Consciousness is one of the most interesting things about the human existence and it is probably one of the main reasons that I am a theist. Really enjoyed you guys talking through these aspects of it
@@lewis99170 because consciousness is a magic thing that doesnt mesh with any kind of science. if at any point in the history of existence there was only inanimate rocks and star dust then how does an immaterial thing like consciousness begin without magic
One of the main presuppositions that separates atheists and theists is their belief whether consciousness exists a priori (attributed to the concept of an eternal God, where man is made in the “image” of God) or whether consciousness is emergent (something akin to ascribing consciousness as a pantheistic property of the material universe). It’s similar to the ontological argument: can existence come from non-existence (can consciousness come from non-consciousness)? It represents a flashpoint that greatly affects your rational view of the world. Since no direct empirical evidence has demonstrated consciousness emerging in a materialistic world from a naturalist position (starting from abiogenesis where life emerges driven purely by sense perception, and then rationality emerges when DNA “discovers” the mind), the belief is largely argued through inferences where if you see material properties becoming more orderly like formation of a crystal, or amino acids from a simulated natural environment, and if you extend that to presume that given enough time, consciousness will emerge. People who reject that line of argumentation tend to be theists. Remember, science tests rational claims (the human mind creates a hypothesis) with empiricism. Humans making inferences from observations is story telling or myth making unless you again follow it up with empiricism. Unfortunately, our capacity for empiricism is constrained by our own limitations in time, space, and perception. That doesn’t stop people from claiming absolute certainty about things that haven’t been empirically verified. Inevitably, the best we can do is create our own caricatures of reality. Maybe you lean nihilistic, maybe you hope for an eternal destiny? It’s ultimately up to you what you believe… unless you are a determinist.
@@lewis99170 Because it makes absolutely no sense on the materialistic world view how a bunch of atoms randomly bumping into each other can create a personal first person experience, not needed for survival.
Was reading some Carl Jung lectures recently and came across the idea of consciousness being a spectrum that you can lean in and out of, instinct being a near zero state of consciousness and much of the modern world, politics, industry, and culture being the fruits of consciousness. All of this being part of his concept of the Modern Man.
Alex should read more about Eastern philosophy especially Hinduism and Buddhism, their philosophies are super complicated and mind-blowing, Christianity or any other abrahamic religions are nothing in front of them!
It's always lovely to hear you in conversation with a contemporary, in addition to the interviews with philosophy bosses. The format also makes it much easier to turn into standard consumer-length videos, which you've clearly noticed.
Interview Dr Donald Hoffman of University of California, Irvine. He argues that the fundamental substance of reality is consciousness, and that what we perceive as physical matter is emergent from that. It is the consciousness’s subjective way of representing the other consciousnesses around it. He claims to be bringing this from the realm of the philosophical proposition into the realm of the testable scientific hypothesis, by testing it using predictive evolutionary models, which confirm that this is how a pure consciousness would indeed evolve an interface.
I'd argue consciousness is actually going to be an unsolved mystery, because to understand consciousness, is to use consciousness and by doing so you almost surpass consciousness by understanding it initially, which creates a new higher consciousness. Conciousness infinitely develops.
I would say it is only our understanding of consciousness which develops. Consciousnes is here to stay, and we are all of it and seeing each a different facet of it - based on our capability to perceive and understand what we are perceiving - which as you rightly say depends on the amount of conscieousness which we have already "downloaded".
we conflate awareness to it too frequently to realize that there are counterparts to the two. Also.. believing in the "Subconscious" is to not understand the necessity of having the absence of something (unconscious). From these you may derive 4 different words. You're no where near being able to define them, but... dw the answers will come to you if you remain curious and humble.
If exceedingly simple cellular automata can create a "universal Turing machine" (an entity that can compute any computable sequence) why do we need a non-physical process? The maximally complex from the extraordinarily simple, cellular automata have interactions that are far simpler than basic chemical interactions. I mean at the end of the day I can assert that the qualia of my consciousness is different than everyone else's because I can't experience their consciousness and thus validate that we have equivalent qualia. So I don't see how this is an issue for anyone who has already rejected Solipsism.
It's like watching your eyes with your eyes. It's impossible, you can only see It's reflection on mirror or photos. You can't directly see it. But its the things by which seeing is possible. So you know eyes by seeing all the things around you, not by seeing eyes itself.
I agree the underlying phenomenon underlying consciousness is fundamental and is there in the world, in the form of information. Information is a physical phenomenon, which is why we can have information technology, and consciousness is an informational phenomenon. Information consists of the properties and structure of physical systems, so all physical systems are information systems. Al transformations of physical states in physics, chemistry, etc are transformations of the information encoded in the structure of that system. My take on consciousness is that it is most likely a phenomenon of information processing. Everything about consciousness seems informational. It is perceptive, representational, interpretive, analytical, self-referential, recursive, reflective, it can self-modify. These are all attributes of information processing systems, and we can implement simple versions of all of these attributes in information processing systems right now. I think consciousness is what happens when a highly sophisticated information processing system, with a well developed simulative predictive model of its environment and other intentional agents around it, reasons about its own reasoning processes and intentionality. It's ultimately about introspection, and if we have a model of introspection and can even engineer it, I think this at least shows that in principle the problem seems tractable.
There's a fundamental problem explaining consciousness. It's analogous to any dictionary definition of a word not being able to contain the word being defined, or else it's cyclical. We can explain how aspects of the totality of consciousness work via discrete and unconscious parts (matter and physical forces etc.) But explaining consciousness itself? That would necessarily require explanation via either 1) unconscious parts, in which case, what's the medium between them and consciousness? Or 2) consciousness itself, in which case the explanation is self-referential and invalid. It's not just the hard problem of consciousness, it's an impossible problem of consciousness.
Hard problem dissolves when you change your assumptions. I think us being conscious is not an obstacle to understanding consciousness. If anything, it is the necessary condition.
@@JHeb_ In my comment I stated we can explain how consciousness works, but that's not the same as explaining what it is as a whole or where it came from as a whole. Consciousness being the necessary condition for explaining consciousness itself is circular. This is more than a problem, it's a necessary impossibilty by definition.
@@Nyghl0 Can we explain where the mass or spin of fundamental particles came from? Not exactly, but we can observe that these are the properties of these particles. Consciousness likewise could likely be a property of the fields of physics. This would avoid the hard problem or the binding problem and other problems of consciousness.
@@JHeb_ yeah I'd love it if the answer came from physics somehow, I can't strictly rule out something empirical that overturns the assumptions behind the rational contradiction that so far seems to be inescapable. I don't see how it could, but I'd like to be surprised.
I think this is a classic example of the difference semantics can SOMETIMES make in an argument.. The very word consciousness is not only a vague and imprecise word, it is ALSO heavily burdened with centuries of supernaturalism, mysticism, and dualism.. Awareness seems more descriptive.. If we think in terms of AWARENESS of the environment, all mysteries begin to melt away.. Environmental awareness can be tested for and measured.. We see the natural graduations of it through the animal kingdom, yes? It is a simple shift of perspective and far more quantifiable.. We HAVE done much of this testing already, and it turns out a large number of species are self-aware, AND THIS always correlates with a greater awareness of the animals environment.. Of course, at the fundamental level, it clearly seems to be simple information processing, which makes it no less amazing... BUT much less supernatural.. One opinion, peace.
We do this with sentience I think as well. It is also a vague imprecise word with no real scientific definition. But people talk about it in reference to hypothetical AGI as if it’s something we actually understand and can test for.
@Emperorhirohito19272 Yes, I get what you said, friend.. Thanks for the comment.. However, "sentience " to ME seems to be a distinction with virtually no DIFFERENCE.. Certainly a better word than "consciousness," but possessing zero additional explanatory power.. Peace to you, friend..
My first take on looking for an analogy to where is the triangle in? My brain was to compare it to a holographic plate without the laser interacting with it. There is no triangle. When you know how it works, it will be stupid to look for it. In practise though, the triangle is somewhat localised, we have techniques for establishing what parts of the brain are active when thinking about shapes, triangles for instance, so there is a degree of localisation we can to some extent answer the question of where is the triangle.
The triangle argument is very similar, if not identical, to the structural mismatch problem as described by David Chalmers. Why is there a structural mismatch between the physical structure of the brain and the phenomenology of our experience? As far as we are concerned, even when we shine the laser beam on the holographic plate, there is no triangle. There are only complex patterns of electromagnetic wavelengths interfering with each other. The experience of a triangle as a phenomenally bound object is something that our brain is entirely responsible for, rather than something that is physically out there in the world.
I have an idea … that consciousness creates new information. The universe is a continuous stream of temporal spatial evolution but with a wild non causal variable thrown in, by the decisions of conscious creatures. The more information is created (given a superimposed system) the more it collapses into one determined state.
I totally buy into conciousness as an emergent property of a brain with a certain level of development. You could argue, using animal brains that conciousness is a continuum. No one would argue that a flat worm is concious, but a chimp? A dolphin, A dog. What about a frog, an owl etc. There is no consiousness without brains.
It's not unfeasible that single celled organisms have some rudimentary form of consciousness. If anything, single celled organisms have 2 very important qualities: memory (DNA) and reproduction (natural selection). That might be a rudimentary form of what consciousness is. Genetic memory(very long term memory) -> (long term)subconscious memory -> working memory(short term) -> sensory perceptions (very short term). Memory might be a prerequisite for consciousness. And consciousness might be a very specialized form of memory.
“No one would argue” is an overstatement. I’m sure some people would say a flatworm is conscious. Also, it seems that you are defining consciousness as a feature of brains and then concluding that consciousness depends on brains.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov I was actually going to comment something very similar, it's great to see someone else sharing my somewhat rare and idiosyncratic view! @SteveWhipp I think people are far to quick to accept the idea of consciousness existing on a spectrum, even though it is an idea that falls apart if you examine it: For instance if you want to say that on the "consciousness spectrum" a rat is say half as conscious as you, then what would that have to actually entail? Well it can't mean that the rat feels say pain any less intense than you, since the intensity of pain is a trait which is evolutionarily fine tuned for an organisms survival. If anything as a human you might expect to evolve to feel suffering *less* intensely than a rat, because as a smarter animal you don't need to suffer quite as much for you to learn your lesson, get you to take an injury seriously, etc. So when you consider that less complex organisms have just as much if not more reason to feel suffering or other conscious experiences than people, it starts to seem logical that actually flat worms probably *do* have consciousness. Since a flatworm has just as much reason as you do to feel pain in order to deter certain behaviors or stimuli. Suffering and other qualia evolving to directly impact the organisms behavior seems the simplest explanation, and it doesn't treat them as spooky or as if consciousness serves no evolutionary purpose. Of course if you accept this view of qualia then any organism capable of even the most rudimentary learning should be expected to be conscious, including many plants, fungi and single celled organisms.
@@rok4028 Yep I literally came to this comment section to argue that flatworms are conscious! I'd argue that saying they aren't conscious requires that you treat consciousness as being ill defined woo. Since flatworms learn in response to negative stimuli, and if you don't want to call the internal state that causes that "suffering", then you can't really view qualia as being something that evolved for functional reasons. Since consciousness would be superfluous and evolutionarily implausible if you could easily accomplish all the same things without it.
Sounds like Theillard du Chardin: interiority and exteriority. Lower order interiority (in e.g., molecules, amoebas, insects, etc.) becomes consciousness when high (complex) enough. Compare an insect to a crow to a gorilla, and it's not all that surprising that our "interiority" would be yet more advanced. It's also reasonable to think there are thresholds along that spectrum - get enough awareness and openness to perception, you break through certain levels that make it grow exponentially, just as language supercharged consciousness, etc.
Seems to me consciousness is awareness built on experiences. What would thought be like if one was born and raised in small box with no contact with anyone? Maybe less conscious
5:13 consciousness ≠ state of mind, while sleeping also we are conscious, and after waking we have the knowledge of sleeping state, something is active to feel not completely shut down, like a bios in computer which syncs the time
I wanna echo the requests for Kastrup, but would also LOVE to hear you chat to biologist Michael Levin, who has a very interesting (and very pragmatic) position on this...
At some point our early ancestors, really really really early ancestors, had to navigate an ever increasingly complex world. Doing so necessarily requires an internal memory of what the world looks like. How do you get back to your home if you can't remember where it is? This version of your home, even if its a little hole, exists with your mind, along with the path that leads you back to it. Eventually, over time, creatures then start imagining a sense of self. They conjure up a version of themselves within their minds. This is especially useful for humans but other animals have a sense of self too (some apes, elephants, bottlenose dolphins, some dogs). These are just varying degrees of consciousness. I can't imagine what the next level could be, if there even is one. Regardless, I think when you get to a certain phase of animal life you are guaranteed to get to these levels of consciousness. It's just information. That's all the universe is. But it's collected and arranged in an strange way inside of brains.
Having studied Physics, Neuroscience and the Philosophy of Mind for years, and having read most of the literature discussing consciousness, I’ve yet to see any evidence for consciousness being non-material. Having studied the many experiments from Neuroscientists and Brain Specialists, it appears consciousness is not obvious. Instead, it appears ‘we’ are not very good at observation.
@@yinYangMountain no. What I mean is you claim you have not seen any evidence that it is non-material. What I’m asking is what would constitute as evidence of non-material consciousness to you. Give me an example.
@@grumpytroll6918 This would actually be quite easy to provide and would look like the *opposite* of a lot of the observations we've already made. For instance if brain damage, drugs and directly stimulating people's brains *couldn't* reduce somebody's faculties or change their mind then that would be clear evidence for a supernatural soul not dependent on the brain. Similarly obvious divination: evidence of people obtaining information they could only achieve through supernatural means would be pretty compelling. Also getting really solid evidence for ghosts would be evidence for a soul.
@@vakusdrake3224 Smashing a TV screen does nothing to the signal being received but does impact the first and third person view of the audio/visual coming from the TV - you have assumed a one way system in your argument, I assume a two way in my anaology - both rest on only logic. On drugs, some drugs reduce brain activity and produce what many state are very complex experiences compared to normal concsiousness.
Have you heard the proposal that consciousness is a splitting/derivation of language? Which goes something like this (in a nutshell): the moment a being develops or evolves language and begins to name, label or designate things with language (whatever its form), and therefore, a judgment or justification of what they are and what they are for; it creates a separation of itself and the "outside world", that is, it creates self-awareness, thus consciousness emerges. I find that postulate very interesting, I think it is from a Chilean philosopher and sociologist.
The tradition of discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is well and alive in these series of smart boys's disputations. And bringing well earned money and fame as well 😁
@11:30 The you experiencing it could very well *be* the simulation. Complex enough systems cannot be predicted in advance and have to be simulated every step of the way. So if a brain wanted to create an agent simulacrum of itself to see what it might do, it would have to actually simulate a conscious agent, even if the brain itself is not conscious. You are the map, not the territory.
When confronting this question, I like to think of your typical plants. As you know, most plants "bend" towards the sunlight. But do you know why? Sunlight shining on a plant releases a hormone called auxin. That hormone moves away from the energy provided by the light, and invades plant cells furthest from the light. When the hormone goes into the cell, it elongates the cell, so those cells are larger on the "dark" side of the plant. That results in the plant bending towards the sunlight. No consciousness involved, yet the plant engages in an activity which will increase its chances for survival. Our brains work the same way: A stimulus causes a hormone to be released, which travels to a different part of the organism -- in the case of humans, to a different part of the brain -- resulting in a stimulation that causes some effect which should increase our chances for survival. Is this consciousness? If the process is, fundamentally, no different than the plant process described above, and the plant isn't conscious, then can't we say that human consciousness is (also) an illusion? Just something to think about.
The brain evolved to make predictions that enable survival. To do this it creates abstract models. It also has some kind of temporal faculties. At some point self consciousness and theory of mind emerged, i.e. "You have a different perspective to me. I know things that you don't know - You know things that I don't know". There seems to be something relevant to consciousness in this recursive loop of having a model of myself that I am witnessing. And as soon as I have that thought, the "me" that is witnessing gets modeled and I witness the witness. It's all happening in microseconds. These mechanics seem to be relevant to the mystery.
Thing is you can do all that without needing for there to be experience. The universe seems to contain “what it feels like to be you” and no theory of physics can explain it or seems to account for that phenomenon.
@@grumpytroll6918 Do you think theory of mind is a qualitive jump in consciousness that may hold some clues to the phenomena? Do you consider animals with theory of mind, to be conscious in a different way to those without it?
I think self awareness if mostly a distraction from the issue of consciousness. After all would one seriously say that somebody who's not currently thinking about their own awareness isn't conscious? That would seem to make people only conscious a small portion of the time. I think it's much simpler to think that consciousness is the internal experiences that cause an organism to learn to avoid or seek that stimuli in the future. Which would suggest that consciousness evolved before multicellularity possibly multiple time among single celled organisms that needed to respond to stimuli in their environment and display basic learning (they can learn to associate a neutral stimulus with a negative stimuli). Similarly the idea of consciousness existing on a spectrum is very confused, since the intensity of the experience directly controls how it impacts a creatures behavior. So it's not like a flatworm would have any evolutionary reason to evolve to feel pain less intensely. Which suggests that consciousness is an extremely simple binary thing you either possess or don't.
@@vakusdrake3224 So we have many cells in our body, that are in a dynamic relationship with their environment, repelled and attracted by certain stimuli. Do you consider them individually conscious? Maybe they are. (The colonial theory of multicelluar life considers the possibility that multicellular organisms first emerged as cooperation amongst single cell creatures in the way that present slime molds do) I've always thought of consciousness as requiring a brain that is thinking (putting aside defining thinking for the moment)
@@Hmmsomanyquestions I think some cells in one's body like for instance certain immune cells are likely conscious in some respect, however you won't ever have direct access to their experience. Your consciousness is being produced by your brain, but I don't think that's true of every organism, or that you don't have other conscious parts of yourself which your main consciousness can't perceive. In the same way split brain patients can have knowledge that is only known to one of their two hemispheres. So I think individual cells can be conscious, but I think it's a big jump to infer from that that a larger system made of them is has a conscious experience made by merging the experiences of the components together. I think ant colonies are another potential example of what I'm describing here: Since when ants work together they do so through following simple behavioral rules that lead to emergent phenomenon, not by somehow merging into a single telepathic hivemind organism.
I am of the opinion that the consciousness I experience, is an emergent property found in some complex systems. As such: Consciousness, at least in this concept cannot be fundamental like energy Is a localized production, and not some type of field (like a plane of consciousness ) My guess is that consciousness is an evolved property of the brain to catalog, and contextualize complex emotions and incompatible information. As such: I expect it to be not necessary for complex thought. Thus not likely to emerge in AI without human direction I am not excluding the idea that self-awareness is not a fundamental aspect like energy, but I am saying the thing that I experience is not directly that.
I think a lot of people make implicit assumptions about the characteristics of conscious awareness. For instance, people get stuck on the question of "evolutionarily, why do we have free will?" There is this tacit assumption that free will largely exists apart from your material brain. If you think of the development of consciousness in evolution, it is simply an advantageous trait to have a more complicated processing unit that can assess sensory information and response in complex ways. as basic biological responses become more complex, it necessitates more complex sensory processing and decision making. the result of this is the perception of consciousness. consciousness is a result of complicated sensory processing and decision making. our "self" is not some immaterial construct. rather, our sense of self is deeply tied to the ways in which we process information about the world. evolutionarily, this mames perfect sense. a life form with complex emotional states and self awareness has the capability to perform incredibly advantageous behavior
The problem of consciousness is not focused around behaviors and mechanism or the concept of the "self", but the phenomenal aspect of experience. In the materialist universe, it is possible for a being to exist that would perform very complex mechanisms and functions, but without any experience accompanying it.
Consciousness is related to the soul , in fact it could be said that it is the soul. Sleep and death are brothers, death is the complete permanent separation of the soul whereas sleep is a temporary separation with a connection to the body when it leaves during sleep. The soul is life and Consciousness and when gone, we are just matter...
What I have been wondering is if there is something beyond consciousness. Some type of super-conciousness we are unable to comprehend the same way we can't see the fourth dimension except the shadow.
Perhaps the evolutionary purpose of consciousness is to encourage empathy? You're more likely to cooperate with your fellow creature and not bash his skull in if you have a greater appreciation of what lies within
Being You: A New Science of Consciousness by Anil Seth… for anyone wanting to take a tour of our current understanding of consciousness. Spoiler alert-it’s materialism, of course.
@@alena-qu9vj Cute. No, the current understanding of academia and the most highly regarded researchers in neuroscience. Glad I could clear that up for you.
@@brndnt925 Yes, Sanhedrin after all. Complete edition of the current understandings of academia over the years would be the most funny bestseller ever. The only difference being nowadays the heretics from that current understanding do not end on stake but just have there careers and honor destroyed.
@@alena-qu9vj What are you even talking about? This is supposed to be a discussion about what neuroscience does and does not currently explain about consciousness and how it relates to materialist philosophy. You’re going on about Jewish heretics or something not at all serious
@@brndnt925 "Jewish heretics" ...geez 🙄 Anyway, I am primarily talking about the long standing dogmatic arrogance in "academia" which is as reluctant to accept new ideas as any other ideologically motivated bunch of fanatics. Not so long ago your "leading neuroscientists" had no problem with lobotomy and other crazy ideas so better stop blind worshiping this corrupted grant seekers. "Science" is just a mantra of fanatic materialists.
Perhaps another potential issue with the Turing test is when a significant number of actual humans don't pass. When the expectations of the tester, in order to expose the computer, rises to where humans can not pass.
Maybe (the illusion of) consciousness evolved because that's a good way for an organism to interact with its environment. I think consciousness is an emergent feature of the brain, or more generally, a sufficiently complex neural network, because a materialistic model requiring brains is all we have reliable evidence of, but we may be on the verge of finding out soon as we continue developing Skynet, er, I mean AI. No need for supernaturalism nor panpsychism woo.
Where does consciousness emanate in the brain? I see what looks like processing capability but not generation. You'd expect it to be in the center somewhere like the pineal gland, but that's not it. Therefore consciousness begins outside, yet is seeded in us in vitro so that it grows.
This can't be a unique perspective. Consider Decartes, "While I think I exist." Consider the Ship of Thesis, the matter that my body is composed of has constantly been replaced over the last 64 years (ack!). My conciousness ceases to exist when I die. In fact it ceases to function when I am fully sedated, which has happened twice. So did I ceased to exist during those two operations? It seems to me that conciousness, i.e. me, is the process of my brain functioning, and the more sentient I am, the more aware of my conciousness, like Scarlet O'Hara saying "I'll think about that tomorrow, tomorrow is another day, the more evolutionarily beneficial it, conciousness, becomes. Because now it is a tool at my beck and call. As for your triangle concern, I suggest the next time you're in front of an audience you ask them to create in their minds the full definition of the two dimensional fire we call a Square, either in words or as a visualization with line segments, equal signs, and right angle symbols, and to hold that definition in their minds for a minute. Then point that squares, by definition, are concepts and not material things, because as two dimensional figures they cannot take up space, the square does not exist. But their concious mind held that concept in being, but not in existence, as a concept can be a being while not being material.
I cannot find any way to have consciousness as anything more than the material world. I could say it’s a evolved manifestation of the energy of the universe itself on the very physical way of the word, like literal energy, but it’s a semantic thing I would say. I think existence is a superposition and energy will manifest accordingly to itself so consciousness is just a consequence of matter expressed in time in a biological being that sees the universe in sections of time and not a block of time. But “I’m have consciousness” is a pure material argument, like you are sayng “ I have material perception of my material perception” I don’t understand how this would be even debatable, but I’m probably wrong I just don’t see it.
To those that insist there is an immaterial world. I have one question. Does this immaterial world interact with the material world? If it does interact then it can more reasonably be regarded as a newly discovered property of the material world. If it does not interact, then in a very real material sense it does not exist.
Is there any logical reason for not seeing it the other way round? The matterial world being a property of the immaterial realm - as all the spiritual teachings teach for thousands of years?
PS And, what would you accept as "evidence" of the interaction? And are you sure those worlds are not interacting like blazes but you just have no eyes to see and no ears to hear?
@@alena-qu9vj saying that the material is part of the immaterial or vice versa gains us very little. If they interact they are undoubtedly together the integrated whole. Until you can provide something about the nature of the immaterial and its interaction with the material, you add nothing to the discussion.
@@alena-qu9vj if the immaterial interacts only in ways that cannot in principle be detected, how does that differ from not interacting at all? You can see mounds of earth and holes in your lawn without ever seeing moles you will know that something is out there interacting with your lawn.
A lot of high grade banter to say "i dont know" . The problem is that language/speculation comes after the fact, youre already one step down. Consciouness is the pre-requisite to conditionality therefore impossible to perceive from the conditional. The only way to fully perceive it is to turn awareness back on itself and this is done by abandoning thought rather than consuming it
@@OckersvinI think you'll find there is evidence to contradict that statement. Very young babies have shown evidence of reacting to music they were exposed to in the womb.
Clearly consciousness is associated with our brains. The degree is debatable, but we can observe different levels of consciousness based on brain function (or lack of). Unless we have proof consciousness exists fully independent from our brains, there’s little reason to believe it’s supernatural.
According to Buddhism, which is largely seen as atheistic; consciousness as you describe it is self awareness, or in Sanskrit; Vijnana. But Buddhism also describes an expanded state of consciousness available to humans that is seen as pure consciousness, or Nirvana. It is experienced by the individual when cogitation ceases through disciplined meditation. It bares a lot of resemblance to the Samadhi state described in Vedanta, which is theistic, but also attained through meditation. In both Buddhism and Vedanta, this expanded state of consciousness is independent of the brain and continues to exist after death.
I'm not sure it can make sense of the claim consciousness is immaterial. That claim is in my consciousness, but I heard that claim thru physical effects (language conveyed by sound and light). If physical things can change my consciousness, it must also be physical, right? If there's an interface between the material, then that interface must be both material and immaterial, which seems like a car that's both red and not red at the same time.
Not right. There are many material things changing the immaterial. You are watching a nice material sunset and your emotions change. Your material girlfriend betrays you and your love changes for hate. Is it enough for you to see the error of your ways ? 😉
I'm always puzzled by arguments that present consciousness as a "thing" let alone a "building block?" Or even as a "state". It seems to me that most neuroscientists view it as a process. It is what we experience while we are aware of ourselves through our senses. For example the process of walking, is not a thing. Or a state. It is the process of moving our legs in order to gain locomotion. It is not separate or independent of the legs. Or think of a whirlpool. It is not separate from the water that composes it but a description of the process that the water is undergoing. No need to think of the whirlpool is something else to be explained other than the movement of the water. Similarly, consciousness is the experience of brain activity when awake. There is no difficulty in tracing this back to electrical currents within our brain. Why do we need anything more complicated? Of course the problems emerge when philosopher's get involved in this type of thing!
Consciousness indeed does not exist as a "thing" or a substance that has some existence beyond our experience. That is, our experiences are a direct representation of what consciousness is "made of". Nonetheless, the experiences are real, and philosophers of mind usually refer to that phenomenal, subjective experiential aspect of it (e.g. qualia), rather than some abstract, reified concept of a "substance of consciousness".
Something and nothing exist simultaneously within Creation. Just as Dark (still silence) and light (sound of motion) are necessarily always present to distill the OMNI-VERSE... SO TOO IS... NOTHING WITHIN EVERYTHING... NECESSARILY PRESENT TO DISTILL THE OMNI-VERSE. Every single universe of the infinite OMNI-VERSE exists at the same place and time simultaneously. This is the ALL-SPARK WITHIN THE INFINITE DARK VOID. THIS IS THE SILENT SONG WITHIN THE LIFESTREAM. THIS IS THE PHOENIX FIRE WITHIN THE TREE OF LIFE. THIS IS THE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED FORCES OF CREATION DELICATELY INTERACTING TO DISTILL THE OMNI-VERSE. LIGHT DOES NOT MOVE. THE DARKNESS CARRYING IT MOVES THE LIGHT. THE "SPEED OF LIGHT" IS ACTUALLY "THE PRESSURE OF DARKNESS ". THIS MEASURE IS THE FREQUENCY FOR ITS ACCOMMODATING UNIVERSE. THERE ARE INFINITE FREQUENCIES FOR INFINITE UNIVERSES... THE TOTALITY OF ALL UNIVERSES IS CALLED THE OMNI-VERSE. ALSO KNOWN AS THE "ALL-SPARK. " i am the BRIGHTEST NIGHT I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT.
The flaw with the idea that theists have a better argument than atheists about consciousness is that theists can't explain how an impossible contradictory being can even exist. I think we let theists get away with not having to explain God because of our cultural indoctrination to the idea of God when we are children. Without a compelling explanation of God as a prerequisite, I say that any theistic claim is moot. Let's remember that is the theist that has the extraordinary claim, not the atheist. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to something that, well, we don't know. We now have this neat tool called Science at our disposal to investigate the hard questions. No need to make up stories anymore.
This was one of my least favorite guests. Not because he was bad. Hes just too good looking and smart art the same time, also he is very articulate so he makes me insecure and feel bad about myself.
The Atheist search for God is as the scientist search for air. Even as it surrounds and fills their lungs with life-giving force, they have chosen not to know such. For what is considered knowledge in the human mind is a function of the mental faculty to accept, to believe that which is presented to the mind as IDEAS. For as the scientist question the existence of air because they can only manipulate and examine the elements of matter, they too have come to believe and thus only know that which is matter/material is only that which exist. Atheists like the fools they have chosen to become are NOT unlike the scientists that have chosen to reject the existence of IDEAS as a reality as such have no materialistic measurable and calculable value. Some may see such difficulties they bind themselves with as those that say: "nothing", like zero has no value nor any meaningful expression for themselves and thus seek to project such limitations of their minds onto others. Who must also follow if they wish to be considered logical rational thinkers. Words/terms like IDEAS, nothing and zero seek to convey to those willing to learn that the "Totality of Reality", "all that which is possible" all that which is both good and evil, the UNKNOWN even God, is NOT limited to the range of human understanding and capability of experiences.
Saying that consciousness is a natural part of thw universe is like saying winged flight is a part of the universe, I mean yeah even a rock is a bit of a wing but you need specific organs to do it properly
My personal stance is that "consciousness" is essentially just a program that is run by the brain. Without a brain there can be no conscious, though you can certainly attempt to bring in the supernatural. Admittedly, the fact that humans in particular are "aware of being aware" does stand out as being pretty wild.
If it is a program, then you can break it down into individual instructions. Tell me how does instructions add up to consciousness. Can I put the program in a machine and expect it to be conscious? What if I run the program manually with pen and paper, are the pen and paper going to become conscious?
@@grumpytroll6918consciousness is just awareness so unless you can make something aware it won’t have it. You can’t simulate it with pen and paper its too unaware the process is too slow.
consciousness is its own entity in a different category than a program. a computer run program uses electricity to cause reactions that force a desired predetermined effect. consciousness actually has independant thought. willpower is something nothing man made can actually possess
That analogy won’t do, as properly understood “programs”, AT BOTTOM, aren’t really objective structures (like, say, the hardware and its causal patterns): they are rather a kind of _consciously projected meaning_ onto the hardware patterns. Software is really like color: not really out there, but mind projected. So a naive person could have the pseudo insight that “consciousness is in the brain in the same way that color is on the surface of material objects”: that person wouldn’t be realizing that “surface coloring” is really the very problem of consciousness all over again. Those who say “consciousness is like software” are committing the same mistake.
If it's a program run by the brain, then the brain itself as we perceive it is just the output of that program. Thus, trying to decode that program to find the origin of consciousness becomes an impossibility, as you either get tangled in a paradox, or, if not, you're looking for the non-qualitative origin of something , while only ever having access to the qualitative side of the equation.
I don't really get why people always think consciousness must be something immaterial. All the arguments for it being something other than material always just sound like "yes but I really want it to be immaterial" to me.
Because if we start from materialism, then we claim that consciousness basically has to magically appear somewhere up on the ladder of complexity. This generates a lot of problems, most famously the hard problem of consciousness.
Conscious experience seems fundamentally private. If consciousness cannot be publicly observed and examined, then can statements about consciousness be falsified? I think it's plausible to answer no. If a statement is not falsifiable, it's not "physical" by some definitions of that term. If statements about consciousness can't be classified as physical and are nevertheless correct statements, that seems like a real problem for the physicalist.
In terms of all the evidence, even though we don’t know all of the mechanisms behind consciousness, at minimum we know it is an effect of the brain. We literally know how to turn it off or change it my impacting processes in the brain. Personally I think it’s likely that consciousness isn’t 1 specific thing. It’s just a group of different things that build up. For example, we have the ability to perceive and react to light. Just a simple light detecting cells, then a brain process that causes a reaction in response. We have the ability to store and recall a memory of this light. I.e we can in some way cycle through the same or a similar pattern. Slowly we build up on these types of actions and collectively we call this consciousness. Obviously far more detailed and complex than that, but in principle I suspect it is just the collection of brain functions. Almost like it is a bit of an illusion.
@@Nox-mb7iu We could have a model like that, sure. Not sure if you are specifically suggesting it’s maybe something immaterial that generates consciousness, but for the moment I will address it as if you are. Personally I don’t know exactly how consciousness works, but see no reason to think it would be anything other than a natural process of physical matter as from what I can tell that appears to be the only thing that exists. If other non-material things also exist than I would be happy to believe in that if there is reasonable evidence demonstrating that. A model that includes immaterial components would be more complex and you should probably have some reason or some sort of evidence to suggest that the brain is just picking up some sort of external signal. I mean we could come up with models all day that add in extra elements until we literally have millions of them. But in general you would surely go with the only possibilities being the ones that include components we are aware are possible. So for example, I could say that all consciousness of every living thing is the result of an inter-dimensional space worm named Gary. Gary is in fact the only conscious being in existence but that consciousness manifests as a variety of living creatures that represent Gary’s multi faceted personality. So, to even say that was a possible explanation of consciousness would require some evidence to suggest inter dimensional space worms can and do exist, at minimum. But to suggest that the brain might be some sort of tool designed to interact with some other immaterial thing feels like an incredible stretch. Especially when we have people who study the brain, know how it works at least at a rudimentary level and can physically see the processes that cause thoughts and emotions traveling through the neurons. We have working hypotheses as to how consciousness could work. It always amazes me that people still jump to, ‘yeah but maybe there’s something immaterial doing a thing’. On what basis is that a possible explanation?
@@Nox-mb7iu Mate it would be great if you could stick to the topic rather than attempting to insult me. Appreciate it maybe boosts your confidence but I’m not interested in childish arguments. Fundamentally it just comes down to has their ever been a demonstration of the immaterial? Until they are we can not really suggest they might be a possible explanation for anything because we have no way of knowing it is possible. Regardless of our cultural expectations. But as I said not really interested in this style of tit-for-tat style argument where you’re just trying to fill ya boots. Have a good one though
@@Nox-mb7iu Anything that could be used to sufficiently demonstrate it as likely would be sufficient. So for example, what ever it is that has convinced you that immaterial things are a possibility. Essentially that’s what I would be after. Like you, when I question these sorts of thing I am actually attempting to identify if there is something I am missing because perhaps I am mistaken. But if people believe something is possible I would expect there to be a trail of evidence that leads to that belief. I often find that many people suggest that it can’t be disproven and they are therefore just choosing to believe in it. However this would be highly problematic as this line of reasoning could lead to a belief in anything. If surely, just like we would with any other topic, if something can’t be proven or demonstrated then we would withhold belief in that thing until or if it ever can be. If there is a way to test it and demonstrate it to the same standard that we would any other physical thing then perhaps we could form a new branch of science of the immaterial. Some sort of offshoot of physics. If this is not possible then I suggest we are in the realm of some sort of special pleading. For the record, I am only a materialist so far as it is so far the only thing that has been demonstrated to exist. If other things exist I would be happy to accept them as possibilities.
@@Nox-mb7iu Ah, so the problem of hard solipsism would be a problem for everyone in all circumstances. So yes I am required to believe in the external world with no evidence. Although I could also argue that it makes no difference in the way I respond to it. If it exists externally, or exists in my head it does not change how I respond to it, but I digress. So we all need to start with the initial assumption that reality exists. The laws of logic I wouldn’t say exist externally, they exist as an idea or tool that we find useful, like mathematics. Morality is in a similar bucket, just an idea that we have found useful because we have an advantage of being a successfully social species. So, unless you disagree, we both start with assuming that the external universe exists. You however also assume that immaterial things exist. When we talk about things like a soul, or other realms, or even gods we are making claims about things that exist, not social ideas we have invented. So they would be in the same bucket as the physical world. As in we are talking about a separate entity, physical or not physical. I find it unusual to say that these are just things that we just accept because they don’t require evidence of their existence. I mean you can. You can believe what you like. But if we were going to be constant or concerned about our beliefs being true or not then it would make sense to have at least the standards with use in other forms of scientific discovery. Otherwise we might as well just give up on the idea of science and the scientific method and just claim let’s all just believe that dragons cause gravity and unicorns cause electromagnetism because you can’t prove hard solipsism. I guess I don’t quite understand why we shouldn’t expect to see any evidence for the immaterial when it appears that it at least occasionally interacts with material things. Or better yet why we we even believe in things we can’t prove or demonstrate.
@@Nox-mb7iu Ok sure. I am not sure I understand what it is that both your points were suggesting. Solipsism and the laws of logic are I suppose side issues that seem to be missing the point. But I guess all I’ll say is I am aware we were discussing the laws of logic. However I don’t think they externally exist outside of our minds. We just use the laws of logic as a tool. So I guess the point was that logic and other types of ideas such as that aren’t entities that we are trying to demonstrate are real things that exist. Hence we don’t need to demonstrate them in the same way we would a physical process or entity. So my point is I guess it’s possible to believe in things and suggest you don’t need to or can’t demonstrate them, however you should be aware that if you do then you should keep in mind that you are believing in something where you don’t have good reasons to do so. Perhaps it is more a case of believing in a thing because you grew up around people who already believed in it, or perhaps it is more to do with wanting to believe in it. But fundamentally I think it is a bad form of epidemiology as it doesn’t get you any closer to actual knowledge.
Although I am a naturalist, I have come to think that the brain is not a Turing machine. Roger Penrose, with his reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and John Searle, with his "chinese room", have been very convincing to me.
No Alex I do not think you’re right .. the purpose of consciousness could easily be imagined as a survival strategy.. I know the difference of me and the outer world so it makes me able to predict intentions of others .. also the intenseness of the bad intentions.. I truely do not get problem..
I find Panpsychism unconvincing, the brain seems to be a very different structure to other objects and consciousness seems to arise from this process of electricity bouncing around a large network. Maybe there is higher level of abstraction at play.
Definitely consciousness is an emergent property of matter, we are yet to observe consciousness without matter. As fair being necessarily, necessity is not the only requirement for a trait to evolve or take hold. In the end just because we don’t know how consciousness works it does not mean is not material.
As a Christian I believe since Consciousness exists therefore I find it more likely than not that I was not made by non-conscious processes, a sprinkle of time, and luck And at the very least accepting that a conscious being preceding our consciousness is not so far fetched to accept
To believe atoms exists is grounded on ignoring the problem of induction and also assuming Occam's razor. But Qualia is one of the few things (perhaps only) that I can know for certainty I have. This point is why I'm very seriously critical about materialism.
Alex should interview Bernardo Kastrup on consciousness.
You can tell that this is one of Alex's favourite topics
you could say he's obsessed with it!
For a good reason in my opinion.
@@Andrew102-dv5bvHe could spend an entire hour talking about it!!
Bernardo Kastrup would be a fantastic guest!
Consciousness is wifi and the brain is the computer
How deep?
Consciousness is one of the most interesting things about the human existence and it is probably one of the main reasons that I am a theist. Really enjoyed you guys talking through these aspects of it
How do you go from “I am aware” to therefore God? I don’t quite get it.
@@lewis99170 because consciousness is a magic thing that doesnt mesh with any kind of science. if at any point in the history of existence there was only inanimate rocks and star dust then how does an immaterial thing like consciousness begin without magic
One of the main presuppositions that separates atheists and theists is their belief whether consciousness exists a priori (attributed to the concept of an eternal God, where man is made in the “image” of God) or whether consciousness is emergent (something akin to ascribing consciousness as a pantheistic property of the material universe). It’s similar to the ontological argument: can existence come from non-existence (can consciousness come from non-consciousness)? It represents a flashpoint that greatly affects your rational view of the world.
Since no direct empirical evidence has demonstrated consciousness emerging in a materialistic world from a naturalist position (starting from abiogenesis where life emerges driven purely by sense perception, and then rationality emerges when DNA “discovers” the mind), the belief is largely argued through inferences where if you see material properties becoming more orderly like formation of a crystal, or amino acids from a simulated natural environment, and if you extend that to presume that given enough time, consciousness will emerge. People who reject that line of argumentation tend to be theists.
Remember, science tests rational claims (the human mind creates a hypothesis) with empiricism. Humans making inferences from observations is story telling or myth making unless you again follow it up with empiricism. Unfortunately, our capacity for empiricism is constrained by our own limitations in time, space, and perception. That doesn’t stop people from claiming absolute certainty about things that haven’t been empirically verified. Inevitably, the best we can do is create our own caricatures of reality. Maybe you lean nihilistic, maybe you hope for an eternal destiny? It’s ultimately up to you what you believe… unless you are a determinist.
@@lewis99170 Because it makes absolutely no sense on the materialistic world view how a bunch of atoms randomly bumping into each other can create a personal first person experience, not needed for survival.
@@AllenIronside The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
Was reading some Carl Jung lectures recently and came across the idea of consciousness being a spectrum that you can lean in and out of, instinct being a near zero state of consciousness and much of the modern world, politics, industry, and culture being the fruits of consciousness. All of this being part of his concept of the Modern Man.
Alex should read more about Eastern philosophy especially Hinduism and Buddhism, their philosophies are super complicated and mind-blowing, Christianity or any other abrahamic religions are nothing in front of them!
Yes it would for him to broaden out.
Said someone who themselves has known nothing about it.
@@Socialist38503 Bit of an assumption
It's always lovely to hear you in conversation with a contemporary, in addition to the interviews with philosophy bosses. The format also makes it much easier to turn into standard consumer-length videos, which you've clearly noticed.
Dang, Ashton Kutcher is way smarter than I remember!
Those Diddy parties must be quite cerebral and philosophical
Interview Dr Donald Hoffman of University of California, Irvine. He argues that the fundamental substance of reality is consciousness, and that what we perceive as physical matter is emergent from that. It is the consciousness’s subjective way of representing the other consciousnesses around it. He claims to be bringing this from the realm of the philosophical proposition into the realm of the testable scientific hypothesis, by testing it using predictive evolutionary models, which confirm that this is how a pure consciousness would indeed evolve an interface.
Interview Bernardo Kastrup, leading idealist philosopher
Yes and/or Donald Hoffman
I'd argue consciousness is actually going to be an unsolved mystery, because to understand consciousness, is to use consciousness and by doing so you almost surpass consciousness by understanding it initially, which creates a new higher consciousness. Conciousness infinitely develops.
I would say it is only our understanding of consciousness which develops. Consciousnes is here to stay, and we are all of it and seeing each a different facet of it - based on our capability to perceive and understand what we are perceiving - which as you rightly say depends on the amount of conscieousness which we have already "downloaded".
we conflate awareness to it too frequently to realize that there are counterparts to the two. Also.. believing in the "Subconscious" is to not understand the necessity of having the absence of something (unconscious). From these you may derive 4 different words. You're no where near being able to define them, but... dw the answers will come to you if you remain curious and humble.
If exceedingly simple cellular automata can create a "universal Turing machine" (an entity that can compute any computable sequence) why do we need a non-physical process? The maximally complex from the extraordinarily simple, cellular automata have interactions that are far simpler than basic chemical interactions.
I mean at the end of the day I can assert that the qualia of my consciousness is different than everyone else's because I can't experience their consciousness and thus validate that we have equivalent qualia. So I don't see how this is an issue for anyone who has already rejected Solipsism.
The AI consciousness conversation reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode where they try to determine if Data is alive and conscious.
When are you going to have Bernardo Kastrup on your podcast ‼️
Bernardo Kastrup!!! Please bring him on!!
It's like watching your eyes with your eyes. It's impossible, you can only see It's reflection on mirror or photos. You can't directly see it. But its the things by which seeing is possible. So you know eyes by seeing all the things around you, not by seeing eyes itself.
You need to talk to Bernardo Kastrup
I agree the underlying phenomenon underlying consciousness is fundamental and is there in the world, in the form of information. Information is a physical phenomenon, which is why we can have information technology, and consciousness is an informational phenomenon. Information consists of the properties and structure of physical systems, so all physical systems are information systems. Al transformations of physical states in physics, chemistry, etc are transformations of the information encoded in the structure of that system.
My take on consciousness is that it is most likely a phenomenon of information processing. Everything about consciousness seems informational. It is perceptive, representational, interpretive, analytical, self-referential, recursive, reflective, it can self-modify. These are all attributes of information processing systems, and we can implement simple versions of all of these attributes in information processing systems right now.
I think consciousness is what happens when a highly sophisticated information processing system, with a well developed simulative predictive model of its environment and other intentional agents around it, reasons about its own reasoning processes and intentionality. It's ultimately about introspection, and if we have a model of introspection and can even engineer it, I think this at least shows that in principle the problem seems tractable.
There's a fundamental problem explaining consciousness.
It's analogous to any dictionary definition of a word not being able to contain the word being defined, or else it's cyclical.
We can explain how aspects of the totality of consciousness work via discrete and unconscious parts (matter and physical forces etc.) But explaining consciousness itself?
That would necessarily require explanation via either
1) unconscious parts, in which case, what's the medium between them and consciousness? Or
2) consciousness itself, in which case the explanation is self-referential and invalid.
It's not just the hard problem of consciousness, it's an impossible problem of consciousness.
Hard problem dissolves when you change your assumptions. I think us being conscious is not an obstacle to understanding consciousness. If anything, it is the necessary condition.
@@JHeb_ In my comment I stated we can explain how consciousness works, but that's not the same as explaining what it is as a whole or where it came from as a whole.
Consciousness being the necessary condition for explaining consciousness itself is circular. This is more than a problem, it's a necessary impossibilty by definition.
@@Nyghl0
Can we explain where the mass or spin of fundamental particles came from? Not exactly, but we can observe that these are the properties of these particles. Consciousness likewise could likely be a property of the fields of physics. This would avoid the hard problem or the binding problem and other problems of consciousness.
@@JHeb_ yeah I'd love it if the answer came from physics somehow, I can't strictly rule out something empirical that overturns the assumptions behind the rational contradiction that so far seems to be inescapable. I don't see how it could, but I'd like to be surprised.
@@Nyghl0 David Pearce wrote an interesting essay about non-materialist physicalism. He offers an interesting solution.
“If I’m not conscious, where do I begin?” 😅
Bernardo kastrup is a must
I think this is a classic example of the difference semantics can SOMETIMES make in an argument.. The very word consciousness is not only a vague and imprecise word, it is ALSO heavily burdened with centuries of supernaturalism, mysticism, and dualism.. Awareness seems more descriptive.. If we think in terms of AWARENESS of the environment, all mysteries begin to melt away.. Environmental awareness can be tested for and measured.. We see the natural graduations of it through the animal kingdom, yes? It is a simple shift of perspective and far more quantifiable.. We HAVE done much of this testing already, and it turns out a large number of species are self-aware, AND THIS always correlates with a greater awareness of the animals environment.. Of course, at the fundamental level, it clearly seems to be simple information processing, which makes it no less amazing... BUT much less supernatural.. One opinion, peace.
Ps: There are almost certainly NO immaterial influences to these processes either, which to me seems a slow emergence from our superstitious roots..
100% agree
We do this with sentience I think as well. It is also a vague imprecise word with no real scientific definition. But people talk about it in reference to hypothetical AGI as if it’s something we actually understand and can test for.
@Emperorhirohito19272 Yes, I get what you said, friend.. Thanks for the comment.. However, "sentience " to ME seems to be a distinction with virtually no DIFFERENCE.. Certainly a better word than "consciousness," but possessing zero additional explanatory power.. Peace to you, friend..
Perfectly stated
Understanding Consciousness for a Brain is like Understanding "Hand'ness" for a Hand.
My first take on looking for an analogy to where is the triangle in? My brain was to compare it to a holographic plate without the laser interacting with it. There is no triangle. When you know how it works, it will be stupid to look for it. In practise though, the triangle is somewhat localised, we have techniques for establishing what parts of the brain are active when thinking about shapes, triangles for instance, so there is a degree of localisation we can to some extent answer the question of where is the triangle.
The triangle argument is very similar, if not identical, to the structural mismatch problem as described by David Chalmers. Why is there a structural mismatch between the physical structure of the brain and the phenomenology of our experience? As far as we are concerned, even when we shine the laser beam on the holographic plate, there is no triangle. There are only complex patterns of electromagnetic wavelengths interfering with each other. The experience of a triangle as a phenomenally bound object is something that our brain is entirely responsible for, rather than something that is physically out there in the world.
I have an idea … that consciousness creates new information. The universe is a continuous stream of temporal spatial evolution but with a wild non causal variable thrown in, by the decisions of conscious creatures.
The more information is created (given a superimposed system) the more it collapses into one determined state.
I totally buy into conciousness as an emergent property of a brain with a certain level of development. You could argue, using animal brains that conciousness is a continuum. No one would argue that a flat worm is concious, but a chimp? A dolphin, A dog. What about a frog, an owl etc. There is no consiousness without brains.
Ditto. I felt no need to comment after reading yours.
It's not unfeasible that single celled organisms have some rudimentary form of consciousness. If anything, single celled organisms have 2 very important qualities: memory (DNA) and reproduction (natural selection). That might be a rudimentary form of what consciousness is. Genetic memory(very long term memory) -> (long term)subconscious memory -> working memory(short term) -> sensory perceptions (very short term).
Memory might be a prerequisite for consciousness.
And consciousness might be a very specialized form of memory.
“No one would argue” is an overstatement. I’m sure some people would say a flatworm is conscious. Also, it seems that you are defining consciousness as a feature of brains and then concluding that consciousness depends on brains.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov I was actually going to comment something very similar, it's great to see someone else sharing my somewhat rare and idiosyncratic view!
@SteveWhipp I think people are far to quick to accept the idea of consciousness existing on a spectrum, even though it is an idea that falls apart if you examine it: For instance if you want to say that on the "consciousness spectrum" a rat is say half as conscious as you, then what would that have to actually entail? Well it can't mean that the rat feels say pain any less intense than you, since the intensity of pain is a trait which is evolutionarily fine tuned for an organisms survival. If anything as a human you might expect to evolve to feel suffering *less* intensely than a rat, because as a smarter animal you don't need to suffer quite as much for you to learn your lesson, get you to take an injury seriously, etc. So when you consider that less complex organisms have just as much if not more reason to feel suffering or other conscious experiences than people, it starts to seem logical that actually flat worms probably *do* have consciousness. Since a flatworm has just as much reason as you do to feel pain in order to deter certain behaviors or stimuli.
Suffering and other qualia evolving to directly impact the organisms behavior seems the simplest explanation, and it doesn't treat them as spooky or as if consciousness serves no evolutionary purpose. Of course if you accept this view of qualia then any organism capable of even the most rudimentary learning should be expected to be conscious, including many plants, fungi and single celled organisms.
@@rok4028 Yep I literally came to this comment section to argue that flatworms are conscious!
I'd argue that saying they aren't conscious requires that you treat consciousness as being ill defined woo. Since flatworms learn in response to negative stimuli, and if you don't want to call the internal state that causes that "suffering", then you can't really view qualia as being something that evolved for functional reasons. Since consciousness would be superfluous and evolutionarily implausible if you could easily accomplish all the same things without it.
What is the definition of consciousness? Is it internal dialogue? Basic internal modeling? Learning? Planning? Focus? Memory recall?
Consciousness emanates and emerges as one interconnectedness
Sounds like Theillard du Chardin: interiority and exteriority. Lower order interiority (in e.g., molecules, amoebas, insects, etc.) becomes consciousness when high (complex) enough. Compare an insect to a crow to a gorilla, and it's not all that surprising that our "interiority" would be yet more advanced. It's also reasonable to think there are thresholds along that spectrum - get enough awareness and openness to perception, you break through certain levels that make it grow exponentially, just as language supercharged consciousness, etc.
Seems to me consciousness is awareness built on experiences. What would thought be like if one was born and raised in small box with no contact with anyone? Maybe less conscious
Good video
5:13 consciousness ≠ state of mind, while sleeping also we are conscious, and after waking we have the knowledge of sleeping state, something is active to feel not completely shut down, like a bios in computer which syncs the time
I’m curious on what makes you say that we are conscious while sleeping if you don’t mind explaining your reasoning
I wanna echo the requests for Kastrup, but would also LOVE to hear you chat to biologist Michael Levin, who has a very interesting (and very pragmatic) position on this...
At some point our early ancestors, really really really early ancestors, had to navigate an ever increasingly complex world. Doing so necessarily requires an internal memory of what the world looks like. How do you get back to your home if you can't remember where it is? This version of your home, even if its a little hole, exists with your mind, along with the path that leads you back to it. Eventually, over time, creatures then start imagining a sense of self. They conjure up a version of themselves within their minds. This is especially useful for humans but other animals have a sense of self too (some apes, elephants, bottlenose dolphins, some dogs). These are just varying degrees of consciousness. I can't imagine what the next level could be, if there even is one. Regardless, I think when you get to a certain phase of animal life you are guaranteed to get to these levels of consciousness. It's just information. That's all the universe is. But it's collected and arranged in an strange way inside of brains.
It is just a signdoctrine, a web, so we communicate somehow, conscience is constructed like text , like a language. Thinking is lingualistical.
Having studied Physics, Neuroscience and the Philosophy of Mind for years, and having read most of the literature discussing consciousness, I’ve yet to see any evidence for consciousness being non-material.
Having studied the many experiments from Neuroscientists and Brain Specialists, it appears consciousness is not obvious. Instead, it appears ‘we’ are not very good at observation.
How would this ‘evidence’ even look like to you?
@@grumpytroll6918 That’s the point of being not obvious, isn’t it?
@@yinYangMountain no. What I mean is you claim you have not seen any evidence that it is non-material. What I’m asking is what would constitute as evidence of non-material consciousness to you. Give me an example.
@@grumpytroll6918 This would actually be quite easy to provide and would look like the *opposite* of a lot of the observations we've already made. For instance if brain damage, drugs and directly stimulating people's brains *couldn't* reduce somebody's faculties or change their mind then that would be clear evidence for a supernatural soul not dependent on the brain. Similarly obvious divination: evidence of people obtaining information they could only achieve through supernatural means would be pretty compelling. Also getting really solid evidence for ghosts would be evidence for a soul.
@@vakusdrake3224 Smashing a TV screen does nothing to the signal being received but does impact the first and third person view of the audio/visual coming from the TV - you have assumed a one way system in your argument, I assume a two way in my anaology - both rest on only logic. On drugs, some drugs reduce brain activity and produce what many state are very complex experiences compared to normal concsiousness.
Have you heard the proposal that consciousness is a splitting/derivation of language? Which goes something like this (in a nutshell): the moment a being develops or evolves language and begins to name, label or designate things with language (whatever its form), and therefore, a judgment or justification of what they are and what they are for; it creates a separation of itself and the "outside world", that is, it creates self-awareness, thus consciousness emerges. I find that postulate very interesting, I think it is from a Chilean philosopher and sociologist.
Perfectly matching with Bereshit. God created the (from Him) separated world with the Logos.
I’m conscious of the, “Like Epidemic” here.
Im curious how many people hate the mustache. I think it looks good. Makes em look refined
I recommend "The Hidden Spring" by Solms for a serious scientific approach to consciousness.
failing the Turing test on purpose... CHILLS
The tradition of discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is well and alive in these series of smart boys's disputations. And bringing well earned money and fame as well 😁
@11:30 The you experiencing it could very well *be* the simulation. Complex enough systems cannot be predicted in advance and have to be simulated every step of the way. So if a brain wanted to create an agent simulacrum of itself to see what it might do, it would have to actually simulate a conscious agent, even if the brain itself is not conscious. You are the map, not the territory.
When confronting this question, I like to think of your typical plants. As you know, most plants "bend" towards the sunlight. But do you know why? Sunlight shining on a plant releases a hormone called auxin. That hormone moves away from the energy provided by the light, and invades plant cells furthest from the light. When the hormone goes into the cell, it elongates the cell, so those cells are larger on the "dark" side of the plant. That results in the plant bending towards the sunlight. No consciousness involved, yet the plant engages in an activity which will increase its chances for survival.
Our brains work the same way: A stimulus causes a hormone to be released, which travels to a different part of the organism -- in the case of humans, to a different part of the brain -- resulting in a stimulation that causes some effect which should increase our chances for survival. Is this consciousness? If the process is, fundamentally, no different than the plant process described above, and the plant isn't conscious, then can't we say that human consciousness is (also) an illusion?
Just something to think about.
conciousness is your sense of memory
memory is just one of many contents of our experience
The brain evolved to make predictions that enable survival. To do this it creates abstract models. It also has some kind of temporal faculties. At some point self consciousness and theory of mind emerged, i.e. "You have a different perspective to me. I know things that you don't know - You know things that I don't know". There seems to be something relevant to consciousness in this recursive loop of having a model of myself that I am witnessing. And as soon as I have that thought, the "me" that is witnessing gets modeled and I witness the witness. It's all happening in microseconds. These mechanics seem to be relevant to the mystery.
Thing is you can do all that without needing for there to be experience. The universe seems to contain “what it feels like to be you” and no theory of physics can explain it or seems to account for that phenomenon.
@@grumpytroll6918 Do you think theory of mind is a qualitive jump in consciousness that may hold some clues to the phenomena? Do you consider animals with theory of mind, to be conscious in a different way to those without it?
I think self awareness if mostly a distraction from the issue of consciousness. After all would one seriously say that somebody who's not currently thinking about their own awareness isn't conscious? That would seem to make people only conscious a small portion of the time.
I think it's much simpler to think that consciousness is the internal experiences that cause an organism to learn to avoid or seek that stimuli in the future. Which would suggest that consciousness evolved before multicellularity possibly multiple time among single celled organisms that needed to respond to stimuli in their environment and display basic learning (they can learn to associate a neutral stimulus with a negative stimuli).
Similarly the idea of consciousness existing on a spectrum is very confused, since the intensity of the experience directly controls how it impacts a creatures behavior. So it's not like a flatworm would have any evolutionary reason to evolve to feel pain less intensely. Which suggests that consciousness is an extremely simple binary thing you either possess or don't.
@@vakusdrake3224 So we have many cells in our body, that are in a dynamic relationship with their environment, repelled and attracted by certain stimuli. Do you consider them individually conscious? Maybe they are. (The colonial theory of multicelluar life considers the possibility that multicellular organisms first emerged as cooperation amongst single cell creatures in the way that present slime molds do) I've always thought of consciousness as requiring a brain that is thinking (putting aside defining thinking for the moment)
@@Hmmsomanyquestions I think some cells in one's body like for instance certain immune cells are likely conscious in some respect, however you won't ever have direct access to their experience. Your consciousness is being produced by your brain, but I don't think that's true of every organism, or that you don't have other conscious parts of yourself which your main consciousness can't perceive. In the same way split brain patients can have knowledge that is only known to one of their two hemispheres.
So I think individual cells can be conscious, but I think it's a big jump to infer from that that a larger system made of them is has a conscious experience made by merging the experiences of the components together. I think ant colonies are another potential example of what I'm describing here: Since when ants work together they do so through following simple behavioral rules that lead to emergent phenomenon, not by somehow merging into a single telepathic hivemind organism.
I am of the opinion that the consciousness I experience, is an emergent property found in some complex systems. As such:
Consciousness, at least in this concept cannot be fundamental like energy
Is a localized production, and not some type of field (like a plane of consciousness )
My guess is that consciousness is an evolved property of the brain to catalog, and contextualize complex emotions and incompatible information. As such:
I expect it to be not necessary for complex thought.
Thus not likely to emerge in AI without human direction
I am not excluding the idea that self-awareness is not a fundamental aspect like energy, but I am saying the thing that I experience is not directly that.
I think a lot of people make implicit assumptions about the characteristics of conscious awareness. For instance, people get stuck on the question of "evolutionarily, why do we have free will?" There is this tacit assumption that free will largely exists apart from your material brain.
If you think of the development of consciousness in evolution, it is simply an advantageous trait to have a more complicated processing unit that can assess sensory information and response in complex ways. as basic biological responses become more complex, it necessitates more complex sensory processing and decision making. the result of this is the perception of consciousness. consciousness is a result of complicated sensory processing and decision making. our "self" is not some immaterial construct. rather, our sense of self is deeply tied to the ways in which we process information about the world. evolutionarily, this mames perfect sense. a life form with complex emotional states and self awareness has the capability to perform incredibly advantageous behavior
The problem of consciousness is not focused around behaviors and mechanism or the concept of the "self", but the phenomenal aspect of experience. In the materialist universe, it is possible for a being to exist that would perform very complex mechanisms and functions, but without any experience accompanying it.
Consciousness is related to the soul , in fact it could be said that it is the soul. Sleep and death are brothers, death is the complete permanent separation of the soul whereas sleep is a temporary separation with a connection to the body when it leaves during sleep. The soul is life and Consciousness and when gone, we are just matter...
Please keep your religious mumbo jumbo to yourself.
What I have been wondering is if there is something beyond consciousness. Some type of super-conciousness we are unable to comprehend the same way we can't see the fourth dimension except the shadow.
Perhaps the evolutionary purpose of consciousness is to encourage empathy?
You're more likely to cooperate with your fellow creature and not bash his skull in if you have a greater appreciation of what lies within
angry online atheists in 3, 2,1...
Being You: A New Science of Consciousness by Anil Seth… for anyone wanting to take a tour of our current understanding of consciousness. Spoiler alert-it’s materialism, of course.
"OUR current understanding of consciousness..." Meaning what? The dogma currently approved by Sanhedrin?
@@alena-qu9vj Cute. No, the current understanding of academia and the most highly regarded researchers in neuroscience. Glad I could clear that up for you.
@@brndnt925 Yes, Sanhedrin after all. Complete edition of the current understandings of academia over the years would be the most funny bestseller ever. The only difference being nowadays the heretics from that current understanding do not end on stake but just have there careers and honor destroyed.
@@alena-qu9vj What are you even talking about? This is supposed to be a discussion about what neuroscience does and does not currently explain about consciousness and how it relates to materialist philosophy. You’re going on about Jewish heretics or something not at all serious
@@brndnt925 "Jewish heretics" ...geez 🙄 Anyway, I am primarily talking about the long standing dogmatic arrogance in "academia" which is as reluctant to accept new ideas as any other ideologically motivated bunch of fanatics. Not so long ago your "leading neuroscientists" had no problem with lobotomy and other crazy ideas so better stop blind worshiping this corrupted grant seekers. "Science" is just a mantra of fanatic materialists.
Perhaps another potential issue with the Turing test is when a significant number of actual humans don't pass. When the expectations of the tester, in order to expose the computer, rises to where humans can not pass.
It's awareness of environment
Maybe (the illusion of) consciousness evolved because that's a good way for an organism to interact with its environment. I think consciousness is an emergent feature of the brain, or more generally, a sufficiently complex neural network, because a materialistic model requiring brains is all we have reliable evidence of, but we may be on the verge of finding out soon as we continue developing Skynet, er, I mean AI. No need for supernaturalism nor panpsychism woo.
Try having Donald Hoffman on if you haven’t already
Of course, consciousness is the property of brain same as sound is the property of ear.
Where does consciousness emanate in the brain? I see what looks like processing capability but not generation.
You'd expect it to be in the center somewhere like the pineal gland, but that's not it. Therefore consciousness begins outside, yet is seeded in us in vitro so that it grows.
This can't be a unique perspective. Consider Decartes, "While I think I exist." Consider the Ship of Thesis, the matter that my body is composed of has constantly been replaced over the last 64 years (ack!). My conciousness ceases to exist when I die. In fact it ceases to function when I am fully sedated, which has happened twice. So did I ceased to exist during those two operations?
It seems to me that conciousness, i.e. me, is the process of my brain functioning, and the more sentient I am, the more aware of my conciousness, like Scarlet O'Hara saying "I'll think about that tomorrow, tomorrow is another day, the more evolutionarily beneficial it, conciousness, becomes. Because now it is a tool at my beck and call.
As for your triangle concern, I suggest the next time you're in front of an audience you ask them to create in their minds the full definition of the two dimensional fire we call a Square, either in words or as a visualization with line segments, equal signs, and right angle symbols, and to hold that definition in their minds for a minute.
Then point that squares, by definition, are concepts and not material things, because as two dimensional figures they cannot take up space, the square does not exist. But their concious mind held that concept in being, but not in existence, as a concept can be a being while not being material.
I cannot find any way to have consciousness as anything more than the material world. I could say it’s a evolved manifestation of the energy of the universe itself on the very physical way of the word, like literal energy, but it’s a semantic thing I would say. I think existence is a superposition and energy will manifest accordingly to itself so consciousness is just a consequence of matter expressed in time in a biological being that sees the universe in sections of time and not a block of time. But “I’m have consciousness” is a pure material argument, like you are sayng “ I have material perception of my material perception” I don’t understand how this would be even debatable, but I’m probably wrong I just don’t see it.
To those that insist there is an immaterial world. I have one question. Does this immaterial world interact with the material world? If it does interact then it can more reasonably be regarded as a newly discovered property of the material world. If it does not interact, then in a very real material sense it does not exist.
Is there any logical reason for not seeing it the other way round? The matterial world being a property of the immaterial realm - as all the spiritual teachings teach for thousands of years?
PS And, what would you accept as "evidence" of the interaction? And are you sure those worlds are not interacting like blazes but you just have no eyes to see and no ears to hear?
@@alena-qu9vj saying that the material is part of the immaterial or vice versa gains us very little. If they interact they are undoubtedly together the integrated whole. Until you can provide something about the nature of the immaterial and its interaction with the material, you add nothing to the discussion.
@@alena-qu9vj if the immaterial interacts only in ways that cannot in principle be detected, how does that differ from not interacting at all? You can see mounds of earth and holes in your lawn without ever seeing moles you will know that something is out there interacting with your lawn.
@@waerlogauk Do I not? Your oppinion - and as I said - based on your inability to understand what I am saying.
A lot of high grade banter to say "i dont know" . The problem is that language/speculation comes after the fact, youre already one step down. Consciouness is the pre-requisite to conditionality therefore impossible to perceive from the conditional. The only way to fully perceive it is to turn awareness back on itself and this is done by abandoning thought rather than consuming it
Question: Is consciousness possible without memory? It seems difficult if you do not have at least shortest-term memory.
Newborns are conscious yet they don't have memories
@@OckersvinI think you'll find there is evidence to contradict that statement. Very young babies have shown evidence of reacting to music they were exposed to in the womb.
@@waerlogauk then that first instance would be an example of consciousness without prior memory.
@@Ockersvin inconclusive since there is no way of knowing whether consciousness arises before or after the first receipt of sensory input information.
There are exotic states of consciousness (e.g. psychedelics) that can detach you from memories significantly.
Why do I feel we're not getting an answer to this question at the end of this video?
Without memories to string experiences together, you'd be a zombie and I'd argue unconscious. It should be "I remember therefore I am"
Clearly consciousness is associated with our brains. The degree is debatable, but we can observe different levels of consciousness based on brain function (or lack of). Unless we have proof consciousness exists fully independent from our brains, there’s little reason to believe it’s supernatural.
I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter
Clearly, the moustache is growing on him
Okay why don't we think of consciousness as a trainable set of senses?
You can’t even justify the belief of consciousness existing
Hi I'm Alex "well lit, full HD, perfect focus" o'Connor and my guest Lower res, dimly lit ...
What are you on about? Everything is crisp and clear on both sides.
@@alexanderalexandrou I guess that went completely over your head
6:35 Philip Goff is a Christian now
According to Buddhism, which is largely seen as atheistic; consciousness as you describe it is self awareness, or in Sanskrit; Vijnana. But Buddhism also describes an expanded state of consciousness available to humans that is seen as pure consciousness, or Nirvana. It is experienced by the individual when cogitation ceases through disciplined meditation. It bares a lot of resemblance to the Samadhi state described in Vedanta, which is theistic, but also attained through meditation. In both Buddhism and Vedanta, this expanded state of consciousness is independent of the brain and continues to exist after death.
I'm not sure it can make sense of the claim consciousness is immaterial. That claim is in my consciousness, but I heard that claim thru physical effects (language conveyed by sound and light). If physical things can change my consciousness, it must also be physical, right? If there's an interface between the material, then that interface must be both material and immaterial, which seems like a car that's both red and not red at the same time.
Not right. There are many material things changing the immaterial. You are watching a nice material sunset and your emotions change. Your material girlfriend betrays you and your love changes for hate. Is it enough for you to see the error of your ways ? 😉
I'm always puzzled by arguments that present consciousness as a "thing" let alone a "building block?" Or even as a "state". It seems to me that most neuroscientists view it as a process. It is what we experience while we are aware of ourselves through our senses. For example the process of walking, is not a thing. Or a state. It is the process of moving our legs in order to gain locomotion. It is not separate or independent of the legs. Or think of a whirlpool. It is not separate from the water that composes it but a description of the process that the water is undergoing. No need to think of the whirlpool is something else to be explained other than the movement of the water. Similarly, consciousness is the experience of brain activity when awake. There is no difficulty in tracing this back to electrical currents within our brain. Why do we need anything more complicated? Of course the problems emerge when philosopher's get involved in this type of thing!
Consciousness indeed does not exist as a "thing" or a substance that has some existence beyond our experience. That is, our experiences are a direct representation of what consciousness is "made of". Nonetheless, the experiences are real, and philosophers of mind usually refer to that phenomenal, subjective experiential aspect of it (e.g. qualia), rather than some abstract, reified concept of a "substance of consciousness".
Electricity - nice example. Is there an "electricity" outside a conductor, such as for instance our brain?
PEOPLE! give me your opinion on non dualism
Something and nothing exist
simultaneously within Creation.
Just as Dark (still silence)
and light (sound of motion)
are necessarily always present
to distill the OMNI-VERSE...
SO TOO IS...
NOTHING WITHIN EVERYTHING...
NECESSARILY PRESENT TO
DISTILL THE OMNI-VERSE.
Every single universe of
the infinite OMNI-VERSE
exists at the same place and time simultaneously.
This is the ALL-SPARK
WITHIN THE INFINITE DARK VOID.
THIS IS THE SILENT SONG
WITHIN THE LIFESTREAM.
THIS IS THE PHOENIX FIRE
WITHIN THE TREE OF LIFE.
THIS IS THE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED FORCES OF CREATION DELICATELY INTERACTING TO DISTILL THE OMNI-VERSE.
LIGHT DOES NOT MOVE.
THE DARKNESS CARRYING IT
MOVES THE LIGHT.
THE "SPEED OF LIGHT" IS ACTUALLY
"THE PRESSURE OF DARKNESS ".
THIS MEASURE IS THE FREQUENCY FOR ITS ACCOMMODATING UNIVERSE.
THERE ARE INFINITE FREQUENCIES FOR INFINITE UNIVERSES...
THE TOTALITY OF ALL UNIVERSES IS CALLED THE OMNI-VERSE.
ALSO KNOWN AS
THE "ALL-SPARK. "
i am the BRIGHTEST NIGHT
I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT.
The flaw with the idea that theists have a better argument than atheists about consciousness is that theists can't explain how an impossible contradictory being can even exist. I think we let theists get away with not having to explain God because of our cultural indoctrination to the idea of God when we are children. Without a compelling explanation of God as a prerequisite, I say that any theistic claim is moot. Let's remember that is the theist that has the extraordinary claim, not the atheist. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to something that, well, we don't know. We now have this neat tool called Science at our disposal to investigate the hard questions. No need to make up stories anymore.
This was one of my least favorite guests. Not because he was bad. Hes just too good looking and smart art the same time, also he is very articulate so he makes me insecure and feel bad about myself.
Nietzsche would say you're operating according to slave morality
The Atheist search for God is as the scientist search for air. Even as it surrounds and fills their lungs with life-giving force, they have chosen not to know such. For what is considered knowledge in the human mind is a function of the mental faculty to accept, to believe that which is presented to the mind as IDEAS. For as the scientist question the existence of air because they can only manipulate and examine the elements of matter, they too have come to believe and thus only know that which is matter/material is only that which exist.
Atheists like the fools they have chosen to become are NOT unlike the scientists that have chosen to reject the existence of IDEAS as a reality as such have no materialistic measurable and calculable value. Some may see such difficulties they bind themselves with as those that say: "nothing", like zero has no value nor any meaningful expression for themselves and thus seek to project such limitations of their minds onto others. Who must also follow if they wish to be considered logical rational thinkers.
Words/terms like IDEAS, nothing and zero seek to convey to those willing to learn that the "Totality of Reality", "all that which is possible" all that which is both good and evil, the UNKNOWN even God, is NOT limited to the range of human understanding and capability of experiences.
Where did you get the idea that scientists choose not to know that air exists? Can you name one of these scientists?
Saying that consciousness is a natural part of thw universe is like saying winged flight is a part of the universe, I mean yeah even a rock is a bit of a wing but you need specific organs to do it properly
My personal stance is that "consciousness" is essentially just a program that is run by the brain. Without a brain there can be no conscious, though you can certainly attempt to bring in the supernatural.
Admittedly, the fact that humans in particular are "aware of being aware" does stand out as being pretty wild.
If it is a program, then you can break it down into individual instructions. Tell me how does instructions add up to consciousness. Can I put the program in a machine and expect it to be conscious? What if I run the program manually with pen and paper, are the pen and paper going to become conscious?
@@grumpytroll6918consciousness is just awareness so unless you can make something aware it won’t have it. You can’t simulate it with pen and paper its too unaware the process is too slow.
consciousness is its own entity in a different category than a program. a computer run program uses electricity to cause reactions that force a desired predetermined effect. consciousness actually has independant thought. willpower is something nothing man made can actually possess
That analogy won’t do, as properly understood “programs”, AT BOTTOM, aren’t really objective structures (like, say, the hardware and its causal patterns): they are rather a kind of _consciously projected meaning_ onto the hardware patterns. Software is really like color: not really out there, but mind projected.
So a naive person could have the pseudo insight that “consciousness is in the brain in the same way that color is on the surface of material objects”: that person wouldn’t be realizing that “surface coloring” is really the very problem of consciousness all over again. Those who say “consciousness is like software” are committing the same mistake.
If it's a program run by the brain, then the brain itself as we perceive it is just the output of that program. Thus, trying to decode that program to find the origin of consciousness becomes an impossibility, as you either get tangled in a paradox, or, if not, you're looking for the non-qualitative origin of something , while only ever having access to the qualitative side of the equation.
Hi Alex! Who is your interlocutor, and what is his channel?
unsolicited advise!!
Alex since you have a moustache im having gay thoughts. Is that normal?
I don't really get why people always think consciousness must be something immaterial. All the arguments for it being something other than material always just sound like "yes but I really want it to be immaterial" to me.
Because if we start from materialism, then we claim that consciousness basically has to magically appear somewhere up on the ladder of complexity. This generates a lot of problems, most famously the hard problem of consciousness.
Conscious experience seems fundamentally private. If consciousness cannot be publicly observed and examined, then can statements about consciousness be falsified? I think it's plausible to answer no. If a statement is not falsifiable, it's not "physical" by some definitions of that term. If statements about consciousness can't be classified as physical and are nevertheless correct statements, that seems like a real problem for the physicalist.
In terms of all the evidence, even though we don’t know all of the mechanisms behind consciousness, at minimum we know it is an effect of the brain. We literally know how to turn it off or change it my impacting processes in the brain.
Personally I think it’s likely that consciousness isn’t 1 specific thing. It’s just a group of different things that build up. For example, we have the ability to perceive and react to light. Just a simple light detecting cells, then a brain process that causes a reaction in response. We have the ability to store and recall a memory of this light. I.e we can in some way cycle through the same or a similar pattern. Slowly we build up on these types of actions and collectively we call this consciousness. Obviously far more detailed and complex than that, but in principle I suspect it is just the collection of brain functions. Almost like it is a bit of an illusion.
@@Nox-mb7iu We could have a model like that, sure. Not sure if you are specifically suggesting it’s maybe something immaterial that generates consciousness, but for the moment I will address it as if you are. Personally I don’t know exactly how consciousness works, but see no reason to think it would be anything other than a natural process of physical matter as from what I can tell that appears to be the only thing that exists. If other non-material things also exist than I would be happy to believe in that if there is reasonable evidence demonstrating that. A model that includes immaterial components would be more complex and you should probably have some reason or some sort of evidence to suggest that the brain is just picking up some sort of external signal. I mean we could come up with models all day that add in extra elements until we literally have millions of them. But in general you would surely go with the only possibilities being the ones that include components we are aware are possible. So for example, I could say that all consciousness of every living thing is the result of an inter-dimensional space worm named Gary. Gary is in fact the only conscious being in existence but that consciousness manifests as a variety of living creatures that represent Gary’s multi faceted personality. So, to even say that was a possible explanation of consciousness would require some evidence to suggest inter dimensional space worms can and do exist, at minimum. But to suggest that the brain might be some sort of tool designed to interact with some other immaterial thing feels like an incredible stretch. Especially when we have people who study the brain, know how it works at least at a rudimentary level and can physically see the processes that cause thoughts and emotions traveling through the neurons. We have working hypotheses as to how consciousness could work. It always amazes me that people still jump to, ‘yeah but maybe there’s something immaterial doing a thing’. On what basis is that a possible explanation?
@@Nox-mb7iu Mate it would be great if you could stick to the topic rather than attempting to insult me. Appreciate it maybe boosts your confidence but I’m not interested in childish arguments.
Fundamentally it just comes down to has their ever been a demonstration of the immaterial? Until they are we can not really suggest they might be a possible explanation for anything because we have no way of knowing it is possible. Regardless of our cultural expectations.
But as I said not really interested in this style of tit-for-tat style argument where you’re just trying to fill ya boots. Have a good one though
@@Nox-mb7iu Anything that could be used to sufficiently demonstrate it as likely would be sufficient.
So for example, what ever it is that has convinced you that immaterial things are a possibility. Essentially that’s what I would be after.
Like you, when I question these sorts of thing I am actually attempting to identify if there is something I am missing because perhaps I am mistaken. But if people believe something is possible I would expect there to be a trail of evidence that leads to that belief.
I often find that many people suggest that it can’t be disproven and they are therefore just choosing to believe in it. However this would be highly problematic as this line of reasoning could lead to a belief in anything.
If surely, just like we would with any other topic, if something can’t be proven or demonstrated then we would withhold belief in that thing until or if it ever can be.
If there is a way to test it and demonstrate it to the same standard that we would any other physical thing then perhaps we could form a new branch of science of the immaterial. Some sort of offshoot of physics.
If this is not possible then I suggest we are in the realm of some sort of special pleading.
For the record, I am only a materialist so far as it is so far the only thing that has been demonstrated to exist. If other things exist I would be happy to accept them as possibilities.
@@Nox-mb7iu Ah, so the problem of hard solipsism would be a problem for everyone in all circumstances. So yes I am required to believe in the external world with no evidence. Although I could also argue that it makes no difference in the way I respond to it. If it exists externally, or exists in my head it does not change how I respond to it, but I digress.
So we all need to start with the initial assumption that reality exists. The laws of logic I wouldn’t say exist externally, they exist as an idea or tool that we find useful, like mathematics. Morality is in a similar bucket, just an idea that we have found useful because we have an advantage of being a successfully social species.
So, unless you disagree, we both start with assuming that the external universe exists. You however also assume that immaterial things exist.
When we talk about things like a soul, or other realms, or even gods we are making claims about things that exist, not social ideas we have invented. So they would be in the same bucket as the physical world. As in we are talking about a separate entity, physical or not physical.
I find it unusual to say that these are just things that we just accept because they don’t require evidence of their existence. I mean you can. You can believe what you like. But if we were going to be constant or concerned about our beliefs being true or not then it would make sense to have at least the standards with use in other forms of scientific discovery. Otherwise we might as well just give up on the idea of science and the scientific method and just claim let’s all just believe that dragons cause gravity and unicorns cause electromagnetism because you can’t prove hard solipsism.
I guess I don’t quite understand why we shouldn’t expect to see any evidence for the immaterial when it appears that it at least occasionally interacts with material things. Or better yet why we we even believe in things we can’t prove or demonstrate.
@@Nox-mb7iu Ok sure. I am not sure I understand what it is that both your points were suggesting. Solipsism and the laws of logic are I suppose side issues that seem to be missing the point. But I guess all I’ll say is I am aware we were discussing the laws of logic. However I don’t think they externally exist outside of our minds. We just use the laws of logic as a tool. So I guess the point was that logic and other types of ideas such as that aren’t entities that we are trying to demonstrate are real things that exist. Hence we don’t need to demonstrate them in the same way we would a physical process or entity.
So my point is I guess it’s possible to believe in things and suggest you don’t need to or can’t demonstrate them, however you should be aware that if you do then you should keep in mind that you are believing in something where you don’t have good reasons to do so. Perhaps it is more a case of believing in a thing because you grew up around people who already believed in it, or perhaps it is more to do with wanting to believe in it. But fundamentally I think it is a bad form of epidemiology as it doesn’t get you any closer to actual knowledge.
Although I am a naturalist, I have come to think that the brain is not a Turing machine. Roger Penrose, with his reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and John Searle, with his "chinese room", have been very convincing to me.
Being aware that you are (or not) aware of all perceptible immediate and peripheral experiences?
No Alex I do not think you’re right .. the purpose of consciousness could easily be imagined as a survival strategy..
I know the difference of me and the outer world so it makes me able to predict intentions of others .. also the intenseness of the bad intentions.. I truely do not get problem..
Why can't consciousness just be an amalgamation of experiences? It seems clear that most mammals (to a point) have some form of it.
Western philosophy and Science can never explain Consciousness bcz of their obvious limitations.
francesco varela died in 2001 lol
I find Panpsychism unconvincing, the brain seems to be a very different structure to other objects and consciousness seems to arise from this process of electricity bouncing around a large network. Maybe there is higher level of abstraction at play.
My simple take
Consciousness is as simple as the “air” we breathe.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Definitely consciousness is an emergent property of matter, we are yet to observe consciousness without matter. As fair being necessarily, necessity is not the only requirement for a trait to evolve or take hold. In the end just because we don’t know how consciousness works it does not mean is not material.
How would you ‘observe’ consciousness without matter?
As a Christian I believe since Consciousness exists therefore I find it more likely than not that I was not made by non-conscious processes, a sprinkle of time, and luck
And at the very least accepting that a conscious being preceding our consciousness is not so far fetched to accept
To believe atoms exists is grounded on ignoring the problem of induction and also assuming Occam's razor. But Qualia is one of the few things (perhaps only) that I can know for certainty I have.
This point is why I'm very seriously critical about materialism.