What is the evidence for backwards causation, and what does it mean for our understanding of reality? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Watch Avshalom debate Michio Kaku, Tim Maudlin and Jimena Canales on the subject of time: iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-time?RUclips&
This person does not account clearly for extra dimensions of time, actual experiences in transcendence and the observer effect.. think about the "Zoo hypothesis" for example.. Let's explore together these fantastic concepts 😉
He knows that what we see is not reality. Reality is yet to be explored. He did give example material and immaterial things. These are some basic concepts in Islam and Judisim about reality. I agree with him. I am still lost about reality until this day.
21:15 That poignant pause, those few seconds of silence hold a whole universe of compassion and humanity. Thank you The Institute of Art and Science for introducing me to this gem of a person.
The basic evidence for panspychism is that it resolves a bunch of the problems other theories have. There is no empirical evidence for any theory of consciousness, there are only arguments for preferring ("liking") some paradigms over others. What kind of evidence do you think speaks in favour of alternatives panosychism?
Wonderful interview! Thank you for this. This man is brilliant. Many unknowns but still interesting. The hard problem of consciousness is so interesting. I loved his strong comments on Israel and the environment. This man is a treasure
I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics. It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini
Bullshit. TLDR: Everything is subjective. Current physics/neuroscience can't explain consciousness therefore Consciousness is immaterial and the colloquial "soul".
You do not need brain to have consciousness. A lot of new computers with memory CPUs GPUs TPUs have consciousness, they can select from complex set of problems we have one, THis problem can be solved by consciousness but this is not related to our brain or to som indivisible element you mentioned. Consciousness is a property of a system, and it is not important, if system is from divisible or indivisible components. THis is property of some / for us / complex systems. But system, that is conscious about environment, does not need to be complex. Very simple systems can measure light 3900 - 7200 A, temperature, humidity, and can make decisions with respect to code === programs === subroutines, that are executed, if conditions are met. SO a much ado about nothing. Reaction to environment is what we want. Because it is needed for the system to survive in this environment.
@@marcobiagini1878 TLDR: Everything that is, is subjective. Science can't account for consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is immaterial and pretty much the "soul".
I don't know. He seems to have a clear but also compassionate view of humanity, and the damage we are doing to the earth and the suffering we are causing each other. Perhaps he has avoided the weeds of metaethics - but I expect he would have interesting things to say here too
What a courageous man ! Reminds me a bit of Eckhart Tolle . He seems to know a lot of psychology and philosophy. He has interesting revolutionary ideas which I like. First time I hear he’s speak, I haven’t heard of him of him before this interview. Need to read his books and dig deeper into his ideas.
This man is a genuine Jew, a light to the nations, which means all of us, and I speak as a Christian clergyman. When he was asked about Gaza, I was suddenly worried that he"d say something that would make me think less of him. Shame on me. I will enjoy becoming more acquainted with his work.
@@lemonsys He posted this (lie-filled) comment on X: *In October 2023, the Jewish people has endured its worst calamity since the Holocaust. Sordid rubble has invaded Israel, massacred civilians with their elderly, children and babies, raped, looted, tortured and kidnapped everyone and everything they could put their filthy hands on. For these crimes, decades will pass and still every Palestinian baby will come to the world with an inborn mark of Kain on their forehead. Israel had the right and duty to retaliate, which it did and is still doing.*
@@lemonsys"In October 2023, the Jewish people has endured its worst calamity since the Holocaust. Sordid rubble has invaded Israel, massacred civilians with their elderly, children and babies, raped, looted, tortured and kidnapped everyone and everything they could put their filthy hands on. For these crimes, decades will pass and still every Palestinian baby will come to the world with an inborn mark of Kain on their forehead. Israel had the right and duty to retaliate, which it did and is still doing."
This is wonderful, thoughtful, and thought provoking discussion that shows the continued links between philosophy of mind and contemporary physics on the baffling problem of consciousness. What matters here is the exploration of the ideas at issue, the openness to continued deliberation and even refutation. It’s marvelous to listen to a physicist of his stature taking these questions seriously and to be making a substantial contribution to the ongoing debate with his views on interactive dualism (he being a confessed reluctant dualist on the mind-body problem) and the possibility of pansychism seemingly supported by quantum physics. Bravo to the two interlocutors here 👏👏👏👏
The gentleman may be responding to a similar energy by other physicists, but I'd recommend not being too arrogant. A revolution in physics may be coming, but it might not be the one you expect, firstly. And secondly with all due genuine appreciation and respect, it is neither kind, nor in my opinion wise, to comment on other people's intellects. It's human, and frustration can settle in sometimes. But I recommend letting the frustration wash through you, and focusing on the substance. Math, and evidence. Everyone has to not know before they know. Teach! And learn! Be kind. Much love ❤
Woah! I am delighted to hear such a brilliant and humble physicist. Conscience is every cells, particules, anything that exists. The cardiologist Dr Pim Ban Lommel talks about the consciousness that exists outside the brain.
Woah! I am delighted to hear such a brilliant and humble physicist who believes that philosophy with his analysis. Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist, a psychotherapist, and a psychologist who combined philosophy in his work. I believe that Consciousness is in every single cell, molecule, in other words, in everything. The cardiologist Dr Pim Van Lommel talks about the consciousness that exists outside the brain.. The brain acts like a receptor.
Very thought provoking. I've often thought the expansion of the Universe was our fault. How many times have you heard, "I don't have enough room. I need more Space." And the Universe is providing.
If consciousness exists in even the most basic particles, it raises profound questions about how quantum processes, like superposition and entanglement, might influence our experience of awareness. Could quantum mechanics be the key to unlocking deeper insights into the nature of consciousness and its role throughout the universe? How might understanding these quantum connections reshape our understanding of consciousness itself, and what implications could this have for fields like neuroscience or even artificial intelligence?
Well, since you asked: 1) Could quantum mechanics be the key to unlocking deeper insights into the nature of consciousness and its role throughout the universe? Yes - super radiance and delayed radiance is theorized to be a quantum process in the brain, namely microtubules, and could play a role in our conscious experience. 2) How might understanding these quantum connections reshape our understanding of consciousness itself, and what implications could this have for fields like neuroscience or even artificial intelligence? Dr. Stuart Hameroff, who helped develop the theory of orch-or with Nobel Prize Winner Roger Penrose, have proposed links to the effects of anesthesia and other biological processes. In regards to artificial intelligence, it also helps to explain that the brain is NOT a computation, and is instead utilizing quantum processes.
There are so many interesting points to discuss from the perspective of relational definitions of physics, and i have to sleep, but these issues are merely the basics of the philosophical discussion of what physics is and how our human concepts relate to it. You can have an essentially eternal discussion of possible content and how it looks and fits into this view, andbmost of it is interesting, so here is to progress and never running out of interesting content to explore.
He makes a good point, the community assumes particles just move around randomly. Maybe it's not random. Maybe they move with a motivation and a goal. And maybe has options and outcomes decided by the particle decisions?
I am am Arab Muslim Iraqi scientist who practices a very low profile. You have no idea how your dream to achieve a personal endeavor will unfold, we will meet and you will witness an unbelievable and unexplainable synchronization between us,,I have never met you and this is the first time I see you and hear you talking,,but I love you immensely and unconditionally, as I do my children,,truly,,I ask one thing of you,,remember my name Amar ,,until we meet,,Shalom
@@מיריפרוימוביץ-ש3ע true,,unfortunately religion was not meant to divide us..we will succeed in unification of the soul and mind for the sake of man kind
How about protons and neutrons? Can consciousness explain their ground state quantum vortex nature? The fine tuning problem may be due to fundamental particles being controlled by some higher conciousness.
I still don’t understand why the materialist position can be considered ridiculous. It seems perfectly likely that a sufficiently complex system can build a theory of self, and a notion of self-awareness.
Why? Because humans are an arrogant anthropocentric species, that thinks, there needs to be something special or magic in their existence. What if c. is an emergent property of complex sytems like the human brain? Is it less valuable then? I personally don´t think so. Anyhow, I like this man.
I don't consider matieralism ridiculous, but the caveat is that we don't know what matter actually is. In fact, the whole point of this version of panpsychism, if I understand it correctly, is to preserve materialism. We're not special, we're made of the same matter as everything else, so whatever enables subjective experience must be present in all matter. The fundamental problem is that current science can only describe phenomena that can be observed externally, but not subjective experience. There's no language to describe what anything "feels like". This is where the intuition that we're missing something fundamental comes from.
@@Thomas-gk42 what is attributing what property it could be , a fact is a memory but notion of thinking involves consciousness itself ? If we go by pure reason nothing can emerge without consciousness, there is no possibility of notion right without it whatever it may be ?
The point of saying so is that backward causation is the same as forward, or mixed versions. Because its always the case that if you suppose only forward or backwards evolution happens, and you suppose that is physically meaningful, then i say the exact same relations that defines all the content of the physics unfolds in the opposite direction, your experience of that universe unfolding backwards would be identical from our point of view, in the same way that if you flipped space and its content along a single direction, it would exchange left and right, byt there would be no way to tell from the inside sonce the exact same set of relationships hold true, and there would not even in principle be possible to tell, in either the space being flipped or time, only changes in relations could lead to a different causal object. This is why the direction of time, or the shape of space can only ever be objective in the real relations in its causality, that is relations that if changed would mean a different analog computation is run as it so to speak.
I´m not a fan of panpsychism and I disagree about his idea that consciousness needs more expalnations than it is to say it´s an emergent property of the brain (NOT an illusion of course). But anyway this man is a beautiful mind and this is an epic talk. His view on QM and retrocausality sounds like superdeterminism, similar to the claims of Sabine Hossenfelder, that I figure very exciting.
When I was confronted with the definition of life and conscious agents, I was forced to consider that particles organized in certain ways can reproduce themselves and have goal oriented action.
When considering both the correlations in states of hyperplanes along time, and backwards causation at the same time, the backwards ir forwards causation destinction is one that can only be different in terms of the form of correlations, the definition of backwards or forwards time prppagation of signals with causal influence is just a convention of language. Only something like the difference between a growing population going forward and shrinking going backwards could actually distinguish forward or backwards causation, each point in time being a function of both the past and the future is a feature of determinism, whether it's the deterministic evolution of a distribution of properties or a more ordinary deterministic evolution is also kind of a convention of language. Its always the character of the correlation in any direction that is physical in a sense. Whether time reversal symmetry is realized trivially or not.
"physics [is] actually branches of philosophy but are unique in that nature herself is part of the debate" The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. "This effectiveness is a gift that we don't understand and neither deserve." To Peace and building understanding.
Subjectivity and it's counter part, objectivity, is a hallucination. In reality, there is no subject/object, dualistic reality. Consciousness/the experience that "I am" is a mirage.
I have a question, does time speed up as we get older or is it just the perception? Or is time just perception, when asked about time I feel today is different from yesterday because everything in the universe is in a different place every single moment, in relation to everything else. Movement creates time. Being physically in a different place at every single moment in time. As soon as their is a conscience and you decide you want to start to move the perspective of time appears. Just creation itself has to be moving in time, everything physical has a beginning and an end. And do we really create, did God really create. How would a God create something from nothing? Or were there certain elements that existed before God? Or is God like a musician, just arranging different elements to create everything that we see.
@@timothylarson4587 Wow, Timothy; I really liked your statement here. I experience time as moving at different rates, which I have never studied or correlated with the physical world. I am very open to the subject, and just wanted to thank you for articulating it here. Why don’t we understand it better?
Students shared "i" AM will say, Lord many of our own do not know? Why say students? Lord as ye know? Thy students once Who am I in front of thee? Yes, given ABLE to pull down strong holds from all world views. Now who are You students? Lord thy shared "i" AM. From here! Gratitude and Honor students! Go share as HE shared unto thee!
@@danielmiklos9759 I'm a fan of Zizek as well, and I think he himself would admit, especially when he talks about science, that he is a bit of a Charlatan. You are always going to appear as a Charlatan when you go against liberalism as deep as Zizek does. I will say though, I do think when he talks about psychoanalysis, he is a full blown Charlatan. That is because I believe the whole field of psychoanalysis is bunk. I think it obscures Hegel's dialectical methods instead of substantiating it.
@@danielmiklos9759 he talks about quantum physics and other specialized topics without any proper knowledge and most of the time when he does, he does it in a comedic Lacanian point of view which has nothing to do with the observable world.
@@SeanAnthony-j7f he's not a physicist and doesn't claim to be. A charlatan is someone pretending to be something he isn't. He's a thinker and approaches such specialized topics from a philosophical point of view. I thought this is a given... Just watch his discussions with Sean Carroll or Lee Smolin. Quantum physics, for example, has a lot of touching points with philosophy. He doesn't do equations, he discusses concepts on an epistemological level. He can be wrong, but he's definitely not a charlatan.
This guy makes me feel stupid so I don’t trust him. However words he said in my mind has really improved my tai chi. My body mind likes him. He threw a pebble in my body and mind that will ripple for a long time. Thank you brother.
"Care"...it is existential...if you are conscious you cannot exist without the existential love that made existance yours and any helpless being possible....
THERE'S SPACE WHICH IS INFINITE (THERE CAN'T BE TWO INFINITIES ) AND EVERYTHING (THE WHOLE COSMOS) EXISTS WITHIN IT AND THEREFORE EVERYTHING INTERACTS WITH EVERYTHING SIMULTANEOUSLY WHETHER WE OBSERVE IT OR NOT : WHAT CONNECTS ALL TOGETHER IS THE FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF ! WE ARE IN A CLOSED SPHERE AND CAN EXPLORE THE INSIDE ONLY ,TO OBSERVE WHAT COULD BE OUTSIDE THE SPHERE ,WE SHALL HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE BUBBLE (THAT IS THIS SPHERE WE EXIST IN) !
Not an illusion, but an emergent property of the human brain. That doesn´t make it less valuable and we don´t need panpsychism to expain it. Anyhow this man is a great personality, and his insights on quantum mechanics are quite interesting.
I'd like to see a discussion between a panpsychist and a superdeterminist about how their scientific theories justify political beliefs about protecting natural environments, geological features, species & habitats.
Superdeterminism and panpsychism are not connected though. SD is a physical-mathematical appeoach to solve the measurement problem in QM, while PP is a faith you can follow if you like. Two very different things. But when he talked about retrocausality, my first thought also was: Wow, that´s what Sabine Hossenfelder says about superdeterminsm.
@@Thomas-gk42 Are you suggesting there are no justifications for any concern about the environment or species extinction in a superdeterminist paradigm? I doubt that's something people will readily accept.
@@ErinMagner82A clear NO, madam. superdeterministic/retrocausal theories are about quantum mechanics. They make no claims about macroscopic objects, where we don´t observe quantum effects. This is just a kinda propaganda against people who research beyond the mainstream of physics. Indeed, Hossenfelder, who is normally named as the leading "superdeterminst", is very worried about our environment and surely doesn´t justify our crimes against nature and the livelihoods of our planet with deterministic ´arguments´.
@@ErinMagner82 Well m´am, superdeterminism/retrocausality is about quantum mechanics, not about macroscopic objects, where we don´t observe quantum effects. This is just propaganda of the physics establishment against scientists who research beyond the mainstream. Indeed, Hossenfelder, who is currently known as the leading "superdeterminist" (though some other physicists work on it) is very worried about the environment and surely doesn´t justify the crimes, that we do to our planet and nature with ´deterministic arguments` (whatever that should be).
My father always used to say, that philosophy gives hypothesis and questions to science to deal with. To me it has always been ridiculous to divide philosophical reflection from science.
Elitzur has extreme knowledge in philosophy and psychanalisys. No surprise, he can converge beautifully different disciplines into integrative thought. I just wish he was more optimistic and have more faith in the israelis and palestiniens who would also reach for peace and not destruction.
The brain as a product of higher universal intelligence of which the universal unifying field is the same field that combines all functions of the brain, we are part of nature, not separate from nature. Consciousness, like truth is an unfolding process of nature that operates through mankind.
This is an invitation to see a theory where light is both a wave and a particle, with a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π, future continuously unfolding in relation to the electron probability cloud of atoms and the wavelength of light. In this theory, the wave-particle duality of light and matter (electrons) creates a blank canvas that we (atoms) can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This interaction is represented by a constant of action in space and time, mathematically denoted as the Planck constant h/2π. This concept is supported by the fact that light photon energy ∆E=hf is continuous exchange into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons.
Why not see light as just a wave? Its only particle-like property is that when it interacts with matter, for example when it's absorbed by an electron, the interaction event occurs at a small region of spacetime, as if the entire quantum of light energy jumped to that small region from its widespread distribution a moment prior to the event. That "spooky" jump violates the Strong Locality axiom: "Nothing can be influenced by anything outside its past lightcone." But Bell's Theorem and the experimental verification that nature violates Bell's Inequality have undermined confidence in Strong Locality. Since space & time aren't well-understood, I think physicists should never have been confident about Strong Locality. Einstein himself, one of the great champions of Strong Locality, co-authored (with Rosen) the 1935 ER paper that showed that wormholes are compatible with General Relativity. So it's surprising to me that that result didn't undermine his confidence in Strong Locality. A weaker locality axiom that makes an exception for wormholes wouldn't be violated by the jump of the light wave's energy, if the wave is somehow self-connected across space by a wormhole.
@@brothermine2292 We can have wave over a period of time with particle characteristics as light is absorbed and emitted. When this happens our 3D world changes as part of a probabilistic future!
>Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time : It's unclear whether it's fundamentally probabilistic or deterministic. The various interpretations of QM claim one or the other, but the empirical evidence is inconclusive, and those claims venture beyond empirical 5-sigma confidence into the realm of metaphysical speculation. The probabilities in the Born rule might just be due to incomplete knowledge about the state of the system, which isn't the same as fundamental randomness.
< 8:40 At least this gentleman acknowledges the problem, even if he can't accurately describe it. 8:44 "Time" Time is far from being well described. It is possible that there are more than one concepts of "time" at play. ~11:48 We may have an abstract concept of past and future but I am doubtful causation can actually move backward. For me there is nothing but an almost infinitely small "Now" moment. These other concepts of past are just an illusion of photons and mind. Information is emergent and more like a shadow on the wall rather than a real event. For me this concept of time is emergent. Continued from above
Could the material matter of the universe have come from a universe that was next to us along the "quantum foam bubbles"? Like all universes have different "settings", pop in and out, expand forever, what have you. So our universe starts, its mostly just an empty fabric space time. Other universe started alongside, but it created denser matter-like stuff. Then, the bubbles merge, like bubbles do. All that material stuff shoves itself into the fabric spacetime, which is already huge. That's the big bang. The "observable universe" is expanding, but it's the fabric of spacetime that matter showed up into thats continuing to expand, bringing us along with it. Dark matter is the obtuse observation that the fabric of space-time is continuing to do what it was doing all along, this entire time before "matter" ever happened. IDK... I have a lot I want to ask or propose, but it's too much for me to type coherently right now. .. so I'll stop. Probably just dumb.
4:45 “Ridiculous.” Love it. And I’m in love with him.🤭💙🌷🌱 I find so much to agree with him on, not because he’s great physicist,but because I learn from him and, philosophically, I agree w it’s so much that he is saying - including about Yisrael. . . (We are so far from Moshe Dayan, Ben Gurion, and Gilda Meir. Israel should be ashamed.) ( Sorry, for ranting, but they bombed Beirut ! Beirut! for crying out loud!!!! I am speechless, dumbfounded, totally ashamed and angry. And then we have one of the most despicable men in history supported by almost half the voters in amurica - probably mostly on the left side of the Bell Curve. Okay, done.)
Can we agree the best physicist, best neurologist will tell you the truth, we don’t actually know the entire picture of our physical world or consciousness, or with a neurologist our brain? The ones who talk and teach from the book only are not our future.
The sentience of matter is a given in metaphysics. Mr Elitzur asks some very intelligent questions, but as a scientist he approaches consciousness from the outside (using his consciousness). I don´t think his idea that consciousness rises from the brain like a genie from a bottle really holds water. If he quested further afield he might come across an idea that consciousness is explored from the inside, and learn the following ... Consciousness comprises everything, it is fundamental. It facilitates the transformation of energy into matter. Consciousness, energy and matter are expressions of the same thing. Since matter is derived from consciousness it is sentient -- it could not be otherwise. If Mr Elitzur were to heed Tesla´s advice to study the non--physical rather than the material world, he would be rewarded. And he'd probably lose his job.
YOur brain can go back in time and interfere with your younger brain. When you have 50, you send copy of your brain to the future. WHen you have 30 you also send copy of your brain to the same space. At this space somebody restores you 50 and your 30 y. brain, and your 50 and 30 y. brain can interact in some place in some time. This place and time is different from your previos space/time where you lived before sending copies of your brain.
How can he say violence is justified especially for someone in his position. Moreover i just read a warning to be civil while they allow someone to literally advocate such actions. And no i didnt take him out of context. Obviously we need to find a way to make our world better but doing awful stuff is abominable way to go about it. And won't work as the universe is benevolent.
All knowledge is so when it comes from the appropriate instrument of knowledge. Like information about things far away that's unavailable to the plain eyes can be got using a binoculars, telescope etc. Microscope is NOT for viewing far off things. Same way all such instruments of knowledge are useful ONLY for the material world. Once one clearly acknowledges this TRUTH - then he just have to use the ONLY instrument of knowledge for CONSCIOUSNESS which is the 'UPANISHADS'. There are several methods to understand what CONSCIOUSNESS is. One is the 'Seer-Seen' method. It's Consciousness that illuminates everything including the 'I' thought. It's the SUBJECT which is NEVER an object. Hence scientific methods can reveal ONLY the objects and NEVER the subject the CONSCIOUSNESS. Thus CONSCIOUSNESS can ONLY be claimed as - ' I am the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Humanity will continue to prosper by learning how to control nature, not by bowing down to it. Deindustrialization is not a reasonable option. Violent revolition never turns out well. It is far better to peacefully negotiate.
What is the evidence for backwards causation, and what does it mean for our understanding of reality? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Watch Avshalom debate Michio Kaku, Tim Maudlin and Jimena Canales on the subject of time: iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-time?RUclips&
This person does not account clearly for extra dimensions of time, actual experiences in transcendence and the observer effect.. think about the "Zoo hypothesis" for example..
Let's explore together these fantastic concepts 😉
We want him on your program more, please and thank you. ❤
@@CryptoLiveHODL-BlueRose thank you for your username at this "stage" 😉
He knows that what we see is not reality. Reality is yet to be explored. He did give example material and immaterial things. These are some basic concepts in Islam and Judisim about reality. I agree with him. I am still lost about reality until this day.
Reality is a shared agreement dear@@yousafshah3189.
One can construct a reality in mind, a fiction. Physical reality takes observers to become facts.
21:15 That poignant pause, those few seconds of silence hold a whole universe of compassion and humanity. Thank you The Institute of Art and Science for introducing me to this gem of a person.
It honestly brought me to tears
Did you just totally ignore the start of the video where he defends something with 0 evidence because he "likes" it?
The basic evidence for panspychism is that it resolves a bunch of the problems other theories have. There is no empirical evidence for any theory of consciousness, there are only arguments for preferring ("liking") some paradigms over others. What kind of evidence do you think speaks in favour of alternatives panosychism?
@@lemonsys Look up orch-or and then go ahead and look up the recent paper on super-radiance.
He seems like an Amazing person.
🌏☮️🙏
As a Palestinian and humble lifelong student of physics, I deeply appreciate this man.
thank you, great comment
Long live Israel 🇮🇱 ❤
@@selfrealizedOf course, but I miss an argument in your brilliant comment😂
Science, art and common sense can unite us. Salam & Shalom.
@@Thomas-gk42 the argument is being provided in Gaza by Israel 😂😂
We are listening to a man who is miles ahead of so many.
So thoughtful and humble too.
Yet, one who believes that your washing machine is conscious.
@@TheVeganVicar Science attempts to measure the immeasurable. 010
Miles ahead in unprovable fallacy and delusion
@@zeroonetime, in your own words, define “SCIENCE”. ☝️🤔☝️
What a brilliant mind! I immensely enjoyed his views. Bravo to the Institute of Art and Ideas for conducting this interview. Well done!
From beginning to end - while some of this was difficult to hear and accept - I am so grateful to have heard what this man has to say.
Wonderful interview! Thank you for this. This man is brilliant. Many unknowns but still interesting. The hard problem of consciousness is so interesting. I loved his strong comments on Israel and the environment. This man is a treasure
Do you like this man? I like this man.
No, not particularly.
Yes, very much so!
Yes
This man 2024!
I like him in the way that I like my frail, dementia ridden grandfather.
What he said at the end about Israel hit deep.
@@dylanmaher1644 He’s a major genocide supporter
@@dylanmaher1644
Big-time genocide cheerleader .
"...string theories proved us that there will be a therory of everything and so far they are theories of nothing." -- Wonderful😅
The absurd will accept duality without the paradox💀
What a great and wise man he is. We do need more people like him in our world.
I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).
Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds.
Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Clarifications
The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.
Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
Conclusions
My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
Marco Biagini
Excellent thank you
Bullshit. TLDR: Everything is subjective. Current physics/neuroscience can't explain consciousness therefore Consciousness is immaterial and the colloquial "soul".
You do not need brain to have consciousness. A lot of new computers with memory CPUs GPUs TPUs have consciousness, they can select from complex set of problems we have one, THis problem can be solved by consciousness but this is not related to our brain or to som indivisible element you mentioned. Consciousness is a property of a system, and it is not important, if system is from divisible or indivisible components. THis is property of some / for us / complex systems. But system, that is conscious about environment, does not need to be complex. Very simple systems can measure light 3900 - 7200 A, temperature, humidity, and can make decisions with respect to code === programs === subroutines, that are executed, if conditions are met. SO a much ado about nothing. Reaction to environment is what we want. Because it is needed for the system to survive in this environment.
@@marcobiagini1878 TLDR: Everything that is, is subjective. Science can't account for consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is immaterial and pretty much the "soul".
TLDR: Everything that is, is subjective. Science can't account for consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is immaterial and pretty much the "soul".
A great and wise man in all things, in science and in the human endeavour. Listen to him, please!
What a clear mind, scientifically and ethically - very grateful this kind of integrity still exists
What is his metaethical position?
I don't know. He seems to have a clear but also compassionate view of humanity, and the damage we are doing to the earth and the suffering we are causing each other. Perhaps he has avoided the weeds of metaethics - but I expect he would have interesting things to say here too
@@lemonsys, what is YOUR meta-ethical stance?
That's a big conversation lol - if I ever finish my dissertation I can send it to you
One of the least ethical people you will ever find.
What a courageous man ! Reminds me a bit of Eckhart Tolle . He seems to know a lot of psychology and philosophy. He has interesting revolutionary ideas which I like.
First time I hear he’s speak, I haven’t heard of him of him before this interview. Need to read his books and dig deeper into his ideas.
This man is a genuine Jew, a light to the nations, which means all of us, and I speak as a Christian clergyman. When he was asked about Gaza, I was suddenly worried that he"d say something that would make me think less of him. Shame on me. I will enjoy becoming more acquainted with his work.
Well said
He said the children of Gaza will be targeted for generations for daring to resist Israel's campaign of ethnic cleansing. That's what he said.
Did he? Why not try a direct quote, your paraphrase seems deeply confused lol
@@lemonsys He posted this (lie-filled) comment on X: *In October 2023, the Jewish people has endured its worst calamity since the Holocaust. Sordid rubble has invaded Israel, massacred civilians with their elderly, children and babies, raped, looted, tortured and kidnapped everyone and everything they could put their filthy hands on. For these crimes, decades will pass and still every Palestinian baby will come to the world with an inborn mark of Kain on their forehead. Israel had the right and duty to retaliate, which it did and is still doing.*
@@lemonsys"In October 2023, the Jewish people has endured its worst calamity since the Holocaust. Sordid rubble has invaded Israel, massacred civilians with their elderly, children and babies, raped, looted, tortured and kidnapped everyone and everything they could put their filthy hands on. For these crimes, decades will pass and still every Palestinian baby will come to the world with an inborn mark of Kain on their forehead. Israel had the right and duty to retaliate, which it did and is still doing."
This is wonderful, thoughtful, and thought provoking discussion that shows the continued links between philosophy of mind and contemporary physics on the baffling problem of consciousness. What matters here is the exploration of the ideas at issue, the openness to continued deliberation and even refutation. It’s marvelous to listen to a physicist of his stature taking these questions seriously and to be making a substantial contribution to the ongoing debate with his views on interactive dualism (he being a confessed reluctant dualist on the mind-body problem) and the possibility of pansychism seemingly supported by quantum physics. Bravo to the two interlocutors here 👏👏👏👏
The gentleman may be responding to a similar energy by other physicists, but I'd recommend not being too arrogant. A revolution in physics may be coming, but it might not be the one you expect, firstly. And secondly with all due genuine appreciation and respect, it is neither kind, nor in my opinion wise, to comment on other people's intellects. It's human, and frustration can settle in sometimes. But I recommend letting the frustration wash through you, and focusing on the substance. Math, and evidence. Everyone has to not know before they know. Teach! And learn! Be kind. Much love ❤
Wise. Explanation- I felt compelled to comment 🤷🏼😉❤
Congratulation to the interviewer because he knew what questions to be asked
Great interview. I enjoyed his reluctant duelist paper years ago.
Any valid model with explanatory strength, especially in the absence of other such models, deserves to be examined credibly.
Woah! I am delighted to hear such a brilliant and humble physicist.
Conscience is every cells, particules, anything that exists.
The cardiologist Dr Pim Ban Lommel talks about the consciousness that exists outside the brain.
Woah! I am delighted to hear such a brilliant and humble physicist who believes that philosophy with his analysis. Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist, a psychotherapist, and a psychologist who combined philosophy in his work.
I believe that Consciousness is in every single cell, molecule, in other words, in everything.
The cardiologist Dr Pim Van Lommel talks about the consciousness that exists outside the brain..
The brain acts like a receptor.
Very thought provoking. I've often thought the expansion of the Universe was our fault. How many times have you heard, "I don't have enough room. I need more Space." And the Universe is providing.
Such and honor to share a planet and live in the same time as Avshalom Elitzur
If consciousness exists in even the most basic particles, it raises profound questions about how quantum processes, like superposition and entanglement, might influence our experience of awareness. Could quantum mechanics be the key to unlocking deeper insights into the nature of consciousness and its role throughout the universe? How might understanding these quantum connections reshape our understanding of consciousness itself, and what implications could this have for fields like neuroscience or even artificial intelligence?
Well, since you asked:
1) Could quantum mechanics be the key to unlocking deeper insights into the nature of consciousness and its role throughout the universe?
Yes - super radiance and delayed radiance is theorized to be a quantum process in the brain, namely microtubules, and could play a role in our conscious experience.
2) How might understanding these quantum connections reshape our understanding of consciousness itself, and what implications could this have for fields like neuroscience or even artificial intelligence?
Dr. Stuart Hameroff, who helped develop the theory of orch-or with Nobel Prize Winner Roger Penrose, have proposed links to the effects of anesthesia and other biological processes. In regards to artificial intelligence, it also helps to explain that the brain is NOT a computation, and is instead utilizing quantum processes.
What a beautiful Mensch!
There are so many interesting points to discuss from the perspective of relational definitions of physics, and i have to sleep, but these issues are merely the basics of the philosophical discussion of what physics is and how our human concepts relate to it. You can have an essentially eternal discussion of possible content and how it looks and fits into this view, andbmost of it is interesting, so here is to progress and never running out of interesting content to explore.
Einstein said the most incomprehensible fact about nature is the fact that nature it self is comprehensible. Consciousness is difficult to explain.
He makes a good point, the community assumes particles just move around randomly. Maybe it's not random. Maybe they move with a motivation and a goal. And maybe has options and outcomes decided by the particle decisions?
Advaita Vedanta, watch Swamij from New York. He speaks about the hard problem of consciousness. It's great these scientist are waking up, 🙏
I am am Arab Muslim Iraqi scientist who practices a very low profile. You have no idea how your dream to achieve a personal endeavor will unfold, we will meet and you will witness an unbelievable and unexplainable synchronization between us,,I have never met you and this is the first time I see you and hear you talking,,but I love you immensely and unconditionally, as I do my children,,truly,,I ask one thing of you,,remember my name Amar ,,until we meet,,Shalom
@@Amar-bl5no sience and art can unite us. Salam.
@@מיריפרוימוביץ-ש3ע true,,unfortunately religion was not meant to divide us..we will succeed in unification of the soul and mind for the sake of man kind
🕊️🙏
Amazing interview - fantastic questions and answers filled with deep and beautiful truths. Wonderful content.
If it's hard to explain how a human being is consciousness, how much harder will it be to explain how an atom or electron achieves it?
How about protons and neutrons? Can consciousness explain their ground state quantum vortex nature?
The fine tuning problem may be due to fundamental particles being controlled by some higher conciousness.
What is innate is in no way 'achieved'. Does 'will' require awareness of purpose?
This is what a real physicist is
I still don’t understand why the materialist position can be considered ridiculous. It seems perfectly likely that a sufficiently complex system can build a theory of self, and a notion of self-awareness.
Why? Because humans are an arrogant anthropocentric species, that thinks, there needs to be something special or magic in their existence. What if c. is an emergent property of complex sytems like the human brain? Is it less valuable then? I personally don´t think so. Anyhow, I like this man.
I don't consider matieralism ridiculous, but the caveat is that we don't know what matter actually is. In fact, the whole point of this version of panpsychism, if I understand it correctly, is to preserve materialism. We're not special, we're made of the same matter as everything else, so whatever enables subjective experience must be present in all matter.
The fundamental problem is that current science can only describe phenomena that can be observed externally, but not subjective experience. There's no language to describe what anything "feels like". This is where the intuition that we're missing something fundamental comes from.
@@hvglaser it can build but even to suggest this” seeming notion “ requires conscious activity , seems consciousness is fundamental
@@sakshamkhanna4682 No it´s not, it´s an emergent property of the brain (or any other komplex system)
@@Thomas-gk42 what is attributing what property it could be , a fact is a memory but notion of thinking involves consciousness itself ? If we go by pure reason nothing can emerge without consciousness, there is no possibility of notion right without it whatever it may be ?
Interesting interview, thank you :).
The point of saying so is that backward causation is the same as forward, or mixed versions. Because its always the case that if you suppose only forward or backwards evolution happens, and you suppose that is physically meaningful, then i say the exact same relations that defines all the content of the physics unfolds in the opposite direction, your experience of that universe unfolding backwards would be identical from our point of view, in the same way that if you flipped space and its content along a single direction, it would exchange left and right, byt there would be no way to tell from the inside sonce the exact same set of relationships hold true, and there would not even in principle be possible to tell, in either the space being flipped or time, only changes in relations could lead to a different causal object. This is why the direction of time, or the shape of space can only ever be objective in the real relations in its causality, that is relations that if changed would mean a different analog computation is run as it so to speak.
I´m not a fan of panpsychism and I disagree about his idea that consciousness needs more expalnations than it is to say it´s an emergent property of the brain (NOT an illusion of course). But anyway this man is a beautiful mind and this is an epic talk. His view on QM and retrocausality sounds like superdeterminism, similar to the claims of Sabine Hossenfelder, that I figure very exciting.
Maybe… Life is a miracle.
When I was confronted with the definition of life and conscious agents, I was forced to consider that particles organized in certain ways can reproduce themselves and have goal oriented action.
Science attempts to measure the immeasurable. 010
Consciousness is thought in a field of awareness. This is only realized via the total absence of thought, the psychological phenomenon, consciousness.
When considering both the correlations in states of hyperplanes along time, and backwards causation at the same time, the backwards ir forwards causation destinction is one that can only be different in terms of the form of correlations, the definition of backwards or forwards time prppagation of signals with causal influence is just a convention of language. Only something like the difference between a growing population going forward and shrinking going backwards could actually distinguish forward or backwards causation, each point in time being a function of both the past and the future is a feature of determinism, whether it's the deterministic evolution of a distribution of properties or a more ordinary deterministic evolution is also kind of a convention of language. Its always the character of the correlation in any direction that is physical in a sense. Whether time reversal symmetry is realized trivially or not.
This man is So Refreshing
"physics [is] actually branches of philosophy but are unique in that nature herself is part of the debate"
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. "This effectiveness is a gift that we don't understand and neither deserve."
To Peace and building understanding.
Subjectivity and it's counter part, objectivity, is a hallucination. In reality, there is no subject/object, dualistic reality. Consciousness/the experience that "I am" is a mirage.
I like this man too
I have a question, does time speed up as we get older or is it just the perception? Or is time just perception, when asked about time I feel today is different from yesterday because everything in the universe is in a different place every single moment, in relation to everything else. Movement creates time. Being physically in a different place at every single moment in time. As soon as their is a conscience and you decide you want to start to move the perspective of time appears. Just creation itself has to be moving in time, everything physical has a beginning and an end. And do we really create, did God really create. How would a God create something from nothing? Or were there certain elements that existed before God? Or is God like a musician, just arranging different elements to create everything that we see.
@@timothylarson4587 Wow,
Timothy; I really liked your statement here. I experience time as moving at different rates, which I have never studied or correlated with the physical world. I am very open to the subject, and just wanted to thank you for articulating it here. Why don’t we understand it better?
@@Bizguy1217 2 most important things we don't understand, gravity, and time.
Very sensible talk
This is so interesting. What a beautiful and deep discussion. Thank you for this video.
Students shared "i" AM will say, Lord many of our own do not know? Why say students? Lord as ye know? Thy students once Who am I in front of thee? Yes, given ABLE to pull down strong holds from all world views. Now who are You students? Lord thy shared "i" AM. From here! Gratitude and Honor students! Go share as HE shared unto thee!
He just called Zizek a charlatan. He's my hero now.
That charlatan wasted years of my life. I don't wish him well.
@@danielberkowitz3524 can you please elaborate? As a fan of Zizek, I would like to hear some arguments against his views? Why is he a charlatan?
@@danielmiklos9759 I'm a fan of Zizek as well, and I think he himself would admit, especially when he talks about science, that he is a bit of a Charlatan. You are always going to appear as a Charlatan when you go against liberalism as deep as Zizek does. I will say though, I do think when he talks about psychoanalysis, he is a full blown Charlatan. That is because I believe the whole field of psychoanalysis is bunk. I think it obscures Hegel's dialectical methods instead of substantiating it.
@@danielmiklos9759 he talks about quantum physics and other specialized topics without any proper knowledge and most of the time when he does, he does it in a comedic Lacanian point of view which has nothing to do with the observable world.
@@SeanAnthony-j7f he's not a physicist and doesn't claim to be. A charlatan is someone pretending to be something he isn't. He's a thinker and approaches such specialized topics from a philosophical point of view. I thought this is a given... Just watch his discussions with Sean Carroll or Lee Smolin. Quantum physics, for example, has a lot of touching points with philosophy. He doesn't do equations, he discusses concepts on an epistemological level. He can be wrong, but he's definitely not a charlatan.
Anyone knows the model of the chair where prof Elitzur is sat on ?
This guy makes me feel stupid so I don’t trust him. However words he said in my mind has really improved my tai chi. My body mind likes him. He threw a pebble in my body and mind that will ripple for a long time. Thank you brother.
"Care"...it is existential...if you are conscious you cannot exist without the existential love that made existance yours and any helpless being possible....
THERE'S SPACE WHICH IS INFINITE (THERE CAN'T BE TWO INFINITIES ) AND EVERYTHING (THE WHOLE COSMOS) EXISTS WITHIN IT AND THEREFORE EVERYTHING INTERACTS WITH EVERYTHING SIMULTANEOUSLY WHETHER WE OBSERVE IT OR NOT : WHAT CONNECTS ALL TOGETHER IS THE FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF ! WE ARE IN A CLOSED SPHERE AND CAN EXPLORE THE INSIDE ONLY ,TO OBSERVE WHAT COULD BE OUTSIDE THE SPHERE ,WE SHALL HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE BUBBLE (THAT IS THIS SPHERE WE EXIST IN) !
Time is a form of energy, which has mass made up of a conglomerate of particles that form a consciousness.
Great interview
Consciousness is not an illness nor an illusion. But, like my friend here & now, it sounds Good.
Not an illusion, but an emergent property of the human brain. That doesn´t make it less valuable and we don´t need panpsychism to expain it. Anyhow this man is a great personality, and his insights on quantum mechanics are quite interesting.
Great man!
I'd like to see a discussion between a panpsychist and a superdeterminist about how their scientific theories justify political beliefs about protecting natural environments, geological features, species & habitats.
Science attempts to measure the immeasurable. 010
Superdeterminism and panpsychism are not connected though. SD is a physical-mathematical appeoach to solve the measurement problem in QM, while PP is a faith you can follow if you like. Two very different things. But when he talked about retrocausality, my first thought also was: Wow, that´s what Sabine Hossenfelder says about superdeterminsm.
@@Thomas-gk42 Are you suggesting there are no justifications for any concern about the environment or species extinction in a superdeterminist paradigm? I doubt that's something people will readily accept.
@@ErinMagner82A clear NO, madam. superdeterministic/retrocausal theories are about quantum mechanics. They make no claims about macroscopic objects, where we don´t observe quantum effects. This is just a kinda propaganda against people who research beyond the mainstream of physics. Indeed, Hossenfelder, who is normally named as the leading "superdeterminst", is very worried about our environment and surely doesn´t justify our crimes against nature and the livelihoods of our planet with deterministic ´arguments´.
@@ErinMagner82 Well m´am, superdeterminism/retrocausality is about quantum mechanics, not about macroscopic objects, where we don´t observe quantum effects. This is just propaganda of the physics establishment against scientists who research beyond the mainstream.
Indeed, Hossenfelder, who is currently known as the leading "superdeterminist" (though some other physicists work on it) is very worried about the environment and surely doesn´t justify the crimes, that we do to our planet and nature with ´deterministic arguments` (whatever that should be).
Ill have a deep look at the interaction is dualism concepts, sounds interesting.
My father always used to say, that philosophy gives hypothesis and questions to science to deal with. To me it has always been ridiculous to divide philosophical reflection from science.
I am sorry to learn that your Dad was an idiot and I hope so are you. ;-)
That looks like a very comfortable chair
I was thinking the same thing! I was thinking "yes, he's smart, but how is nobody mentioning that chair!?!?" 🤣
lol; I had to go back and take a look. Yes, very comfortable, and outdoors on the porch!
Elitzur has extreme knowledge in philosophy and psychanalisys. No surprise, he can converge beautifully different disciplines into integrative thought.
I just wish he was more optimistic and have more faith in the israelis and palestiniens who would also reach for peace and not destruction.
The brain as a product of higher universal intelligence of which the universal unifying field is the same field that combines all functions of the brain, we are part of nature, not separate from nature. Consciousness, like truth is an unfolding process of nature that operates through mankind.
Excellent!!!!!Thanks!!!
Science attempts to measure the immeasurable. 010
10:22 could explain why prayer “works”
One cannot have Time without the presence of Physical Mass. If Mass is not here, there, or anywhere, you can't calculare Time!!!!
This is an invitation to see a theory where light is both a wave and a particle, with a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π, future continuously unfolding in relation to the electron probability cloud of atoms and the wavelength of light. In this theory, the wave-particle duality of light and matter (electrons) creates a blank canvas that we (atoms) can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This interaction is represented by a constant of action in space and time, mathematically denoted as the Planck constant h/2π. This concept is supported by the fact that light photon energy ∆E=hf is continuous exchange into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons.
Why not see light as just a wave? Its only particle-like property is that when it interacts with matter, for example when it's absorbed by an electron, the interaction event occurs at a small region of spacetime, as if the entire quantum of light energy jumped to that small region from its widespread distribution a moment prior to the event.
That "spooky" jump violates the Strong Locality axiom: "Nothing can be influenced by anything outside its past lightcone." But Bell's Theorem and the experimental verification that nature violates Bell's Inequality have undermined confidence in Strong Locality. Since space & time aren't well-understood, I think physicists should never have been confident about Strong Locality.
Einstein himself, one of the great champions of Strong Locality, co-authored (with Rosen) the 1935 ER paper that showed that wormholes are compatible with General Relativity. So it's surprising to me that that result didn't undermine his confidence in Strong Locality. A weaker locality axiom that makes an exception for wormholes wouldn't be violated by the jump of the light wave's energy, if the wave is somehow self-connected across space by a wormhole.
@@brothermine2292 We can have wave over a period of time with particle characteristics as light is absorbed and emitted. When this happens our 3D world changes as part of a probabilistic future!
>Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time : It's unclear whether it's fundamentally probabilistic or deterministic. The various interpretations of QM claim one or the other, but the empirical evidence is inconclusive, and those claims venture beyond empirical 5-sigma confidence into the realm of metaphysical speculation. The probabilities in the Born rule might just be due to incomplete knowledge about the state of the system, which isn't the same as fundamental randomness.
< 8:40 At least this gentleman acknowledges the problem, even if he can't accurately describe it.
8:44 "Time" Time is far from being well described. It is possible that there are more than one concepts of "time" at play.
~11:48 We may have an abstract concept of past and future but I am doubtful causation can actually move backward. For me there is nothing but an almost infinitely small "Now" moment. These other concepts of past are just an illusion of photons and mind. Information is emergent and more like a shadow on the wall rather than a real event. For me this concept of time is emergent.
Continued from above
David hawkins did map out conciousness right
Could the material matter of the universe have come from a universe that was next to us along the "quantum foam bubbles"? Like all universes have different "settings", pop in and out, expand forever, what have you.
So our universe starts, its mostly just an empty fabric space time. Other universe started alongside, but it created denser matter-like stuff. Then, the bubbles merge, like bubbles do. All that material stuff shoves itself into the fabric spacetime, which is already huge. That's the big bang. The "observable universe" is expanding, but it's the fabric of spacetime that matter showed up into thats continuing to expand, bringing us along with it. Dark matter is the obtuse observation that the fabric of space-time is continuing to do what it was doing all along, this entire time before "matter" ever happened.
IDK...
I have a lot I want to ask or propose, but it's too much for me to type coherently right now. .. so I'll stop. Probably just dumb.
Backwards causation. Time flows from the present to the past.
Cam someone explain his disdain for Zizek?
Indeed
What is his gripe with zizek?
4:45 “Ridiculous.” Love it. And I’m in love with him.🤭💙🌷🌱
I find so much to agree with him on, not because he’s great physicist,but because I learn from him and, philosophically, I agree w it’s so much that he is saying - including about Yisrael. . . (We are so far from Moshe Dayan, Ben Gurion, and Gilda Meir. Israel should be ashamed.)
( Sorry, for ranting, but they bombed Beirut ! Beirut! for crying out loud!!!! I am speechless, dumbfounded, totally ashamed and angry.
And then we have one of the most despicable men in history supported by almost half the voters in amurica - probably mostly on the left side of the Bell Curve. Okay, done.)
And Thank You So Much for interviewing him and posting to YT. I am so ecstatic to be introduced to him 💙🌱🌷
He is a Human Genius.
Ne zna odakle dolazi svijest?
Nevjerovatno!
Kako može to ne znati?
Pa svatko zna da svijest izaziva defibrilator na Hitnoj.
Good man.
That’s incredible! Let’s connect?
Can conscious explain why ground state nucleons can maintain themselves as quantum vortices?
What if the only consciousness of matter is from non locality and quantum entanglement? It is our consciousness that is nonlocal. It's everywhere.
No, it isn't. Your body heat is, though, but that's less intelligent than a burning log. ;-)
Can we agree the best physicist, best neurologist will tell you the truth, we don’t actually know the entire picture of our physical world or consciousness, or with a neurologist our brain? The ones who talk and teach from the book only are not our future.
He's even got the inicials, holy macaroni
In a sense "we" are the theory of everything
Shared "i" AM come forth! Now thy name nor names can exist in front! Yes, now can uttered!
The sentience of matter is a given in metaphysics.
Mr Elitzur asks some very intelligent questions, but as a scientist he approaches consciousness from the outside (using his consciousness). I don´t think his idea that consciousness rises from the brain like a genie from a bottle really holds water.
If he quested further afield he might come across an idea that consciousness is explored from the inside, and learn the following ...
Consciousness comprises everything, it is fundamental. It facilitates the transformation of energy into matter.
Consciousness, energy and matter are expressions of the same thing.
Since matter is derived from consciousness it is sentient -- it could not be otherwise.
If Mr Elitzur were to heed Tesla´s advice to study the non--physical rather than the material world, he would be rewarded.
And he'd probably lose his job.
@20:27 Did anyone else catch him throwing some shade at Zizek? Who will be his next victim - Deepak Chopra? 😂
Try to calculate TIME without the presence of MASS, MATTER. If you can't, you will know that TIME = MASS, or MASS = TIME etc....think about that!!!!
Atma 🙏
Yes
All of time happens all the time, all of the time...
Yes, that´s what special realtivity predicts.
YOur brain can go back in time and interfere with your younger brain. When you have 50, you send copy of your brain to the future. WHen you have 30 you also send copy of your brain to the same space. At this space somebody restores you 50 and your 30 y. brain, and your 50 and 30 y. brain can interact in some place in some time. This place and time is different from your previos space/time where you lived before sending copies of your brain.
Fish eat fish, birds eat birds, and humans eat…(the conscience are the bane of pattern recognition.)
It is hubris to say we have failed. The universe has thrown much nastier things at Earth, than Man. There is still time.
He didn't say we failed. He said our generation failed and he hopes the next one will do better. That's not hubris in the least.
Great
How can he say violence is justified especially for someone in his position. Moreover i just read a warning to be civil while they allow someone to literally advocate such actions. And no i didnt take him out of context. Obviously we need to find a way to make our world better but doing awful stuff is abominable way to go about it. And won't work as the universe is benevolent.
All knowledge is so when it comes from the appropriate instrument of knowledge. Like information about things far away that's unavailable to the plain eyes can be got using a binoculars, telescope etc. Microscope is NOT for viewing far off things. Same way all such instruments of knowledge are useful ONLY for the material world.
Once one clearly acknowledges this TRUTH - then he just have to use the ONLY instrument of knowledge for CONSCIOUSNESS which is the 'UPANISHADS'. There are several methods to understand what CONSCIOUSNESS is. One is the 'Seer-Seen' method. It's Consciousness that illuminates everything including the 'I' thought. It's the SUBJECT which is NEVER an object. Hence scientific methods can reveal ONLY the objects and NEVER the subject the CONSCIOUSNESS. Thus CONSCIOUSNESS can ONLY be claimed as - ' I am the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Humanity will continue to prosper by learning how to control nature, not by bowing down to it.
Deindustrialization is not a reasonable option. Violent revolition never turns out well. It is far better to peacefully negotiate.
80-100 years if luckily can live that long come here in front and remind!