“We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they and we are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” ~ T.S. Eliot
I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often 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 as a completely 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 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
The easiest explanation to me isn't mysterious. But like all these theories, we can't really test them. We must logically infer without inventing supernatural elements. We emerge downstream, of and from the Quantum field. The whole universe does. We are small parts way downstream. We are in it's natural flow. Always. The human has not five, but six senses. They work the same. The sixth one is for sharing a light sensation in the frequency of emotion. The endocrine, intestinal system, central nervous system is our antenna between these two. It's why religious folk think something is magical when they get together and share emotions and they feel the increase. That's like everyone feeling something really loudly. You are bathed in it. Imagine a voice humming and it is soft. Imagine many voices humming together and it is louder. Same thing just emotional frequency. It helps us know what choices to make. This would have been an evolutionary aid to help the fragile, tribal group to sense danger as well as joy. Like big meerkats. We see the same thing happen when protesters get together and amp up to doing insane things they would not have done on their own. Same field. We just don't look at it. We use it by amping up and sharing an intense emotion in close proximity. We share some mental, limited to emotional, connection with other people. We don't share memories. Our brains all exist in close proximity, within the cosmos of cycles and cause and effect. That emotional channel can transfer more than just emotions. Anecdotal story - When I was nine, I heard. "Larry's Dead" in my mind while sneaking out of the house. He was my eleven year old brother. In a few minutes I found him and he had passed. How did I hear that? Theory - We connect in that field and my young mind would have somehow sensed the loss. The passing would have taken a few minutes and he would likely have been intensely thinking of me or wishing he had help to get out of what he put himself into. He had time to pass, painfully. (Years later it is still hurts) We were close in an abusive home. Anyway, I believe the actual words came from my memory, while the knowledge can only have come through the quantum field between brains. I didn't do anything mystical. I sensed a loss in an emotional field, and my brain filled in the details. I think this needs to be considered. Humans have six senses, and the one that comes in through the mind or feelings seems magical because it doesn't use our basic five senses. I think we use eyes, ears, mouth, touch, nose and central nervous system as our interface. Five for the physical world we evolved in to, one for the quantum field we are always within and in fact are products of.
Having spoken to Iain and Mark in conversation individually it is so exciting to see this! I can’t wait to hear this conversation between them and see how they reconcile their perspectives on consciousness
OH my, thank you so much - you have no clue how these conversations open our minds further and further...Love you!!!! A FEELING!!! MARK - IAIN - HYMAN - IAIN is my favorite!!!!
“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.” ~ Albert Einstein
I keep going back to the cns and its contributions to the tool kit that evolved above it, thank you Hyman, Iain, and Mark, as well as those people who, especially Ivy, have presented this to all of us, peace
In a talk recently with Rupert Sheldrake and Marc Vernon (if I recall correctly), Sheldrake demonstrated the possibility that the attractive forces are greater than the repulsion forces in magnetism. He tossed perhaps a dozen 1/2 inch rectangular magnets into a ceramic dish one by one in random directions and eventually after banging and moving around a bit they all congregated lining up, N to S poles, in a linear manner leaving a long strand of magnets - less one that stuck on the side of the strand of magnets. He also mentioned that rather than decaying the magnetic force of a refrigerator magnet (for holding notes or lists) will remain stuck to the refrigerator door for years without signs of weakening.
Utterly delighted to see and hear my two favorite contemporary authors in dialogue, Iain McGilchrist and Mark Solms. I’d been hoping for such a conversation for the past 5 years. Thank you!
Each person has their own view, experiences and perceptions which are true to them. We are all one, all parts of the world, all need one another and the planet. Respect and love for all.
Fantastic conversation. Love the general humility. I would love it to have someone with the neurologist background (like Mark) on with someone who is an expert in rigorous NDE research (such as Bruce Greyson). Both the seeming causal effect of deep brain stimulation on conscious experience AND the fact that experience seemingly CAN take place with no brain activity (see Pam Reynolds’s case in which neural activity was monitored during her NDE, AND which has time stamps of her perceptions during her procedure) need to be accounted for simultaneously. Otherwise we are wasting our time theorizing with grossly incomplete information/theories!
“Wholeness is a kind of attitude or approach to the whole of life. If we can have a coherent approach to reality then reality will respond coherently to us.” ~ David Bohm
"Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise." ~ David Bohm
Understanding that how your mind and consciousness understand language in reality and what are other meaning of your language models in true present reality without distorsion of emotional memory, intellectually without any minds illution, and the other dimentions in reality and understanding both hemisphere of brain where one is your and other is the agent of outside conciousness, is true science where all science and Spiritualism is corelation, start practicing meditation to go deeper in your intelligence core self
Even the statement that matter is a manifestation of energy isn’t very good. No physicists I know of have ever said anything about what energy is, only what it does. One formulation due to Terrence Deacon which yields some very powerful conclusions is that energy is the capacity to do work, where work is defined as the constrained release of energy against the second law. That is, energy is any asymmetry that has the capacity ,if properly constrained to do work.
AdaM👈 of phats 👌 3trisex69minD ☯️BooTie🎀 The Tails of Orion's 4🪱kin🪱 for🪞rapH ShAron TriB3SS3DirX . 🥚👈tiP iS NairLaSaiF 👈 Cisturn💤 tuA piC ♍️ 🥭OgNam iS A BoT or Tree SeikColeenGi 🪜 Carl Gustavvatsup Jung, warned Ya'll abot the Hitler Spirit 👍 Ezekiel 36:26 “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” H👉🪜German HarT 👅 👈 staG deR ❤️🔥 VenisoN👈 turn end poinT tuA tunnelS☯️SlawNF aGaiN 👈 pHalhs Anatomy 🪱Nu🍑Yok 🪱 Srink iS uP SaraHHarA💤end 🎀 BooTie 👉Tome🔔Lee🍀Buddy 🪱 Appendix🙃tibMegan 🥚 piC Muders pEarL🙃7jewd AsSoBeR LovV3🙃3Mal 🥖HpAol SunArU 👈 Gotcha die wRiTe ✍️🏻Köder 🪱🎣 tuA Decipher En Glish babelledad 👌 Ya'll No33aM iS inn ✌️PieCeS☯️SacAid 👈 ImManuel Kant Ya'll think for your SOUTH 👈naM or Dixie LannD waS under 🍀Clavver Remember🪞RedMeMer Jeremiah🪞HaiMereJ Zechariah🪞Hair A jc EZ DiNaS'ehBreWWerdHe'SamiB VOLTAIRE Cann indeed flood die WORD WAR🎨 Art He TypeSSeqiT gentileSSelitmap 🌽hEar 🌽Uroc 🌽booK 👈 Buch 📖 iS on pHiR33RiiQ Aron🪞merA🙃Vjew Marc🙃Cjew🙃WarCCroW
Ivy, your so beautiful! What an Event! Congratulations! Wow! Not a lot of views or whatever, but like Deleuze's "Toward a minor Literature", the Kafka book, or maybe like 'crystals' (re: video) that was first place for sure. I'm mostly into the post-structural French philosophers and Heidegger, and thankyou for the meeting arising the mention of someone I don't know (there was a few others too), of David Chalmers. I'm Australian too. So Great! You should listen to the band "Suede". Their Brilliant. Wow! Your so cool. Thankyou, from, James.
Thank you so much for your kind words and for being a part of our community! I’m thrilled that you enjoyed the episode and found the discussion engaging. Your support means a lot, and I’m grateful for your thoughtful comments. Thanks for the recommendation!
48:46 Experience is not consciousness perse. It creates consciousness. Experience is taking in information, while consciousness is the value evaluation of that or the pattern recognition following from that. Which is a souvereign process.
Consciousness is not merely emergent from experience; it is a fundamental, irreducible aspect of reality that cannot be fully explained by the evaluation and pattern recognition of information.
Yes. But it involves stages of complexity in its evolution. Since we are talking about human consciousness, memory and pattern recognition (also creating hierarchies wherein stages belong, in terms of information type, which are split and still connected to higher levels: we do not have to think about bodily functions, which are independent conscious), are distinctive. This according to my theory of spacetime geometry is due to the shift in observational position between past and future, anabling the creature immagining a different future after that. The world has become virtual. Which clearly sets humans apart from animals. Animate stuff does not have that quality of pattern recognition. It just functions (reacts) within it. That is the difference. Naming it irreducable adds no information to the problem. The fact it expands (adapts differently) does.
@@petervandenengel1208 You're still positing consciousness as emergent, which contradicts your attempt to refute 'irreducibility' while describing consciousness as an evolving phenomenon.
Well, it is emergent. Irreducibillity on its turn does not imply it could not be reduced (in chance distribution) into recognizable patterns, after it evolved which are different. Like for instance Wolfram came to. Although his initial set of conditions selected for the process do not confirm those of spacetime geometry. So reducibillity (simplyfication) is not in conflict with emergence. It does not deny that. It states there are different entanglements at play for which irreducabillity is the wrong statement. They will adapt to given circumstances. Like when the alphabet is irreducible, the words emerging in it, cannot be judged on their place in the alphabet anymore, but their meaning. Which becomes kind of irreducible in a different structure, although words can have at the same time double meanings and different intentions. It is impossible to reduce them into one specific vector.
@@petervandenengel1208 Thank you for your response, but there are several flaws in your argument: Emergent properties arise from complex interactions and exhibit new behaviours not found in the parts alone. Your suggestion that these properties can be easily reduced back to simpler components misrepresents the emergentist view. You argue for the emergent nature of consciousness while dismissing irreducibility. Emergence implies new properties arising from simpler parts, while irreducibility means consciousness cannot be broken down or fully explained by these parts. These concepts are fundamentally incompatible. Your analogy conflates emergent properties with irreducibility. While words (emergent properties) arise from letters (basic components), this does not parallel the fundamental nature of consciousness. If consciousness were truly irreducible, it would not emerge from simpler parts; it would be a basic, indivisible entity. You argue that consciousness adapts and evolves, supporting the idea of emergence. Irreducible properties, however, do not change or adapt because they are constant and fundamental. Irreducibility asserts that consciousness is a basic, indivisible aspect of reality. Dismissing it as uninformative overlooks its fundamental importance in understanding the nature of consciousness. Your argument conflates and misunderstands key concepts of emergence and irreducibility, failing to coherently address the fundamental nature of consciousness.
seems there is some fundamental difference between Iain and Mark. it's highlighted to me how science, contrary to its widely perceived role, can be quite limiting in an understanding of reality - however many wonderful avenues it goes down.
you’re right. Iain and Mark do have some fundamental differences in their perspectives. It’s through these kinds of interdisciplinary discussions that we can achieve a more holistic view.
Light is dual -- syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication (messages). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@paulwolf3302 Syntactic information is dual to semantic information -- information is dual. Syntax (objective, absolute) is dual to semantics (subjective, relative) -- languages or communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- Category theory. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes!" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. All messages in a communication system are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem -- a syntropic process, teleological. Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Energy is dual -- potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Potential information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy). Synergy or converging energy is dual to energy or diverging energy!
Mind is also matter ..it works independently...embedded inside the matter.. like all other matter mind also has many branches connected to all feelings , knowledge and actions. .. action reaction interaction is very slow and down to earth in matter made of 5 elements... matter does not mean anything without mind they are two independent entities .. A matter can be very fully equipped with the absence of mind. Matter cannot travel as fast as mind though it is energy driven.. that itself proves mind is not solid like matter.. .mind is volatile in nature.. but very active in the matter as long as matter is strong and energetic..Mind on the other hand is not energy driven . It's independently active ... It's the best example for the C in the Quantum theory. It can even replace light in the theory...or can take a place as C1..
58:43 Yes. Well needing to drink is not consciousnesness, but a bodily need the motion system is reminded of. The hierarchy and percentages it is accommodated in therefore is irrelevant for explaining consciousness. Seeing the color red is not a light function, but recognizing a plane with that color. Which potentially reminds you of similar experiences like when seeing a rose or a bull fight. Blood or a red cloth. It thus creates a field of interconnected emotions. Which the color itself does not inhibbit. So, the qualia are the memmory of all those emotions. They are not a seperate physics out there. Of course without the senses they could not be experienced. So they are sensory interconnected. Transcendent for experiencing what it is like to be human.
it's a matter of interpretation. This is an interdisciplinary discourse among respected colleagues, driven by their passion for the subject. Would you prefer a discussion that is simply pleasing, or one that seeks the honest truth through passionate and thoughtful discourse?
@@curiousmind9287 I have great respect for Mark and his contributions to this conversation, and he enjoys the discourse. Please keep your opinions respectful if you have nothing nice to say.
Oh God, hence the reason why academics struggle to get past day two of a silent meditation retreat. So pleased universities fund their insanity for all their pragmatism has been all but useless for my health conditions. What is behind the breath when you are aware that it has stopped?
Thanks for your perspective. It's true that academics often find meditation challenging and that practical research applications don't always meet everyone's needs. Your question about awareness beyond the breath is profound and highlights the depth of mindfulness practice. Appreciate your thoughts!
The creator choses you as the mind to deliver the message the problem is that once the message is put on the public view only 1% understand it the 99% for some reason remains sceptic incapable to understand the message / if we take Mosses & Jesus, we find the same predicament twice what happened to Socrates is no different than what happened to Mosses which is the same that happened to Jesus. Jesus was ok however his duty of transmitted the message failed same with Jesus & Mosses. Even Brennus had the same problem with the Roman city in 390 BC/ how to open the minds of the 99% remains a question & no answer of how to.🤔🌎🤳
Philosophy should stay out of true Scientific endeavour. We are biological mechanisms just like any other living entity out there. Empirical neuroscience science says that. Philosophy is all about pure speculation.....
Interesting philosophy you have there. In any case, without philosophy we wouldn’t have the analytical and conceptual toolkit to investigate and interpret established theories and their predictions, and what amounts to the same thing, only from a different point of view, study and formulate novel explanatory systems in response to explanatory gaps in existing theory or empirical inconsistencies with data. Philosophical methods invite us to interpret the world and a forteriori discover the techniques that enable us to test our ideas by assigning phenomena to logical groups that model causal relationships eg independent variables, dependent variables etc without which we couldn’t make sense of the world. These applied logico-inductive systems ultimately culminated in the methods of Galileo, Newton and ultimately the modern scientist.
“We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they and we are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” ~ T.S. Eliot
Brilliant! 👍🏽
I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological.
The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often 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 as a completely 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 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
The easiest explanation to me isn't mysterious. But like all these theories, we can't really test them. We must logically infer without inventing supernatural elements.
We emerge downstream, of and from the Quantum field. The whole universe does. We are small parts way downstream. We are in it's natural flow. Always.
The human has not five, but six senses. They work the same. The sixth one is for sharing a light sensation in the frequency of emotion. The endocrine, intestinal system, central nervous system is our antenna between these two. It's why religious folk think something is magical when they get together and share emotions and they feel the increase. That's like everyone feeling something really loudly. You are bathed in it.
Imagine a voice humming and it is soft. Imagine many voices humming together and it is louder. Same thing just emotional frequency. It helps us know what choices to make.
This would have been an evolutionary aid to help the fragile, tribal group to sense danger as well as joy. Like big meerkats.
We see the same thing happen when protesters get together and amp up to doing insane things they would not have done on their own. Same field. We just don't look at it. We use it by amping up and sharing an intense emotion in close proximity.
We share some mental, limited to emotional, connection with other people. We don't share memories.
Our brains all exist in close proximity, within the cosmos of cycles and cause and effect. That emotional channel can transfer more than just emotions.
Anecdotal story - When I was nine, I heard. "Larry's Dead" in my mind while sneaking out of the house. He was my eleven year old brother. In a few minutes I found him and he had passed. How did I hear that?
Theory - We connect in that field and my young mind would have somehow sensed the loss. The passing would have taken a few minutes and he would likely have been intensely thinking of me or wishing he had help to get out of what he put himself into. He had time to pass, painfully. (Years later it is still hurts) We were close in an abusive home.
Anyway, I believe the actual words came from my memory, while the knowledge can only have come through the quantum field between brains. I didn't do anything mystical. I sensed a loss in an emotional field, and my brain filled in the details.
I think this needs to be considered. Humans have six senses, and the one that comes in through the mind or feelings seems magical because it doesn't use our basic five senses. I think we use eyes, ears, mouth, touch, nose and central nervous system as our interface. Five for the physical world we evolved in to, one for the quantum field we are always within and in fact are products of.
Having spoken to Iain and Mark in conversation individually it is so exciting to see this! I can’t wait to hear this conversation between them and see how they reconcile their perspectives on consciousness
OH my, thank you so much - you have no clue how these conversations open our minds further and further...Love you!!!! A FEELING!!! MARK - IAIN - HYMAN - IAIN is my favorite!!!!
“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.” ~ Albert Einstein
Was that really Einstein?
@@gmk2222it has been years now since I clipped that quote, but yes, I believe so.
I keep going back to the cns and its contributions to the tool kit that evolved above it, thank you Hyman, Iain, and Mark, as well as those people who, especially Ivy, have presented this to all of us, peace
In a talk recently with Rupert Sheldrake and Marc Vernon (if I recall correctly), Sheldrake demonstrated the possibility that the attractive forces are greater than the repulsion forces in magnetism. He tossed perhaps a dozen 1/2 inch rectangular magnets into a ceramic dish one by one in random directions and eventually after banging and moving around a bit they all congregated lining up, N to S poles, in a linear manner leaving a long strand of magnets - less one that stuck on the side of the strand of magnets. He also mentioned that rather than decaying the magnetic force of a refrigerator magnet (for holding notes or lists) will remain stuck to the refrigerator door for years without signs of weakening.
Utterly delighted to see and hear my two favorite contemporary authors in dialogue, Iain McGilchrist and Mark Solms. I’d been hoping for such a conversation for the past 5 years. Thank you!
Our favourites too! Cheers
Each person has their own view, experiences and perceptions which are true to them. We are all one, all parts of the world, all need one another and the planet. Respect and love for all.
This channel's one of the best on YT IMO, pls keep it up.
Cheers!
Fantastic conversation. Love the general humility. I would love it to have someone with the neurologist background (like Mark) on with someone who is an expert in rigorous NDE research (such as Bruce Greyson). Both the seeming causal effect of deep brain stimulation on conscious experience AND the fact that experience seemingly CAN take place with no brain activity (see Pam Reynolds’s case in which neural activity was monitored during her NDE, AND which has time stamps of her perceptions during her procedure) need to be accounted for simultaneously. Otherwise we are wasting our time theorizing with grossly incomplete information/theories!
Thank you for the suggestion
The fact that I and Mark Solms like the same music makes me feel very intellectual....
Just what I need at the moment! Thanks ❤
So glad!
🙏❤️🌎🌍🌏🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
Thank you all for this amazing discussion.
Thanks for listening
@@philosophybabble ❤️✨️💫
Thanks all, great. Mark from around 40 mins on, the two different perspectives
Glad you enjoyed it
“Wholeness is a kind of attitude or approach to the whole of life. If we can have a coherent approach to reality then reality will respond coherently to us.” ~ David Bohm
Excellent 💯
Absolutely great thinking going on here. You would all love my work although you'll likely never see or be aware of it. Se la vie.
"Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise."
~ David Bohm
Ivy great to see u doing so well with this work… was with u starting out on clubhouse. Very inspiring. !
Thank you, Peter 🙏
32:42 Job 19:26 “And After my skin has been destroyed, this I know that in my flesh I shall see God”
4:54 It seems one (the left) is selecting and the other (the right) is integrating, of what the memory of the world was. Embodying.
Understanding that how your mind and consciousness understand language in reality and what are other meaning of your language models in true present reality without distorsion of emotional memory, intellectually without any minds illution, and the other dimentions in reality and understanding both hemisphere of brain where one is your and other is the agent of outside conciousness, is true science where all science and Spiritualism is corelation, start practicing meditation to go deeper in your intelligence core self
So therefore heavy judgment is here!!
Even the statement that matter is a manifestation of energy isn’t very good. No physicists I know of have ever said anything about what energy is, only what it does. One formulation due to Terrence Deacon which yields some very powerful conclusions is that energy is the capacity to do work, where work is defined as the constrained release of energy against the second law. That is, energy is any asymmetry that has the capacity ,if properly constrained to do work.
Great group. I would suggest having these 3 guests back with Donald Hoffman. New subscriber here.
Thank you for your suggestion!
"ITS THE MATTER OF THE MIND"
AdaM👈 of phats 👌 3trisex69minD ☯️BooTie🎀 The Tails of Orion's 4🪱kin🪱 for🪞rapH ShAron TriB3SS3DirX .
🥚👈tiP iS NairLaSaiF 👈 Cisturn💤 tuA piC ♍️
🥭OgNam iS A BoT or Tree
SeikColeenGi 🪜 Carl Gustavvatsup Jung, warned Ya'll abot the Hitler Spirit 👍
Ezekiel 36:26
“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.”
H👉🪜German HarT 👅 👈 staG deR ❤️🔥 VenisoN👈 turn end poinT tuA tunnelS☯️SlawNF aGaiN 👈 pHalhs Anatomy 🪱Nu🍑Yok 🪱 Srink iS uP SaraHHarA💤end 🎀 BooTie 👉Tome🔔Lee🍀Buddy 🪱 Appendix🙃tibMegan 🥚 piC Muders pEarL🙃7jewd
AsSoBeR LovV3🙃3Mal 🥖HpAol SunArU 👈 Gotcha die wRiTe ✍️🏻Köder 🪱🎣 tuA Decipher En Glish babelledad 👌 Ya'll No33aM iS inn ✌️PieCeS☯️SacAid 👈
ImManuel Kant Ya'll think for your SOUTH 👈naM or Dixie LannD waS under 🍀Clavver
Remember🪞RedMeMer Jeremiah🪞HaiMereJ
Zechariah🪞Hair A jc EZ
DiNaS'ehBreWWerdHe'SamiB
VOLTAIRE Cann indeed flood die WORD WAR🎨 Art He TypeSSeqiT gentileSSelitmap 🌽hEar 🌽Uroc 🌽booK 👈 Buch 📖 iS on pHiR33RiiQ
Aron🪞merA🙃Vjew
Marc🙃Cjew🙃WarCCroW
Ivy, your so beautiful! What an Event! Congratulations! Wow! Not a lot of views or whatever, but like Deleuze's "Toward a minor Literature", the Kafka book, or maybe like 'crystals' (re: video) that was first place for sure. I'm mostly into the post-structural French philosophers and Heidegger, and thankyou for the meeting arising the mention of someone I don't know (there was a few others too), of David Chalmers. I'm Australian too. So Great! You should listen to the band "Suede". Their Brilliant. Wow! Your so cool. Thankyou, from, James.
Thank you so much for your kind words and for being a part of our community! I’m thrilled that you enjoyed the episode and found the discussion engaging. Your support means a lot, and I’m grateful for your thoughtful comments. Thanks for the recommendation!
48:46 Experience is not consciousness perse. It creates consciousness. Experience is taking in information, while consciousness is the value evaluation of that or the pattern recognition following from that. Which is a souvereign process.
Consciousness is not merely emergent from experience; it is a fundamental, irreducible aspect of reality that cannot be fully explained by the evaluation and pattern recognition of information.
Yes. But it involves stages of complexity in its evolution. Since we are talking about human consciousness, memory and pattern recognition (also creating hierarchies wherein stages belong, in terms of information type, which are split and still connected to higher levels: we do not have to think about bodily functions, which are independent conscious), are distinctive.
This according to my theory of spacetime geometry is due to the shift in observational position between past and future, anabling the creature immagining a different future after that. The world has become virtual.
Which clearly sets humans apart from animals.
Animate stuff does not have that quality of pattern recognition. It just functions (reacts) within it.
That is the difference.
Naming it irreducable adds no information to the problem. The fact it expands (adapts differently) does.
@@petervandenengel1208 You're still positing consciousness as emergent, which contradicts your attempt to refute 'irreducibility' while describing consciousness as an evolving phenomenon.
Well, it is emergent. Irreducibillity on its turn does not imply it could not be reduced (in chance distribution) into recognizable patterns, after it evolved which are different.
Like for instance Wolfram came to. Although his initial set of conditions selected for the process do not confirm those of spacetime geometry.
So reducibillity (simplyfication) is not in conflict with emergence. It does not deny that. It states there are different entanglements at play for which irreducabillity is the wrong statement. They will adapt to given circumstances.
Like when the alphabet is irreducible, the words emerging in it, cannot be judged on their place in the alphabet anymore, but their meaning.
Which becomes kind of irreducible in a different structure, although words can have at the same time double meanings and different intentions. It is impossible to reduce them into one specific vector.
@@petervandenengel1208 Thank you for your response, but there are several flaws in your argument:
Emergent properties arise from complex interactions and exhibit new behaviours not found in the parts alone. Your suggestion that these properties can be easily reduced back to simpler components misrepresents the emergentist view.
You argue for the emergent nature of consciousness while dismissing irreducibility. Emergence implies new properties arising from simpler parts, while irreducibility means consciousness cannot be broken down or fully explained by these parts. These concepts are fundamentally incompatible.
Your analogy conflates emergent properties with irreducibility. While words (emergent properties) arise from letters (basic components), this does not parallel the fundamental nature of consciousness. If consciousness were truly irreducible, it would not emerge from simpler parts; it would be a basic, indivisible entity.
You argue that consciousness adapts and evolves, supporting the idea of emergence. Irreducible properties, however, do not change or adapt because they are constant and fundamental.
Irreducibility asserts that consciousness is a basic, indivisible aspect of reality. Dismissing it as uninformative overlooks its fundamental importance in understanding the nature of consciousness.
Your argument conflates and misunderstands key concepts of emergence and irreducibility, failing to coherently address the fundamental nature of consciousness.
seems there is some fundamental difference between Iain and Mark. it's highlighted to me how science, contrary to its widely perceived role, can be quite limiting in an understanding of reality - however many wonderful avenues it goes down.
you’re right. Iain and Mark do have some fundamental differences in their perspectives. It’s through these kinds of interdisciplinary discussions that we can achieve a more holistic view.
Light is dual -- syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication (messages).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@paulwolf3302 Syntactic information is dual to semantic information -- information is dual.
Syntax (objective, absolute) is dual to semantics (subjective, relative) -- languages or communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- Category theory.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes!" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
All messages in a communication system are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Energy is dual -- potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Potential information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy).
Synergy or converging energy is dual to energy or diverging energy!
Mind is also matter ..it works independently...embedded inside the matter.. like all other matter mind also has many branches connected to all feelings , knowledge and actions. .. action reaction interaction is very slow and down to earth in matter made of 5 elements... matter does not mean anything without mind they are two independent entities ..
A matter can be very fully equipped with the absence of mind. Matter cannot travel as fast as mind though it is energy driven.. that itself proves mind is not solid like matter.. .mind is volatile in nature.. but very active in the matter as long as matter is strong and energetic..Mind on the other hand is not energy driven . It's independently active ... It's the best example for the C in the Quantum theory. It can even replace light in the theory...or can take a place as C1..
Thank you for sharing your insights!
58:43 Yes. Well needing to drink is not consciousnesness, but a bodily need the motion system is reminded of. The hierarchy and percentages it is accommodated in therefore is irrelevant for explaining consciousness.
Seeing the color red is not a light function, but recognizing a plane with that color. Which potentially reminds you of similar experiences like when seeing a rose or a bull fight. Blood or a red cloth.
It thus creates a field of interconnected emotions. Which the color itself does not inhibbit. So, the qualia are the memmory of all those emotions. They are not a seperate physics out there. Of course without the senses they could not be experienced. So they are sensory interconnected. Transcendent for experiencing what it is like to be human.
Surely it is oonly those that exsperince the pleroma that try to kindle a light in consousness,
🦍🍀👀
Mark about an hour in - felt uncertainty - beutifull.
01:01:40
Oh my gosh, that one guy cannot shut up how rude
Mark Solmes is head and shoulders above everyone.
Conciouness is the God particle..a body is considered dead without consciousness..
🦋☸️☯️🕉️🦋
Just increase
Your knowledge
About Buddhism
& Taoism... You
Will no need to be
Scientist Or any other" tist". ☯️
I feel sorry for Solmes.
it's a matter of interpretation. This is an interdisciplinary discourse among respected colleagues, driven by their passion for the subject. Would you prefer a discussion that is simply pleasing, or one that seeks the honest truth through passionate and thoughtful discourse?
@@philosophybabbleThis is not a discourse, because nobody talks anywhere close to his level and contributes nothing to the conversation. Imho
@@curiousmind9287 your opinion is not a fact. Discourse involves diverse levels of expertise, which enriches the conversation.
@@curiousmind9287 I have great respect for Mark and his contributions to this conversation, and he enjoys the discourse. Please keep your opinions respectful if you have nothing nice to say.
This is your channel. If you do not like my frank opinion, feel free to remove my comment or if you request, I will remove it myself.
Oh God, hence the reason why academics struggle to get past day two of a silent meditation retreat. So pleased universities fund their insanity for all their pragmatism has been all but useless for my health conditions. What is behind the breath when you are aware that it has stopped?
Thanks for your perspective. It's true that academics often find meditation challenging and that practical research applications don't always meet everyone's needs. Your question about awareness beyond the breath is profound and highlights the depth of mindfulness practice. Appreciate your thoughts!
The creator choses you as the mind to deliver the message the problem is that once the message is put on the public view only 1% understand it the 99% for some reason remains sceptic incapable to understand the message / if we take Mosses & Jesus, we find the same predicament twice what happened to Socrates is no different than what happened to Mosses which is the same that happened to Jesus. Jesus was ok however his duty of transmitted the message failed same with Jesus & Mosses. Even Brennus had the same problem with the Roman city in 390 BC/ how to open the minds of the 99% remains a question & no answer of how to.🤔🌎🤳
Philosophy should stay out of true Scientific endeavour. We are biological mechanisms just like any other living entity out there. Empirical neuroscience science says that. Philosophy is all about pure speculation.....
Interesting philosophy you have there. In any case, without philosophy we wouldn’t have the analytical and conceptual toolkit to investigate and interpret established theories and their predictions, and what amounts to the same thing, only from a different point of view, study and formulate novel explanatory systems in response to explanatory gaps in existing theory or empirical inconsistencies with data. Philosophical methods invite us to interpret the world and a forteriori discover the techniques that enable us to test our ideas by assigning phenomena to logical groups that model causal relationships eg independent variables, dependent variables etc without which we couldn’t make sense of the world. These applied logico-inductive systems ultimately culminated in the methods of Galileo, Newton and ultimately the modern scientist.