Dogs remember their owners even after not seeing them for years. I also seen a chimpanzee that was old and dying being visited by a favorite caretakers of hers that she hadn’t seen in a decade. She did remember him and hugged him and was so appreciative of his visit. Made me cry actually ❤️🌎✌🏼
I love your comment. I felt the same way when I saw that reunion. I thought of how important it was to value that pure love that is so hard or keep it pure to find among us.
Great show ! Thanks both. I google that guy, and apparently he won half a million dollars in the millionaire contest in 2006. That means he is very knowledgable overall. One of the new neuroscientists that makes sense and actually has read more than his own field of expertise.
I just finished the book today. This is an excellent read. I am going to need to read it again before saying that I'm 100% convinced, but it is very convincing.
Here's my little opinion. We must remember that anything we hear or read comes from the imaginative mind of another human being. It's easy to get emotionally caught up in what someone says or writes, because our own minds work through emotion and imagination. Combined, our emotions and our imagination, along with the ability to communicate these things to other humans, is what we intuitively feel to be our "intellect". It's fun to listed to others, and to let our imaginations follow along with them, as long as it's something we do not disagree with.
This work just scratches the surface. Fundamental ontology as it applies to Dasein is far more sophisticated and more thoroughly explains the ontology of mind.
We're aware internally because of the process of internalizing symbolic communication. Language isn't learned from the inside out, we teach it to ourselves from the outside in.
Molecule minds exist to react to stimuli, neuron minds exist to identify things, module minds exist to find relationships among things, our minds exist to find relationships among minds. Conside that the advantages of identifying things only matter if those things resemble each other. Thus the neuron was only needed to identify other living things, so could only evolve after the first living things. Only once minds began identifying things was it an advantage to recognize how other minds responded to identifying things. Each layer of mind requires an awareness of the other, lower level of mind. The promise (and threat) of AI is it will supervene the human mind.
Great Episode! Would love it if Michael would host a debate around this topic with Ogi Ogas and a another scientist with an opposing view of our subjective experience ⚖️
I'm quite surprised by the simulation impossibility argument, i.e. Computer Science works with ones and zeroes, therefore it cannot represent anything which does not fit neatly into a one or a zero, or something that changes in response to stimuli. Since he gave an analogy with the hurricane, his argument would extend to the impossibility, in principle, to model a hurricane. Sure, the equations that describe the behavior of the constituents give rise to a chaotic system very sensitive to initial conditions and precision. But that does not amount to impossibility, simply to practicality. And the fact that we can predict the path of a hurricane for several days in advance while only having an almost infinitesimal amount of information about the state of the constituents demands a more serious consideration. And I'm not sure anyone would argue that we cannot model hurricanes in principle. Of course, it's arguable whether the model of a hurricane running on a computer is a hurricane, but that is at best arguable - not settled. And even if it's not, it can certainly help us understand hurricanes better. Also, the simulation hypothesis is not about simulating minds, but simulating a Universe where minds can evolve. So it doesn't matter how minds work as long as they obey laws that can be simulated. I also think that is too far fetched but Ogas's principled argument against it is not convincing. Maybe it's more elaborate in his book. But I'll wait for the soft cover version.
Yeah, his argument against the simulation is stupid. He's assuming the stimulation is being run on a digital computer. That's not necessarily the case. The simulation could be run on an analogue system, or even a biological system (like a brain), which would be totally compatible with his math.
His claim referencing Shakespeare seems incredibly narrow and eurocentric, but I think the point Shermer misses is that language itself is the proposed catalyst in the formation of individuality AS WE KNOW IT today. But to make this point valid, the first should probably defer to continuously indigenous communities and their oral traditions.
Doesn't the Hellen Keller thing totally disprove his idea that without language there is no "inner life"? If Helen Keller can remember how it felt like when she first understood that a sign symbolized water (language, a word), then that must mean she had a "inner life" at that point.
@@PartlySunny74 they do not understand language at that point. Knowing that making certain sounds with your mouth produces certain results is not the same as understanding language. We have taught apes to know hundreds of words, doesnt mean they understand language. "On average, they say their first words between 7-12 months of age and are constructing coherent sentences by 2-3 years of age." I wouldnt say you understand language until you understand that you can combine words to form sentences. Also, why would knowing that different sounds correlates to objects in the world make you have a inner life? Makes no sense and it isnt what he is arguing. He is arguing that a more complex understanding of language is needed. That you need to understand more abstract things linguisticly, not just that Papa = the person who is around you and makes you happy.
My brother is on the spectrum and started speaking late. He says he remembers the moment he first became self-aware. I've always wondered if he really remembers this or if it's a false memory.
Way before Shakespeare mystics of the East understood the concept of inner life. I'm sure Christian and Jewish mystics (psychonauts) had similar concepts. The concept of quality is at the root of the hard problem. When I was a child I asked myself how do I know the experience I call red is identical with that of others. So long as we always experience the same for say red we will call it red and can communicate even though we experience totally different experiences.
Agreed… Interesting ideas explored here, but his Shakespeare claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We don’t have to look any further than the book of Psalms for the rich inner life of an ancient Hebrew “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me?…” (Ps 42)
I don't have the scientist who reported the phenomenon of life after death, but he was a firm disbeliever until he researched it himself. How would Ogi explain this: One night, an English woman from England who was living in Australia awoke from a dream she was having in the middle of the night. At the foot of her bed, she saw her son dripping wet, saying to her, "Don't worry mum, I'm alright". Then he was gone. She went back to sleep and when she got up in the morning she called over to England. "Her shocked relative told her that her son had drowned and it was exactly at the time that she had been woken up. Other things were reported by people. When someone is dying, many times just before they die, deceased relatives will come into the room and sit on the side of the bed of the person. Why do they sit on the bed? Because it's much more comforting when someone sits on the side of the bed. If when we die our souls go into a collective consciousness, there are certainly a lot of things that don't add up. Personally, I don't know what is right, but death does not seem to be the disappearance of what we were on earth.
The hard problem of consciousness is not so much about accounting for self-reflection or "sense of the self." It is more so about accounting for there being a what-it's-like-to-be me (a first-person lived experience) or even a what-it's-like-to-be a bat. (Any purely physicalist account of the bat, as philosophers who lay out the hard problem explain, seems to leave out, seems to fail to capture, the what-it-is-like-to-be that bat--a what's it's like, so to say, from the inside.) I say "even" because, despite what Ogi suggested about 3/4 into the interview, ANY first-person lived experience--whether that of a human or nonhuman--is what is at issue in the so-called "hard problem of consciousness." Also, neither complexity nor nonphysicalism is incompatible with determinism (despite what was assumed at the end of the discussion). Also also, rejecters of free will do not see free will as a matter of "degrees of freedom." All sides of the debate--yes, even free will deniers--agree that a typical adult human has more freedom to dodge a rock than a tree does. For this reason it is highly suspect, to say the least, that the response given at the end of the interview to those who reject free will is something like: I can increase my flexibility by training in yoga, or I have more degrees of motion than a tree. There is talking past each other at best (and straw manning at worst).
I agree. I think he completely misunderstood the determinist arguments. Statements such as 'free will is *limited*' are oxymoronic. If you think about the will like a leash, and what you are capable of doing depends on how much length of the leash you have isn't germane to the question of whether or not you're on a leash at all to begin with. If you have to admit 'yes we are on a leash', then we're not free. End of. Imagine the absolute inanity of a statement like "This burrito is free but it costs 39 cents."
That’s the definition of the hard problem, self awareness. Are you saying it’s being aware of anything? The term “be aware” is a reflexive term. To passively feel sensations is not consciousness
@@chemquests the "hard" problems (for all it's problems) is better described like, why must it be "something like" to be a mind. We can imagine a machine being aware of many of internal States (ie being self aware), in the loopy way that he suggests, and yet we would not necessarily conclude that it is conscious... Well, that what ppl who believe in qualia like to think. So, no, I don't think self awareness quite defines the hard problem
@@tophersonX I agree that’s how many conceive it, but they’ve created a paradox that doesn’t actually exist physically. I would accept that what you describe is conscious and the hard problem is solved by describing the physical process. I’m a fan of Dan Dennett and would use similar models to address Chalmers.
@@chemquests I also agree with most of your assessment. the hard problem has been called that because ppl think that in principle mechanism cannot solve it. I didagree and I worry that is an argument from ignorance. I think, however, much more mechanistic work and philosophical insight is required to really relive ourselves from the strong intuition that the "hard" problem is indeed hard (ie mysterious). I think his purposes loop is good, but at least to my ears, he didn't satisfy my itch of how such process (not a "thing") can give rise to the qualities of subjective experience (why it is something like to be those processes). Maybe his book develops further - but his mis characterization of the hard problem (as widely understood) makes me think he wants to shift the goalpost while not admitting he is (which is often fine, if you admit it).
@@tophersonX sure I’d love to see a mechanism as well. However I’m a materialist who takes it as foundational that the subjective experience could only be due to neuronal activity. In my mind the dualist has a burden of proof that something immaterial exists to do the job. An argument from ignorance would be to say I don’t believe dualism because I can’t imagine how it could be true. That’s not the argument from my view. It’s the lack of any evidence that “immaterial” exists, so I don’t think there’s any work to do to dismiss it (Hitchens razor).
Super cool science, compelling theory of Mind as Language. A dozen other science disciplines using this new outlook . AMAZING UNDERSTANDING ! ! I LOVED THIS BOOK.
@@adabsurdum3314 But certainly there are organizations that we would not identify as "mind" (as in the activity of a brain). A collection of people is a collection of many minds, not a new (higher?) form of mind, no? A company is not a mind. A country is not a mind. This seems to extend the meaning of "mind" unjustifiably.
Helen Keller vs. Wittgenstein "Privatsprachenproblem" (don't know the English word for that, "private language problem"?), so, Ogas is right. She had feelings and an inner life, but she couldn't be aware, that she had that, because she couldn't gave them a name that was confirmed by an outer structure.
John Eccles: “Just as the piano is the instrument of music for the pianist, the brain is the instrument of thought for the mind.” So the pianist is just what the piano does, an activity? Anything from chaos other than chaos would be like one of the six impossible things before breakfast, unless the Queen was right and Alice wrong. Consciousness, or any kind of order, couldn’t emerge from chaos any more than life from nonlife, personality from impersonality, rationality from irrationality, morality from unmorality, or joy from despair.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 Since your assertion of bald assertions is itself a bald assertion, it’s therefore self-refuting. For example, you didn’t state why Eccles’s claim is a bald assertion. He used a perfectly good analogy to demonstrate that the brain and mind aren’t the same thing
Language is not just words, it is also facial expressions and micro expressions. I have Asperger's Syndrome so I have trouble reading this subtle nonverbal language.
Free Will: Like Peter Bieri. Buuuuuut... after all the layers... there is still much much much determination. So, in a philosophical sense, this question has no worth. Free Will is just a construct with no sense. If I commited a crime, it's better to send me to a rehabilitation bootcamp than into jail. There is no need to decide, if I acted out of Free Will or out of determination.
Subjective experience is a different process than anything else. There is an 'I'. And even if animals had that consciousness, there would still be a hard problem. Language has a lot to do with stuff but not experience. You haven't solved it sir, now I must bid you a good day
I think it's possible chaos developed from thinking, as in too much information and too many choices. Primal man mostly thought about food and a safe place to sleep; repeat next day.
I commented on seeing you on Rogan I had one of your followers seems like that really upset him clearly this man is Disturbed 😳 I thought I was polite he must have woke up triggered anyway I enjoy the show Michael have a good day
No it's not. Consciousness requires brains. Only planet Earth is proven to have brains. The rest of universe could be empty of brains, therefore unconscious.
Good interview overall, but I think Ogas is skimming over a lot of things. I don't agree with his characterization of free will at all. If there's no self as an entity or state, because the self is a process, then 'you' don't choose what you do, the process does. The process is predicated on natural laws, just like everything else. If you have to say there's 'limitations' to free will, then it's not free. It is like being on a leash but the leash is long. There is no gradient of freedom there. Are you on the leash, or are you not on the leash? This is a black or white issue, because freedom as a concept is a black or white issue. For talking a lot about language, he seems to ignore that being only a little constrained is not in our definition of 'freedom'. We might have a sense of freedom, and that is true. It doesn't mean that we are. His dismissal of 'it's silly to think about' the stance that your thoughts are necessarily predicated on these processes thus determined, is not sufficient to argue that they are not determined. Even if we can imagine things that don't exist, that is predicated and draws on what we already know. A society that doesn't know what a horse is, couldn't produce a unicorn. So the more we know, the broader our range of thought, but that still is not free. His stance seems to be that free will exists because we think it does. We have a conception of free will, and what we think is reality. Then where's Santa Claus? He exists as a concept, people who know who Santa Claus is can envision him. He exists in the sense that he is a meme that gets passed between minds, but he is not a thing that actually exists even on a metaphysical level. It is the same with a will that is free. Wills exist, wills free from environment do not.
You can Visualize the image only because of language. How would you describe what you see without language? No language equals no sense of self. Young children have no sense of self until they learn language, calling them by their name 100 times a day etc. No language no Self! Free will is easy a product of your genetics and environment neither which you have control over. Change either and your will will change.
Agree. His conception about what free will is, is seriously lacking in a critical thought about it. He seems to have the idea that we think it, it becomes true. If you have to admit 'we're limited but we're free' that is the same as saying you are on a leash but there's a lot of leeway on the leash. It doesn't mean you're free, so don't call it free will. You have a will, but you didn't determine that will. So it isn't a free will. It was contingent on so many other factors.
Without proper physics- which began in 2002- this ‘ metaphysics ‘ remains unsubstantiated . “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. Start at start. QM classicalized in 2010: Forgotten Physics website. Max Stirner, “The Unique and Its Property”, 1844/2017 Landstreicher translation, covered this ground about ‘self’ more effectively, only 180 years ago! Shameless.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Dogs remember their owners even after not seeing them for years. I also seen a chimpanzee that was old and dying being visited by a favorite caretakers of hers that she hadn’t seen in a decade. She did remember him and hugged him and was so appreciative of his visit. Made me cry actually ❤️🌎✌🏼
I love your comment. I felt the same way when I saw that reunion. I thought of how important it was to value that pure love that is so hard or keep it pure to find among us.
I love how he has co-opted the term “mind” into a more useful concept.
Great show ! Thanks both. I google that guy, and apparently he won half a million dollars in the millionaire contest in 2006. That means he is very knowledgable overall. One of the new neuroscientists that makes sense and actually has read more than his own field of expertise.
I just finished the book today. This is an excellent read. I am going to need to read it again before saying that I'm 100% convinced, but it is very convincing.
Fascinating conversation. Mind opening.
Here's my little opinion. We must remember that anything we hear or read comes from the imaginative mind of another human being. It's easy to get emotionally caught up in what someone says or writes, because our own minds work through emotion and imagination. Combined, our emotions and our imagination, along with the ability to communicate these things to other humans, is what we intuitively feel to be our "intellect". It's fun to listed to others, and to let our imaginations follow along with them, as long as it's something we do not disagree with.
This work just scratches the surface. Fundamental ontology as it applies to Dasein is far more sophisticated and more thoroughly explains the ontology of mind.
This interview is a miracle.
Ogi seems to be little too sure of his own theories, raises my eyebrows.
We're aware internally because of the process of internalizing symbolic communication. Language isn't learned from the inside out, we teach it to ourselves from the outside in.
Molecule minds exist to react to stimuli, neuron minds exist to identify things, module minds exist to find relationships among things, our minds exist to find relationships among minds.
Conside that the advantages of identifying things only matter if those things resemble each other. Thus the neuron was only needed to identify other living things, so could only evolve after the first living things. Only once minds began identifying things was it an advantage to recognize how other minds responded to identifying things.
Each layer of mind requires an awareness of the other, lower level of mind. The promise (and threat) of AI is it will supervene the human mind.
Great Episode! Would love it if Michael would host a debate around this topic with Ogi Ogas and a another scientist with an opposing view of our subjective experience ⚖️
Every other author has opposing books. Try Dawn of Everything by Graeber &
Would be nice. No one will do it, no good opposition
@@judiderman7104 Wrong. There is outstanding opposition. Try Tom Campbell.
@@waynzwhirled6181 I would love to hear any statement from this book refuted.
Ogi is so great
I like the debate comment. I would love to see Ogi Ogas have an extended conversation with Robert Sapolsky or Sam Harris.
I'm quite surprised by the simulation impossibility argument, i.e. Computer Science works with ones and zeroes, therefore it cannot represent anything which does not fit neatly into a one or a zero, or something that changes in response to stimuli. Since he gave an analogy with the hurricane, his argument would extend to the impossibility, in principle, to model a hurricane. Sure, the equations that describe the behavior of the constituents give rise to a chaotic system very sensitive to initial conditions and precision. But that does not amount to impossibility, simply to practicality. And the fact that we can predict the path of a hurricane for several days in advance while only having an almost infinitesimal amount of information about the state of the constituents demands a more serious consideration. And I'm not sure anyone would argue that we cannot model hurricanes in principle. Of course, it's arguable whether the model of a hurricane running on a computer is a hurricane, but that is at best arguable - not settled. And even if it's not, it can certainly help us understand hurricanes better.
Also, the simulation hypothesis is not about simulating minds, but simulating a Universe where minds can evolve. So it doesn't matter how minds work as long as they obey laws that can be simulated. I also think that is too far fetched but Ogas's principled argument against it is not convincing. Maybe it's more elaborate in his book. But I'll wait for the soft cover version.
Yeah, his argument against the simulation is stupid. He's assuming the stimulation is being run on a digital computer. That's not necessarily the case. The simulation could be run on an analogue system, or even a biological system (like a brain), which would be totally compatible with his math.
Maybe the difference between us and animals is not just labeling but feelings we all have but emotions come with a story.
Our own existence is that fuzzy space between sleep & wake for another
His claim referencing Shakespeare seems incredibly narrow and eurocentric, but I think the point Shermer misses is that language itself is the proposed catalyst in the formation of individuality AS WE KNOW IT today. But to make this point valid, the first should probably defer to continuously indigenous communities and their oral traditions.
Doesn't the Hellen Keller thing totally disprove his idea that without language there is no "inner life"? If Helen Keller can remember how it felt like when she first understood that a sign symbolized water (language, a word), then that must mean she had a "inner life" at that point.
@@leewang4539 well, she went blind and deaf before she learned langauge.
@@PartlySunny74 they do not understand language at that point. Knowing that making certain sounds with your mouth produces certain results is not the same as understanding language. We have taught apes to know hundreds of words, doesnt mean they understand language.
"On average, they say their first words between 7-12 months of age and are constructing coherent sentences by 2-3 years of age."
I wouldnt say you understand language until you understand that you can combine words to form sentences.
Also, why would knowing that different sounds correlates to objects in the world make you have a inner life? Makes no sense and it isnt what he is arguing. He is arguing that a more complex understanding of language is needed. That you need to understand more abstract things linguisticly, not just that Papa = the person who is around you and makes you happy.
@@leewang4539 Good argument
@@leewang4539 well now you lost me, that argument was very weak.
My brother is on the spectrum and started speaking late. He says he remembers the moment he first became self-aware. I've always wondered if he really remembers this or if it's a false memory.
Way before Shakespeare mystics of the East understood the concept of inner life. I'm sure Christian and Jewish mystics (psychonauts) had similar concepts.
The concept of quality is at the root of the hard problem. When I was a child I asked myself how do I know the experience I call red is identical with that of others. So long as we always experience the same for say red we will call it red and can communicate even though we experience totally different experiences.
Agreed… Interesting ideas explored here, but his Shakespeare claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We don’t have to look any further than the book of Psalms for the rich inner life of an ancient Hebrew “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me?…” (Ps 42)
❤❤ Best podcast. 🎉🎉🎉 Waiting for the book in pakistan. 😍
I don't have the scientist who reported the phenomenon of life after death, but he was a firm disbeliever until he researched it himself. How would Ogi explain this: One night, an English woman from England who was living in Australia awoke from a dream she was having in the middle of the night. At the foot of her bed, she saw her son dripping wet, saying to her, "Don't worry mum, I'm alright". Then he was gone. She went back to sleep and when she got up in the morning she called over to England. "Her shocked relative told her that her son had drowned and it was exactly at the time that she had been woken up. Other things were reported by people. When someone is dying, many times just before they die, deceased relatives will come into the room and sit on the side of the bed of the person. Why do they sit on the bed? Because it's much more comforting when someone sits on the side of the bed. If when we die our souls go into a collective consciousness, there are certainly a lot of things that don't add up. Personally, I don't know what is right, but death does not seem to be the disappearance of what we were on earth.
This reminded me historical controversy over imageless thought.
The hard problem of consciousness is not so much about accounting for self-reflection or "sense of the self." It is more so about accounting for there being a what-it's-like-to-be me (a first-person lived experience) or even a what-it's-like-to-be a bat. (Any purely physicalist account of the bat, as philosophers who lay out the hard problem explain, seems to leave out, seems to fail to capture, the what-it-is-like-to-be that bat--a what's it's like, so to say, from the inside.) I say "even" because, despite what Ogi suggested about 3/4 into the interview, ANY first-person lived experience--whether that of a human or nonhuman--is what is at issue in the so-called "hard problem of consciousness."
Also, neither complexity nor nonphysicalism is incompatible with determinism (despite what was assumed at the end of the discussion).
Also also, rejecters of free will do not see free will as a matter of "degrees of freedom." All sides of the debate--yes, even free will deniers--agree that a typical adult human has more freedom to dodge a rock than a tree does. For this reason it is highly suspect, to say the least, that the response given at the end of the interview to those who reject free will is something like: I can increase my flexibility by training in yoga, or I have more degrees of motion than a tree. There is talking past each other at best (and straw manning at worst).
Exactly. He totally mischaracterized the hard problem. It's not about self-awareness.
Agreed. This is hard to even listen to. All the
mischaracterizations and misunderstandings.
I agree. I think he completely misunderstood the determinist arguments. Statements such as 'free will is *limited*' are oxymoronic. If you think about the will like a leash, and what you are capable of doing depends on how much length of the leash you have isn't germane to the question of whether or not you're on a leash at all to begin with. If you have to admit 'yes we are on a leash', then we're not free. End of.
Imagine the absolute inanity of a statement like "This burrito is free but it costs 39 cents."
How would you have an inner life without Language?
"how am I aware of me" is not what ppl think of when they refer to the " hard" problem (1:04:00).
That’s the definition of the hard problem, self awareness. Are you saying it’s being aware of anything? The term “be aware” is a reflexive term. To passively feel sensations is not consciousness
@@chemquests the "hard" problems (for all it's problems) is better described like, why must it be "something like" to be a mind. We can imagine a machine being aware of many of internal States (ie being self aware), in the loopy way that he suggests, and yet we would not necessarily conclude that it is conscious... Well, that what ppl who believe in qualia like to think. So, no, I don't think self awareness quite defines the hard problem
@@tophersonX I agree that’s how many conceive it, but they’ve created a paradox that doesn’t actually exist physically. I would accept that what you describe is conscious and the hard problem is solved by describing the physical process. I’m a fan of Dan Dennett and would use similar models to address Chalmers.
@@chemquests I also agree with most of your assessment. the hard problem has been called that because ppl think that in principle mechanism cannot solve it. I didagree and I worry that is an argument from ignorance. I think, however, much more mechanistic work and philosophical insight is required to really relive ourselves from the strong intuition that the "hard" problem is indeed hard (ie mysterious). I think his purposes loop is good, but at least to my ears, he didn't satisfy my itch of how such process (not a "thing") can give rise to the qualities of subjective experience (why it is something like to be those processes). Maybe his book develops further - but his mis characterization of the hard problem (as widely understood) makes me think he wants to shift the goalpost while not admitting he is (which is often fine, if you admit it).
@@tophersonX sure I’d love to see a mechanism as well. However I’m a materialist who takes it as foundational that the subjective experience could only be due to neuronal activity. In my mind the dualist has a burden of proof that something immaterial exists to do the job. An argument from ignorance would be to say I don’t believe dualism because I can’t imagine how it could be true. That’s not the argument from my view. It’s the lack of any evidence that “immaterial” exists, so I don’t think there’s any work to do to dismiss it (Hitchens razor).
How would you have an inner life without language?
Super cool science, compelling theory of Mind as Language.
A dozen other science disciplines using this new outlook . AMAZING UNDERSTANDING ! !
I LOVED THIS BOOK.
X
What is a feeling without language, without words?
I'm a bit disturbed that Ogas uses the word "mind" to describe all these different levels of organization. I haven't read his book. Am I alone?
Mind is simply the idea of greater organisation. Just as anything. In my understanding
@@adabsurdum3314 But certainly there are organizations that we would not identify as "mind" (as in the activity of a brain). A collection of people is a collection of many minds, not a new (higher?) form of mind, no? A company is not a mind. A country is not a mind. This seems to extend the meaning of "mind" unjustifiably.
Yeah he's out there, everything is a mind to him. Molecules have minds? He even talks about single celled lifeforms copulating. They don't. WTH?
@@BrianBattles Yes, my thoughts exactly.
@@jps0117 it just means levels of sophistication
He's using a broad definition
Hello Michael 😀
Helen Keller vs. Wittgenstein "Privatsprachenproblem" (don't know the English word for that, "private language problem"?), so, Ogas is right. She had feelings and an inner life, but she couldn't be aware, that she had that, because she couldn't gave them a name that was confirmed by an outer structure.
Hello from Denmark
John Eccles: “Just as the piano is the instrument of music for the pianist, the brain is the instrument of thought for the mind.” So the pianist is just what the piano does, an activity?
Anything from chaos other than chaos would be like one of the six impossible things before breakfast, unless the Queen was right and Alice wrong. Consciousness, or any kind of order, couldn’t emerge from chaos any more than life from nonlife, personality from impersonality, rationality from irrationality, morality from unmorality, or joy from despair.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 Since your assertion of bald assertions is itself a bald assertion, it’s therefore self-refuting. For example, you didn’t state why Eccles’s claim is a bald assertion. He used a perfectly good analogy to demonstrate that the brain and mind aren’t the same thing
@@dcouric Bald assertions; prove everything you said.
Language is not just words, it is also facial expressions and micro expressions. I have Asperger's Syndrome so I have trouble reading this subtle nonverbal language.
Free Will: Like Peter Bieri. Buuuuuut... after all the layers... there is still much much much determination. So, in a philosophical sense, this question has no worth. Free Will is just a construct with no sense.
If I commited a crime, it's better to send me to a rehabilitation bootcamp than into jail. There is no need to decide, if I acted out of Free Will or out of determination.
Subjective experience is a different process than anything else.
There is an 'I'.
And even if animals had that consciousness, there would still be a hard problem. Language has a lot to do with stuff but not experience. You haven't solved it sir, now I must bid you a good day
Well, that’s certainly a claim…
Exactly.
I think therefore I am.
Heard of it?
Maybe you're a ghost
I think it's possible chaos developed from thinking, as in too much information and too many choices. Primal man mostly thought about food and a safe place to sleep; repeat next day.
Reality is not something we should think is something we can ever fully appreciate
His hypothesis to me seems like chaos. But maybe I just could not understand his hypothesis of the mind and consciousness.
He certainly doesn’t define much in this conversation: it’s pretty fuzzy. Hopefully the book is better & more coherent.
What would Chomsky say?
This guy: Church Turing Thesis is wrong
Also this guy: Trust me bro I know math
I commented on seeing you on Rogan I had one of your followers seems like that really upset him clearly this man is Disturbed 😳 I thought I was polite he must have woke up triggered anyway I enjoy the show Michael have a good day
WUT?
@@christopherhamilton3621 LOL 😂🔥🔥
After billions of years of random things bumping into each other consciousness comes out? WTF? The universe is conscious.
No it's not. Consciousness requires brains. Only planet Earth is proven to have brains. The rest of universe could be empty of brains, therefore unconscious.
That’s a historic presupposition without any proof or even evidence…
@@tomsmith4542 brains are antennas for thoughts....you can dissect a brain however much you want you won't find the thoughts.
I believe this gentleman is confused...well intended but confused.
I wish I could find a way to be paid to waste time like this. Thanks for reading these things so we don’t have to….😏
the language and self awareness issue is problematic, if anyone gets it and cares to please enlighten me
Great philosophers say the same. Causality is immortality
Good interview overall, but I think Ogas is skimming over a lot of things. I don't agree with his characterization of free will at all. If there's no self as an entity or state, because the self is a process, then 'you' don't choose what you do, the process does. The process is predicated on natural laws, just like everything else. If you have to say there's 'limitations' to free will, then it's not free. It is like being on a leash but the leash is long. There is no gradient of freedom there. Are you on the leash, or are you not on the leash? This is a black or white issue, because freedom as a concept is a black or white issue. For talking a lot about language, he seems to ignore that being only a little constrained is not in our definition of 'freedom'. We might have a sense of freedom, and that is true. It doesn't mean that we are. His dismissal of 'it's silly to think about' the stance that your thoughts are necessarily predicated on these processes thus determined, is not sufficient to argue that they are not determined. Even if we can imagine things that don't exist, that is predicated and draws on what we already know. A society that doesn't know what a horse is, couldn't produce a unicorn. So the more we know, the broader our range of thought, but that still is not free.
His stance seems to be that free will exists because we think it does. We have a conception of free will, and what we think is reality. Then where's Santa Claus? He exists as a concept, people who know who Santa Claus is can envision him. He exists in the sense that he is a meme that gets passed between minds, but he is not a thing that actually exists even on a metaphysical level. It is the same with a will that is free. Wills exist, wills free from environment do not.
You can Visualize the image only because of language. How would you describe what you see without language? No language equals no sense of self. Young children have no sense of self until they learn language, calling them by their name 100 times a day etc. No language no Self! Free will is easy a product of your genetics and environment neither which you have control over. Change either and your will will change.
he needs to read persons and reasons
I enjoyed most of the discussion but I find his take on free will a bit cringe, and ignorant to modern neuroscience.
Agree. His conception about what free will is, is seriously lacking in a critical thought about it. He seems to have the idea that we think it, it becomes true. If you have to admit 'we're limited but we're free' that is the same as saying you are on a leash but there's a lot of leeway on the leash. It doesn't mean you're free, so don't call it free will. You have a will, but you didn't determine that will. So it isn't a free will. It was contingent on so many other factors.
Language is not important for inner life. What about deaf and dumb people?.
Without proper physics- which began in 2002- this ‘ metaphysics ‘ remains unsubstantiated . “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. Start at start. QM classicalized in 2010: Forgotten Physics website. Max Stirner, “The Unique and Its Property”, 1844/2017 Landstreicher translation, covered this ground about ‘self’ more effectively, only 180 years ago! Shameless.