Galen Strawson - What is Panpsychism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- Follow us on Instagram for daily news, announcements, and exciting updates: shorturl.at/p2IhM
Panpsychism is the extreme claim that everything in the physical world-all subatomic particles-are in some sense ‘conscious’ or have a basic kind of ‘proto-consciousness’. Why are an increasing number of leading philosophers taking panpsychism seriously? Something must be up. Could it be doubt that the scientific project to explain consciousness has failed?
Donate to Closer To Truth to help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Galen John Strawson is a British analytic philosopher and literary critic who works primarily on philosophy of mind, metaphysics, John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Get member exclusives like early access to new content with a free Closer To Truth account: closertotruth....
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![Ram Dass - Brave New World or Island? We Decide Pt.2 [90's] | Black Screen / No Music / Full Lecture](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1mATWNFnqJg/mqdefault.jpg)
This is such a great discussion of panpsychism. Thank you for sharing this.
In the stillness and calmness of meditation/mind training,, one is in touch with the timeless dimension of the Universe - no beginning and no ending, always was and always will be. The Big Bang is only a theory. There is the experience of Oneness, free from the dualistic mind. There is no self or ego-center that is separate from the Universe. We are aspects of the Universe, in this temporary physical form, being aware of itself, experiencing itself. Another way of seeing this reality: we are apertures through which the Universe becomes aware of itself, experiencing itself. Cosmic Consciousness.
It does make sense, at least if I understood him correctly 🤷🏻♀️ The atomic bomb analogy is a + b = c predictably, and what he is saying is that physical matter (as we currently define it) and consciousness are two distinctly different substances with the second unable to be made from any combination of the first, so there must be building blocks of consciousness analogous to the building blocks of physicality (and we may posit that those building blocks of consciousness are energy that through our physical senses we are able to detect the signal if in the way of the five blind men and the elephant) - that physicality and consciousness are like oil and water in some regard - that they never can meet - except we know we can mix oil and water with the addition of an emulsifier and a proper process. We just don’t know what the predictable a + b through c = x for this particular presentation is. It seems a reasonable position to hold.
Consciousness is created in the brain by electrical signals of neurons, Computers processing information is created by binary of On and Off of electricity in its bits. In short, consciousness and information cannot be created without energy. And since everything is energy, everything has a sort of consciousness even in atomic level.
when physical objects give off the experience of color, or other sense experience, is there something conscious outside or beyond the physical objects that provides conscious experience?
Physical objects don’t give off colours, they reflect or emit light of various wavelengths. This causes chemical reactions in our eyes, which stimulate electrochemical nerve impulses to neurons in the visual cortex of our brains. These neural networks interpret this signal into a representation that we experience as a colour.
Parmenides (450 BC) said, "Everything that exists has a degree of knowledge." That pretty much explains everything. 😅
Nonsense.
A rock has no knowledge…
Knowledge is “Processing”…
A rock does not process….therefore a rock has no knowledge…
@jimliu2560
Untrue. A rock knows how to be a rock and not a tree or a unicorn.
@@jimliu2560 you were formed inside the compression force of a belly. Then you were pushed or cut out and plopped out into the world.
@@jimliu2560’some type of outside compression force?’ - do you mean physics? 😊
@@browngreen933 I think there's something there I can agree with in that everything that exists is informational. Information consists of the properties and structure of a system, and so every system, every phenomenon manifests the information about it's own existence. I wouldn't quite call that knowledge because knowledge is an actionable representation we have of some other phenomenon, but it is also informational in nature.
I found this interview triggering (in a good way). I think that the magic ingredient that Galen Strawson might be looking for is associationism. That all experiencing is associative is, in the context of semiotic theory (CS Peirce), self-evident... We associate meanings together to form hierarchies of meaning: Words together to form sentences; experiences together to form illusions, phobias, PTSD, cultural stereotypes, gender roles, etc, etc, etc.
Can this associationism be extended to matter? Absolutely, it can. What we must do is take seriously phenomenology at the subatomic domain, and we do this by factoring in Cube-Root Scaling (CRS). CRS explains why matter at the subatomic domain can no longer be thought of as governed by classical (Newtonian) constraints. Released from their classical constraints, matter ceases to be matter, and subatomic particles become subject to context. Hence the relevance of quantum contextuality (Bell's theorem, Kochen & Specker 1967). Context implies association (conditioning, Pavlov's dog, CS Peirce). And that's where my own research is leading, beginning with the associations implied in the Feynman diagrams.
In my own research, I conjecture that the tensions between the known versus the unknown are integral to the symmetries that cascade from the void, and that these symmetries are, in the first instance, associative. These subatomic associations are what is depicted in the famous Feynman diagrams.
*Relevance to Strawson's comments*
2:22 - "I have a little trouble with the word idealism, because I prefer to say it's a form of mentalism." So do I. But what is "mentalism" if not associationism?
2:42 - "I want to be a monist." So do I. Associationism takes me there. It addresses the mind-body problem, integrating cellular/neural plasticity into a dual-aspect monism that synthesizes top-down causation with bottom-up causation.
2:56 - "We know that there is experiencing." We also know that there is associationism across the board, from single cells and neurons to all forms of colonies, to people in culture. Experiencing (associationism) is the top-down causation that informs all living agents "how to be".
4:11 - "Radical emergence". Strawson's most triggering comment. Absolutely. The dumb-luck emergence of the physicalist narrative can never work because it fails to take entropy seriously. Nobody ever built a leggo-brick house by shaking a bucket of leggo bricks together. There's something else going on.
By factoring in associationism, beginning at the subatomic domain, we do away with the naive-panpsychism that assumes that "everything" is conscious... neither tables, nor spoons, nor thermostats are ever conscious. Associationism is the pan-proto-psychism that better describes the dual-aspect monist that Strawson wants to be.
ACIM appears to present a dualistic world on the surface, it's core teaching is actually non-dualistic, meaning it ultimately sees only one reality where separation and duality are illusions created by the mind, and the true nature is one with God or pure consciousness: it uses seemingly dualistic language to help the student understand from their current perspective of separation. ACIM uses concepts like 'God" and the "world", but these are seen as tools to help guide the mind toward the realization of non-duality. The couse teaches that the perceived separation between ourselves and others, and between ourselves and God (love), is an illusion created by our thought system. Fear is seen as a manifestation of the belief in separation, while love represents the true state of unity. The practice of ACIM is to gradually release these beliefs in separation and ultimately experience the unity of all things.
The couse teaches
a non- dual perspective, meaning the the perceived separation between things like self and others, good and evil is an illusion, and the true reality is a state of oneness with God transcending all realities.The couse identifies the ego as the source of the perception of duality creating the illusion of separation. The goal of the course is to undo the belief and experience the underlying unity through forgiveness and love.
ACIM considers the perceived world as an illusion created by the ego and the true reality is a state of pure love and oneness with God.
According to ACIM, the perception of separate objects, identities, and experiences is considered a false belief that creates the illusion of duality. The ego, the part of the mind that identifies with the physical world perpetuates this illusion by creating distinction between "self" and "other". ACIM teaches that while the physical body is perceived as separate from the mind, ACIM sees them as interconnected aspects of the same illusory experience.
According to ACIM, "perceptive consciousness" refers to the state of awareness through the senses, essentially how you perceive the world around you, while "knowledge" represents a deeper more unified understanding that transcends perception, considered to be the true reality beyond the physical world...
when there is enough plutonium to start chain reaction of nuclear reaction / explosion, does gravity or other force compose the nuclear chain reaction?
The energy released in a fission reaction is mainly from the electromagnetic force that pushes protons apart in the nucleus. Normally this is in balance with the strong nuclear force holding the nucleus together, but in fission reactions this balance is disturbed. This is why most of the energy released in a nuclear reaction is electromagnetic radiation. In fusion reactions the energy released is mostly the kinetic energy of the fusion products, but their impact with ambient atoms and molecules rapidly converts this into heterogeneous thermal energy.
there is spirit in everything a tree did not fall and make a table so the table has a life of its own.
Are my farts conscious then ?
@@BillyThetit where do you think this channel content comes from?
could time have conscious awareness of causation for subjective experience?
Just because we have an experience of reality in no way leads, logically, to reality is therefore experience
*"Just because we have an experience of reality in no way leads, logically, to reality is therefore experience"*
... Welcome back!
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC you should clarify that your comment was typed by inert matter
*"you should clarify that your comment was typed by inert matter"*
... Yes, but since I'm the "puppet master," that benign, unorchestrated, inanimate matter did exactly as told. 😎
Rocks aren’t conscious.
If I understand him correctly, Strawson wouldn't say they are either. The physical has an element of intrinsic consciousness, but not every arrangement of matter is conscious as an "individual". You know that you are you, but a rock doesn't know that it is it. Something like that anyway
Then what is that in rocks which makes it undergo changes. We cannot take it for granted.
Something apparently "experiences". Our experiences are registered in memory etc. A rock doesn't appear to have that capacity. But it experiences its juxtaposition to the physical world in the sense its physical properties change as it interacts with the physical properties of its environment. Does it feel as we do? It doesn't have the bio physiology mechanisms as we understand them. But perhaps it registers influence and lets the registration leave as soon as it arrived.
@@Anthropomorphic "an element of intrinsic consciousness" lol nothing woo about that.
I think you might be missing the point of the discussion. First, Mr Strawson says directly that “a panpsychist does not have to believe that a table is conscious”. I think this directly relates to rocks. Second, the main point of this discussion is whether consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe or does it arise from a combination of not conscious particles. Panpsychism proposes the former. Peace.
"Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws" -Confucius
Wow
What do you mean?
Words are signs and symbols, and laws are made of signs and symbols.
@@davetime5234 If you’re asking ME, I just thought that quote is amazing.
@ Thank you for your answer. I was just trying to understand what the commentor meant by the quote as a takeaway from the video.
It's a new religion, and there is zero support for it in any kind of facts or evidence.
Nonsense. It is a statement of the logical alternatives.
@@davetime5234 - Explain that in detail, using deductive principles based on established premises.
@ Watch the video carefully for your answer. It is a logical consideration of alternative conclusion tradeoffs, given uncertainties inherent with our current state of knowledge.
"It's a new religion" In the video was there any attempt to persuade the listener to believe or trust in anything in particular?
@@davetime5234 "uncertainties inherent with our current state of knowledge" inherent? argument from ignorance. "We don't know something therefore I can make up whatever I want."
An objectively verifiable explanation for subjective 1st person experience of reality: widely accepted as not even close to being explained by known physical mechanisms.
The implications of what is logical vs illogical about that knowledge gap, in terms of known physical laws and principles can be reasonably considered, even if an eventual discovered explanation turned out to be something beyond current belief.
There's a difference between considering the tradeoffs in what the form likely cannot be, than claiming something is the final explanation for what is missing.
I'm seeing a lot of close minded people clinging desperately to absolutes responding on here...
If your mind is too open your brain falls out.
@BillyThetit Time and gravity make fools of us all bruz
@@MegaSudjai so you don't buy the mind woo either then
Please make a point of explaining the difference between pan psychism and pantheism. There are noteworthy differences.
Panpsychism simply means mind is everywhere or ubiquitous. Everything has some degree of mind.
Pantheism is a theological position. It claims that god is everywhere and everything. Panpsychists don't necessarily make claims about god or divinity or in other words panpsychism is not necessarily theological.
Federico Faggin - Irreducible
1) Flesh is our Physical body
2)Consciousness is our Soul body
3)Reverence is our Spiritual body.....my opinion only!
The simplest way to understand this is to view the quantum field as a field of consciousness. Human brain consciousness emerges from it, representing a facet of this universal consciousness. Everything physical arise from this quantum field of consciousness. Matter is composed of consciousness.
“The universe, or cosmos, is a living being endowed with a soul.” - Plato (428 BC-348 BC).
“The Earth functions as if it were a living organism.” - James Lovelock.
“A new consciousness is developing which sees the Earth as a single organism...” - Carl Sagan.
“Think always of the universe as one living creature, made of one substance and one soul: how all is absorbed into this one consciousness; how a single impulse governs all its actions; how all things collaborate in all that happens; the very web and mesh of it all.” - Marcus Aurelius.
Might be simple, but not true.
@@dr_shrinker It's true. Alternative theories can be easily debunked by the existence of supernatural abilities.
@@supernaturalabilities Why then has it been effectively impossible to produce reliable scientific evidence of those purportedly "supernatural abilities" within carefully controlled laboratory settings?
@@hobbes305 I replied, but my comment isn't visible here. Maybe, you can find it under the 'Newest First' section.
@@hobbes305 Supernatural abilities have existed throughout history, yet they are far less common today than they could be. For instance, the RUclips video "Indian Man Pulls 41-Ton Train with Hair" showcases a Guinness World Record feat that defies scientific explanation, relying neither on muscle strength nor the tensile strength of hair. Similarly, Biba Struja’s electrokinesis abilities, which earned him a Guinness World Record, were subjected to rigorous scientific testing and validation.
Sometimes arguments can be clean and simple
Panpsychism is materialism's last desperate attempt to solve the hard problem of consciousness. It fails miserably. The hard problem, which should really be the impossible problem, proves that materialism can't be correct. We took a wrong turn and finally the hard problem shows us the dead end that we have wandered into. It's time to abandon materialist assumptions and try a new direction.
Materialism is all there is.
None of the positions presented in this video is materialism. Since when do materialists affirm mind as ubiquitous or fundamental to reality?
How is it materialism's last desperate attempt when it is not even materialism?
@@anteodedi8937 Panpsychism is just a poorly defined position because it assumes materialism without realizing it. It says that mind is a fundamental property of matter...but read that carefully. It just assumed there is such a thing as matter. Idealism would deny that. So yes, panpsychism has materialism built into it.
@@Promatheos That's a variety of panpsychism, not panpsychcism per se.
And still, it is not materialism, it is property dualism. For example, Cartesian dualism affirms the material as well, but it isn't materialism. And of course idealism would deny matter the same way materialism would deny mind. It's not any more plausible.
My advice: Before criticizing a view, at least learn what it claims and learn the definitions. Being a realist about matter doesn't make you a materialist. Materialism is a matter-only ontology.
@@anteodedi8937 Thanks for the condescending advice, but I know what it claims and that's why I'm asserting it's materialism. I'm challenging the definition outright because I'm saying it *is* a matter only philosophy in disguise. It's materialism+
Panpsychism would have consciousness be a property of matter no different than charge or mass. So first, it assumes matter is the fundamental reality and second that this material reality has properties like mass, charge, spin, angular momentum and consciousness. You hear panpsychists say ad nauseam "even particles have consciousness." What particles!? You mean the ones made of *matter*? It's a philosophy that is trying to redefine mind as a material property and thus reduce reality to be material only.
How did you find Liam Nesson's twin brother?
Liam found him!
*"How did you find Liam Nesson's twin brother?"*
... I heard he was told, _"If you agree to the interview, that will be the end of it. I will not look for you; I will not pursue you. But if you don't, .... I will look for you .... I WILL find you .... and I will interview you!"_
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC it's just when I've heard the voice of this man i was shocked like I know this voice from somewhere and then something clicked in my head, I've heard Liam Nesson's voice and guest of this conversation had the same voice and even face
3:58 there's ways of testing whether or not simple molecular units carry any such functional qualities...
What continually astounds me is that the UK, with a total population more or less equal to that of Tokyo, produces so many brilliant men and women.
And the most yobs too🙄
The population of Tokyo produces many brilliant men and women.
When I first read this I thought "I don't know, what?" After watching, I thought brilliant! Re-reading, I'm pondering I have the UK, the US and Japan all equally represented in my family. So I'd remove the nationalism in favour of more universal elements...kind of in harmony with the topic itself.
Also the biggest lot of yobs🙃
If you go to London, you'll notice that intellectual culture is highly respected there. If you go into a book store, they have almost every book you can think of available to buy.
Not like US bookstores, which usually only have bestselling titles.
The real question is: why the outright rejection that consciousness is imbued within sub-atomic particles? The answer: The Narcissism of Man, AKA the need to feel special. Self-centrism.
Forget emergence- Life at the rudimentary level of existence (stardust) is the constant exchange of Energy between Mass (gravitational and sentient entities), from which more complex organisms assemble thanks to the valence electron and added Energy from The Sun.
Your comment is quite some ramble.
Why would we say that a particle is conscious or that a rock has consciousness? ”It is not aware but have a form of consciousness” is maybe your reply. And what is that conscious element? Consciousness is being able to feel and experience, and rocks shows no evidence of that - so why believe it? Or if you have evidence, please enlighten me.
"The real question is: why the outright rejection that consciousness is imbued within sub-atomic particles? "
What specific scientific/empirical evidence can you cite which effectively indicates/demonstrates that "consciousness" is in fact "imbued within sub-atomic particles"?
In the complete absence of just that sort of scientific/empirical evidence (Which would be necessary to support such an assertion) why should anyone tacitly accept that claim as being credible or a realistic possibility?
@SamuelDimitrij haha, and who dares say that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe..? Or that it's spherical, even! You better burn me at the stake for my heretical ideas, hey champ? Feeling a little insecure, all those who agree with this chump?
If you're in a room where everyone agrees with you, then you're in the wrong room.
@@hobbes305 philosophical enquiry always proceeds rigourous sciencetific enquiry, or do they do things differently on your planet?
@@MegaSudjai rubbish =/= philosophy
If everything is just made out of one thing then nothing happens, nothing changes, because then their would not be just the one thing. My response is with Heraclitus: You cannot step into the same river twice..
Even though the premise: “all is evolution evolutions within evolutions”, has the benefit, at least, of being how the world actually looks, just on principle alone of not wanting to be bored to death, I side with Heraclitus.
Maybe the one thing is that everything changes. Because he seems to be saying that the one thing is experience inside of which resides an endless chain of change and experience. Which.. no!
*"Maybe the one thing is that everything changes"*
... And the tool used to measure that change is "time."
BTW: I created an animated cartoon since our last exchange, "Existence vs Think Tank." Hope you like it!
I would say everything is evolving, changing...but i will never use the word 'evolution'. You cannot step into the same river even once. That would be the quality of change.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Nice 👍
Panpsychism is a pretty vague term. It doesn't tell you much except that mind is ubiquitous.
The views explored here as variations of panpsychism are really views like idealism, neutral dual aspect monism, and all the way down property dualism.
Mind is not ubiquitous. It can be found only in biological creatures
Well, someone can say that everything has some degree of mind or that mind is a fundamental property. That's a good option on the table.@@longcastle4863
Answer: rubbish.
Oh U2 😅😂😂😂😂😂😂
I don’t think the physical and the mental are opposites. Just because one thing is not another thing does not mean those two things are opposites.
"What is Panpsychism?"
If you trash the idea of Dualism while believing in Panpsychism where every matter is Aware or Conscious, then you are saying opposite things both sides of your mouth - suffering severe incoherence....
AWARENESS is the right word because Consciousness simply means self-awareness which is a misconception because an Independent Observing SUBJECT (Awareness) can not directly observe itself as the object...
..the above fact alone dissolves the idea of panpsychism because the object can not independently observe itself as the subject, or the observing subject can not be an object being observed....
...the reason is because, for an observation of an object to occur, the observing Subject must be separate or independent from the Object being observed... in other words, the Subject and the Object can not be one and the same, otherwise NO observation of an object can occur... so, every physical matter can not be conscious because every physical matter can not be both an object being observed and an independent observing subject ....
...furthermore, the fact that our AWARENESS is the Subject that perceives what the physical brain conveys, then our Awareness can not be the physical brain, that serves as the Object, but separate from it...
...the above fact is more than enough proof that our AWARENESS can not be part of the physical world especially that it exhibits the supernatural quality or power to have FREEDOM to make a choice what to BELIEVE which can not be a natural property of physical matter enslaved by natural laws..
.. so, again, Panpsychism that claims every physical matter is conscious is nothing but an incoherent invalid theory because the power to be aware and to freely choose can not be a physical attribute of physical matter enslaved by physical laws...
..and the fact that AWARENESS is still the biggest MYSTERY in science, because NO ONE can explain and understand how it came to be, SCREAMS LOUDLY that it came from a Mysterious SOURCE whom I believe is GOD the Holy Spirit...
God had provided us more than enough hints just for us to find faith in His Loving Existence for our salvation... but many just willfully choose to ignore these obvious hints for irrational selfish reasons....
..you are always free to believe whatever you choose, God can not force you Home because your immortal soul is not His slave or robot but free...
Are you arguing that secular panpsychism be replaced with non-secular panpsychism? If so, one is compelled to ask: what's the difference?
@@davetime5234 ...in a World governed by NATURAL LAWS, there can not be Free Choice.... this means there is no Panpsychism in every physical matter being enslaved by natural laws.... such incoherent theory could be symptom of psychosis due to Godlessness...
Is a table conscious ? What about half a table ? What about one leg of the table ?
Panpsychism is silly.
Will10 trillion interconnected transistors be conscious? How about 10 billion, 10 million, 10 thousand, or 10? At what scale is the hardware/software combination so abundantly sophisticated it is actually experiencing a 1st person subjective sense of its own existence?
The problem is that a handful of transistors being no more than a zombie calculating machine, most conceivably scales up indefinitely. Panpsychism as portrayed is dealing with the fact we cannot honestly understand this question for either the computer or the human being.
So how do you achieve your own sense of existence independent of your neuron mechanics interacting to objectify your sense of existence?
Does any know the meaning of this?
The Isha Upanishad
All this is full. All that is full.
From fullness, fullness comes.
When fullness is taken from fullness,
Fullness still remains.
OM Shanti Shanti Shanti
The Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.
The Lord is the supreme Reality.
Rejoice in him through renunciation.
Covet nothing. All belongs to the Lord.
Thus working may you live a hundred years.
Thus alone will you work.
Those who deny the Lord are born again
Blind to who they are, enveloped in darkness,
Utterly devoid of love for the Lord.
The Lord is one. Ever still, thy spirit is
Swifter than thought, swifter than the senses.
Though motionless, he outruns all pursuit.
Without Him, never could life exist.
The Lord seems to move, but is ever still.
He seems far away, but is ever near.
He is within all, and he transcends all.
Those who see all creatures in themselves
And themselves in all creatures know no fear.
Those who see all creatures in themselves
And themselves in all creatures know no grief.
How can the multiplicity of life
Delude the one who sees its unity?
The Lord is everywhere. Bright is thy Self,
Indivisible, untouched by sin, wise,
Immanent and transcendent. He it is
Who holds the cosmos together.
In dark night live those for whom
The world without alone is real; in night
Darker still, for whom the world within
Alone is real. The first leads to a life
Of action, the second to a life of meditation.
But those who combine action with meditation
Cross the sea of death through action
And enter into immortality
Through the practice of meditation.
So have we heard from the wise.
In dark night live those for whom the Lord
Is transcendent only; in darker still,
For whom he is immanent only.
But those for whom he is transcendent
And immanent cross the sea of death
With the immanent and enter into
Immortality with the transcendent.
So have we heard from the wise.
The face of truth is hidden by your orb
Of gold, O sun. May you remove your orb
So that I, who adore the true, may see
The glory of truth. O nourishing sun,
Solitary traveler, controller,
Source of life for all creatures, spread your light
And subdue your dazzling splendor
So that I may see your blessed Self.
Even that very Self am I!
May my life merge in the Immortal
When my body is reduced to dust.
O mind, meditate on the eternal Lord.
Remember the deeds of the past.
Remember, O mind, remember.
O god of fire, lead us by the good path
To eternal joy. You kn
ow all our deeds.
Deliver us from evil, we who bow
And pray again and again.
OM Shanti Shanti Shanti
I don't care if you are quoting scriptures ver batem or making it up.
You lost my willingness to follow your narrative when you refer to Existence as "Him". Please put on the wisdom lenses of non dualistic discernment or quit reinforcing more masculine hiarchical patronizing.
In the original sanskrit language it would be gender neutral, the grammer of sanskrit is quite complicated but translations are done by people who have been indoctrinated to view the 'lord' (another feudalistic viewpoint approcah to it); as an 'he'.@@VeganWithAraygun
@@halcyon2864you fail to understand English used in dark sayings. For 'He' and 'her' doesn't refer to sex, rather qualities. 'He' is implied to signify order, power and that which provides sustenance. I'll let you figure out the rest now that you've learned the logic that you've never known up until now - a mark of lazy and inconscientious?
This translation was by Eknath Easwaran.
Nothing special. Very ordinary. 😮
@@VeganWithAraygun When you look out at the wonder of the night sky what does "masculine hierarchical patronizing" even mean? What does masculine even mean? Just the bright stars and the black sky(?). And we're all of the same stuff.
Maybe very specific quantum combinations of organic substances result in elements of consciousness that are beyond our human perception?
Certainly, something is beyond our current ability to explain as far as what is our 1st person subjective experience of existence.
@@davetime5234 it doesn't need to be "explained" any more than a mountain needs to be explained.
Then why are so many trying to explain it, being apparently, the ultimate paradox?
He is personifying all the experiencing going on out there, from bugs to us as just one thing: Experience.
Experiencing is what all we biological things do; it is not a thing, not a noun..
700 nm is a wavelength of light, but red is an experience.
@@Stegosaurus12345 red is also a wavelength
Red is an experience that correlates to a wavelength but is not itself the wavelength.
Of course couldn't be the mind of God, because have to presuppose materialism or physicalism into pan-psychism?
The idea that everything is in the mind of god would be idealism, not panpsychism, which as you point out is a hypothesis about the nature of matter.
@ Yes. Haven’t looked up definition of panpsychism but I think you’re right. But maybe our reality could have a type of substance that is a product of God’s mind but where God is present throughout it. Our minds aren’t literally located within God’s mind, but a reality created through His essence. Not sure if that is still Idealism.
@@MarkPatmos or we could be hobbits
(2:30) *GS: **_"I don't want to be a dualist; I want to think that there's just one kind of stuff in in reality"_* ... That doesn't work when you observe how reality is presented to us. If you have existence and nonexistence, matter and antimatter, positive and negative, predator and prey, and life and death, ... then you necessarily have *physical* and *nonphysical.* ... Can't have one without the other and maintain conceivability.
"Existence" lays this *dichotomic template* out there for everyone to see, yet people choose to ignore it.
There must be something in need of orchestration and an intelligence capable of handling that orchestration to manifest reality. You have the *puppet master* (nonphysical intelligence) and the *sock puppet* (physical substance) working together to make existence happen.
Prove the non-physical puppet master exists.
@@dr_shrinker *"Prove the non-physical puppet master exists."*
... Without the puppet master, your comment would read, _"Stseppr halcpyh-es etpppu het txs rlmresasi"_ due to lack of intelligent orchestration.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Is that substance dualism or property dualism? I can hear you say physical substance, but I cannot hear you say nonphysical/mental substance.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCthat’s not proof. That is you making assumptions.
@@anteodedi8937 *"Is that substance dualism or property dualism?"*
... Neither. You have "physical stuff" in need of orchestration and "nonphysical intelligence" that facilitates the orchestration. The problem most people have with this position is their fixation with the word "mental."
Ture, "nonphysical intelligence" is understood as "mental" when it comes to sentient lifeforms, but at the inanimate level, it's just "nonphysical intelligence" doing its thing. *Example:* A proton and electron coming together to form a hydrogen atom is not a conscious mental act. It's just a minimal amount of nonphysical intelligence facilitating the atom's formation.
*"I can hear you say physical substance, but I cannot hear you say nonphysical/mental substance."*
... During a puppet show, all you see is the puppet (stuff) and not the puppet master (intelligence) who's manipulating the puppet's strings.
BTW: Good reply!
Consciousness figure out physic experiences. However unpredictable consciousness keep out how figure out absolutetly true of physic experiences. About mind body problems are not case close so far. Guys Focus this question NOT approaching true . NOT. Absolutetly.
These are not sentences.
First comment
5:34.. so because we can’t do science with mathematics alone like we can with physics, then things like creatures able to experience cannot have emerged out of a thing that does not experience? Doesn’t that go for life as well? This is philosophy by wow! how could that have happened. Read the science. They’re telling us how it happened.
And radical emergence. Give me a break, it’s just emergence. It happens.
Sorry O by 1. All my responses to you keep getting blocked
2:34.. false dichotomy to 2.46
I think he’s absolutely on the right track, but the phenomenon constitutive of consciousness that’s right there in the fundamental particles and fields is information. Everything about consciousness is informational, and information is a physical phenomenon. So I think he and I are very much on the same page, the difference is just in terminology. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that information is inherently experiential, but experientiality is absolutely informational in the sense that it is about things.
Hey Simon,
Would you be conscious if you were conceived and born in a vacuum without any of your 5 senses? Born with zero information besides that which you possess genetically?
Moreover, how would you know your body existed if you couldn’t feel it?
Skin feels pressure and temp.
Eyes feel light
Ears feel sound waves
Nose feels air molecules
Tongue feels chemical reactions
Seems to me that ‘feel” is the keystone to consciousness. What comprises a “feel” and how do “feels” affect a thought?
Information comes in, gets processed in the brain, and the brain reacts by producing an output. Or, if you want to simplify it. Consciousness is like an AC unit, whereas the mind is the dirty air filter.
Concerning consciousness, Let’s forget about the input/output for the time being. Physics has a good explanation for those. We should focus on the filter itself.
How could the filter be ‘self aware?” That is the crux of the hard problem…….
Is there a 6th sense that feels all the 5 senses at once? If so, then that 6th sense must be defined and located in Space-time to be a physical thing. Would it not?
I wonder if there are neurological experiments where science has isolated the part of the brain responsible for “de-personalization.’
Could it be this simple?
From Google..”Studies often point to the VLPFC as a key area involved in depersonalization, with potential dysregulation in its activity leading to the feeling of disconnection from one's own experiences”
So, the pre frontal cortex is suspected to be the filter? I hate where this is going. I don’t want to be some hippie with a “3rd eye t-shirt” talking about spiritual awakening. lol.
@@dr_shrinker I'm not sure what the first paragraph is asking to be honest. Sure, if you couldn't feel anything you wouldn't know or experience anything. I don't quite see the relevance though.
There's the signal from a nerve, the neurological processes that interpret that into a perceptual representation, and then how we integrate that into our experience which is an introspective interpretive process.
*"Everything about consciousness is informational, and information is a physical phenomenon."*
... Agree with the first part, but information is not required to be solely physical. *Example:* A square-circle does not physically exist, nor can it exist. A square circle is a nonphysical construct, and all information attached to it is likewise nonphysical. You cannot argue that something that doesn't exist is the same as something that does as that results in a contradiction.
One is found within reality whereas the other is not. There must be an established, conceivable difference.
*"I wouldn’t go so far as to say that information is inherently experiential, but experientially is absolutely informational in the sense that it is about things."*
... Physical information is about things and nonphysical information is about non-things. A 0-dimensional point has no spatial or dimensional presence. Its existence is only known by a series of coordinates that are NOT the point, itself. The point, itself, is nonphysical.
... Nice to see you commenting again!
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >A square circle is a nonphysical construct,
We have the words 'square circle', but these are not themselves a square circle. We could view them as a description, but it is an incoherent self-refuting description, and so cannot describe anything. So, there is not such construct as an 'actual square circle', since it's a contradiction.
>and all information attached to it is likewise nonphysical
The description 'square circle' is physical, it's right there on my screen. However that isn't itself an actual square circle. I think you're making the mistake that because you can say 'square circle' that therefore this must refer to something, but that's not the case.
>You cannot argue that something that doesn't exist is the same as something that does as that results in a contradiction.
Something that doesn't exist isn't the same as anything, by definition. All we can have is descriptions of things that don't exist, but no actual things that don't exist. As before in our conversations you conflate descriptions of things with actual things.
>... Physical information is abut things and nonphysical information is about non-things.
Physical descriptions can refer to physical things, or not. If they don't the description is still physical. We can still write and read the description, but it doesn't describe anything. It's just descriptive words in a sequence.
>A 0-dimensional point has no spatial or dimensional presence. Its existence is only known by a series of coordinates that are NOT the point, itself.
Exactly! The coordinates we write down are physical, the point is hypothetical.
>The point, itself, is nonphysical.
Which is to say that there is no such point. It's not that it 'exists nonphysically' in any sense, it just doesn't exist in the same way that a square circle doesn't exist.
>... Nice to see you commenting again!
Thanks, good to be back, but it was a nice break too.
@@simonhibbs887the first question is simple. Would you be conscious if you never had a single bit of experience or interaction with the universe. In other words, you were born in the ultimate deprivation chamber.
Like Helen Keller, but with all your senses.
Consciousness is in coming air waves emanating from matter to which our 5 senses decipher..
This is a logical fact as far as I understand
where "consciousness" = air