Does reality exist outside of consciousness? | Sam Harris and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2021
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sam Harris: Consciousn...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- National Instruments (NI): www.ni.com/perspectives
- Belcampo: belcampo.com/lex and use code LEX to get 20% off first order
- Athletic Greens: athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil
- Linode: linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
GUEST BIO:
Sam Harris is an author, podcaster, and philosopher.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
It’s great to see Ben Stiller working on something other than movies.
How did u steal my thoughts?
🤣
Can't stop laughing...thanks
Lex: Do you think it might be possible that trees and rocks are intelligent aliens? and if they have nipples can you milk them too Focker?
hahah
The question really is, could Sam Harris' right eyebrow still lift upwards if no one was conscious of it?
Underrated comment
Lololol
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Unworthy of comment
😭💀💀💀
Sam Harris can't look at someone without raising his right eyebrow
Underrated comment award
that a very anthropocentricistic observation
I can't unsee this
he's even got extra wrinkling from doing it so much.
Oh man now I can’t unsee it
Another mischaracterization of Hoffman's hypothesis. He's not saying reality doesn't exist outside of conciousness, he's saying our perception of reality is not an accurate depiction of what reality actually is and this misperception works to our advantage.
That is exactly what he is saying and it is incoherent nonsense.
Wrong. He says the basic units of objective reality are conscious agents.
@@SvjetaakJEDNA I think you are confusing his hypothesis with Bishop Barkley and panpsychism. Hoffman is not saying conciousness creates reality or that objective reality does not exist, it's just that we create icons to represent objects in that reality, our interpretation of reality is not an accurate representation but ultimately useful and the key to our evolutionary success.
@@bodhisattva3774 I feel Jean Baudrillard hints at the same concept
@@bodhisattva3774 From Wikipedia on Donald D Hoffman (I didnt wanna spend more time googling) - "The objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences that cannot be derived from physical particles and fields. "What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields."
I just dont enjoy when people accuse Sam of errors while he is actually a few steps ahead :))
I don’t think Hoffman’s argument is that there is no “objective reality” independent of consciousness. His argument is that consciousness is an interface with objective reality. We don’t experience objective reality, we experience our brain’s conscious interface (as shaped by evolution) with objective reality.
I think you might be wrong, its easy to miss that part of Hoffmans argument in the podcast with Sam and Annaka, but I have a feeling that he mentions that the fundamental blocks of the objective reality in his theory are some kind of "consciouss agents"
You explain that well
@@SvjetaakJEDNA yeah I agree with you here that's what I thought he was putting forward
Obviously, the word "reality" is a set of parameters that defines the way any kind of consciousness perceives it. A tree has its reality, we have ours and it has to be subjective. "Objective reality" is nonsensical.
That's not an interesting insight. In fact, it's trivial, not insightful at all.
Ontology says a Consciousness
You nailed it.
A lot of people seem to think that science has worked everything out, with only fine details left to discover. As Sam said, we are trying to understand reality with tools designed for survival and reproduction in the wild.
Disagree. The levels of abstraction involved in the highest levels of physics is far beyond the tools of survival our minds evolved to keep us alive and procreate.
@@iridium1911 It's a big improvement but still highly limited.
@@AlmostEthical I mean it's a matter of perspective. We had the first powered flight by humans in 1903, and we landed on the moon in 1969. On the theoretical side, these levels of abstraction led to the discoveries of quantum mechanics and the development of the Standard Model. All of our modern technology is built on principles gleaned from QM (transistors/computing).
If the standard is "worked EVERYTHING out" we will never be satisfied. I agree that looking to science to answer every question that can be posed in human language is a mistake. But we should appreciate what our brains and cognition have allowed us to uncover - a vast spectrum of reality that with our eyes and ears we have no experience of, but with our brains we have devised theoretical knowledge and technical apparatuses that can probe these aspects of reality.
There seems to be a whole lot more that even our theoretical tools cannot access. We have no idea if there are strings at the bottom of fundamental reality, whether there are parallel universes, and most of these ideas will remain untestable.
@@iridium1911 Had to stop reading where you said “got us to the moon”. The fact you believe that in the year 1969, during a space race with the Soviet Union. You believe we had the technology/ability to take astronauts to the moon, land safely on the moon, then take off again, and come back to earth safely. In 1969!!!
It’s not about being a conspiracy theorist, it’s about having a working brain that can process logical thoughts.
@@AnjewTate "it’s about having a working brain that can process logical thoughts."
Lol....Clearly there is no working brain that is processing logically in your head my friend.
Do you believe they built the nuclear bomb in 1945? Or was that a fake news too? Because the theoretical and engineering work to build the bomb was a bigger deal than a rocket to the moon.
The first hominids that controlled fire where probably as cocksure about their understanding of their world as the hominids that split the atom (us).
Sick quote
WOW that was nice
dang
*were
Funny thing: 'atomos' in ancient greek means 'indivisible'.
We should've stop trying to understand reality after that, or at least not take it too seriously...
It would be interesting an interview with Bernardo Kastrup or a debate with Sam Harris. Kastrup worked for CERN and also in the field of AI and still he is an idealist.
I think Kastrup has insulted Harris too much, albeit rightly so for Harris to agree to a dialogue with him. Plus I think Harris is more interested in self promotion and being viewed as a “celebrity” guest.
Bernardo is a quack, alot like William Lane Craig
@@gravelpit5680 I would not put William Lane Craig and Bernardo Kastrup in the same boat. Many who worked in the field of quantum physics became idealists and were greatly inspired by the Vedic and Buddhist religions. Why does CERN have a statue of Shiva? John Hagelin and Fritjof Capra are some examples but there are many. The list is actually much longer. Physics obviously answers the question "how" but not the question "what". It is good that there are people who oppose Mainstream science, even if they are not right. In the end, who is right? Let there be debates. Better than wars.
@@gravelpit5680 and how do you figure that, you make disagree with him but he is no quack. Are you suggesting all analytical idealists are quacks?
@@a13xdunlop Everyone who disagrees with him is a quack lol
The compelling reason to think that reality may simply be consciousness is the fact that materialism has neither the need nor an explanation for consciousness, while at the same time, consciousness is clearly the only thing that exists without doubt.
Sams point is well taken that conscious experience strongly suggests an underlying material reality that follows certain laws of nature. But these must ultimately themselves be arbitrary. So is it possible that the laws of nature are rather laws that govern the nature of experience in such a way to create the illusion of an underlying material reality, with its structure, extension, separateness, etc.?
Yep,you grok it.
I mean you can't observe a brain without a mind. Plus, when we observe nature, we never find the causation of what's happening, all we can do is label the patterns and regularities. So even the so called natural laws are imaginative things that we assume as laws. They are basically narratives we create.
All reality is arbitrary to mathematics and modern physics and who's to say those are correct?
Yes, and it's also worth pointing out that the consciousness we're talking about here is the ultimate consciousness, referred to sometimes as the Tao or Brahman, or even God, not the localized experienced of it we call "I", which Harris does not seem to differentiate.
@@chmd22
There is no proof universal consciousness in the truth.
Although localized consciousness is self evident. Buddhism rejects brahman and universal consciousness. I think it doesnt make sense either, we are not all one.
Most often the problem is that people confuse consciousness with the contents of the mind. Consciousness is the AWARENESS of the mind and everything else that arises. The idea that things don’t have a relative existence outside of an individual awareness is false, but the absolute/ultimate reality or truth is that nothing exists outside of awareness and in particular nothing really exists in the relative or apparent form perceived by the mind. That is shown by quantum physics, and is best explained by the fundamental teachings of the Buddha as well as Advaita Vedanta (which was strongly influenced by early debates with Buddhist followers 2000 years ago). I think these schools of thought (they are not religions) are helpful alongside the scientific inquiry - th Dalai Lama has been doing this with leading scientists for decades, and the overlap of understanding is exciting. The bigger challenge for science is that the ultimate “proof” of the Buddhist or Vedantic teachings is found in direct individual experience - until that point it is only an intellectual understanding, not true knowledge. So it will be next to impossible to satisfy science according to its current standards of evidence.
Nicely written but false. As all arguments we start with a definition. Reality is rather well defined within epistemology. Simply put: it's everything that is and that can be interacted with. Thus religious deities are not part of objective reality, as there is no evidence they interact. The environment and conditions had to exist, to form simple organisms (for billions of years). The path from protozoic (which is incredibly complicated to reach in the first place) to organisms that started to have consciousness is billions of years long. Thus the question, if reality depends on consciousness, then it is easily answered by paleontology. Now, to the question, as a conscious mammal, does reality exist for me when I'm not conscious. The answer is also simple; sure, when asleep or under anesthesia, my body (that includes the brain) continuous with its critical functions for survival. Once I return to a conscious state, the fact that there was a reality in which my body could do unconscious work, kept me a life to enjoy the periodic conscious states.
@@fritsgerms3565 you do not understand what consciousness means. Consciousness is not to be "awake" or "aware". Consciousness is the observer within you. It's what tastes the tastes that your mouth and brain compute, it's what hears the thoughts your brain creates. Consciousness is an experience that cannot be understood secondarily. You will never perceive my consciousness, or that of a dog, or that of a rock if it had one. And in trying to understand this undeniable experience (most of) all of us have, we come to incredible and complex places. The scientist Donald Hoffman that is mentioned in this video is one who is studying this exact question. But as the commenter above mentions, so did the ancient Buddhists and Hindus. But also the ancient Jews, Egyptians and Greeks. THIS is the great question.
If at the centre of everything we can ever know is our conscious, if by rigorous observation nothing seems to be more real than it... How is everything formed from this essence of being?
@@stillwaitingforblackmetalr2503 your mix of bollocks and some facts are impressive. There are enough videos on RI channel about consciousness. The term is well defined. There are several scientific TED talks as well. Including the possible origin of self. Your home brew version is misguided. Awareness of experience is a central notion of consciousness. Educate yourself.
@@fritsgerms3565 thats the scientific materialist viewpoint, which there is no objective evidence for. there is only evidence of consciousness, not that what you perceive has objective reality to it. you quite arrogantly claim that your beliefs are true and others are false, and the only source you quote is the scientific worldview and TED talks lol. "educate yourself".
@@SirNoxasKrad in no way to I feel attacked or feel the need to retaliate. And yes I do feel the need to educate and check myself. So much so that I do at least one critical thinking course per year to remind myself of all the fallacies, biases and tools used for rational thought. Does mean I won't make mistakes? Certainly not. It only reduces the probability of doing so. I have done several courses on the mind & brain from its anatomy to it's experience, so I do have a degree of understanding what is known. I'm also well informed enough to that there are experts in every field. I would not argue with them unless I'm an expert myself (in their field) and have the evidence for my claims. You talk about objective evidence. Objective evidence is not just some words, it's also a well defined process with defined constraints. People like you think truth can lay outside science but that is not true. Science IS the fields of study of truth. Are there mistakes? Obviously. Particularly as the scientific method has been improved over the centuries and adapted for each field of study. Now back to your comment. Epistemology is an established field with many many intelligent people with the combined knowledge of millennium. To question it would require a very confident person with extraordinary abilities or someone that demonstrates the dunning Kruger effect. In terms of probability it's not difficult which is more likely.
We live in a dream world, a dream universe. This dream land has laws, has rules. Take these laws and rules as reality in this dream world, but remember, this is a dream.
What does that even mean?
@@jeremycleary2002 we live in a paradox. Everything you see and feel are simply ways our minds interpret and measure the world around us, and that's if we are even present enough to see it. From our collective experience to the personal experience, it's all in our heads. This is why mindset is very important. Ultimately, in the repetitive infinity we live in, the time we are actually "alive" we almost never exist to begin with, but we are here, we do experience these things, this world does have laws we have to abide by, even if it's in our heads. Utilizing those laws and finding out what they are I believe can enhance the experience, but this is just a dream world in our heads. Paradox
@@jeremycleary2002 imagine a computer that has a program that realizes they are a program. That's a good human measurement.
@@unratedent.6331 So your saying all those stars and galaxies are nothing more than a simulation?
@@countquackula8539 it is a possibility it's a simulation. I believe or my hope is that it's deeper than that. I think ones purpose and reason why we are here vary on individual perspective. Ultimately, from what it seems, we are going to die, the earth and sun will die one day and possibly the universe will retract and start again or whatever other paradox the universe will do. There is no one or nothing that will even say that we existed in the first place. But we do exist, we do feel, we do love, we do abide by the laws of the universe, but we may never have existed to begin with, like a dream.
All there is is consciousness and contents of consciousness. It is for this very reason that of all “religions” Sam Harris speaks highly of both Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka Buddhism. Both schools share the view that all there is is consciousness and contents of consciousness.
What we’re conscious of is us creating everything we are conscious of. There’s no separation between us and the universe.
There is an objective reality out there...but you can't experience it without consciousness.
@Lex Fridman Your guests are so well selected that it's absolutely addictive and I adore your style of interview. It would be wonderful if you might be interested in getting Jim Newman (there's a treasure there)
Love Sam’s podcast with Annika and Don Hoffman! Blew my mind.
Bring some idealists to your podcast Lex. I suggest Rupert Spira and/or Bernardo Kastrup.
I don't know Spira but would 100% vouch for Kastrup. I think Harris' main criticism would be valid except that it's not correctly capturing the argument made by idealists (or at least some of them, specifically Kastrup) in that it's not that there "is no moon", rather the moon and all of creation is and the physical experience of it is eminently real *but* the fundamental field (i.e. "ontological primitive" in Kastrup's words) is consciousness.
There is nothing anthropocentric about this formulation as consciousness-as-ontological-primitive still can manifest a universe possessing "physical" experiential qualities without humans to drive the dynamic. Harris' formulation of idealism is still rooting consciousness with the human mind-- situated inside the human skull-- as the point from which consciousness is generated; this is the core miscalibration of the argument.
Lex couldn't handle Joscha Bach, he won't be able to handle Kastrup. ;)
Seconded! Kastrup-one-time materialist AI researcher at CERN, now prominent idealist philosopher-would be a fantastic guest.
I think Kastrup makes a distinction between subjective and objective idealism.
At any rate...we don't know! And these ideas are nothing new and all endlessly debated on the subcontinent millennia ago. Samkhya, Nargajuna's void, Advaita, and my preference Dvaita.
I think panpsychism is the better fit from our modern knowledge base (as speculation). That there is a proto-conscious telos that drives the material universe even if it's blind (the demiurgic principle). Perhaps via involution and or the implicate order.
The only thing new per se in the philosophical quagmire is Simulation.
But there is another point no one talks about. So what? What use is it? I see no lived difference between Spira and Harris. If there is a supernal type consciousness NO ONE is demonstrating it publicly today. Jesus would be no more than Socrates.
@@andrewmarkmusic Constitutive (bottom-up) panpsychism suffers from the combination problem, and cosmopsychism is basically idealism, as far as I can tell. Kastrup's take is that it's not that matter _has_ consciousness as a property, but that matter-indeed, everything-is _within_ and _of_ consciousness. It's a nondual ontology identical at heart with the many meditative/yogic schools from which Harris happily but selectively borrows.
Lex you should get Robert Lanza on your podcast. He developed the theory of biocentrism.
Biocentrism blew my mind. Robert Lanza was able to articulate in his books what feels true at my very core and I couldn’t possibly describe. He’s an absolute genius.
Biocentrism is woo woo bullshit that attempts to use quantum physics to back it up.
Lanza is an medical doctor pretending to be a quantum physicist and failing miserably. His book is even signed/supported by Deepak Chopra himself.
May be Bernardo Kastrup
@@caribgirl726 can you explain biocentrism?
Please interview Bernardo kastrup! Love your podcast.
What an awesome conversation.
the way he conjures forth such head spinning ideas and expressed them with such a careful manner is mesmerizing
Anthropocentric, regarding humans as the most important factor of existance. TIL a new word.
Every guest you’ve had explain Hoffman’s position gets it wrong. Please do us a favour and have Donald Hoffman himself on your podcast. What are you waiting for?
Can you summarize what Sam gets wrong?
I've listened to Hoffman & read one of his papers too but was extremely underwhelmed by his claims, especially when his own paper finished with him attempting to shift the burden of evidence for his _own_ thesis! I'm not saying that his points are _utterly_ vacuous but I'm baffled why he's become a 'name'. What am I missing then?
@@michaelrc1999 On the strength of the 'scientific' _[cough!]_ paper of his which I read ,I'm not likely to bother with any of his books.
@@michaelrc1999 The title itself puts me off because it's putting the cart before the horse so I won't be reading it.
@@Edbrad Sure. Sam confuses saying that reality is in consciousness with saying that reality is in personal, human consciousness.
Nice to hear such a humble discussion, really refreshing.
They might be the most humble men on the face of the Earth
Lex please interview Bernardo Kastrup.
That will be the bomb, for me Bernardo is the greatest philosopher of our time, his arguments for analytical idealism are just flawless.
Probably the most fascinating thing about our evolution from chimp to what we are now is not the brain capacity to create and advance but our mental obsession with ourselves as individuals and a species.
Actuality is beyond us. Reality is consensus experience and it only exists in minds.
Hoffman doesn't argue that there is no reality beyond consciousness; he simply posits that the interphase we have evolved to interact with the universe is biased towards simple positive survival outcomes and not to experiencing 'fundamental reality' - whatever that means. He utilizes mathematics to test his theories along with Evolutionary Game Theory scenarios run on computers. He doesn't argue against the existence of 'maths' and 'computers', just that there is a more fundamental reality beyond these constructions (like space and time too) which would actually make us less likely to survive as a species if we were able to perceive it.
His thoughts remind me in some ways of Plato's Cave and the shadows on the wall argument - ancient philosophy.
The image of a arrow/pointer like where its flat at one end and a point at the other end but the point is infinitely Sharp ..
Keeps coming into my mind
Nice clips man, interesting
It’s like your chasing after a consciousness that understands reality and is dropping its papers because it’s late for class and if you can just just grab enough of those papers and catch up you might be able to understand it while at the same time frantically trying to get away from that guy who is chasing you and grabbing up your papers.
Always an awesome podcast thank you Lex
3:50 Taking "Let's find out!" to a new level.
Sam looks like he just woke up from sleeping the night in a tent
Haha such an underrated comment
Bad night at the Museum
Dead aff
Dual survival clip
For some reason I know precisely what you mean.
10:13 can we just appreciate the moment of lex, weezing his ass off, when sam is talking about people dying in their sleep 😂😂
Depois da consciência por debaixo dela, existe um Mar de emoções a grandeza de sensações que despertam a SÓFIA ESCONDIDA,NAS SUAS ONDAS QUE ENTERRAM NO SEU FUNDO,A NOSSA MENTE ADORMECIDA,CRIANDO O CAOS QUE A CONSCIÊNCIA VÊ E ALIMENTA. UMA REALIDADE FRACCIONADA NA ILUSÃO,NA SUA ACOMIDADE.
What kind of a question is that? If there’s nothing outside of my experience, then I’m the only being who exists. For others, to even have different experiences than me, requires that a shared reality, beyond our personal experiences, exists.
Outside of your experience? Send are discussing outside all experiences
Reality exists and we, along with all things experience, interact and perceive it all in our own way, however similar or diverse that may be.
Or is it that "reality" is experiencing us??
@@mexdal either way both both us and reality exist
Realizing we know nothing is a first step.
_Almost_ nothing. Are you unsure that there's any consciousness regardless of whether you can assume it's yours or not? I'm not & that's not _nothing._
Thx Lex & guest
Always love how clearly and articulately Sam Harris explains things.
A question I have always wondered about is not DOES reality exist outside of consciousness but rather CAN reality exist without consciousness. Like if there were not a single conscious entity in a universe, not one cell, nothing whatsoever, would it still exist? Further, can time in our current understanding exist without something perceiving it in a linear fashion at a certain speed?
The conclusion I have always come to from these thoughts is consciousness and time are one and the same, and in a universe without consciousness (in so far as it can exist), everything is happening all at once, the birth of it happening in the same infinite moment as it's death, and yet still in a specific order. That may sound like a paradox but only because we are 3 dimensional beings and have only ever known experiencing things happening one after the other. Remove the actual "perception factor" and the amount of time passed moment to moment becomes meaningless, the only thing that's left is the order of things.
I can tell you’ve probably read the essays of Peter Lynds. Right?
@@arturobandini4078 nah haha I just had a 2-3 crazy trips and spent a lot of time internalizing and thinking about them. Will definitely have to check out his work!
@@andrewmaclean9810 look into Wholography
@@andrewmaclean9810lol
I think one of the biggest problems is that even the smartest people in the world aren’t even able to conceptualize just how ‘not smart’ they actually are.
Yep. Sam is a really good example.
Cuz the more knowledgeable you are, the more known unknowns you are aware of. And if you have a healthy perspective about yourself, you'll have no problem admitting just how truly uninformed you are. Firming that up even more is realizing just how massive the possibility space is for unknown unknowns. That kind of insight should kneecap any and all who encounter it out of the corner of their (low-level informed) eye. Humility is the only appropriate response when gazing upon the breadth of our ignorance...personally and as a species. Cleverness is what we do. We pay lip service to doing things smartly. Which serves to keep the door shut for doing things with wisdom.
So show us where he’s wrong.
@@Shane7492 He's not a good example. In this clip he literally says out loud: "I would extend this to myself... there are areas ... where I have NO competence."
@@srenjensen2625 He acts dogmatic and arrogant about what he thinks he knows, so he's still a good example, because wise people are humble enough to not be dogmatic. They're open minded.
Gregg Braden would be amazing on this show for this topic. that would be amazing.
Focus your awareness on awareness and It will reveal itself to you
I can listen to this man talk all day!!
His rationale is pleasing, entirely besides the life-affirming eye-brow cock.
That would be crazy not really knowing if the entire atmosphere would react in a nuclear chain reaction... that would be scary.
Regardless, they did it any way... "Maybe it won't?"
@@thedoctor4230 haha... yes, I can just imagine someone saying something like ‘sure, fu*k it let’s try lol’
Fuck yeah, let's do it anyway!
"Nah, it'll be fine"
It was absolutely scary and they faced those fears head on
Lex should talk to Tom Campbell author of My Big TOE, as in Theory Of Everything. Greetings from Chile.
Whatever is beyond consciousness is unknown and unknowable, you can only know yourself through extreme meditation and that might reveal everything.
It’s not idealism! He doesn’t deny the salience of an objective reality! Only that we have an ‘interface’ access to it 🥳
I think there is some truth in what Hoffman says but he massively overstates it when he analogizes seeing an object in the world to seeing a desktop icon. I have heard him say there might be no correspondence at all between the qualities we observe in our consciousness and what is really out there. That just doesn't make sense in light of the fact that our measuring tools tend to back up the report given by our senses. It is more correct to say our senses give us very low resolution approximations.
@Lex. Fridman Thank you Lex for wanting to grow our portfolios. I want to send you $25,000
@@TonyVega123 lol
I think your view of idealism is too narrow - idealism does not preclude the existence of an objective reality; it just says that that reality is mental. Hoffman’s view is that reality is fundamentally composed of consciousness, so it would indeed be generally considered a kind of idealism. Hoffman calls it “conscious realism” to make it clear that he thinks there is a real world, but since the real world is consciousness, his view is a form of idealism.
@@codywhite1427 Our measuring tools are just extensions of our senses, and we use our senses to interpret those measurements. It is thus no problem to Hoffman’s theory that scientific measurements support our senses. Also, he actually proves mathematically that evolutionary game theory necessitates a lack of correspondence between the structure of perception and the structure of reality. The question is: is evolutionary game theory correct?
every experience is based on the structure of your brain, change the structure you change what you believe and what you experience, I think their point is that we don't take the subjectivity seriously, subjectivity isn't secondary to reality but necessity and primary to reality.
Next time you're crossing the street, do it during the red light and change the structure of your brain right before the buss hits you. Judging by that logic you should be completely fine, just restructure your brain in a way where you don't die from being run over by a bus. Should be easy enough. (Oh btw I'm not adding a disclaimer, if anyone is dumb enough to think this way they should definitely try this. Maybe we'll eventually get rid of this solipsism crap)
intense discussion - subbed
The better answer is that our conscious mind can live outside when conscious.
So outside and in is a difference that you can then understand.
That’s just your conscious ability.
Life is alive. How much of it you understand is at different variances of your understanding of that felling that plays hand and hand with your level of consciousness.
I think Beyond consciousness or mind are just infinite variations “off” for me to even convey that is still using thought
It seems facile to think that somehow the reality we percieve based on our sophistication, couriosity, creativity, cognitive function, psychology etc, would only be rendered when we look in that direction. We cannotvsee around a corner, but if we do we see a static object that is there every time, a mailbox, a tree, a lamp post. If we talk in terms of reality existing simply so we can discover it, this seems very human centric, because objectively all none selfaware entities enjoy the same reality physical or otherwise that they exist in (psychotropic drugs aside). It is because we can speculate about reality or imagine it or can compare our inner reality to that of others, and tie ourselves up in conceptual knots over it that makes us different, but how different appears to be non-measurable, as each persons inner reality differs for everyones and it is this that creates the outward reality.
Life exists because "infinite potential" must have a means of "self realization" (or it's not "infinite potential"). Physically speaking, reality reduces to a primordial singularity of effectively infinite mass. Mass = potential, and hence reality = infinite potential = potential for self realization.
The idea of reality existing to be discovered isn't human centric, but discovery does require consciousness. There's really no center, and thus no beginning or end to reality. Whatever is destined to be revealed must first be concealed, as per your "around the corner" analogy (nice Heideggerian touch). Volitional consciousness is the required "veil" which first conceals the absolute such that the absolute could be revealed ... to consciousness. Volitional (karmic) beings exist because only through the "cessation of karma" does the eternal regression of "reincarnation" cease, in order to reveal the absolute.
I think they aren't saying it doesn't exist when not looked at, It just doesn't present itself in the form of consciousness when not being observed.
What if our reality is byproduct of our position within the box, instead of having to look in a direction.
Consciousness is always and will forever be everywhere in all infinite dimensions of existence I.e reality expression itself in infinite number of ways. Even what u think isn't....IS.
The question is… How do you know that as a declarative statement? Consciousness is, as of yet, an untapped field of study, we don’t understand in the slightest, and we don’t know its limits. It’s not testable, and we really don’t know how other humans or other living entities truly experience consciousness. Also, if nothing is around to experience consciousness, how can it be everywhere at all times? While I do believe your statement is true, we cannot say it as an objective fact.
@@whosyodaddy13 It has no limits of course science has not discovered them... Consciousness is explored deeply since thousands of years, the west culture + science at the moment are just behind and stuck in their beliefs. You are consciousness so you CAN become conscious of it, you already are it... You don't have to believe his statement. His statement probably comes from just him becoming directly conscious of the nature of consciousness. Because what he is saying is actually in fact true.
Great discussion. It really opened my eyes
Closed*
I love videos like this, smacks me right in the hippocampus
Awareness is the highest form of consciousness. Being aware of being aware!
Consciousness is defined as being aware...
@@lifewriter7455:
Not exactly. Very similar, but awareness is a step further up the hierarchy of cognition; the highest, in fact.
@@hoon_sol it depends on how you use the definition, the word conscious can be used in several different ways and contexts. Without consciousness the phenomenon of cognition will not take place. Cognition is the prosess where being conscious makes you aware. Of it.
@@lifewriter7455:
You can say that about any term, that's what's called "semantics"; the point is that two define those terms to mean the same thing would be to conflate them, rather than appreciate the actual semantic differences that are denoted by them.
And you are wrong about your statement; like I said, awareness is higher up the hierarchy of cognition than consciousness is, in fact the very highest. Awareness precedes consciousness. Awareness is sometimes described as "pure consciousness" to explicitly differentiate the two, but this is more confusing than it is helpful.
In other words, you can be aware without being conscious, but you cannot be conscious without being aware.
Yes, many things in this world can be different, and yet still be the same. Depends on the context...
Interesting conversation. I would to share my opinion, hope you don't mind that; Our principle model of knowing is acquiring more and more intellectual knowledge, academic, and technological which are the tools for survival, and they certainly are the most essential and valuable for our life. For me, I see that these forms of knowledge have the shadows of ignorance. They can’t get rid of ignorance. Ignorance or the dark force within ourselves pursue us all along through technological advancements. Civilization itself casts a dark shadow on itself, just as academic and technological knowledge cast a dark shadow on our minds. This is the reason why the more advance academically, technologically, and intellectually, the more problems emerge all along. Having said these, don’t mean I play down the knowledge and technology. I can only state an opaque question that perhaps the contents of human minds are still lacking some other essential element to balance them from insanity. So, Man equipped with the tools for survival isn’t enough. I’m only probing into these issues for a better and clear question. We turn the tools we invented into destructive weapons!!!
I really loved him in Meet the Fockers. I mean, what an archetype stretch!
How do I rip & edit Sam’s comments on malaria?
Conciousness in my opinion actually acts to distort reality down into a finite set of frequencies which are decoded very poorly by the senses
My point is backed by the evaluation of just every study ever done on the sensory organs, but this doesn't apply universally to every single object, sound, or sight in all of existence. For example we have an ideal range of colors and brightness we can see, but our eyes still aren't showing us the full and crisp rendition of objects under and above those frequencies. We see a tree, we sont see moving and vibrating, pulsing matter banding together into various communities to maintain the structure of that tree through the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces. We perceive a rendition of reality at best. Music is much the same, we perceive certain notes to certain high and low pitches, but there are far more tones outside of the human hearing range, and even the shifting of notes from c to c sharp, well there is actually a wider band of notes in between them that we never use and if close enough to the root note in sound would never be distinguished by the human ear, but that still doesn't mean people couldn't play c and c sharp very well.. its within our limited range
@@Locreai We decode it really good do you know how stupid it would be to see everything? It would be a big bloody mess, imagine trying to fight with all that stuff in your way.
Word salad.
@@MrCmon113 you prefer alphabet soup?😁
Good interpretation. But however small limited our perception is, it's still observation. This observation itself constitutes consciousness, whether in all it's glory or the limited version which our limited brains can decipher. And as far as I understand, in my opinion things do and can exist without consciousness, ie without an observer.
Virtual realities are information-based renderings calculated outside the VR, using rules which may or may not be fixed. Since the human brain is part of the VR, the full truth of either objective or ultimate reality is not knowable by the intellect. Ultimately, it's just one unknowable consciousness behind all VRs.
Like your mom after a few drinks.
Is this like the consciousness/reality version of the Incompleteness Theorem?
"Cosmic expansion and ordinary physical motion have something in common: they are both what might be called ectomorphisms. In an ectomorphism, something is mapped to, generated or replicated in something external to it. However, the Reality Principle asserts that the universe is analytically self-contained, and ectomorphism is inconsistent with self-containment. Through the principle of conspansive duality, ectomorphism is conjoined with endomorphism, whereby things are mapped, generated or replicated within themselves. Through conspansive endomorphism, syntactic objects are injectively mapped into their own hological interiors from their own syntactic boundaries." CTMU
The above quote may seem like gobblygook, but it's a thorough description of an invariant universe, the logical inversion of an expanding universe. Conspansion diagram: i.redd.it/vso3i7v9hxs11.png
"...conspansion holds the size of the universe changeless and endomorphically changes the sizes of objects. Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion or mutual absorption among the contents of the universe (“cinvariance”), and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax. Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its “expansion”, leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant." CTMU
So there you have it, simply inverting (without condoning) the conventional notion of "expanding space-time" yields a coherent description of "dark" energy and matter, time frame "dilation", and even "favorable genome selection" in biological evolution.
@@xxxYYZxxx ☆♡
It's knowable by our rational minds, since we inhabit the bodies. The universe has to be rational otherwise nothing would work and random shit would happen all the time everywhere. And through rationality we can come to the conclusion that through principle of sufficient reason nothing has to exist. Nothing is stopping nothing from existing so nothing must exist. Nothing can exist as a absolute static nothing in which case there is nothing, no universe, no life, no hot tits, or the universe exists as a net nothing. A nothing in motion that mathematically, rationally equals nothing when it's all broken down. So the universe exists because nothing exists and nothing is a net nothing and we can describe the net nothing rationally and mathematically 0=1+e^iπ as the euler equation. The most basic form of motion is the circling as there is no sufficient reason for it to be more complicated. And if there is one circling you can have an infinite amount of circlings of differing sizes and speeds as there is nothing to stop that. The interaction of this simple equation produces an existence within a thought form that exists within a non dimensional space that does not experience time but produces time and space by the nature of its existence and inhabits it. It is an eternal everpresent mind that has splintered itself off to experience a shared neverending dream.
And no...I am not on drugs.
Its a fascinating subject.
Positive thoughts of creating. Positivity.
I think there is a intriguing processing
There is no independent reality separate from the mind perceiving it. It's called dependent relationship, you can't have one without the other.
Dear Lex, You are a great interviewer and I'm thrilled every time you have a new podcast! With that said, why do you struggle to look at your guest when you ask a question?
They are there to speak to you, please don't be shy!
Sexual tension was real here
Isnt't it a probabilty? Wether or not it is being obseved? Either a wave or a particle? So not to say the moon is or isnt there..but what form it is in?
I love Lex's mind -- his way of noticing that we see, as he says, "0.0001%" of reality, and that we're "just too dumb" to really understand what's going on. To see Sam agree -- two great human minds who recognize their own (and our own) level of ignorance. Contrast that with so many who pretend to be "in the know" about whatever subject they specialize in, without realizing that by the very nature of our limited senses (and, as Lex points out, our relatively low level of intelligence, which we're just beginning to recognize as we develop AI that will swiftly outpace our intellects), we are essentially blind to the world, seeing only the tiniest slice of reality and struggling to comprehend even that. And oddly, I think there is a special "power" in not knowing, because when we admit our own ignorance, we cease to spend so much mental energy on stroking our own egos, and instead become creatures of curiosity and wonder, looking about ourselves with the mindset of an adventurer or explorer rather than a "knower".
Damn
Very well said! And I couldn't agree more and feel the same way.
@@mikefreedom8881 Great to find someone else who appreciates "not knowing". So many of we humans are more intent on proving that our particular "box" is the correct one! =)
Some people are required to pretend to know things: they are called teachers
@@Robinson8491 Great choice of words -- using just a few, you get the mind to cover a lot of ground with that statement =)
Talking (brainstorming) about reality is just like startin' a fire to see the darkness (or puttin' it out to see the light).
I'd suggest "starting a fire just to see the darkness" is an apt metaphor for universal suffering, while "putting it out to see the light" is quite an apt metaphor for universal liberation from suffering. The story of Christ's death and resurrection is also a metaphor for liberation, but it's not about physical death and miraculous rebirth, but a metaphor of ego-death and subsequent self-awareness - a description of transcending ego-bound limitations to realize the absolute nature of reality not in spite of our limitations, but specifically because of them. Without volition (karma), there's nothing to transcend to realize the absolute.
Lex your channel is Epic. Sam, thank you for your insight on this fascinating topic.
You guys are so right about there being much more to reality than we know of. We already know this to be true. In order to be omniscient, you would need to know the exact position of every quark and electron in the universe, throughout all of time. That’s far from where human understanding is at, or even could ever be.
You'd have to know exactly what a quark and electron is as well
@@cortisonesss Well, I think we humans know what they are because, “quark” and “electron” are human invented words.
@@Homo_sAPEien I dont quite get the connection there
@@cortisonesss Don’t you think we know the definition of words we create?
@@Homo_sAPEien I just created a word called trygoclimodol right now. I have no idea what that could signify.
Just a thought, consciousness it’s not a bug it’s a feature of the whole universe🤔
Obviously a correct thought, as every thing is a "feature of the whole universe". What is the feature which is "the whole universe"?🔥💧⚡🌞🌙🌠🌌🪐 ☯🤔
Lex interviewing somebody for the MIB.
We’re just too dumb…that truly resonates with me too lol 9:35
I have a very stupid and candid question regarding this question on the existence of reality beyond our consciousness: Isn't the existence of reality outside our minds confirmed by the mere fact that we can capture it through technical items like sensors and cameras etc.. I guess I'm missing the level at which the question is asked by those brilliant guys.
No major idealist has ever said that reality is only in our minds. Sam Harris doesn't understand idealism or know what itis.
He's doing a massive disservice to the subject of metaphysics by incorrectly portraying it like he has here.
@@paopper-ys7xj I have seen people make the claim that only at the time a conscious being looks at an image of Mars that a probe took, Mars, and the data captures by the imagining sensor become "reality". In other words, the idea that a sensor can capture data all the same when nobody is looking at the data is rejected. These people appear to not only (idiotically) claim that there is no sound when nobody is around when a tree falls in the forest but that it does not fall at all. I do not know whether they call themselves "idealists" but such lunatics certainly exist.
Maybe Lex could interview one of the scientists from VA University who studied NDE's (Near Death Experience) .
To be conscious means to be conscious of something. There is no consciousness without existence.
@@mexdal No. Existence exists whether I'm conscious or not.
@@mexdal Your consciousness doesn't create existence. It identifies and integrates the material provided through your senses. Reality is a "thing" regardless of your consciousness.
@@mexdal Yea... you cant say "consciousness in *reality*". Which reality? The one that is outside of existence? That contradicts the idea that there is no existence without consciousness. It exists, it is only not realized by a conscious observer to interpret...
@@JB-iz8tf what I mean is there may not be a separate physical reality, as is being suggested. It may be that an underlying consciousness ( whatever that is) is the fundamental "substance" of reality/existence.
@@mexdal But even then, if we assume everyone is real and sharing this current understanding of existence, it would likely still exist without my consciousness. Maybe my son's or his son's? To say lack of consciousness insinuates that existence would cease to exist in its physical form and rather as pure consciousness seems to provide less support than believing it exists without us or any other being.
You are right, there may not be the existence we interpret - but that it is "conscious" rather than "physical" lacks the preponderance of evidence that our current understanding obviously presents. All of this is null and void if we assume that our individual, personal consciousness is the only existing perspective, though; aka YOU are not real and existence is here for my sake.
Lex should have Bernardo Kastrup and hear his thoughts on the matter, I think he would blow his mind he's a genius!
When the best answer to a yes or no question is “it doesn’t matter”.
..the old question, "If a tree false in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?" and the answer for me has always been NO...because sound is our brains interpretation of vibrations, when the tree falls it definitely vibrates, but without a interpretation of these vibrations from us its just vibrations not sound...
Since you're not there when a tree falls, you should place a game camera nearby to record audio and visual, then after it falls you can watch / listen to the video and confirm if it made a sound or not. My guess is that is does / will. If your ears interpret the vibrations as sound through a camera, does that still count as it making a sound?
@@norcal-ce7yk there are vibrations coming from the tape a duplicate of the vibrations from the tree, not the same as but close, but you are still interpreting the sounds from the tape, without listening to the tape its just recorded vibrations not as the original, but close,
your brain will interpret them as such ...
@@phutureproof exactly, and only become sounds when interpreted by our brains...
look, if you place a bell alarm clock under a vacuumed glass you can't hear it because those vibrations are not reaching you they must reach your ears to be sent to your brain so it can interpret the signals into what we call sound...
I wanna see Sam Harris debate Bernardo Kastrup
bernardo is using a patological example ( multiple personalities ) and extrapolating to the ideia of large conscioness , but its not so precise , because all conscious agents are simultenously interacting with each other , yes time have some influency in this phenomena , but its not the full picture , there is something more profund going on , like the concept of infinity , not much explored by bernardo kastrup , for sure there is infinite conscious agents and inifinite universes and dimensions , so its pratically impossible bernado grasp everything right , but he is on the right track when say that materialism is baloney .
I thought Donald Hoffman wasn't arguing that there's no moon when no one's looking, more like our umwelt view of it (through our eyes for example) is completely different than the reality that it's a tightly clustered ball of conscious agents - that our umwelts essentially get garbage-collected by our brains but that the moon itself, in actuality changes no more than the conscious agents that comprise it. He seems to like going as far as calling this 'virtual' but it's tricky, more like he's saying that whatever we're seeing is such a hyper-simplified icon, rendered into three spatial dimensions, that it might as well be called virtual because what we're seeing is a bare-bones useful fiction rather than the actual thing.
@7:00 occam's razor
There is no true objectivity. All experience comes from a subjective reality
Is this statement objectively true?
@@autry33 no
@@autry33 If you try to defeat this argument by inferring that if everything we perceive is subjective, therefore the trueness of this argument is also subjective, you just end up confirming it.
That's one of the dumbest things I've read all day lol
@@ThievesInTheTreasureRoom Do you think your experience is objective Matt?
Hey, Lex. You should interview Bernardo Kastrup. He's the most eloquent proponent of philosophical idealism.
Yes, SH is an embarrassment
Agreed 👍
Right, the only thing we are in "contact" with is That which we are, and the entire Multiverse is: Consciousness-In-Itself. We can tap into That and merge with It. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir". Listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. The multiverse is That Sat-Chit-Ananda. To use a metaphor from the Upanishads, imagine a multitude of clay pots with varying sizes and shapes. The expressions of the clay are like the multitudes for forms we see in the relative sense. The underlying Substance (a term used by Spinoza) is pure Being-In-Itself, Consciousness, but most fail to cognize It. Its not a matter of thinking our way into IT.
Anyone interested in a counter point to the idea that we may be incapable of understanding the world should look into David Deutsch's book 'The beginning of infinity', or listen to his podcast with Harris about it. (Waking up podcast number 22).
Change the playback speed to 1.25x. You’re welcome.
1.5 even
1.75 was too much
Reality exists independent of consciousness.
Meaning, however, does not. Where there is no mind, there is no meaning.
I agree with your statement, but it’s definitely just an intuition and we cannot know it for certain.
Nice to see Turing get a mention.
Conscious is the string that stretches between the beginning and end through the possibilities in between . It's one part of the equation once anything and nothing are to be into this dimension. As a black hole takes away anything to nothing a strip of information is of all we degress and that is where Conscious is derived
And God said, "Let there be light". And it seemed to Him, and subsequently to everybody else, that there was light.
Consciousness is reality. Our perception is a distorted summation of reality, but that consciousness, the material we perceive and everything in between are reality interacting with reality. In zen we say "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."
Where is this conversation bewteen Harris and Hoffman??
I am subscribing lex. U are a more intellectually stimulating joe rogan.
Both things are true. Things exist outside of consciousness as far as our consciousness is concerned. In the absolute void of existence lies the infinite potentiality of everything and nothing. All at the same time as well as never at all, for they are one in the same. -Sean
@Marco N.V.T Are you confined to the limits of your own imagination? Can you claim the infinite complete? Can you provide a final number? Do you see any end to the vastness of space or amount of potentialities? Until you can, perhaps it’s your job to prove otherwise.
And this is why it is so important to maintain a healthy democracy so as to make sure we continue our species and for more order and smoother transitions
From my experience, what they're both missing is that matter itself is a part of consciousness as well...consciousness isn't only at our level of sentience, there are many levels of consciousness 'below' ours. So even matter itself is conscious on a minor level, and as such, it doesn't need 'higher' consciousness to realise it, as it itself is aware it exists (I AM), as ALL matter is of the creator, and all matter is connected through the creator, and the creator is guiding the unfolding of the flow of the universe, and patiently waiting for higher consciousness to evolve to eventually realise itself in all things.
By bringing in a creator you have introduced a higher consciousness which makes the whole previous part of your argument pointless.
If on the other hand we allow that because matter has a singularity to itself, a membrane, then it interacts mediated by this membrane and thus is conciseness. To retain permanence while still be affected by external interaction across that boundary layer.
I was really into this concept until you said "creator"
The problem with *Solipsism* is that one cannot _PROVE_ that anything exists outside of one's consciousness. It's actually a paradox. 😳
Whenever I cannot sleep I put on Sam Harris or NPR and its like a gas leak in my home