The basic breadcrumbs to follow when mulling consciousness are as follows (1) that which is the object of awareness, and the subject, those are two separate entities (Corollary: you never have 100% perfect knowledge of the object of awareness- see Shannon’s work on information theory. You are, however, 100% certain of the sentience of the subject. If you doubt this, see, as an example, Galen Strawson’s response to Dannet) (2) Just as a paper with a drawing upon it is unaware of the art, similarly the brain, with signals in it is unaware of those signals. In every consciousness scenario, there is the gyey-gyan-gyatr triad, the known, the knowledge, and the knower. An analyte, a signal, and a spectrum can be corresponding models from the insentient world. The act of awareness is quite another from the gyey-gyan-gyatr triad. This leads to (3) (Clarification: reductionists need to note here the fundamental difference between knowledge and awareness. Vedanta defines information, knowledge, object, subject, and awareness, as also mind and brain really clearly. This entire show, “Mind body problem”, will do well to adopt SOME sensical basic definitions. Otherwise, every interlocutor creates their own confabulated taxonomy and nomenclature and makes all manner of assertions. Will you have a discussion on reproduction with “sperm” open for definition? Ridiculous.) (3) Consciousness of the object is mediated by mind, where mind is described quite clearly as a physical but subtle entity. It can reflect consciousness. It can take the shape of the object that is being thought of. You have to given them credit for apprehending and bridging the “explanatory gap”. In (4) they address the fact that the non material Ātmā has just been said to reflect in pre-material (and physical) mind (4) As Kant (Emmanuel) will say, when we apprehend (say) a pencil, we know there is an object that we are apprehending. However, what exactly the ding an sich is we never may know. Vedanta takes a step further. It states that not only is the apprehended pencil not independent of our apparatus of apprehension but, and this is key, perceived reality is the projection, Mirage like, of Ātmā upon Ātmā. … we are now into the thicket of Vedanata. Let us underline the key points made. One, that the observer and the observer are essentially different. Second, mind is a pre-material entity, that bridges the gross (empirical) universe and the fundament of awareness. Three, consciousness is beyond the mere recorded signal resulting from the detection of an analyte, it is a state that points to the non duality of the observed from the subject. Why this is important is this. We have effectively argued that of Consciousness there cannot be a theory. Why? A theory is of the form, “that, ergo this”. It is about causes. Vedanta is telling us that the nonseparation of cause and effect is what is consciousness.
It sounds like you are talking about the 4th dimension with our limited senses, we need to develop the live experience in our consciousness of the 4th... dimension ...just my tough.. Greatest discussion . Thank you for sharing your knowledge I appreciate enormously, make me feel I'm not alone...
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’, ‘understanding’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal reasons we have not so far come to any good, proper & fully verifiable understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding of ‘information’ itself. Although I have personally had the (dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity - plus a full science of the phenomenon to boot - and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this introductory note (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal (along with a full science thereof also), the exercise of (verifiably) determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, ‘consciousness’ & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) (along with an accompanying science of each also), becomes one of no great difficulty. A full science of any one particular phenomenon will include understandings, specifications & quantifications of such things as its nature (its ontological identity), its standing (in the existential hierarchy), its role, function, varieties, distribution, incidences, properties/extensions/capacities/capabilities, usages, handling &/or operational amenabilities, & its typical life history (its creation through to its dissolution/erasure). Indeed, once both ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity is known, along with a full science thereof, much clarifying light is thrown upon essentially all of the other elements of reality - space, time, matter, energy…. ‘life, the universe & everything’ …. ‘The universe’ ? Turns out we live in a (verifiably) panpsychic universe, that is to say, in one in which each & every single, individual, discrete & separate, autopoietic or non-autopoietic, but all bounded, all Markovian-blanketed, increments of hard, solid matter possesses some quite certain, fully measurable, albeit highly varying, never zero & in some (many) increments of matter, extremely small in comparison to our own - & just as easily measured - sentience or consciousness, the latter (consciousness) exists as we ourselves know it, exclusively under certain, well defined conditions & circumstances. ‘As we know it’ ? As does any cognitively self-conscious aware entity know whatever it knows… Not so incidentally there exists no dearth of homunculi in a pansychic universe as each & every single, individual increment of solid matter has some real (& fully measurable) sentience-come-consciousness inside it. That which any increment of (bounded) solid material ‘sees’, ‘hears’, ‘touches’, ‘tastes’, ‘smells’ simple depends on how many senses it has. Although they are ‘perfectly sentient’ in their own very limited way the rocks & stones beneath our feet, the chairs & sofas on which we sit have many orders of magnitude fewer senses than have we …… Once one recognises ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity it becomes immediately & fully verifiably clear that (i) computer digits are not ‘information’, & (ii) no mental phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’, ‘understanding’ & ‘consciousness’ is computationally tractable. The very different kinds of ‘machines’ - systems, gadgets, entities - which are capable of ‘thinking’ also becomes clear, which particular understanding eventually leads to the additional understanding of exactly that which consciousness itself is …. Once one recognises ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity, no especial difficulty attends the task of identifying, classifying, tracking & tracing any kind & amount of the phenomenon where- & whenever any of it exists here in our Universe, including any of it being operated on in our own brains. Which particular exercise is that which enables the identification of, firstly, where in our brains consciousness resides, & secondly, the identity & function of the particular component of our thinking apparatus which resides there…..& from there ‘consciousness’ itself can be identified & understood…. & much more too ! Isn’t it amazing that no rigorous - & fully verifiable - definition of ‘information’ exists ?? Indeed, no one seems to have even noticed ….. Cheers ….
The mystery of what is consciousness can be resolved by postulating that quantum mechanical wave function is a mathematical representation of consciousness. Quantum mechanics is then a mechanics of consciousness. This thesis is discussed in the video ruclips.net/video/3LgGv4jb3sU/видео.html . It was previously proposed in some of my articles published in physics journals and in the books "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics" and "The Grand Biocentric Design: How life Creates Reality" (in co-authorship with Robert Lanza).
Mitochondria is in control of everything 😂 We are simply portals for them for time travel.. Consciousness manifests fron two or more entities to communicate?
The key question that any theory of consciousness must answer is: How do minds interact such that the conversation itself can occur?
Because our 'individual' minds are all part of and connected to the same 'human' consciousness
The basic breadcrumbs to follow when mulling consciousness are as follows
(1) that which is the object of awareness, and the subject, those are two separate entities
(Corollary: you never have 100% perfect knowledge of the object of awareness- see Shannon’s work on information theory. You are, however, 100% certain of the sentience of the subject. If you doubt this, see, as an example, Galen Strawson’s response to Dannet)
(2) Just as a paper with a drawing upon it is unaware of the art, similarly the brain, with signals in it is unaware of those signals. In every consciousness scenario, there is the gyey-gyan-gyatr triad, the known, the knowledge, and the knower. An analyte, a signal, and a spectrum can be corresponding models from the insentient world. The act of awareness is quite another from the gyey-gyan-gyatr triad. This leads to (3)
(Clarification: reductionists need to note here the fundamental difference between knowledge and awareness. Vedanta defines information, knowledge, object, subject, and awareness, as also mind and brain really clearly. This entire show, “Mind body problem”, will do well to adopt SOME sensical basic definitions. Otherwise, every interlocutor creates their own confabulated taxonomy and nomenclature and makes all manner of assertions. Will you have a discussion on reproduction with “sperm” open for definition? Ridiculous.)
(3) Consciousness of the object is mediated by mind, where mind is described quite clearly as a physical but subtle entity. It can reflect consciousness. It can take the shape of the object that is being thought of. You have to given them credit for apprehending and bridging the “explanatory gap”. In (4) they address the fact that the non material Ātmā has just been said to reflect in pre-material (and physical) mind
(4) As Kant (Emmanuel) will say, when we apprehend (say) a pencil, we know there is an object that we are apprehending. However, what exactly the ding an sich is we never may know. Vedanta takes a step further. It states that not only is the apprehended pencil not independent of our apparatus of apprehension but, and this is key, perceived reality is the projection, Mirage like, of Ātmā upon Ātmā.
… we are now into the thicket of Vedanata. Let us underline the key points made.
One, that the observer and the observer are essentially different.
Second, mind is a pre-material entity, that bridges the gross (empirical) universe and the fundament of awareness.
Three, consciousness is beyond the mere recorded signal resulting from the detection of an analyte, it is a state that points to the non duality of the observed from the subject.
Why this is important is this. We have effectively argued that of Consciousness there cannot be a theory. Why? A theory is of the form, “that, ergo this”. It is about causes. Vedanta is telling us that the nonseparation of cause and effect is what is consciousness.
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Huge thanks to @DrTonyNader for hosting this wonderful conversation.
It sounds like you are talking about the 4th dimension with our limited senses, we need to develop the live experience in our consciousness of the 4th... dimension ...just my tough..
Greatest discussion . Thank you for sharing your knowledge I appreciate enormously, make me feel I'm not alone...
Thank you! You're not alone.💙🙏🏽
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’, ‘understanding’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal reasons we have not so far come to any good, proper & fully verifiable understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding of ‘information’ itself.
Although I have personally had the (dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity - plus a full science of the phenomenon to boot - and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this introductory note (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal (along with a full science thereof also), the exercise of (verifiably) determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, ‘consciousness’ & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) (along with an accompanying science of each also), becomes one of no great difficulty.
A full science of any one particular phenomenon will include understandings, specifications & quantifications of such things as its nature (its ontological identity), its standing (in the existential hierarchy), its role, function, varieties, distribution, incidences, properties/extensions/capacities/capabilities, usages, handling &/or operational amenabilities, & its typical life history (its creation through to its dissolution/erasure).
Indeed, once both ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity is known, along with a full science thereof, much clarifying light is thrown upon essentially all of the other elements of reality - space, time, matter, energy…. ‘life, the universe & everything’ ….
‘The universe’ ? Turns out we live in a (verifiably) panpsychic universe, that is to say, in one in which each & every single, individual, discrete & separate, autopoietic or non-autopoietic, but all bounded, all Markovian-blanketed, increments of hard, solid matter possesses some quite certain, fully measurable, albeit highly varying, never zero & in some (many) increments of matter, extremely small in comparison to our own - & just as easily measured - sentience or consciousness, the latter (consciousness) exists as we ourselves know it, exclusively under certain, well defined conditions & circumstances. ‘As we know it’ ? As does any cognitively self-conscious aware entity know whatever it knows…
Not so incidentally there exists no dearth of homunculi in a pansychic universe as each & every single, individual increment of solid matter has some real (& fully measurable) sentience-come-consciousness inside it.
That which any increment of (bounded) solid material ‘sees’, ‘hears’, ‘touches’, ‘tastes’, ‘smells’ simple depends on how many senses it has. Although they are ‘perfectly sentient’ in their own very limited way the rocks & stones beneath our feet, the chairs & sofas on which we sit have many orders of magnitude fewer senses than have we ……
Once one recognises ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity it becomes immediately & fully verifiably clear that (i) computer digits are not ‘information’, & (ii) no mental phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’, ‘understanding’ & ‘consciousness’ is computationally tractable.
The very different kinds of ‘machines’ - systems, gadgets, entities - which are capable of ‘thinking’ also becomes clear, which particular understanding eventually leads to the additional understanding of exactly that which consciousness itself is ….
Once one recognises ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity, no especial difficulty attends the task of identifying, classifying, tracking & tracing any kind & amount of the phenomenon where- & whenever any of it exists here in our Universe, including any of it being operated on in our own brains. Which particular exercise is that which enables the identification of, firstly, where in our brains consciousness resides, & secondly, the identity & function of the particular component of our thinking apparatus which resides there…..& from there ‘consciousness’ itself can be identified & understood…. & much more too !
Isn’t it amazing that no rigorous - & fully verifiable - definition of ‘information’ exists ?? Indeed, no one seems to have even noticed …..
Cheers ….
I am anxious listening to this
What is consciousness? Reality? Im lost, aged 70 now, fading vision and thinking.😢
We might simplify consciousness to "sensitivity to one's own existence".
That which observes the sensations/senses, and that which observes the absence of sensations/senses.... _that_ is consciousness.
The universe is conscious being centric. In Chinese 众生心 where there are infinite beings and each being is a universe - parallel universes.
The mystery of what is consciousness can be resolved by postulating that quantum mechanical wave function is a mathematical representation of consciousness. Quantum mechanics is then a mechanics of consciousness. This thesis is discussed in the video ruclips.net/video/3LgGv4jb3sU/видео.html . It was previously proposed in some of my articles published in physics journals and in the books "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics" and "The Grand Biocentric Design: How life Creates Reality" (in co-authorship with Robert Lanza).
Mitochondria is in control of everything 😂
We are simply portals for them for time travel..
Consciousness manifests fron two or more entities to communicate?