Mindscape Episode 80 | Jenann Ismael on Connecting Physics to the World of Experience
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 01. 2020
- Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Physics is simple; people are complicated. But even people are ultimately physical systems, made of particles and forces that follow the rules of the Core Theory. How do we bridge the gap from one kind of description to another, explaining how someone we know and care about can also be “just” a set of quantum fields obeying impersonal laws? This is a hard question that comes up in a variety of forms - What is the “self”? Do we have free will, the ability to make choices? What are the moral and ethical ramifications of these considerations? Jenann Ismael is a philosopher at the leading edge of connecting human life to the fundamental laws of nature, for example in her recent book How Physics Makes Us Free. We talk about free will, consciousness, values, and other topics about which I’m sure everyone will simply agree.
Jenann Ismael received her Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. She is currently Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University. Her work includes both the foundations of physics (spacetime, quantum mechanics, symmetry) and the philosophy of mind and cognition. She has been awarded fellowships from Stanford University, the Australian Research Council, the Scots Philosophical Association, and the Center for Advanced Study in Social and Behavioral Sciences, as well as an Essay Prize from the British Society for the Philosophy of Science. - Věda a technologie
She absolutely didn't refute the consequence argument. Wanting so badly for something to be wrong is not enough to disprove it
Yeah, I didn't understand the arguments against consequence here. Also, I feel like the consequence argument doesn't need to be as strong as Dr. Ismael believes it does for us to rule out free will. Isn't it enough to believe that we are fully "of this world," and that our interior worlds ultimately derive from our exterior world? Even if we can never ever predict what specific actions will be undertaken, our physical bodies and brains are 100% the basis of our consciousnesses and personalities. What small part of you is not _ultimately_ a product of your environment and genes? If you can't point to anything like that, some "uncaused" factor in your self, then your choices are a function of physical law (albeit physical law not yet fully cataloged and understood by us humans).
That said, at the level of human politics and justice, it's a different question altogether I believe whether we just throw out accountability. I don't think we should throw it out, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
Yes!
“Let my creativity run wild and build the furniture I was meant to live in!”
Dude. For a second i thought i was the one invited at the show. 😜
I had the first-person experience of enjoying this conversation very much!
I still don't see how Jenann's arguments negate the idea of a lack of control when talking about free will. Even if the 'determinism' is taken out out of it with physics (which I still don't think she adequately did but I'm not a physicist so I'll trust her expertise on that), I still don't see how you can claim we have free will in our decision making when we don't have control over what it is that we will?
What a wonderful and important conversation, thank you!
EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ALL PEOPLE, ARE PHYSICAL, AND, VERY-MUCH MATERIAL. GOOD JOB. FREE-WILL, AND ETHICS IS COMMON-SENSE FOR EVERYONE.
PEACE.🖖✌️👌🤙👍
Please try bring ed Witten, and talk about string theory
Thanks for the podcast! :)
There seems to be a disconnect between "cows lives don't have a deep value", "tho their suffering is important", and then your actual real world choices. If their suffering matters, then unless you raised and killed the cow yourself, you have to take the word of the industry that no suffering happened. That seems to be a glaring flaw in the otherwise excellent arguments: "The industry who's incentives are to do things as quick and cheap as possible, but who won't invite me in to their abbotoirs for *some* reason, are telling me it's fine, so I'm going believe them.".
I wonder... if you had to go out of your way to find meat, rather than it being the default option, would that affect your attention to this flaw in the argument?
This was an incredible podcast. I could listen to Jenann and Sean for hours.
It'd be great to see you in Auckland. Richard Feynman did a lecture at Auckland University in the eighties.
i realize it's quite randomly asking but does anybody know of a good place to stream newly released series online ?
I wish you'd come to Perth , WA as well. Maybe next time! I am a big fan of your work and your podcasts. Keep it up! PS. Dr. Ismael is amazing. I'll be following her as well from now on. Thank you for introducing me to her.
We should make a distinction between will and free will. Certainly we have will or willpower and that is what distinguishes us from stones, but our universe is deterministic and our wills are not free. Any simple decision we make involves the conscious shuffling of subliminal urges which follow causal pathways.
Enjoyed this episode very much.
Thank you, Sean!
Thank you so much for your work.
Sean's supposed epiphany on vegetarianism is somewhat disappointing. Establishing that the life of a human may be regarded as more significant than that of a cow is hardly ground-breaking, but, more importantly, does nothing to establish the need to kill the cow simply because some humans like the taste of its flesh, when it is not a necessity to sustain human life.
Indeed, given the role of meat production, particularly beef, in climate change, then the priority of human life being asserted, it may be argued, makes the choice to kill and eat the cow indefensible, not solely on the grounds of the cow's life, but on that of the preservation of human life.
Haha I can teach Sean Carroll something 😂 Its pronounced "Melbun"... Love the podcast mate cheers
Yes . correct. big fan and reading the new book. Can't put it down.Hope to get it signed when you are in Melbourne.
Great one!
Hello Sean, A black hole is the closest you can get to viewing yourself without any atoms on.
Sean Carroll really be uploading videos at 3am
My approach to the levels of consciousness is to use the categories of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th person perspectives that can be modeled inside a single physical system (a collection of atoms, or whatever) measuring one of two core functions - inputs/interiority/current-state or outputs/exteriority/goal-state - to make a possible awareness of things interacting in up to to four dimensions of space~time. (Anything beyond this seems to be beyond human level consciousness, which is quite possible, but not humanly so. :-) I use base 2 counting to describe all of the possible kinds of consciousness to keep things simple.
So, atoms have level 0 consciousness, only being aware of their own internal state, or 1st person inputs. Living cells have level 1 consciousness, as they have the awareness of their own inputs *plus* their wants, aka their outputs/goals. Then things get more complex, with emotional awareness in mammals and birds and maybe even some insects, where there is an awareness of another individual's current, and/or goal state, in addition to the awareness of the self's current and/or goal state, and how they all map into a 2D projection space in the mental model. And then it gets even more complex when a third perspective of some larger/distant individual/system is added for intellectual level awareness of how three different individuals/systems interact with the different current states and/or goal states. And finally, in humans, we have the rare, occasional, ability to be conscious of our own physical state and/or goal state, the state/s of an immediate companion, the state/s of a larger/distant system, and the state/s of the universe as a whole and how all of these things fit together into some amorphous 4D blob that maps how it all (might) interacts.
@25:05
There are lots of very potent and interesting biochemical agents which give you otherwise very difficult to attain states of consciousness. So this was a very valuable advice given: to do some authentic introspection, a real experiment with the faculty you think you think.
LSD is of course very well known but it is a more "general" psychedelic and I have to agree with others here that it seems your dosage was not high enough for a so-called boundless ego-loss or your ego-defenses (or neuroticism) as a well trained theoretical physicist were simply too high, which then has to be addressed with several high doses.
Dissociatives like Ketamine, PCP, Salvia would be more powerful in disintegrating your sense of I until you are just a ... door knob for example :D
Interestingly enough K is medically an invaluable tool (in the WHO List on Essential Medicines) as a very powerful anaesthetic, and there is Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist who together with Penrose has a theory on ... you get the picture ;)
The multiverse is probably random and deterministic. Randomness in the sense of Pascal's triangle, where all possible combinations of contraction and expansion are generated by a simple algorithm of these two functions. From any one timeline within the whole, only one universe is experienced, and which future path one ends up being in is unknown, but all lines are experienced over the entirety of reality.
After listening to this discussion and the one with Dennett, I feel like Mindscape listeners would greatly benefit by going beyond devil's advocate and hearing from someone actually on the other side. I couldn't help but hear something circular along the lines of, "yes, the world is deterministic, but our free will consists in making decisions because we have made decisions about the things that make us who we are." It seems like Searle would have useful things to say in these regards.
Sean did have some guests who disagree with him he had that guy Hoffman who thinks Consciousness is the ground of everything
The physicist he had on last week thought that we need a new physics to explain abiogenesis
So it's not like he hasn't had people who have different perspectives from him
He also had a couple of philosophers who share a different perspective on
If anything I miss the Sean Carroll from his debates where he was very bold about getting to the heart of the matter and saying the things we clearly know about reality
Honestly Sean from his debates probably would have said free will isn't even really that interesting of a question
I mean it's clear that we are organisms. We are part of the biosphere. We understand every molecular interaction that organisms experience. We know the human form down to the atomic level. We know every molecule that makes up the human body and how those molecules interact. If you look in any graduate-level neurology or biochemistry textbook it's staggering the amount of information we know about human life
Even in this episode his guests made a strong presumption for which there is no evidence saying that somehow there is a mystery
There is no mystery. There are questions in science that have gray areas such as in advanced physics and the exact history that led 2 to abiogenesis
But even in these cases we have plausible theories we just don't have the ability to find data that would settle the gray area such as data that would confirm or disprove String Theory data that would let us know which theory of abiogenesis is correct
The fact is we understand what life is. We understand what Consciousness is. The only mystery comes through semantics and games of language.
@@origins7298 No, we don't understand consciousness, and that's a fact.
@@Al-ji4gd Yes we do, it's a word, that denotes certain abilities of the human organism. The problem is people are still under the umbrella of ancient superstition and religion and they feel they can't be scientific about the world. And they have to live in this magical reality where certain things are mystical
If you want to ask well why is it that way? Why is consciousness that way? At some point it's just the way it is. At some point it's becomes because that's what the laws of physics dictate
In other words you can ask well why does the Sun burn at the temperature it does? And you can say we don't understand that we can't explain why the sun burns at exactly the temperature it does. But the fact is at some point why questions just become like little kids who just keep saying but why, but why...
@@Al-ji4gd anyway the fact is consciousness is just like any other evolved phenomena. Like the fact that birds fly or bats use echolocation. Just an evolved ability...
If you want to say it's not explained that's because you think there is something more to it and you have to prove that you can justify that claim... Because we have mountains of evidence that show consciousness is just what brains do... especially complex ones that have language and culture...
@@origins7298 That's not the case at all. We have neural correlates of consciousness and that's about it. There are a variety of experiences, named contents of consciousness, that have a close relationship to our physiology, mainly the brain, but that doesn't establish any kind of causation.
I've heard this story many a time, but it's far from compelling. No one is denying aspects of consciousness have evolved via natural selection. However, you're doomed to fail if you begin with a physical world and try to get the mind out of that. It has never worked and never will. You're handicapped from the very beginning because consciousness is primary in pretty much every aspect you can think of; methodologically, phenomenologically, epistemologically and transcendentally. Therefore, any theory that tries to begin with a materialist ontology and then tries to get consciousness out of that (which is the only thing you can ever know) is in trouble.
Also, if you want to go down the evolved path, you need to explain what consciousness is, how it arose, and what function it serves, and we don't have anything like that. There are no good theories of consciousness anywhere currently.
So, you've established nothing, and all you've done is appeal to complexity and aspects of biology. Fair enough, good luck with that, but there is no proof there.
what is Sean Carroll's opinion on recent "no objective reality" experiment and its connection to multiverse?
Based on a reply to an article he seems to have posted here: dailynous.com/2019/03/21/philosophers-physics-experiment-suggests-theres-no-thing-objective-reality/#crowther
His opinion seems to be:
"In the experiment being discussed, branching did not occur. Rather than having an actual human friend who observes the photon polarization-which would inevitably lead to decoherence and branching, because humans are gigantic macroscopic objects who can’t help but interact with the environment around them-the “observer” in this case is just a single photon. For an Everettian, this means that there is still just one branch of the wave function all along. The idea that “the observer sees a definite outcome” is replaced by “one photon becomes entangled with another photon,” which is a perfectly reversible process. Reality, which to an Everettian is isomorphic to a wave function, remains perfectly intact."
Anyone joined the great courses that he advertises? Wondering if you need to purchase a monthly membership plus the course you want or a monthly membership will get you access to courses or can you not get a monthly membership and pay individually for courses?
25:30 totally agree hey , Salvia Divinorum is the one you are after if you want that to break down sense of self , but it's tricky and harsh to smoke as there is a threshold dose you have to get over in a short time for it to work.
@Sean Davis Ditto.
@Sean Davis yeah mate, my first try was rather not fun too. i had thrown the booklet the shop gave me away and laughed "who need a pamphlet to get high".. oops :)
Salvia seemed really similar to DMT to me, which I vastly prefer over the former - but yeah, for both you really gotta push the threshold, and either way it’s gonna take a lot of work on ALL of our behalf’s to get Sean on some better drugs
@@AwesometownUSA Salvia feels like gravity is crushing me as I have not so enjoyable hallucinations. DMT feels heavenly.
After strong salvia I became a hedge in a very sunny location. I began to panic when I saw and heard the clippers were coming to trim me. I was a hedge no doubt in my mind.
Only half way through, but animals show grief when they lose someone as well, Elephants come to mind, and I’m sure pigs and apes as well among others. I’m not sure people are so special, we just like to think we are
The differences between humans and other animals are purely quantitative, not qualitative.
Interesting!
Legend.
could consciousness be a quantum field? Glad you mentioned quantum fields.
No.
@@imodern Not an argument.
what about a biological argument,
are biologically resilient organisms more valuable by default? are cockroaches more valuable than roses? wich one is more prone to the continuity of life ,on case of catastrophic annihilation.
wouldn't that be a true measurement for value?
Do I control the particles in my brain or do the particles in my brain control me?
Both. Just like gravity is space and time and space and time are gravity
You and the particles in your brain aren't different things. You might as well ask do I control me or do me control I?
MyOther Soul I was referring to the concept of “free will”. Is there such a thing and how do we understand particle physics of such a thing?
@@1a1c What does it mean for will to be free? "WIll" is part of the universe and behaves accordingly.
I think your question is the right one, my version of it is this:
If "will" were free how could it to do anything at all?
Karl Pilkington Et al.
I’m sorry but here I’m lost. If we write the following:
Laws of physics -> early universe
early universe -> current universe
Current universe -> life
Life + laws of physics -> evolution
Évolution -> appearance of memory
Memory + Life + interaction between all life and physical realities -> State(me)
State(me) + State(universe) -> my decision
Then the causal chain is early universe -> decision and there is:
1) no free will
2) everything is causal and determined
What if cows make simple plans in order to continue living in the hopes of enjoying another sunny day, a field of green grass and companionship of other cows. Aren't we just subjectively qualifying and comparing the cows' plans to our own more complex plans? Both cows and humans are capable of joy and fulfillment. Both make plans to experience those emotions so the impetus and end result are the same regardless of the complexity of the plans. One could argue that both cows and humans have the same end goals (joy and fulfillment) but the paths we take (the planning) differ because humans are physiologically more fragile and must compensate with more complex planning (requiring longer-term memories and emotional complexity) which we subjectively judge to be more valuable. Is the subjectivity that dominates human behavior just a biological trick to convince us to believe that we do things of our own free will so that we will actually do them which end up ensuring the continuation of our species? If so, we don't have any more free will than a cow or any other lifeform. Ismael says that because of our memories and the complexity of our future plans that when we die it's a "special sort of loss" compared to other animals. Does this mean that if we come into contact with a species that is vastly more complex than our own that our deaths will no longer be a "special sort of loss"? Is the argument here that we don't have to be vegetarians because WE don't value the lives of other species? The fact that some of us don't value other species could be a biological trick to make us choose to eat them to acquire the energy to survive and reproduce. If we choose not to eat them it could be another biological trick so that we will feel joy and fulfillment that we are not eating them which is critical to avoid mental illness that might lead to death and no reproduction. If we choose not to eat anything in protest it could still be a biological trick to achieve joy and fulfillment even if doing so leads to the death of that individual because somehow that individual's choice convinces others to change their behavior which may help ensure the survival and reproduction of other humans. Another argument could be that we don't have to be vegetarians because life is no more valuable than any other event in the universe and, therefore, we can kill other humans without remorse. The fact that we don't kill other humans without remorse is a biological trick and not free will because it prevents survival and reproduction or, rather, because it is energetically favourable to reproduce which favours the evolution of these biological tricks. The origin of the biological trick is an event that brought together particular molecules that formed molecular machines with the capability to reproduce and biochemically behave (it is energetically favourable) to favour reproduction. Is consciousness an emergent property of these molecular events? What if the "consciousness" of individuals are really separate egos or complex patterns that are components of a single consciousness that creates or is expressed as existence? Is this consciousness a quantum state or superposition of a binary system which consists of nothingness (non-existence) and maximum entropy. Consciousness consists of the infinite number of possibilities (waveforms?). Each lifeform is a possible pattern (a Boltzmann Brain?) and a sufficiently complex Boltzmann Brain categorizes and orders the possibilities into what we call probability and the particular pattern that are us, humans, order these possibilities in such a way to make it appear as if entropy is increasing? That would seem to imply that "energetically favourable" is an illusion. There would be other Boltzmann Brains that categorize and order possibilities in a different way. Would these Boltzmann Brains be a brane in the multi-verse? These are just thoughts from a layperson who enjoys these CZcams videos. Thank-you for creating them!
lot of folk on here like short cuts without putting in any work. just take psychedelics! it'll be great!
Is this a real episode or a deep fake simulation of Sean and Jenan ??
Doesn’t complexity masquerade as free will?
You might just be on to something. My smartphone is way too complicated and I'm pretty sure it's developed the free will to decide to make my life harder
I think it would be more accurate to say that free will is an illusion that emerges from a lack of complete knowledge. Complexity and complete knowledge are related but they also have relevant differences.
I said goodbye to two 16 year old pugs today, the "time" was right. I cried for all our soft determinism. It's going to happen but you can angle the shot. This is a Hume discussion, not Dualistic nonsense. I need to understand never works. So much assumption.
not really fair to determinism. determinists know that the brain has asymmetrical influence over it's environment, that doesn't really change anything though. It's very useful on the human level to realize brains don't conjure ideas or feelings out of thin air, they're adopted from preceding experience and input. Usefulness being key.
27:00 Sean you just didn’t do a heavy enough dose of LSD
There is still a narrator, always. The narrator is the "self". We only ever lose that when we're totally unconscious, as in deep sleep.
thewiseturtle you just haven’t done a heavy enough dose of LSD
@@CoolCat6131 Heh.
But, honestly, what do you think the experience would be that wouldn't have the narrator (conscious observer who's aware that it is having an experience) but does still have an experience that it's not experiencing?
But Frfr m.psychonautwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Memory_suppression&_=#Ego_death
thewiseturtle “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio”
Jenann's overly intellectual explanation of why it's ok to kill cows to eat them is just excessively egoic, anthrocentric aggrandizing and justifying. If you've ever heard and seen a cow bellowing at the loss of her calf, seen her nurture and care for it, and mope and search and pine for it, or if you've seen a cow search and bring back an errant fellow cow or calf to the fold, then you know that cow has feelings, thoughts and awareness. And not that it's a rational measure justifying killing as Ms. Ismael proposes, but that cow's awareness extends beyond the moment. Science shows vegetarians are healthier and live longer than animal eaters. Statistically vegans are even healthier. Plus animal ag is terrible for the environment. Additionally, I was surprising and disappointedly amused to hear Sean, directly after what Jenann thought to be a deeply insightful and empathetic justification of killing cows to eat them, Sean launches directly into a commercial, for an exercise routine none the less! I thought I was listening to Russ Limbaugh. John Robbins (Diet for a New America, etc.) gives the best and simplest reasoning behind eating. Two things: One is suffering. Assume you want to minimize suffering in the world. Two, Living things exist in a gradient of consciousness, from low, like plants, to high, like chickens, dogs, cows, pigs, and then humans. Knowing that the greater awareness/consciousness the greater the suffering, It's up to each person to decide on what level of consciousness he or she will eat at.
Never underestimate the power of motivated reasoning. People are willing to employ great mental gymnastics to justify something dear to them.
Sounds like free will apologetics and meat apologetics nicely seasoned with some human exceptionalism to me
cope
anyone think the Kick-Ass Sean Carroll from his days of debating theists would have got to the heart of the matter much more succinctly.
It was a good discussion and it's just a different forum, so I can understand the reason it takes the shape it does but...
We know what life is. Life is not a mystery to us!
We understand every molecule and chemical interaction that makes up living organisms!
We know every molecule and pathway of metabolism that every human being undergoes
It's a staggering historical achievement
Look in any graduate-level neurology or biochemistry book and it's just amazing the detailed mapping of life that we have put together.....
...Yes there are still gray areas in science....
But they are gray simply because we don't have the data which would allow us to decide which theories are correct...
For example String Theory could potentially unify physics but we don't have a way to confirm it
Likewise we have many plausible theories of abiogenesis but we don't have the data to confirm which one is correct
Consciousness is not a mystery to us! There is no hard problem of consciousness! These are just games of language
Consciousness is simply a word used to describe what happens when matter evolve to the complexity of human form
The Experience humans have is just what is necessitated by the way the forward momentum of the universe has taken shape
It is simply the way it is!
Anyway it's nice to have the luxury of being able to mix it up over how we dot our I's. But these are simply Aesthetics. Same Aesthetics that allow us to enjoy art or music or certain verbal expressions. These are just the luxury of a biosphere that has been generous to the human form. Conditions that have allowed us to thrive and create prosperity
It was a good discussion but I miss that Kick-Ass Sean Carroll who would have certainly engaged when his guests said that there is a mystery going on. Again we know what life is. The fact that there is no linguistic statement that can easily sum up the complexity of Human Experience doesn't make for a mystery. It's simply the conditions we find ourselves in!
1:05:30 He keeps jabbing at her while trying to pretend to be friendly but I agree with you he should have engaged with her directly, it almost seemed worse to pretend to be on her side a little...
She is very vague. She likes dancing around ideas.
It's funny listening to people try to justify their behaviors, which becomes very different from understanding them. Choice blindness experiments show how we can craft elaborate stories about why we did something that we didn't actually do. Both of their explanations for the morality of eating cows sounded to me like those elaborate confabulations in the choice blindness studies. The real reason that some humans choose to eat meat is the same reason that all other species choose to eat what they eat, because it tastes good, which is tied to the desire for certain nutrients. And since each individual is unique, especially in homo sapiens, each of us will find different things tasty (and nutritious). Of course there are also "higher" reasons for eating things in more complex animals with social order, where we aim to signal our belonging to some group by engaging in, or not engaging in, certain behaviors/rituals, including eating/drinking.
Philosophical reasons for eating or not eating other animals is really the least important reasoning. But we like to make ourselves sound more morally aware sometimes (signalling membership in the "deep thinking humans" group, most likely), so we confabulate all kinds of complex stories instead of actually understanding the physics/biology/psychology.
Which I find funny.
My thoughts exactly, well said!
True. Nothing escapes cognitive bias, no matter how neatly the idea is packaged. In fact, the free will debate is rife with bias. People interpret it whatever way they like best, and I can sense a lot of that in Jenann Ismael as well.
Love a lot of this.
At about 18:00 - sorry, I can't get on board with that.
This is god-smuggling, teleological nonsense. We have to stop that kind of question-begging, it has never turned out accurate.
Going to listen some more. I do find it fascinating. Good that there's some pushback on this.
I don't know why there's even a discussion connecting the laws of physics and free will. Every physical theory so far comes with non-determinism. The popular view of quantum mechanics has randomness, Many Worlds allows all the outcomes, and a Newtonian world is chaotic requiring infinite precision to track, according to Feynman. None of this matters. Free will is a psychological and moral phenomenon and would be equally well valid if our intellects were simulated by classical deterministic computers. Conflating the psychological freedom to act according to your reasoning, with some randomness or non-determinism in the physics is just faulty thinking in words. These concepts are not the same.
Thank you, yes, great. This external point of view that is the total description of the universe doesn't exist. Yes. Why would it? Why would people who are so fond of denying God rely on a God's eye view to make their arguments. How about they just tell use where that description exists in the universe before we get started with such claims. Love it!
First of all, I know Sean and Jenann are supposed to be friends, but, during this particular interview, he's kind of rude and off putting... just saying.
32:37 Sean's mind does not compute... what do you mean by meaning? Oh, no, logical error, no cognitive semiotics data found, error... oh no... error... error
58:10 Oh my God, yes! Thank you. You tell him!
58:53 And, yes! Exactly! "By what right?" indeed. It's such an awkward assumption, specially in physics.
1:16:00 Mind? How do you quantify mind? Sean's mind network will unravel without quantification...
Pardon my sarcasm. I actually love Mr. Carroll's work. He is expanding, I give him that.
Dmt ends the I
Haha
Ego Death isn’t the same as loss of consistency of perspective, though, and even in DMT “blast-offs” I’ve been able to retain the latter
@@AwesometownUSA Hmm, the way some described it sounded as if the perspective itself shifted with the transformation from the self to 'energy'. So but when they say 'you become a part of everything' you reckon they still see themselves as a 'part' (ergo a self) rather than being that everything?
@@kwetsbarevrijheid2720 yeah sort of leaves us something which isn't part of all that happens.
If Jenann was a cookie, what type of cookie would she be?
Hiding their smirking muckers.
"All good-thinking people believe there is such a thing as free will"...and that earned a thumbs down.