Ned Block - What's the Essence of Consciousness?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2024
- Consciousness is what mental activity feels like, the private inner experience of sensation, thought and emotion. Watching a dramatic movie. Imagining your family’s future. Attending the funeral of a loved one. Consciousness is like nothing else. But what is consciousness, the essence of consciousness, at its most fundamental level?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/3GJlv3Q
Ned Block is a philosopher working in the field of the philosophy of mind who has made important contributions to matters of consciousness and cognitive science.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, 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.
This is such a fun channel. Great experts being asked deep questions and having smart conversations. Thank you.
Fascinating to read every comment and language.
Whir-click! I have been reading Block’s work trying to understand what the difference is between P-consciousness (phenomenol) and A-conciousness (access). This just locked it into place (& will be tremendously import to my thesis research).
Your are all right C2T! 😊
Your Chanel is a breath for reason, thax!
At 4:38 - "... dividing consciousness in a different way, in terms of biological approaches and functional approaches..." 6:22 - "brain independent... functions per se, doesn't matter the substrate on which it happens."
Association (associative learning/conditioning) is essential to consciousness, and an important theoretical framework that addresses this is semiotics (beginning with CS Peirce). Everything is associative, from the way we combine words to form sentences, to the way we associate experiences to make inferences and form meaning, to the way binocular vision associates two separate retinal images into one with depth, and so on. Associations create the contexts that create meaning.
The Turing test is an association *simulator* and that's why it can fool subjects into believing that it is human. Machines (Turing test) can simulate consciousness, but they can never be conscious. What's the missing ingredient? Answer... association... no no no, not *simulated* association, but real association.
Association can be simulated in many ways, from software algorithms to neural net architectures. But they are not true association because they rely on circuit inputs/outputs, logic gates, etc, to manufacture output responses. They are not meaning driven, because there is no context being created. True association, however, is meaning driven and context dependent.
ILLUSION - DEMONSTRATION OF ASSOCIATION AND A POSSIBLE CHALLENGE TO THE TURING TEST
Some startling illusions provide examples of how association works, and increasingly they've been making a presence online. I won't include links to them because then my post gets blocked by yewtube's spmm blokker, but they're easy enough to find with our search engines:
- [Ames Window]
- [12 fascinating optical illusions show how color can trick the eye] (Washington Post article of February 27, 2015)
- [Optical illusion of color: See if you see same or different colors] (Aureolls)
The illusions aren't always just visual. They include associating other senses as well, such as touch, or smell. For insight and some laughs, google terms such as:
- [rubber hand illusion]
- [rubber hand experiment]
- [fake hand experiment]
Optical illusions are the most common because they are the easiest to reproduce online, across computer screens. But *all* experiences intercepted by our bodies are associative, and so it follows that touch, smell, taste and sound can also be deployed to create illusions.
The principle that makes association so important is very simple. It's the combining of concepts to yield a new concept, context, meaning or illusion. It's fundamental to how we, and every other organism, makes the inferences that are essential to survival. Association plays out also at the cellular and neural levels (refer Eric Kandel's work on Aplysia).
TO CONCLUDE
The principle of association is not new. It's been around for awhile, beginning with CS Peirce and William James. Association should provide Ned Block with further avenues to explore. It can be shown that *biological approaches* are always associative. Functional approaches (computer, hardware/software), on the other hand, can only ever be simulations of consciousness, perhaps *simulating* associations, but never actually making the associations that generate context, meaning and illusion.
I like the way Alan Watts described consciousness.... It would be really interesting for these highly trained and intelligent men to explore new experiences of consciousness and then sit down and have these conversations and put these different perspectives together and explore whether this enhances and moves humanities understanding of consciousness forward ...
It's disheartening to see how many people approach this subject from the standpoint that they already know the Truth. They've had some experience of experiential consciousness via drugs or meditation, they've got a new-age or religious explanation that made sense to them, or they so desperately want you to look at their YT channel that they regularly post their answer hoping they can impress you with their understanding from a more 'scientific' standpoint... Yet how few have the courage to look beyond what they "know" and to question things in ways that they've only considered the superficial aspects of. This topic scares people enough that they want to stop it, they want to jump in and assert they're final conclusion or to just trivialise and ignore it - and that is what, imo, makes it a topic worth exploring scientifically, philosophically, and experientially.
So you have the industrial revolutionary mindset influenced and obsessed by consumption , materlism and your paradolia of the mind sees mechanisms in everything and everywhere ?
But you don't like that computation and discovery has influence a revival of a mindset of idealism that's asking questions about engineering ?
evolutionary mythology says that mechanics brought about the brain and neurons firing was a natural selection did it.
But now that people are being raised from death up to 6 hours with everything shut down and no firing but with memories it removes that argument and for the first ever provides material evidence of an essence of a separate command center or soul if you will.
You can play musical chairs of super position to stand relative to the answers you seek but the scientific rules of the game point to everything even max planks bits and participate popping into existence fully programmed and engineered
If you will scroll through yt or google to see all the various fields that do evolutionary sciences from psychiatry to cosmology or even geology right now you will the see priority questions are one of idealism and engineering .
They say something like, for a 100 years we have asked questions of mechanism and process but now it's time reimagine , or take a broad look into asking questions of code and information ..or just Engineering.
If your able to see things from neutral point , you will they are contradicting themselves with this .
But knowing that computers are changing our perception from materialism your start to see the pattern cognitive Bias in our explanation and interpretations of evidence and discovery.
Theoretical details are subject to change without further notice.
@Winston Great comment!!! Couldn't agree more!
Absolutely spot on my friend 👏 👍 👌 🙌 😀 🤣
If there could be conscious contents in the brain that we don't have access to, maybe there are conscious contents in other parts of the body that we don't have access to either. Like the heart or the stomach. I heard that the stomach contains similar cells to those in the brain.
He is differentiating sensation without awareness, and awareness, which is globally available.
I think that’s right.
Also to note, where is the self when there is no awareness? Engrossed or absorbed in the experience. On reflection after, we feel like we, the self, was there engrossed, but were we? Or was there just sensations?
Please let’s get over the Turing test already in a serious discussion about consciousness
State of mind. The moment you realize you're there, You're not there anymore!
@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired opps
@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired it was a brilliant observation! 😉👍
The ONE
9:17 Consciousness is the only reality
what might bring about cognitive consciousness and subjectivity?
We do not have to even resort to - your red is not the same as my red talk. It is said that what is your own red changes over time. As you get older, it changes, especially in lower light. If there is some emotional experience associated with a specific color, your overall conscious experience may be different e.g once you know the color of blood is red, you may react to red color after that moment differently than how you reacted to the red color before that moment. Once you learn to read a particular script, you may react to the words written somewhere differently. My point is that this phenomenon can happen for perceptual, emotional, and intellectual levels. Your red may be different than my red is a red herring example. You see what I did there with red. It is similar to the use of
Mary locked in black and white room example is similarly misleading and gottcha style argument. We could just as well imagine her seeing a brand new color that she had not seen yet. I do understand the emphatic contrast of the scenario used in that example. But the real mistake in that example is the confusion between having an experience with understanding the mechanism of how that specific experience comes about. If Mary is able to predict what she will experience for a given input of frequency of light based on adjacency of color labels with color frequencies, that is strong enough argument in favor of physical basis of consciousness. Philosophical zombies to assert panpsychism is yet another weak argument against physical and within current known physics basis of consciousness. Sean Carroll discusses this in his recent books.
Is it still just theory though? Even if it were a controlled test. Wouldn't physics cancel out each result in that environment? If so, then could gradual change be a better indicator of the red to green consciousness phenomena?
how do phenomenal consciousness and cognitive consciousness interact?
is phenomenal conscious considered to be subconscious? and without subjective awareness or noticing?
noticing or awareness of consciousness has subjectivity?
..."block-head"! good one...
The "essence" of consciousness depends upon the embodiment of the individualizing, integrating and personifying human.
I think the study of what it means when we interpret and report our first person experiences (processing and output side) and to understand those mechanisms is equally important along with the understanding of how the consciousness (input side) gets generated in the first place. And, the fact that all three have to occur 8n the same brain gives us some clues towards physical basis of consciousness in brain states and dynamics of them.
It is a subtle point I am making.
awareness of consciousness is a different experience than the content of consciousness?
Consciousness is MORE than brain. I should know, I've experienced Non-Local Consciousness first hand (Out of Body Experience). I used to be sceptical of such things, but not any more.
How can *_pain_* be perceived without consciousness!!?! It's the difference between knowledge and awareness,.. between a book and a living entity.
3:45 and the essence is that we're not even slightly aware of its complexity...
I think consciousness might just be the CPU of the computer we live in. Multiple core CPUs and all that.
phenomenal consciousness of brain more in contact with physical nature, while cognitive consciousness more in contact with a subjective reality?
How about when it's defined simply as "awareness"? That's always frustrating in conversation. Here we go. It misses the root, the ground, and the sky in its explanation.
Awareness is known by awareness alone...
How about this idea. Conscious awareness is a result of the design of our body and mind in that it is made up of cells that have algorithms giving them low level intelligent functionality. Cells, which make up every part of our body including our organs, skin, mind, neurons, etc, actually communicate with each other for many purposes such as carrying out the instructions from the genomes, etc. Our cells communicate events occurring throughout our bodies with each other which enables our body as a whole to respond to events. In exactly the same way, our cells are involved in, are aware of, participate in, our thoughts. That is, the very neurons (cells) that are conducting the thought signals are monitoring those thoughts at the same time. The thing that is conducting the thought is sensing the thoughts and communicating those sensations throughout the body. Thus, we feel our thoughts - ie., Self Awareness. For a computer to do this, all of the transistors, that comprise the gates, memory cells, program registers, etc would need to at the same time be able to monitor each others activities and react to them. Smart transistors if you will. The computer needs to be able to sense its own processing activies (thoughts) to be aware of itself which of coarse affects the thoughts in a feedback loop.
The Turing Test is one of the misunderstood concepts from computer science.
It was never intended to be a test for consciousness but rather for a so-called operational definition of intelligence.
A machine is considered intelligent in this context if it can't be distinguished from a human by interrogation, meaning it could seamlessly replace a human operator.
It isn't really concerned with the question of whether or not such a machine has subjective experience or merely appears to.
The question of consciousness in this context is actually a related but separate question which is whether or not a machine would have to be conscious in order to pass the Turing Test. This is what inspired John Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment, which is intended to demonstrate that a machine could pass the Turing Test without being conscious.
In the Chinese Room thought experiment instead of interrogating a machine, a Chinese speaker slips questions written in Chinese underneath the door of a room. Inside the room is a person that doesn't understand Chinese but follows instructions for formulating answers to the questions in Chinese characters and slipping them back outside the door.
Assuming the instructions were sufficiently robust in principle the Chinese speaking interrogator wouldn't be able to distinguish between the Chinese Room and another room with an actual Chinese speaker responding directly.
The idea is that the person in the Chinese Room, who has no awareness of what is being said, is analogous to a computer programmed to answer questions, and therefore, consciousness is not required to pass the Turing Test.
In any event, Block's point here about how a naive person wouldn't be able to distinguish an obvious AI bot from a person is true but it's also irrelevant to Turing's original point, which was to argue a machine could be said to satisfy his operational definition of "intelligence" (not consciousness) if it could consistently and competently emulate an intelligent human operator.
Turing did intend for the test to be for consciousness, he invokes Geoffrey Jeffersons' "The Mind of Mechanical Man" for such a person. Turing even went so far as to suggest that solipsism is a Turing test.
@@gettaasteroid4650 You don't know what you're talking about. The Turing Test has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness; it has to do with his operational definition of "intelligence", which is something that can faithfully emulate a human operator.
The idea that it's a test for consciousness is a widespread misconception propagated mainly by science fiction.
That's the whole reason for John Searle's famous Chinese Room thought experiment. Because the Turing Test _specifically_ says _nothing_ about consciousness, it inspired a subsequent debate about whether or not a machine would have to be conscious in order to pass it.
One thing is for sure; anyone that insists that the Turing Test was intended as a test for consciousness is broadcasting the fact that they don't know anything about what the Turing Test actually is.
As far as consciousness is concerned, many things are undoubtedly conscious but would never pass the Turing Test (dogs for example). Consciousness is a totally different concept to intelligence in computer science.
It baffles me as to why you would want to argue about something you clearly know nothing about.
@@b.g.5869 So there are good reasons to suppose that other people are conscious? Or to put it the way Turing does, so there are better reasons to suppose other people are conscious than the reasons we might suppose a conscious machine has? What are those?
@@gettaasteroid4650 You're so confused. First of all, Turing talked about the phenomenon of consciousness at times and of solipsism etc, but that doesn't mean that the Turing Test was supposed to be a test for consciousness; _precisely_ the opposite. This was part of his explanation as what the Turing Test was testing, the aforementioned operational definition of intelligence, which is essentially a test for black box equivalence of a machine and human operator, and what it was _not_ testing for, consciousness. He didn't think you could test for consciousness and wasn't even interested, hence the reference to solipsism.
As for whether there are any good reasons for thinking other people are conscious, _of_ _course_ there are. There are _lots_ of them.
We have the same brain structures and processes that respond identically to psychoactive drugs and painkillers; we observe people appear to sense pain and pleasure etc. I can go on and on obviously.
The entire criminal justice system and our sense of what is morally right and wrong and cruel or kind or innocuous is all predicated on the fact that other people are conscious.
It's great fun to bullshit over a few beers in a pub whether or not other people are conscious but if you were to act as though you _really_ believed that you'd find yourself in a prison or insane asylum in short order.
Even lower animals that many are quick to speak ofcas though it's doubtful whether or not they're conscious will be punished severely for cruelty to animals if they inflict pain on animals. Why? Because we have very good reason to think they're conscious.
@@b.g.5869 The point of the Chinese Room Experiment is simply that the Turing test fails. Why does the Turing test fail?
Aatmiya DIVINITY
Be Blessed
HARE KRSNA
Experiencing Newness and JOYFULNESS learning from this talk.
Prelimanary Phenomenal Consciousness or Secondary, Consciousness is Consciousness.
Awareness is produced when ONLY the Object of Experience is appearing in Consciousness.
This means that the a) information & b) energy of the Object of Experience are accountable for creating or not creating Awareness.😊😊😊😊
Now, a functioning machine and living beings both are similar. Both posses body (matter) and energy (soul). Energy -Soul are empowering machine and body to function. But when the energy/soul/power facilitating machine and both live being STOPS, instanteniously machine and living being also holt operating 😂😂😂
Machine and non Living being both are DEAD unable to work.
Well, Consciousness can/may be differentiated in 07 levels and these are 1) Unity 2) God 3) Cosmic 4) Transcendental 5) Waking State 6) Dreami 7) Deep Sleep State.
During each of these States, Consciousness is enabling human beings to achieve distinctive goals of life.
Consciousness is also called, Technology of Consciousness 😊😊.
Very respectfully Loving ❤️ ING You One and All DIVINE ❤️ NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and deep Inner PEACE, and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
He only says this because computers actually were good in logic, therefore he says it's possible. It's a rationalisation of the situation, started with the logic of chess by Dr de Groot. Why not feelings?
I'm phenomenally conscious of all the Ummms.
Very subtle indeed. TED talks sound great - one reason is that they train the speakers to eliminate the Ummmms. Make the speakers sound even more competent.
Many of the touted greatest minds are professional Ummmers
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 true
The purpose of God is Love.
That doesn't make any sense. The purpose of god is to try to explain the unknown.
Yes, but the problem precisely is still there. That subjective experience itself is what we are trying to understand its mechanism. It is the problem of the so- called I and its awareness of the content of any phenomenon.
So, consciousness is the activity of thinking.
JustAT • No.
'Consciousness' ( in your phrasal lingo ) is the activity of thinking about what you're "thinking".
@@mikel4879 agreed.
Do you necessarily think when you're conscious of something?
@@calandula4099, the subconscious is always receiving input from the five senses, even when we sleep. When awake, we are always thinking (that is my personal experience). What changes is the focus of our thoughts. We can just be watching the world go by. Or we can be planning our possible future actions and evaluating the possible outcomes of future actions by ourselves or others.
@@JustAThought01 I've made the experience that when i'm being aware of a tree for example and i start to think about the tree or even my awareness of the tree, i'm suddenly less aware of the tree. So when intensifying my thinking reduces my awareness, it can't be the same like awareness in my opinion.
Edit: It maybe more like when i'm thinking that my awareness of the thinking starts to increase.
could the cognitive consciousness have developed separately from phenomenal brain?
According to the Unified field theory, I believe consciousness could be an electromagnetic field, containing many different wavelengths and energies. Likely it is permeating as one energetic thought throughout the universe existing outside of spacetime as we know it.
Bizarre rambling gibberish IoI.
Woowoo
@@maxwellsimoes238 Rambling or just a bumbling fool? Lol, I'm both.
@@maxwellsimoes238 Have you ever heard of the God Helmet experiments? Where a neuroscientist wanted to see what would happen to a person's thoughts if the brain could be influenced by concentrated electromagnetic fields?
An EEG detects different wavelengths of energy coming from the brain, alpha, beta, etc. each having different characteristics. these are nothing more than electromagnetic fields emanating from the brain. They can be influenced by external EM fields, thus consciousness could be a collective of EM fields. All matter radiates magnetic fields. Protons floating in the vacuum of space radiate cold microwaves. Everything, even brains radiate electromagnetic fields.
Ancient humans believed all things that radiate energy or a magnetic field are conscious and self aware.
That is why I believe the energy field surrounding our universe to be conscious and self aware.
According to special relativity when something reaches the speed of light time slows to zero. Thus for anything traveling at the speed of light will not experience time or distance. Light and EM fields travel at the speed of light.
Therefore, according to special relativity the light particle exists outside our reference frame of space, time and matter. It can travel the entire width of the universe some estimated 93 billion light years in an instant because time and distance are zero when traveling at c.
That is what sparked Albert Einstein into calling it spooky action at a distance. Light information happens instantly at any distance because it does not experience time, space, or distance until it is observed. When traveling at c it exists outside our reference frame of distance, matter and time. Meaning, the EM field containing the potential light information exists outside our space and time.
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation the light particle becomes a potential in our space and time. Existing everywhere as a potential until it strikes something or is measured by a telescope. Before the light is measured the light particle is stuck in limbo, outside our spacetime and doesn't become real until it interacts in our reference frame of matter, distance, and time.
And that's why I said the single conscious field existed outside our spacetime.
I'm truly sorry my comments appear as gibberish. Hopefully if you're interested, you'll begin to understand this by researching these topics, quantum entanglement, God Helmet, Unified Field theory, special relativity, time dilation, Copenhagen Interpretation in quantum mechanics, James Maxwell's field equations, Pair production theory, laws of thermodynamics, laws of motion. These topics are evidence to support all the gibberish.
I often forget I have to think about those who are unable to understand, my words appear so, gibberish to them.
I'm a bumbling fool who is happy there are young people interested in the science of consciousness.
Which means you believe consciousness exists at the macroscopic level. That's fine but does the "essence of consciousness" exist at another level, such as the quantum level?
Marvin Minsky calls consciousness a suitecase word.
The word "best" is advertising language. I would avoid that word for science.🙂
The new ChatGPT program apparently produces convincing answers to all kinds of questions, written at the level of a slightly slow-witted but voluble university student. It occasionally gives responses that are cheerfully and totally erroneous but the internet tells me people are already worried about cheating on essay questions, etc. I think we ought to train a smarter bot using the twelve seasons of R L Kuhn’s fascinating interviews and see what the (unconscious) AI chatterbox can synthesize!
Yes, there is no reason to think that at that level, one can reproduce it. Thus is the problem all along to begin with.
Who wants Ned over for Thanksgiving?
My personal definition of Consciousness is - The absence of humanness. The absence of any human-made construct.
I think the Turing test can be dismissed as a measure of consciousness these days. It seems it would be a relatively easy task to create an AI program that could simulate human behavior and discussion and still not be conscious. I think Robert needs to drop it as a talking point as this guest just utterly destroyed it's usefulness in this discussion.
The Over-Consciousness,
holds the Under-Consciousness,
as consist of the Day-Consciousness and Night-Consciousness.
The Under-Consciousness expose a Circuit, (mirrored in our body-structure)
of Eternal Ability-Kernels
Memory,) > Instinct, > Gravity, > Feeling, > Intelligence, > Intuition, > Memory, > ( Instinct, >
I, G, and F, is the Stuff-bearing Basic-Energies, and I, I, and M, is the Mind- or Conscious-bearing.
All Stuff and Thought-Stuff is a certain combination of the Eternal Abilities.
(Life-side, Stuff-side)
So, this is the Naked Esssense of Consciousness, also mirroed in the rainbow.
maybe consciousness makes a blockhead cosmos?
Are we using the term consciousness as a predication of God or more of a relative designation referring to the psychophysical and human experience? -- may not be discriminate.
Why consciousness is a predication of God is because, like a human being, we first are invoked with an idea and thus when we apply the idea by the Intellect, working with nature we can manifest things. It always starts with an idea, in the mind, and then endeavorment, enquiry, trial and error, we perfect the things.
We can to a degree acknowledge this of God. Whatever comes down and is cloaked in matter was first a thought in God.
Regarding the question, what is the essence of, is futile because "you guys", the materialists(nihilists) cannot even come to terms concerning the Ether. If you cannot elucidate upon the essence of the Ether, which you call dark matter, the question of the video is silly to talk about. Perhaps Ether and Consciousness may be of the same essence even.
What's the essence of illumination, or the air? When acknowledging the Soul they say, "netti netti", because we Know it is, however, not what it is.
"Where the Soul is God is there, and where God is the Soul is there"
KJV
To know the essence of something, is to get an idea of what it is from other things different. You can't know the essence of consciousness; it's not knowable.
Woowoo
Je n'ai rien compris. 🤕
One should be really careful comparing a human with a computer since at its best a computer is a oversimpification of what a human can do. A computer is a tool at its core. Also a computer does not invent or come up with new scientific theories. Stuff like ''artificial intelligence'' that is a over the top description really. And btw that is to a degree also what science does. Popper said it long time a go ''Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification'' So one also should be careful about scientifc descriptions of human beings.
This actually reads like a GPT3 answer lol. Good one.
CTT, could you interview Deirdre Carabine, concering Negative Theology and here book, 'The Unknown God'.
Taking the approach in the video to pin down consciousness is like trying to nail jello to a wall, or witness a magic trick and belive it's reality, or view something in the mist and then it disappears.
Actually, the word "consciousness" is usually misused. It isn't a thing, an entity, or object. It doesn't exist in time and space. It is a collective noun like swarm (of bees) and Yankees (baseball team) and automobile (specific collection of functional parts and their relationships). It is a word that uniquely identifies a collection of brain structures that are active and working together to display a set of predefined attributes at predefined levels. The attributes are: awake, alert, and aware (objective and subjective awareness). People use the words "qualia" and "subjective experiences" to define a so-called "hard" problem of conscousness. There is no hard problem of consciousness.
When one brings the word "self" into the definition, things get murky. There is a perception and feeling of what is called "self," but there is no extant self; the brain is constantly generating this perception and feeling, and it constantly changes, although most of the time, imperceptively. The same applies to "mind" and "soul." These are apparitions or illusions. They really do not exist. They are simply types of brain activity that became included and accepted in the human lexicon due to philosophers and theologians, and without proof of any kind. They were just claims and remain so.
the problem is that we have a jello already stuck on the ceiling and we don't know how it got there :)
@@r2c3 or why that Jello should be there in that particular place anyway and furthermore why should that Jello even be
@@xenphoton5833 jello = brain ... very special kind of jello :)
@@r2c3 I like adding secret ingredients to my jello.marijuana flavoring 👍
@@xenphoton5833 my ceiling is not that high... a simple jello does the trick :)
The essence is that it is uncatchable, because always bigger or greater, and so like invisible! That's the difficulty with self recognition that it is exactly about the in principal invisible!
Mind comes to itself to the same extent that it recognizes what in principle eludes all empiricism and all theory..
Rambling gibberish
@@maxwellsimoes238 Or maybe you just didn't understand what he meant
There are two types of consciousness? The body and the linguistic mind?
What then to make of existentialist philosophy in light of this? The philosophy that deals with "lack of meaning" or "meaninglessness"? Is existentialism a recognition that the linguistic mind is fundamentally pretextual? That only the consciousness of the body is contextual?
Is absurdism and will to power therefore a reactionary rejection of the linguistic mind? A pretext to embrace hedonism or any other sensual endeavor? An attempt to pacify the linguistic mind and reduce it to a primitive state?
If it is then it is schizophrenic. It is a linguistic attempt to pacify the linguistic mind. It is patently absurd. A philosophy attempting to refute philosophy. An attempt to provide a pretext that does away with pretext. How Western.
there are many ways how is consciousness "covered". But basic is not primitive state but rather most complete. Dog has also consciousness but is just more covered by ignorance. Language can be also ignorance if it distract from essence.
I'm fascinated, by how long quests can talk about fundamental questions, they don't know the answer to. 😄
Reflection is key. Frequencies reveal wisdom. Resonance offers clarity. But what is beyond the combination of all three has no word nor definition in any language of humanity's creation.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In Time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Puff, puff, pass, you have had enough.
Consciousness
Self Consciousness
Critical Consciousness
Alan Watts refers to it as our Floodlight Consciousness (periphery) vs our Spotlight Consciousness (hyperfocus) 👈🏼🤔👍🏼 #ListenToMoreAlanWatts 🙌🏼
The fundamental, "phenomenal consciousness", is actually attention - not in the everyday manner of speaking, in which attention is actually "attentiveness", but from the etymology of the word, which is from the words "ad" (meaning "towards") and "ten" (meaning "stretch") - attention is the intention to become attentive, and this is the phenomenal attention which precedes access attention. Weirdly enough, I just emailed Robert LK about this today, trying to lure him into addressing this issue in my upcoming book
What is the title of your upcoming book? I’m intrigued.
@@Self-Duality Working title is "Attention: a journey from nothing to something - and back", but it's rather long and smells like new age a bit, so will surly change
LeM / Full Artificial "Consciousness" is not about "what it is", "what it is its description" ( for example, "hunger creates the intention to eat", but any animal starting with bacteria has this intention of eating without being conscious about it, etc, etc ) , but about how you do it practically right now! ( not in 50 years from now! )😏
Don't you see this Ned Block? He has many descriptive explanations, either "good" or bad, but when he goes to real practicality he is completely absolutely clueless.
@@LeMisantrope _""phenomenal consciousness", is actually attention...attention is the intention to become attentive"_
Let's say I decide I want to focus my attention on a door handle. You seem to think that that wish is phenomenal consciousness. I disagree.
(He says 1:40 phenomenal consciousness is the consciousness that was unconsciously hearing the background hum all along)
@@alwaysdisputin9930 no. Wanting to focus your attention is not the intention to be attentive, it’s just shifting attentiveness. True attention is phenomenal consciousness and happens before you are aware of it
Metaphysics
Truth (love) is the essence of consciousness.
Ignorance (greed) is the essence of unconsciousness.
Truth (love) creates joy, beauty and harmony (heaven).
Ignorance (greed) creates misery, ugliness and conflict (hell).
Woowoo
What do you get out of posting these obvious lies over and over?
@@tomjackson7755 For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)... is like giant a**holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
@@stevecoley8365 If you will notice I didn't ask for more examples of the lies that you want to tell. I asked what you get out of telling all of these lies.
@@tomjackson7755 My Mission Impossible. I must engage the "supernova" function on my lightship in order to fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love)...so that its darkness (misery, murder, mass shootings, suicides, war, etc.) goes away and its heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet.
Then life can become a celebration with joy spilling out of the smiles of everyone. Like good (god) intended for life to be in the first place.
Clearly, every living thing God created should have an equal chance of going to Heaven.
I can easily imagine Abraham with a bunch of carrots in his bosom (Luke 16:22).
By the way, the current dominant irrational apes have no connection to ancient Romans and Greeks, that is why there was no knowledge transfer whatsoever, basically they had no idea about science! even the stolen architecture started in the 13’th century, their real ancestors are Vandals tribes those destroyed Rome then sat on its seven hills.
most of the ancient Romans those had knowledge fled to Asia such as Afghanistan and India and the rest to the mountains in North Africa!
nowadays they talk about Democracy ! they rediscovered democracy after 1600 years!
Vandalism!
the curse on mankind and human civilisation!
So many words to say so little.
We have an innate ability to detect consciousness in other things. We all have direct evidence of it residing in our heads. Whenever we notice consciousness in other things they are always living things. There *no evidence* or reason to assume that it resides anywhere else. It is a feature of life and if you say otherwise then please just show your evidence.
Premise 1) Every feature of life evolved through natural selection.
Premise 2) Consciousness is a feature of life.
Conclusion) Consciousness evolved through natural selection.
*"We all have direct evidence of it residing in our heads."*
... _"We have direct evidence that the only life we know of resides on planet Earth. If you have any evidence of life existing outside of planet Earth, then please just show your evidence."_ Believing that consciousness is exclusively held within a physical brain (due to lack of data) is the same as believing no other life exists outside of planet Earth (due to lack of data).
Your brain assimilates information; it analyzes it, categorizes it, and then produces more information in the form of *"value judgments."* The truth is that Existence is all just an ongoing *information exchange* and consciousness is just a higher state of information. When consciousness is viewed through this prism, consciousness (information) is both internal and external to the brain, it all makes sense, and many other areas of Existence suddenly make sense, as well.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *" Believing that consciousness is exclusively held within a physical brain (due to lack of data) is the same as believing no other life exists outside of planet Earth"*
Maybe, it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in extraterrestrial life due to lack of evidence.
However, we know that it is possible for life to exist on planets like ours as we have direct evidence for this so it reasonable to assume it may have happened on other such planets.
We do not have any evidence however for consciousness residing outside of a living things head. So it unreasonable to assume that it does.
Then you believe that 'man is the measure of All' -- not a dogma I can believe in.
You didn't exactly prove yet, that consciousness is a feature of what you acknowledge as finite experience, or life, and are only assuming, while asking others to give an explication.
Me, I consider light, to be 'conscious'. Merely one fact being that these plants and human things derive from the Light, and surely if we have consciousness, then we aquired it from the light, which gives life. Or I can say that human beings are conscious creatures and the Light is beyond consciousness -- however this doesn't work because of how unified and simple, pure, consciousness already is. I rather predicate consciousness to what really is, and the psychophysical of humans as dependent upon this life/light/consciousness. If I argue that consciousness is a feature of the finite existence, or a property of the brain, and somehow can go beyond it's own limits and outside itself.... i have to prove consciousness to be a quality of matter and life, thus there's a mixture, perhaps is is more of an accident... How do you argue this?
Light is conscious, and humans recieved consciouness.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"You didn't exactly prove yet, that consciousness is a feature of what you acknowledge as finite experience, or life"*
I am assuming that you are a living thing. And that you are conscious. There is your evidence and proof. Beside which we have a wealth of evidence to show that consciousness is intimatley tied to brains.
*"Light is conscious, and humans recieved consciouness."*
Fixed: Light is energy, which enables sight in humans, regulates our Circadian rhythm and is necessary for the production of vitamin D.
@@johnyharris i'll accept as a thesis.
"and that you are conscious"
Who or what is this 'you' ? You are designating 'conscious' to the 'you', assuming that body is the 'you', and as if it's a quality or property of body. I don't believe any organ of the body, even the brain, is this 'you', rather the Soul.
Even when human's body die, is more like a blown light bulb, which died, once you screw in another bulb you have light again.
No wonder that you only hear jibberish when consciousness is discussed. I suppose they should first try to define it. I do not see any way you can connect consciousness with the material world.
you can connect consciousness to material world. By asserting that pure consciousness is covered by inert mater.
What exactly is consciousness and who created it ?
Well, I guess we don't know and until we do, I am staying in bed on Sunday morning.
consciousness is symptom of the soul and is eternal.
@@antimaterialworld2717
Not if you have a really good night out with the boys and crawl into bed, drunk.
@@tedgrant2 consciousness can be covered and distorted by flickery illusion, but neverthless you going to wake up in the morning and your conscious experiences are going to continue
@@antimaterialworld2717
Consciousness obviously depends on the state of the brain.
Too much alcohol, anesthetics and a simple bump with a baseball bat can put it out.
Just like the flame of a candle depends on the candle, so consciousness depends on the brain.
@@antimaterialworld2717
And if your brain stops working completely, it ain't gonna come back !
Computer games only work if the computer works.
"the content is in the back of the head"
lol
need real scientists please
Only made it to the 5 minute mark. The guy doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Its a test or signal to respond to the fine line message.
@@missh1774 That doesn't make any sense. The guy doesn't have a clue.
@@courrierdebois it means, the information gets presented and we provide our best interpretation of it.
@@missh1774 They are using the wrong instrument to understand what conciousness is.
@@courrierdebois the computer as an instrument or a system in the body?
To a request for 500 words on something I think Einstein responded in a telegram of 250 times saying "nobody knows".
What an inane word salad.
You really want to know? I suggest LSD and Magic Mushrooms. 😉👍🍄
🤦♂️😂
Moisture is the essence of wetness. And wetness is the essence of consciousness.
Ha funny "mongrel concept" ... sounds like it should have attitude, well at least until it literally can't and then it's a block head (distinctly not Godhead) but still it's the NOT so funny part 😤 umm the content before noticing is an autonomic response to something in the environment? ... like a slight drop in the atmosphere, a tweak in barometric pressure, bump in the frequency, or sequential notes/ tones over x time? I would think the basic form of consciousness would show up like isolated heat waves or large distortions in the fabric. Technically this would indicate a violation of sorts which would require high cognitive attention. No bluidy wonder it's a mongrel ey?
He mistakes are believing conscieness show up reality. It isnt conscieness essencial when most time conscieness are unpredicted. It explains reality NEVER picuret reality. In other words he conscieness are lacking phich standard. Scientif proceedings never figure out conscieness though baseless words.
spell check?
Go learn English!
Consciousness? How about conscience? That’s a very important part of consciousness.
What lies have you made up about this?
@@tomjackson7755 You are making up things.
@@JungleJargon There is one lie.
@@tomjackson7755 You lie. Do you have a conscience?
@@JungleJargon Oh look lie number two. What do you get out of telling all of these lies? Do you even feel bad about constantly lying to people?