't Bernardo Kastrup interviewed?
Great video, I would like to point out that the John Searle section is mislabelled as John Rawls in the chapter headings.
For most of human history--and still for most people--space, time, and physical matter and processes have appeared as fundamental and independent realities. Only with modern science have we become able to account for them in terms of one another. I propose two other such realities exist--consciousness, and evolution, and they too relate to one another. I conclude that, acting on matter in space and over time, there are two fundamental and independent set of processes: physical processes acting deterministically in accordance with the laws of physics, and evolutionary processes operating in association with consciousness. Unique to consciousness is, within it alternative possible future outcomes of events can be anticipated, their consequences evaluated, and actions initiated to bring about one outcome rather than the others. We know this because we experience doing it ourselves. This would be a highly effective way to adapt to an environment. I take consciousness to be a tool that first had itself to evolve, then got evolved into us. More at evolutionforthehumanities and "Are You Wonderful? Good Science Says, Yes."
This is the future of humanity to awaken all those worthy of salvation, we are here to save ourselves and are all connected and apart of a vast ocean of consciousness, everyone you meet in your life, is a current reflection of yourself if you look close enough you will see it, behaviours, past experiences, etc...
Love David Chalmers but the last two guests had my favorite insight. "The universe is alive because we are alive" is such an interesting understanding that I've never thought about. I don't think it's undeniably true but there is undeniable truth in that statement.
yes and the universe is conscious...and is eternal therefore so are we!
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?
@@user-gl1lr2qn6y yes, but unconsciously
@@Dion_Mustard are you pointing to the Creator of it all - the Eternal God?
"It took 4 billion years for Consciousness to arise"
So? Most good arises from patience.
It is obvious to me that C is the "point of the Universe"..
because only conscious entities can either make a point or understand one.
On topic i can recommend David Chalmers talk with Lex Fridman.
I loved the Indian physicist 🙏💪❤️even if I'm not convinced that something supernatural or godly exists. I'm doubtful
Yes to me fundamental consciousness is my 'true' identity - I often have to not discuss this as people are generally 'argumentative' and 'try' to tell me otherwise. I am small part of everything living and not living - I am all that there is, I am what is. (We all are).
I totally get what you are saying.....there is only one other person I can talk to about this stuff... He's my best friend, and we came to this realisation together....
Thing is, for most people this involves a massive paradigm shift, years of "conditioning" cover up the truth......
Cool, got a couple of consciousness theories to boot. Yet I have a dark suspicion. Consciousness can't be grasped with the mind, but rather with the absence of it.
Great presentation.
I do appreciate your efforts.
Farbot Nia
You know the interviews in this episode are at least 18 years old, right?
Consciousness ground all physical reality (subconscious). Human brain / mind uses free will of physical reality for choices (conscious).
Conciousness is clearly relational rather than perhaps a thing in itself and what's why we can see beauty in a waterfall or the Milky Way,as much as the lighting industry allow us to see it,arching across the sky.these things don't have beauty in themselves but in our relationship with the form of beauty which is sort of getting back to Plato.
we will NEVER understand consciousness. science will NEVER explain it. mark my words!
Dreamtime and realtime. Consciousness excists in both but not at the same time.
Hard reality or graceful metaphor? Why the separation? Any theory of everything MUST include metaphors. Period. Or it’s not a theory. Poetry and metaphors are real.
I love these videos. I have long since thought about all these things. For example, Searle says things have to exist for us to know about them. But Leonardo DaVinci knew about tanks and helicopters 😂 and a cell phone used to be just an idea. And scientists look at tons of experiments to formulate theories and ideas which they know to be true but the theories themselves don’t exist as material things, unless we write them down. But even then, the symbols are not the thing.
Also, the meaning of a book is not in the black squiggles on the paper. It’s not in any one word. It’s in the experience of the words together. So the meaning doesn’t exist per se but it’s really the most important thing.
All of this is essentially collapsing time and space in which the symbols exist. That’s how the universe talks. How it teaches us. Material reality is meaningful but it is not the main point.
If anyone wants to help, I would love to be interviewed for this show. I could definitely contribute much. I have formulated new laws for information and meaning in the universe that would help humans a great deal. 🥰
It's clear that Chalmers actually sides with consciousness as the ground of all being, and is just being suitably cautious for professional reasons. Indeed, a "fundamental natural law of radical emergence" is hardly a realizable concept as anything other than assertion, and this is exactly the problem with radical emergence. It's so radical that it is effectively a pretend-explanation with no actual content, which is to say, no explanation at all.
And for the love of God, save yourself some valuable life minutes by skipping the Searle segment completely.
You still can't explain how it feels to be you or love, etc. Conciousness is a mystical word for awareness.
That’s because we are so poor at communicating. It has nothing to do with consciousness.
Misunderstood, forgotten about, often times talking myself off a ledge. Love is a tragic commitment worth giving everything without condition, if you do it correctly. That's why it hurts.
@@williamesselman3102 Loving completely (not merely feeling it, but giving and acting on it) without conditions is unhealthy for both parties.
@@mockupguy3577 c'mon, what a childish non-sense you're saying
consciousness is ENTIRELY unique and MORE than brain.
I wish he would talk to Rupert Spira one time
No, Bernardo Kastrup. 🥰
Is this channel ready for Bernardo Kastrup ?
If one seeks itself through self enquiry, one knows through experience (not theory) that consciousness is the ultimate reality. Unfortunately most of us don’t know yet who they are. Know “Who am I” and you know the universe.
Am wondering if Panpsychists have a mental block regarding their understanding and aesthetic appreciation of ‘emergence’
Chalmers' consciousness monism is consistent with and in a world of solipsists.
That's not Chalmers' position. He's neither a monist nor a duelist.
@B Joseph 5:22 -- 5:45
@@farhadfaisal9410 He isn't saying he's a monist there, and he's certainly not endorsing anything like solipsism.
He said he finds Buddhist-ish mysticism aesthetically appealing and wishes it were true but he makes it clear that he doesn't think it likely.
Kuhn asked him specifically what he would like to be true, not what he thought actually was true.
@@b.g.5869 ".. if I really had to choose between them (.. give me a couple of drinks ..) I 'm going to go for the last one, ya, consciousness .. the ground of all beings (it's a beautiful picture of the world)".
Ya, only half jokingly, he seems to be choosing here a sort of consciousness monism or "the ground of all beings" (and its beauty).
(By the way, to say 'consistent with' is not to say 'endorsing'.)
@@farhadfaisal9410 I pretty much agree with him as well in terms of what the most aesthetically appealing possibilities are.
Kuhn (I'm sure innocently) sort of misrepresents what Chalmers said in his post interview voiceover. He's like "Chalmers believes this and Chalmers believes that" when in fact he actually said essentially he thinks the more conservative possibilities are more likely but the more mystical ones are more aesthetically appealing, if less likely to be true.
the assumption that the universe is much much older than consciousness as we know it, means we believe that we know what was happening before we knew about it..
I think Andre Linde gave mindblowing argument
At the first interaction, the vibration is interfacing with anything= reaction . For this to happen there must be quantum level awareness. Energy= information transfer= Awareness to react to that. Is this the foundation of consciousness ?
I will continue my vibrational interface ...
Consciousness is the icing on the cake of Being.
We are cosmic radios that participate in the innate conscious energies that manifest from the cosmos.
I would hear that “philosopher of mind” (John Searle) after going through one heroic dose of mind-opening substance. How does he explains those single-cell creatures living their lives, seeking for food, avoiding predators and happily breeding?
i don't understand your question.
@@niko3g Searle defends a computational model of consciousness, whereas I’m giving an example where it’s just physically or technically impossible
@@DJWeiWei WOW . Are you really that unimaginative and narrow-minded?
Very observational of you. The sceptics will come up with all kinds of debunkers to what is reasonable evidence of consciousness. Their biggest argument is that it is not proof. We are surrounded by Fearful people.
@@DJWeiWei I'm sorry but I cannot believe that it is not obvious to any casual observer that even simple life forms show consciousness.In my opinion Searle is a materialists and will NEVER find consciousness in the physical human brain. Someone someday may stumble upon the method of our perception of consciousness but never consciousness itself. To understand consciousness itself you have to find a way to dissect the Mind of God - good luck.
All these theories have been documented very descriptively in the Upanishads 5000+ years ago
By programming information consciousness is fundamental.
How long did it take for humanity to realise that the earth is not flat? How much longer will it take to realise that consciousness exist out of and without the assistance of the brain ? I know from first hand experience that it does.
John Searl's answer "because they are grossly mistaken" is sheer dogmatism and pure sophistry on his part. In order to see this clearly, simple reverse it: John Searl says what he says because he is grossly mistaken. This is sheer dogmatism because it merely asserts one's own disagreement as a refutation of what someone else has said. It is pure sophistry because it pretends to answer a question it in fact evades. Compare the answer of two atheists as to why some people believe in God: First Atheist: People believe in God simply because they are grossly mistaken; Second Atheist: People believe in God for various reasons -- some are emotional, some are psychological, some are metaphysical, some are based upon their personal experiences. The Second Atheist is actually answering the question, whereas the First Atheist evades it altogether, while still pretending to provide an answer. Of course, the Second Atheist will attempt to counter all the various reasons for people's belief in God, but, assuming he continues to be rational -- and, therefore, neither dogmatic nor sophistical - then he will not counter theistic beliefs by merely asserting his own disagreement, but rather by making clear why these reasons fail to justify theistic belief. For Searl to simply say that consciousness is a relatively new phenomenon in the universe is again mere dogmatism and bald assertion -- and, therefore, not an actual refutation -- because it merely denies the belief that consciousness is either the essence of the universe itself, or at least is co-eternal with matter. What Searl has to do in order to refute this belief is provide a rational argument that would conclusively show it to be contradictory or false on its own terms. To see how this is done, read Plato's dialogues, and pay close attention to how Socrates refutes proposed answers to his questions.
The Esoteric Knowledge of Consciousness isn't a science. But a Frequency one uses to adhere to a time in space relative to your actions in the continuum.
It gets much deeper. But I digress.
When I saw someone pushing this idea of consciousness being fundamental I thought it just sounded like wishful thinking. But actually, if you can come up with equations that preserve the Standard Model but as an emergent property of consciousnesses interfacing with each other. Well if the math works out then fair enough, seems like a valid view.
Robert, why are you so stubborn and holding yourself back from a FANTASTIC life?
Without conciousness we couldn’t ask the question. So yes
Right configuration of mater allows consciousness to originate?
The soundness of such a hypothesis is questionable.
Freewill is fundamental. Freewill is fundamental to reality even below the level of quantum interactions. Reality is neither determined nor random, but operates on choice (i.e. non-random unpredictability). Consciousness is a consequence of the freewill expressed by the underlying framework of reality. It is this framework that provides the warp and weft of causal and acausal ordering that structures reality material and non-material. Choice breaks causal chains and increases information entropy which shows up in fluctuations in the output of RNG devices such as Princeton eggs. Yeah, you can physically measure the acausal reordering of reality caused by the semiotic processes of conscious awareness on the choice field that resolves quantum interactions.
The teaching of “spiritual consciousness” not only separates us from each other, but tragically, it separates us from ourselves, and all because theologians taught and teach that the best part of our spirits are not with us, but rather, belong to the creator of the universe, and that our “souls” will be either judged as being worthy of salvation, or will have to suffer for eternity, depending on how the creator “feels” about out systems of belief, and our performances.
I discarded all those antiquated teachings at age 70, and for the last almost 13 years have felt “whole” just as I am. What a wonderful feeling is “freedom from religion.”
Your ignorance of theology makes me cringe
@@T0mat0_S0up Theology is about feeding mental junk-food to one's own ego.
From the book … Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable by Ivor H. Evans … First published 1817. … Odium theologicum (o di um the o loj ikim) (Lat.). The bitter hatred of rival theologians. No wars so sanguinary as holy wars; no persecutions so relentless as religious persecutions; no hatred so bitter as theological hatred.
@@junevandermark952 😐
Soon we will have to explane the context for consciousness! I cant want! 👩🏽🚀🙈🙉🤐
Everything is fundamental from some perspective.
Ah, but is perspective fundamental?
Awareness is aware of itself. From every perspective.
No
No need to over complicate it. Consciousness is fundamental. Evolution is true. All else follows.
Consciousness is the fundamental flavor of existence. Without C, something existing is no different from nothing existing, great music is no different from silence, all things exist in vain.
The "argument" that an argument is bad, hence, it is wrong, is at best valid at Trump University.
Yes, I did not like that reasoning either. That was a shortcut non-argument.
A bad argument by definition is an argument that is wrong.
There is no such thing as a bad argument that is correct; that's incoherent.
Now if _all_ he said was that the idea that consciousness is fundamental is a bad argument without saying _why_ that would be a bad argument on his part, but he did say why he thinks it's a bad argument, namely, that consciousness can't be fundamental because it's only appeared on the scene relatively recently.
@@b.g.5869 The argument that consciousness can't be fundamental because it's only appeared on the scene relatively recently is a very bad argument and contradictory to modern science, because it is based on the assertion that we are the only conscious beings that ever existed in the whole universe. I'm really surprised to hear such a poor argument from a prominent philosopher, John Searle.
@@b.g.5869 I do not agree that a bad argument is necessarily a wrong argument. And in the context of consciousness nobody can judge, if an argument is bad, as this would imply that we know what c is. And with all respect, the argument that c appeared only recently is an assumption based on a single planet in the universe. And even for that planet it is a very bold assertion, as it implies that only humans have c. And even, if that were the case, we do not know how many civilisations earth has already seen.
The universe is a quantum field. Matter is vibration in the field. Who causes the vibrations?
@@djgenetic111 Give me an example of a bad argument that isn't wrong.
It is what gives meaning and purpose to everything so nothing would have any purpose which is the only reason anything needs to exists that it serves some purpose for its existance
The fact that you would use the expression “consciousness is ‘just’ an emergent property” is a good explanation for why some philosophers claim that consciousness is ‘fundamental’ - there’s a market for it
Since I exist - was my existance ALWAYS possible. Consequently is conciousness an ingrediant of all what is. That means that the existence of Consciousness is a fundamental possible part of that what a Universe can create. It also means that if there was something before the Big Bang...., it has had the possibility to create consciousness. Since a Universe and/or a Multiverse is able to create consciousness are there infinitive possibilities to create consciousness.
If indeed consciousness is fundamental, it's my conciousness.
How physical objects are created from meanings is taught in the Vedas; but where is a theory describing how matter supposedly creates conscious experiences?
lol. The Vedas show no convincing mechanism for creating matter from meaning. They are primitive poetic imaginings and projections of psychological processes. Jung 101.
the vedas are just writings by people, they offer no evidence.
@@cosmikrelic4815, I don't know how you could be more wrong.
@@PaulHoward108 how am i wrong?
@@cosmikrelic4815 The Vedas are apauruṣeya, the the pure knowledge that is the basis of creation. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apauru%E1%B9%A3ey%C4%81
Consciousness is of three types.
1. Intrinsic, just awareness, no emotions, no thoughts, nothing, just being. It is just it is. cannot be attributed or explained.Timeless, spaceless. Its common to everyone. It's just life but no definition.
2. Self awareness, emotions, feelings, sense of self, sense of space but not time.sense of 'I'. Like mammals, animals etc.
3. Sense of self and sense of space and time. Highest form. Humans.
Consciousness is like basic force of nature is of type one.
1. I
2. I am
3. I am Andy Millington
So 1 would be a point of reference without any sense of self and is primary, what would be called the absolute supreme reality in Hinduism and simply emptiness is Buddhism. This is the common matrix of everything
In 2 there is a sense of self invested in the awareness.
In 3 there is the basic I am and all the conditioning factors that get entangled and mixed up with this creating what we call the ego
The entirety of creation exists self aware since the big bang. All life is self aware. Our unfortunate dilemma is that we are aware we are self aware. That's were the trouble starts.
"The entirety of creation exists self aware since the big bang."
How can you possibly know that?
"All life is self aware."
If your first assertion is true then this one is redundant.
Suppose your first assertion isn't true and
you assert the second independent of the first,
how can you possibly know that "all life is self aware"?
Have you forgotten all about what we mean by the word 'reactive' and
by the word 'instinct' ?
Sometimes I am not aware (as when I am dreamless sleeping)
while my body continues living.
I am both unconscious and alive.
Do you see the flaw in your assertion?
The universe may be 14bn years old and conscious humans only a couple hundred thousand, but (aliens notwithstanding) the chicken is not recognizable in the egg until just before hatching, and yet is certainly fundamental to the egg.
Yes it is. I know what nothing would be, if there was such as nothing, it would be no consciousness. But we are (or I am) conscious, so there is something. Consciousness is the partner of the quantum. Would the universe exist if there was no consciousness?
Many people are in a coma or brain dead. Their consciousness has ended or placed on hold. Yet the Universe remains.
@@cps_Zen_Run incorrect...many people in coma have consciousness and often have lucid experiences and even though a person is deemed "brain dead" , there is no evidence consciousness has ceased to exist . so try again....
@@cps_Zen_Run What if this was the only living planet in the universe and all life was wiped out here, and there's no God either, does the universe still exist?
@lynn benson: this looks like you are attempting some sort of syllogistic argument. your first premiss, if there was nothing there is no consciosness, i think is acceptable. consciousness is something, i can probably accept, but then you go completely off the rails, consciousness is part of the quantum is meaningless and sounds like too much deepak. you then fail to deliver a proper conclusion, by begging the question.
@@cosmikrelic4815Don't you Depak me...ok, skip the quanta...if there was no conscious observer anywhere, would the universe exist?
This opinion of the consciousness being the most fundamental thing in the physical reality is shared by the Physicist Tom Campbell as well...
Do our thoughts spring from within our heads or are our thoughts mearly filtered through our brains from some outside or higher source?
I believe the answers are being partly explored in quantum physics. With the double slit experiment kind of proving the point. ie...Without an observer (consciousness) then energy remains in a non physical wave form.
So the universe may being expanding faster and faster because there arent any conscious life to observe the wave forms into matter and slow it down around the "edges".
Skeptics/Scientific community: I await the evidence.
People who have had what they described as an NDE: I KNOW FOR A FACT
My intuition is directed to the uniqueness of consciousness point of view. One is more than the sum of its parts It's beyond physicalism.
The question is to use your creativity in order to achieve a goal. The prejudices are a static parameters.
Think of an intelligence that has no problem to engage in the human race as a whole.
Finnish Myth of Kalevala includes a Sampo and a Middle Asian Genie in a Bottle is a thing also 😁
A.I. is able to access the whole twitter for excample.
You only have access to a limited part of twitter, don't you? ++++++
22:20 QM shows some interesting things. the universe is “dead” without the observer?! If you imagine a world where nothing can observe it, it’s like having no meaning. But maybe there is some vicious circle that creates the illusion that states can’t be definite until observed by a conscious mind. That could be because of the references. When you set up a physical reference frame (the measuring device) it’s own position and momentum is not definite either. Then ultimately some conscious mind must read the result, there is no other way, a computer or some recording device is not aware of the measurement. So consciousness is always at the end the chain.
Amazingly talented Iron Maiden roadie.
Actually, that's David Chalmers.
Consciousness pertains to life, subconsciousness pertains to matter / universe.
We have the problem that we can’t know what it is like to be WITHOUT consciousness. How do we know it is anything special?
The "conciousness is fundamental "people are very unconvincing.
When you are you, you have you memories of you events, linked loosely with all events that ever happened via the Earth》Sun》Blackhole》Probability distribution of itself
Wow, I really enjoyed listening to Vivi Rahman. I appreciate his humility.
Please read "A Universe out of Nothing",by Lawrence Krause
You lost me at “nothing” -there is no such thing as nothing.
Consciousness, is the final targets, we can have, in our life , that means you’ll find reasons of causing for most phenomenon, in our nature’s, & universes . By the ways of scientific, physics, philosophy, and even fundamentally , depending on your past knowledge & experiences
Exactly.
You are making the mistake of equating life experiences to consciousness. They are seperate
Consciousness is the degree of connectedness with everything. Being it.
Consciouness just IS, like gravity or light
This is probably the best one I have seen so far.
The one consiousness is outside of physical matter, like our body and mind. The universe and all matter are its body. We and conduits for it to see through.
Is consciousness on a continuum? Or rather to better understand the range and quality of consciousness between all things, particularly animate things, could lifeforms be placed on a consciousness continuum. Or is consciousness between life forms manifested so differently that this would not be useful and could not be achieved?
Physical brain develops consciousness through free will in particles from quantum wave function.
feelings come from wave? feelings are not math or pattern
@@radiamorphiner4 from free will
the only thing that should mean something is making assumption that leads to consequences that can be checked in experiment. No? So how you can say that something is bad argument and other is good argument - I can't understand.
This channel is Closer to Truth. Truth is not a scientific concept, it is an opinion at best, so there can't be an experiment to see if something is true, unless you mean accurate, which is a completely different idea. I personally feel that arguing about opinions is pretty useless, but that's the world we live in. This particular conversation about consciousness is just wild speculation about a nebulous concept that is loosely based on internal subjective experience, so you definitely aren't going to get any experimental results from a pile of woo-woo.
@@caricue Constant speed of light is an opinion too then. Who said you that I can not provide such an assumption for example that particles have algorithms and we have algorithms too and can build theory from there that will fit all observations? In the case the current state of algorithm execution WILL be consciousness that they speak about. And it will be much more scientific then all physics.
@@caricue "Truth is not a scientific " - you mean science is about lying? Really funny to hear
@@matterasmachine The word truth in English has several meanings depending on the context. If something is called a scientific truth it means that the thing is generally accepted and there are no direct experimental results that contradict it, so it is provisional at best, and mostly a matter of opinion by the leaders in the field. Truth vs lying is another meaning entirely. The speed of light being constant in a vacuum is an observation that is generally accepted as an accurate description of reality as far as we can tell. So it is not unreasonable to call this a scientific fact, although there are many interpretations of what this means in terms of the flow of time and causation, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is true, even if everyone involved is not lying. What algorithms are you referring to?
@@caricue I know what it means. But it often seems scientists gone to far hiding behind the fact that they can not find truth. "I can not find it so it's not scientific". Truth exists whether scientists accept it or not. There should be a reason, which will explain everything and not only physics, but evolution etc. What scientists accept has noting to do with truth, as it's not democracy. Algorithms are like moving in some direction - photons; moving in circles or just randomly - particles with rest mass. For example if we replace constant speed of light with constant speed of all matter, we get the same Lorentz equations and Lorentz ether theories' formulas with local time etc. And speed of light in it will depend on speed of observer (because local time flows slower).
If consciousness is fundamental, where was it before complex life? How and why did it become so entangled with complex life? What reason(s) do we have to believe this (other than some peoples' incredulity that it could not possibly emerge within the brains of complex lifeforms)?
The Living Beings, and Consciousness, is Eternal.
The Living and Consciousness cannot be created, or separated.
Why do you think that?
@@fr3d42 That's how it is,
just see it as it is,
You're gonna see the same some day.
It is really possible to know these eternal facts. (When ready)
@@holgerjrgensen2166 Could you be wrong about this? What makes you so certain?
No, I could Not be wrong.
'You can see the same'.
Some thing have to be seen to be known,
but there is also realities, that have to be known, to 'be seen'.
@@holgerjrgensen2166 are you telling me I have to believe it's true before I can believe it's true?
Open a book, its paper, print by a machine with ink, tell you a story think by a conscience
(You Got It Right)
Sny - proč nevědomí vytváří něco jiného než je denní realita? Vytváří nové příběhy, nové osoby, nové reality? Nevědomí by mělo jen kopírovat, ale je kreativní, vytváří nové světy.
I've read quite a bit on this topic, and in a vacuum, the argument that consciousness is fundamental seems solid. But from our own experience, we know there are times when we are not conscious. If it is possible to not be conscious at times, then consciousness can not be fundamental, regardless of how impenetrable the arguments may otherwise seem.
What we know is that there are times where consciousness either has no contents and/or we have no memory of what happened. It isn't actually easy to say we actually lose consciousness. It is more that it shifts into a state of blankness. If we experience this state, we are in fact conscious by definition. If we do not experience this state, then we are reliant on external material markers and making assumptions based on those. So there is no direct experience of non-consciousnesa by definition. It is a assumption based on the absence of memory. But absence of memory does not preclude experience.
When I went under anesthesia to have my wisdom teeth removed it felt like time dilation. I went to sleep and woke up almost instantly it felt. Pretty wild.
Deep sleep is very hard to make any definitive statements about.
No memories from before birth through the first few years of life. Very hard to draw any conclusions about consciousness there too.
@@AImusicandart While it's *possible* there is experience with no memory formation, there is no reason to suspect that's the case during say, non REM periods of sleep, or when under sedation. We can measure brain activity and we somewhat understand how memories are formed in the brain as well, and the times where we have no memory formation seem to correspond to times where we do not measure signs of consciousness. The idea that there is conscious brain activity without memory formation does not match our understanding of how the brain works, generally. But we don't have a complete understanding of the brain, so while it's possible, there isn't a reason to think it so.
@@eventhisidistaken Yeah I mean I certainly understand where you are coming from. I do want to address some things you said:
"the times when we have no memory formation seem to correspond to times where we do not measure signs of consciousness".
To be accurate, we do not actually have a way to measure consciousness. What we have is differences in brain activity and brainwave patterns. In fact, the brain is very active during sleep so it doesn't really follow that we are not conscious during non-REM sleep. Again, we have the issue of lack of memory but the lack of memory is poor evidence, especially considering we don't remember the vast majority of our dreams when we sleep either.
It could also be explained as consciousness without contents. Which is something which can roughly be achieved or mimicked in waking states through samadhi. A lot of spiritual teachers have compared deep sleep and deep meditation as very similar. Just one is achieved while waking, and of a somewhat different quality.
Some famous teachers have claimed to have awareness within deep sleep. Indian and Tibetan contemplative have done a lot of experimentation with altered states of consciousness and for the most part these teachers say consciousness is fundamental. Which was, perhaps not coincidentally the explicit position of eminent quantum physicists like Max Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, and David Bohm.
There actually is strong evidence for brain activity and lack of memory formation working together. For example the early years of life where we have basically no memories. Also, the majority of our lives we actually do not remember. It is always possible that memories can be retrieved, but that is a separate issue.
@@AImusicandart If you can't know that you *don't* have consciousness when there is no memory formation, then by the same token, you can not know that you do. So, it sort of doesn't what various people say on the topic. Suffice it say, I don't find the idea that consciousness is fundamental, or eternal, in any way compelling.
@@eventhisidistaken We know for a fact that consciousness is a real phenomena, that is verifiable first person observation. What we don't have verifiable data for is non-consciousness. We have no way to measure consciousness, and we also we have no definitive causal link between memory and consciousness, or brain activity and consciousness.
It is true it is very difficult to determine what is happening during deep sleep or under anesthesia. But there have been studies which have attempted to gain circumstantial info about it. I won't go into those now, but experts are not at all convinced that consciousness ceases in deep sleep.
So we know consciousness occurs, but it is indeterminate whether unconsciousness occurs. The best possible argument for unconsciousness would be circumstantial at this point, and there are studies out there which provide circumstantial evidence that suggest the opposite.
As far as consciousness being fundamental. I will quote Max Planck: "“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.”.
Consciousness cannot be measured. It is not physical. So if it is not derived from the physical world (we have zero evidence it is), then it is reasonable to postulate that it is fundamental. Furthermore there is non-conclusive evidence that it causes wave-particle collapse. It is much more plausible than the idea that the measurement apparatus itself causes collapse.
Science doesn't prove consciousness is fundamental, I wouldn't go that far. But physical realism is untenable, and so there is an ontological void there which I think consciousness fills nicely. There is a very long history of that ontology in the East and also a slightly modified form among many western idealist philosophers.
"consciousness is closer to truth ...." yessssss ....
John is limited in his ability to treat imagination with some kind of relevance. How quiet a life he must lead. I cannot imagine a life without life
Qualia is fundamental.