Colin McGinn - Why is Consciousness so Baffling?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2021
- How does consciousness weave its magical web of inner awareness-appreciating music, enjoying art, feeling love? Even when all mental functions may be explained, the great mystery-what it 'feels like' inside-will likely remain. This is the 'Hard Problem' of consciousness. What could even count as a theory of consciousness, even in principle?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on understanding consciousness: bit.ly/3dXa9uD
Colin McGinn is a British philosopher, currently Professor of Philosophy and Cooper Fellow at the University of Miami.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth 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.
While walking away with no greater number of answers, I must say that McGinn certainly offers a more complete and intelligent discussion of consciousness than I have heard from many others.
This is probably the best explanation of why Consciousness is so mysterious that I've ever heard. Even better than Chalmers and that's saying something.
Consciousness, which is not Defined, is not baffling or mysterious, but men (Human beings) seem to disappear into the fog of confusion because they cannot reconcile their experiences with their preconceptions. They suppose themselves to be more than merely Meat, and then are reluctant to Accept that they are no more than meat
@@vhawk1951kl it seems to me that you don’t really understand what he said. How does complexity generate consciousness? If that is the case then less complex organs must generates less complex consciousness. If that is not the case how then Only the brain can generates consciousness? You see, he’s saying that brain generates consciousness, but that correlations are not the explanation to it. I think you’re dumb.
What a thought-provoking and intriguing topic to explore! I am baffled that this channel has such a low subscriber count. I guess most of the CZcams community just doesn't care about the big questions and is content on being consumed by distractions.
I guess that's why cognitive decline is on rise in the current era
Q: Who does consciousness baffle?
A: consciousness 😆
Right? It's similar to the consciousness is illusion nonsense, who is the one that is being fooled by this "illusion"?
@@meowmeow83 Actually it's not at all like the consciousness is an illusion nonsense.
Saying consciousness is an illusion is nonsensical because an illusion is still a conscious experience (which McGinn points out in the video).
There's nothing nonsensical about saying that consciousness is baffling. If you disagree, explain consciousness and claim your Nobel Prize.
The OP's comment is a clever observation that consciousness is baffled by itself. There's nothing nonsensical about the fact that how consciousness happens is baffling however.
You get 4 demerits and owe the Internet an apology.
@@b.g.5869 Its baffling if you look at it from a materialist paradigm.. so why don't they do a 180 and get out of that "nonsense". They are looking for a linear cause and effect to "explain" consciousness.. The cause and effect is a perspective of our 3D world.. where evolution happens in linear time. We have a base layer consciousness where even time isn't fundamental so no origin story is required and it will remain baffling to the left brain. Our modern society has made the thinking logical left hemisphere the God - so to speak.. yes we've had tremendous material success with our gift of the rational mind which the left hemisphere is good at.. but the left brain helps us survive in the 3d world and if someone has a stroke which affects their left hemisphere, they just BE and all the Why disappears because experience of time disappears.. then there is nothing to be baffled about what consciousness is.. there is only experience for that person. In fact, the right hemisphere is usually the most intuitive and where truly creative ideas arise so these scientists need to "switch off their left brain" of cause and effect, meditate and move inwards to understand consciousness. In fact quantum experiments also have helped us understand consciousness but I highly doubt that we'll be able to explain consciousness in terms of its origin which implies time.. but if time isn't fundamental, there is no such thing as origin or cause.. it just IS.
@@meowmeow83 Gibberish.
@@meowmeow83 what you are saying is completely consistent with Yoga philosophy
Room full of chairs! This is an excellent informal discussion of the "hard question" My hats off to Colin McGinn. My take on this is that we are forever stuck with two mutually exclusive ways of understanding the world: through human concerns which often focus on things like meaning, intentions, reasons, values, beliefs, ethical rules, and free will - things which do not directly refer to the material world - and the scientific - which works by focusing on material objects and forces while getting rid of human concerns as much as possible.
Back 25 years ago I was making that argument he makes about evolution not preparing us to understand brain tissue. I went so much farther with it but no one could even begin to understand what I was saying.
I left graduate school in behavioral neuroscience and evolutionary psychology after 4 years and wrote a book 20 years ago about how we have an “Evolutionarily limited” world view that is not only key to understanding consciousness but everything else too.
I left graduate school because I thought everyone was wrong and they were! It’s amazing how much things have changed now. Thanks 🙏🏻
Which implies that a future species more conscious than us will exceed us and will understand what we can't.
Did you write and publish your book under the name Steven T. Romer?
@@FreeMind320 Perhaps but understanding the mechanics of consciousness , like understanding the mechanics of electric power, might not be sufficient to know what it is or not or why it is. In the end the mystery might never be solved!!
Atrazine
@@scoreprinceton maybe, maybe not
I enjoy the conversations and I also look forward to the locations of the discussions!
Hands down one of the best episodes of CTT
Everything that I'm conscious of is directly linked to the entire universe that allows us to live within! My consciousness uses my eyes, my temperature, breathing, and reasoning thought process to understand the Universe. My Conciousness seems to me is a Spirit, which has been spoken of as something that will exist forever, and not dependant on the very body which fed my conciousness to continue into the afterlife!
I suspect the distinction between the kidney (and every other "thing") and the brain is the immediate access to memory which enables continuity and therefore a sense of self. without memory there is no consciousness as we experience it.
If he is open to the idea that our intelligence simply can't understand consciousness, he must be open to the idea that we have unintelligently assumed that consciousness is a product.
Endless confusion between consciousness and the mind, without clarity of definition between the two, helps continue this debate.
We are going on and on in circles without moving a step forward.
Mr Khune and Colin are so gifted in their understanding of physics and their views on consciousness show us how well they have looked at every slice of this mysterious experience. Here's a lay person's view. I think we are being much too complex. This is what I think consciousness is: Consciousness is what could be called a membrane that holds all the moving parts of the mind in place. It’s nature’s way of providing the support system necessary to the brain for its role in thinking and coming to conclusions and taking decisions. The ‘membrane’ of conscious is nature at its best in coming up with a solution for making the thinking process work in 4 dimensions. Like in a human cell, the membrane holds all the key elements together so that they can function. Consciousness in the human mind is an invisible membrane that permits all the necessary parts of the brain to be able to link up. Imagine it like a hologram where suddenly all the parts can communicate with each other. This is Mother Nature’s way of allowing the brain to be able to make the 400 decisions it must make every second for the human body to function. The invisible membrane allows all of the mental functions to be able to operate like thinking, emotions, dreaming.
Like dark matter for universe.
Yes, as you say, a lay view
Wow, that is one of the better interviews on this channel.
Okay well I have to keep watching, I'm only at three minutes, and I'm becoming annoyed at Colin McGinn's brain kidney comparison. We Homo sapiens have (virtually) mastered the art of trading out the kidney.
We are plausibly probably a half a millennia from replacing brains with the brains of fellow Homo sapiens. And who would you be if you got a donor...yourself or the donor??
It is baffling because we have no idea what it is that we are ultimately conscious of. What is the object of consciousness? What is the content of our experience? And what does it mean to be aware of it? It is an existential conundrum. It’s no longer sufficient to say: I came from stardust, I think, therefore I am. Our consciousness is now in search of an answer to the very Heideggerian question of: “Why is there something, why is there anything at all, rather than Nothing?”
All good questions! As a creator of these questions, how did you create them from nothing?
It´s a fantastic setup😊
Consciousness is necessary for the universe to exist.
The driving factor behind consciousness is surely the need to make the body survive? Almost all emotional states can be chalked up to a love or fear response, or to put it on a survival standpoint, safety and danger. We grow into this state of understanding our place within the culture we are born where the world quickly imprints itself upon our behaviours. It pushes to understand that world for survival and procreation, so to take the unknown, which it could construe as danger, define the boundaries of that response to pass it into comfort ie safety.
I like this discussion. Thanks.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
Beautiful
Wonderful discourse , dazzling intelligence.
YES !! So refreshing here on YT.
Its crazy to think that our brain is trying to figure itself out.
As far as we Homo sapiens know, the brain is the only object/existence in the Universe, that studies itself.
@@readynowforever3676 That is the only object in the Universe that study anything... and know what is that mean to study...
The brain gets confused, you already know who ‘you’ are. You’ve been saying ‘I am’ your whole life... consciousness is self aware, the brain is simply like a machine. That’s why Elon musk is trying to put chips in them. But you will never be able to put a chip on the source.
The brain is deluded into thinking it can work anything out,
@@footballfactory8797 your problem is that you can't rule out any single atribute you would assume for conciousness alone that can't be governed by the brain, and most of them already had been shown. there are a some left (like origin of raw intentions, the origin of thoughts, the illusion of the self etc) but the trend seems to be definetly in the materialism direction. philosophers who came out with dualism didn't have neuroscience, even in an "infantile" state as it is today (compared to other sciences) and the other ideas are either unfalsifiable like panpsychism or overwhelmingly speculative like those based on quantum physics or new age unproven physics. if you ask me right now, i'd say its just a matter of brain complexity that we haven't desiphered yet, there are simply gargantuan level of connections that our cognition and reason can't grasp, just like with the size of the universe or exponential growth and such, but i obviously might be wrong.
Great interview
Which chair shall we use today?
Thoughts must have some spacious space. Problem is we don’t know yet the space small enough. My guess is smaller than electrons but at the moment an electron is the smallest possible.
These ‘thought building blocks’ must drive our physical universe. In reincarnation, learning processes, social hierarchy etc. these thought building blocks are involved.
Consciousness has always existed. It wasn't created and therefore, can't be destroyed. I'd love to hear an explanation of how consciousness is an emergent property of matter from a diehard materialists. It sounds quite ridiculous to say, "brains gave rise to consciousness". That's just magical thinking.
Your first two sentences are quite an assumption.Can you tell me how you arrived at that statement? Then i might argue as a hardcore materialist.
Because it’s difficult to see out your own particular frame of reference. We have a practical working functional definition for consciousness for 20 years
Its rare to encounter such truly intellectual discussions. Pure reasoning, no "opinipnating".
It's highly opinionated. They're essentially begging the question and not engaging in a real investigation. The assumption is that we must first look at the brain and ask "How does it generate consciousness?" To say that the brain generates consciousness is an assumption and places primacy upon the brain at the outset. It's a different type of starting point I think when some philosophers begin with sense data. There is no materialist assumption there and it looks at the mind from the standpoint of pure thought or experience, what analytic philosophers refer to as consciousness as qualia (quae qualia consciousness). Recall Descartes' dictum upon which Husserl's approach is based. I think therefore I am. To think is what is absolute and fundamental and cannot be doubted.
@@dgontar I even doubt the axiom cogito ergo sum. So, I understood the discussion as questions as to why cogito. Whether brain or sense data is part of the cogito was not doubted, but it does not answer why cogito. The common answer nowadays seems to be sensible, maybea modern school of thought; we don´t know and we have to wait until we discover something which could lead to an answer. I know that I know nothing.
@@falkenherz1708 If you can refer to an I in a sentence, saying "I know nothing" you presuppose the cogito.
@@dgontar One times zero still is zero. However, this doesnt touch the point of the vid as to why cogito.
@@falkenherz1708 The I presupposes the cogito, and the cogito presupposes the I. They're inherently related.
Everyone is confused about consciousness because there is not a standard definition agreed upon. Each specialty views it from their individual science/perspective. Most of this discussion bears this out, the brain scientist is looking for specific neurons firing, the physicist is looking at quantum physics, some philosophers may see it as an illusion, for many, it's just not being asleep. Most appear to assume we are talking about human consciousnes, however, animals down to organs to cells can sense their environments and respond to the environment in a way that promotes conscious survival of their entity. So until a differentiation between these differnent shades of consciousness, there will be many confusing and amazing discussions, as this was.
What if consciousness is fundamental and universal?
What if consciousness is not part of the human brain, what if human is part of consciousness?
I recommend you check out Bernardo Kastrup's article The Reality Nervous System. I think you might like it.
People who have had near death experiences (clinically dead for a period of time) have experiences that they characterize as more lucid than those they have when alive. They’re conscious during their experiences. That seems to suggest that consciousness resides outside the brain. Maybe the brain is our cpu connected to consciousness in another dimension.
@Jo Jo being unconscious is quite different from clinical death. In NDE cases of record the individuals were clinically dead and absent of brain waves of any kind. During anesthesia we are rendered unconscious but the brain is still functioning. I found the NDE cases I studied fascinating. How could a clinically dead person have the experiences they report after resuscitation during which time the had no brain function. There is a growing body of evidence to support the notion that our consciousness resides in another dimension and the brain is a “valve” that interacts with it through micro-tubules located in our grey matter. There is a great deal of contemporary literature that deals with the subject. Look up Dr Eben Alexander, and read his book.
Irreducible Mind, Bruce Greyson et al, 2007. Definitive.
Ok, if you really believe that, volunteer for a lobotomy.
Perhaps another perspective one can explore is to realize that the brain is merely hardware. It's like a TV that has tubes and wires and such. It receives information from the program or mind. The mind is separate from the brain just as the program continues to run when the TV is turned off. Yes we need to care for our "hardware" by eating good foods, get good sleep, stay active, and absolutely use your creativity. This can aid the function of our "TV" that will in turn help us understand the goings on in the mind and emotions. Consciousness is the spiritual awareness of being, knowing, and seeing. Consciousness originates in Soul, our spiritual identity, which is immortal. The mind and brain are temporary and serve the physical body as long as it lives and survives in this physical existence. But once the physical body dies, the consciousness remains because it is embodied in Soul. And soul lives forever. Yes, the mind cannot fathom this perspective of immortality because it is mortal and hence temporary. Can I prove this? No! You have to figure this out for yourself through your own EXPERIENCE.
10:39 "Neural impulses are producing my experiences but
we just don't have any conception of the mechanism by which that happens".
Yes we do!
Explanation begins with the sense organs.
What do they do?
A sense organ modulates the discharge frequency of a brain connected neuron
in proportion to the environmental energy impinging on the organ.
Thus the discharge frequency is a temporally encoded representation of the energy.
One might say the frequency is analogous to the energy, call it an analogy.
Of course there are myriads of sensing organs
densely covering the outer and inner surfaces of our bodies
all working together continuously in parallel to
deliver a very complex neural discharge frequency encoded analogy
to vast numbers of receiving synapses in the brain.
(What happens subsequently gets very quickly complicated).
Now focus for a moment on the phrase "temporally encoded representation" and
the fact that this representation process is happening in many millions
of sense organs/connecting neurons/synapses in parallel and simultaneously.
Thus a picture of the world within and without is painted on the input surface of the brain.
Now, these sense neurons, in structure and function, are identical to brain neurons so
think of all these sense neurons as part of the brain, level one if you like.
What happens subsequently is simply more of the same but
more complicated because in brain neurons level two,
the analogies begin to intermodulate and
to modulate analogies already present.
This is part of the process wherein
input from all the sense organ gets stitched into a single multi part analogy that
eventually modulates, in whole or in part,
the analogy process that is mainly responsible
for our being conscious.
The process mainly responsible for our being conscious
is the thought that is about its self.
Being about its self is the reason we call that thought 'The Self'.
All other thoughts are about something other.
Thus The Self Thought is unique.
(A multitude of such thoughts in one brain
was once labelled 'multiple personality disorder').
When thoughts that are about something other modulate The Self Thought,
the changes wrought in The Self Thought are of what The Self is conscious.
(Understand that, in a sense, I am speaking metaphorically).
Note that thoughts are just another word for analogy and that
analogies are instantiated as physically encoded neural discharge frequencies.
Thus we clearly see the relationship between mind and matter
(understanding 'mind' to be constituted entirely of thoughts).
And there you have a hypothetical explanation of the mechanism
responsible for our being conscious.
(The reason we are conscious is to enable large civilization.
Civilization is what protects us from nature,
red in tooth and claw,
civilization, the phenotypic expression of our collective being.
Hard to run a civilization on instinct only.
Language is the essential component that
enables the vast coordination of our efforts which is what
transforms civilization into the most powerful organism on the planet,
holistically speaking).
The foundations of the above hypothesis can be found in
Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and in
Douglas Hofstadter's Pulitzer winning,
"Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" and
if unfamiliar with neural function,
read this article for an introduction,
www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/human-biology/neuron-nervous-system/a/overview-of-neuron-structure-and-function
.
Cheers! Eh.
I actually have an answer to the question being discussed: the brain and the consciousness are sort of the same thing, not 2 different things. But really this answer is not mine, in a sense that I reasoned it out, it's just the way the things are. Unfortunately, reasoning in general and science in particular takes us away from the simple essence of things that we know inherently, without any explanations(reality cannot really be explained, since explaining by definition is a planar or linear extrapolation of a phenomenon). And I am not saying this as a counter argument to what is said in this video, more like just describing what I am seeing outside of any argumentation. I realize now that what I have said might sound very obscure and convoluted, but what I am trying to say here is really simple, and everyone knows it(it seems like the majority - unconsciously).
The answer will be known when we all figure out who made the moon. And I have the answer but nobody seems to care as they are too busy using the short time we have on this ride, the hologram entitled “Life on earth with 3-D Effects”, to give it any concern. When you are aboard the Matterhorn ride in Disneyland, you aren’t wondering how the ride was made, you only care about the fun and the experience.
Could consciousness explain the brain? Is consciousness / mind programming information and focus in the brain?
CONSCIOUSNESS IS A FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK OF NATURE:
…
non-duality of nature.
The universe exists Both as physical and spiritual or metaphysical in nature.
ie. body and mind.
…
The connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics.
There is No objective reality. Physical matter only exists when it is observed after the wave function collapses.
…
"The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler
He so casually says that consciousness emerges in the brain, but what if consciousness was a frequency that the brain has learned to receive and interpret for us? Do we know that it didnt emerge from an external factor? We certainly didnt “create” it, because before consciousness existed - at least in the way we perceive it - there were still *things* .. and why would they even be there if they were never meant to explore the reason for their being there?
Dr. Kuhn: I have been seeing your discussions for several years since I started using your CZcams videos, and I have come to your mind about what you’ve brought about to the world about what reality is really about,. You are my wonderful intellectual human that I always think about us ALL HUMANS should be interested in your investigations with the top scientific/philosophical interests/questions
about REALITY. That is the most important thing we should all be doing. You are one of the best intellectuals that will bring humanity closer to our eventual understanding/real believing of the ABSOLUTE GROUND of our being. I’ve relatively recently come to get very interested in Quantum Physics possibly bringing human consciousness into our understanding of REALITY, and I’ve listened to your discussions with physicists/philosophers, and it makes me so happy that all these big questions are discussed by you. You are my best, favorite intellectual in our current world.
Thanks,
DIeter Bohr
This video is about ten years old and is a clip from a television show.
When he;s talking about space though, isn't that basically negated on the quantum level? I thought it was how we discerned how quantum entanglement is not faster than light
Consciousness has connection to agency, which lead to subjective feeling. Can agency be identified in brain?
Well, if you lobotomize someone they lose agency.
Great
To be awake.. it's quite normal. And oddly, a nightmare for some.
Cannot the brain have something defined as "intentionality" when it performs its functions? (Question, not yet speculation, I'm defining terms here.) Can we say, in that sense, that the liver 'intends' to remove poisons from our bodies, or the white blood cells intend to cleanse our circulatory system, or even that an electron 'intends' to travel in a straight line a la Newton, but captured by the nucleus, circles in an attempt to continue straight? [This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on my part, but at a pop-sci level, seems to make some kind of sense]
This guy is very entertaining.
Is the brain processing information spatially? Maybe the mind / consciousness just in time dimension programs information in brain processed spatially?
Assuming that organs don't have a form of consciousness. Im pretty sure they all communicate with each other and with the brain, as organelles do with the nucleus in the cell.
If you ever hear a person discussing consciousness and asking what it is they are indeed unconscious and clearly have never experienced it either or perhaps a long time ago before they had it educated out of them.
The gastrointestinal system is sometimes referred to as the second brain. Why then not the kidneys as the third?
I've always wondered how people can say that conciousness is an illusion, you're still having a subjective experience, so the whole argument, in my opinion, collapses, simply put, I just don't really understand that argument.
Roger Penrose defined Infinity by a circle, a line, no dimension, a closed loop, and everything else inside it in an organised working way towards the infinity.
Without human consciousness, all routes to the infinity are closed altogether.
We have 72 routes to the infinity.
Imagine that!
Imagine what?
The problem with this argument is that correlation does not mean causation. What if consciousness is outside the brain. Isn't it possible that the brain doesn't produce consciousness? Maybe the brain acts as a receiver to consciousness.
Our brain is like a receiver, it creates the sense based on interactions. It's like looking for sound in a speaker, it's something out brain interprets and transforms to sound and not sight. Likewise a beautiful sumrise/sunset can only been seen and not heard.
Brain damage can also alter these states along with psychoactive compounds such at psilocybin and DMT.
If finding the answer to what consciousness is was 100'% , we would still currently be at 0.001
people have lucid coherent awareness during near death and out of body states so your point about brain damage and altering the states is not 100% accurate..there have been people in comas, cardiac arrest and brain death who have experienced "pure" consciousness more lucid than waking consciousness so in my opinion consciousness is MORE than brain.
damage the brain, you damage the connections, the pathway, the flow, but you do not damage consciousness itself.
@@Dion_Mustard Ok, then volunteer for a lobotomy.
Btw it's a great beautiful mystery
Listening to this put me to sleep!
lol
I appreciate E.F. Schumacher's acknowledgement of at least 3 levels - life (plants), consciousness (animals), and self-awareness (humans), or specifically that humans contains all 3 levels, and each level can contain a different sensibility. Other mammals can "play", so we can see consciousness is necessary for play, a process of learning through doing, but self-awareness offers a higher level, like where you can remember the past, remember when you didn't have the skills and knowledge you have, and imagine the future, and take advice how to create a different future, and work towards that, and that's the level that genesis recognizes, when we ate the fruit from the tree of good and evil, and gained the ability to imagine ourselves in others, and then our responsibility is higher, and we need a social conscience to interact in more cooperative ways, while we can choose to override that, we pay an inner price of suffering in judging ourselves from an external standard. So this self-awareness makes us realize we're naked and self-conscious in ways animals don't experiences. The animals still die, but they are less aware of morality, and live in the moment. And we can do that too, and things like addiction can keep us there, avoiding awareness we don't want to face.
Couldn't be the brain a 4D receiver, some kind of 4D radio set?, We can never know how a radio device works if we do not know that there are broadcasting stations.
This is just wishful thinking that consciousness doesn't require a living brain.
Even if for the sake of argument we say the radio analogy is correct, you still need a radio to experience the broadcast, so the death of your brain would be the end of your experience anyway.
It'd be like a tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it.
Perhaps in the future technology WILL be so sophisticated as to not only produce artificial consciousness, but allow us to probe it from the inside, like using one of those serial debug interfaces that can investigate the internal state of CPUs in development. Perhaps some day we'll be able to "enter" the conscious state of another artificial consciousness and experience it firsthand and thereby *prove* that there isn't anything particularly special about the brain but that it really is just a matter of connective complexity. That would be one way to solve the mystery.
If the materialists are right we should be able to do that with AI .
I think we will reach a point where plausible mechanisms or architectures of consciousness can be explained adequately, by neuroscience and experiments with symbolic AI or deep learning/neural networks, and it may turn out to be a simple thing. But to many people it will be like saying 'the answer is 42' - it will be completely unsatisfying, emotionally. Much of the debate stems from people *wanting* there to be something more, so they can claim to have an 'unlimited' nature rather than a dirty, limited material nature. To me, this attitude itself has the stink of humanity, of motivated reasoning. In every one of these interviews, you can read these motivated theories of dualism, pan-psychism or whatever in the comments below.
Materialism will have its limits, but there is no reliable evidence yet that consciousness might be one of them.
WHY ? because it is what we use to define our universe, so by default it is the only mechanism human's have to determine itself. How can consciousness understand consciousness ?
Because it's fundamental.
Consciousness=hard studying and research about what we have studied is correct or not.
Time=Consciousness=universe
Starting with “we know what consciousness is” is a sure way to go off in the wrong direction.
So in this room, can you sit in any chair?
No, only those two.
It depends if they are conscious or not.
Consciousness is the act of the observer observing himself.
All of these theories about consciousness are like including the word in it's definition. I'd like to see a more scientific approach to answering this question. For example, could it be that our brains, as complex as they are, just interfere with a certain field(s)? New field, new force, new particle? It sounds like a bunch of quantum woo, but I'd rather start from that end than start a notch below deities and such.
Give an example of one of these theories you speak of which are supposedly invoking circular reasoning.
If you really want to understand the mystery of consciousness, you have to understand Physics! - I am not joking! Even the father of Quantum Mechanics states - "Consciousness is Fundamental" - and definitely, he knows what is talking about! There is one new book, which explains well all those puzzles - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
9
Given that Chaos theory shows that the simulation of every purely deterministic process depends intimately upon the numerical precision used to simulate such processes,.. that the use of a different precision will yield wildly different results,.. and that no one knows what is the correct numerical precision to use to mimic most any complex, iterative, physical process (that there is *_ALWAYS_* an inherent indeterminacy in just what is the best precision to use; too much precision leads to error, just like too little does also),.. I believe this leaves more than enough room for the indeterminacy of free will to reside within. Add also such qualities as moral courage, virtue, and valor,.. and that over time such qualities tend to be ever more self-reinforcing,... and, yes, I believe in free will,.. abridged perhaps,.. not libertarian free will,.. not a ghost in the machine free will,.. but how about a Daoist conception of free will in which every action is formed out of all of one's past actions,.. including one's acts of moral effort and/or indifference. To a substantial extent, we are all beings of self-made souls; not entirely free,.. but not entirely unfree or predetermined either.
Why one person's will breaks in Auschwitz, while another lives to tell their story,.. may well be largely, even substantially, outside their control,.. but *_entirely_* outside their control,.. that one person had no choice but to quit, while another had no choice but to persevere,.. I don't believe it,.. and I genuinely doubt Sam Harris believes this either.
If there is no free will, what utility does consciousness have then? Ignoring for the moment the amazing qualia of the phenomenon of consciousness which would certainly seem not to be reducible to the known laws of physics,.. why would nature create such an elaborate epiphenomena if it has no purpose,.. and what purpose could consciousness have *_except_* to inform free will so that free will can make well informed choices?
*_Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others._*
~ Aristotle
*_Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts._*
~ Aristotle
*_Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives -- choice, not chance, determines your destiny._*
~ Aristotle
*_Man is a goal seeking animal. His life only has meaning if he is reaching out and striving for his goals._*
~ Aristotle
*_First, have a definite, clear practical ideal; a goal, an objective. Second, have the necessary means to achieve your ends; wisdom, money, materials, and methods. Third, adjust all your means to that end._*
~ Aristotle
*_Anybody can become angry -- that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way -- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy._*
~ Aristotle
*_It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels._*
~ Augustine of Hippo
*_Only he whose soul is in turmoil, forced to live in an epoch where war, violence and ideological tyranny threaten the life of every individual, and the most precious substance in that life, the freedom of the soul, can know how much courage, sincerity and resolve are required to remain faithful to his inner self in these times of the herd's rampancy. Only he knows that no task on earth is more burdensome and difficult than to maintain one's intellectual and moral independence and preserve it unsullied through a mass cataclysm. Only once he has endured the necessary doubt and despair within himself can the individual play an exemplary role in standing firm amidst the world's pandemonium._*
~ Stefan Zweig, _Montaigne_
@david hunt The idea that consciousness and qualia have evolved is indeed very difficult to defend, if qualia are illusory, or if consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
@@reneahn5908 I really want someone to tell me what possible function could consciousness have,.. in the absence of genuine, authentic free will??!
It's easy to see that consciousness resides in your brain because if you are beheaded you lose your consciousness. To really understand consciousness is to find out whether an AI machine could develop it. How about other animals which are not human, do they have consciousness? and Finally in order to be able to think, do you need to have consciousness? or Is thinking a consequence of consciousness? I guess you cannot think when you are in a coma or under anesthesia because you are unconscious.
The brain is where it is because it evolved from simpler body forms (eg worms) with bilateral symmetry, a gut, and sense organs. The brain evolved to take sense data from sensory nerves at the most functional locations on the body for the best chances of survival and reproduction. So it's no accident that the brain is in the head with the eyes, ears, nose, mouth. And it's no accident that the kidneys are doing their 'job' near the excretory apparatus. While 'mere' complexity might not explain consciousness, it presumably co-evolved with the functional 'need' for consciousness, which is most probably found in the huge survival value of the formation and complexity of human relationships and societies. Beyond that, I don't see why consciousness itself need be anything particularly special - it could be a fixed neural locus of supervisory control, it could be a shifting locus of neural activation, it could consist of a set of actors, or even the dreaded 'homunculi', so long as there are not an infinite number of them. It could be even be an epiphenomenal 'feeling' of being an integrated whole. These options will mostly be sorted out by neurologists rather than philosophers.
One strong opinion I do have though - there is no reason to suppose that the experience we all have of consciousness is a good guide to its material nature. Just because the 'stuff' of mind is different in nature to material 'stuff' does not mean that mind cannot be instantiated in material 'stuff'. It's mysterious for the same reason that the heart or the kidneys were once mysterious because we do not yet understand it sufficiently, that is all.
Our consciousness must rely on an underlying property that is not ours, since we do not consciously create it. It must belong to something intrinsic within us that we access. We have not really identified other things that exhibit this conscious behaviour, but many have noticed that quantum behaviour seems to provide required responses mapped onto a seemingly random sequences, they seem to exhibit choice as to how to act, which sort of tells us that the random sequences are not really random. And the responses originate beyond, or underneath the physical plane. This would suggest that the whole universe, all of creation, is in some way intelligent. (eg every particle in the universe reciprocates with every other particle, even across vast distances). It also supports the ancient beliefs that a God, a creator is both within us and outside us. This principle would explain a continuum in the evolutionary process from lifeless matter to human life. A rational suporting this would be that the Brain consists of 100,000,000,000 Neurons which some how share a single mind. Unless electricity itself contains the mind then the sharing must happen within some sort of quantum field, as nothing else would fit. Remembering that we have no evidence that electrical particles themselves at the physical level exhibit any decision making behaviours. ...I you don’t believe me as those who experience being one with the universe :0)
In other words, you failed to understand the concept of emergence. OK. So what?
I strongly recommend your to read Bernardo Kastrup's book *The Idea of the World.* I think it explains consciousness and it's relationship to the brain better than physicalism ever could!
not according to the negative reviews. All fantasy and fiction.
@@AlexLifeson1985 Well, they are full of s#it! You can read the key essays of the book online for 100% free. Just checkout the "papers" section of his website. If I remember correctly, at least some of the papers in the book might have been changed in response to peer review. I also recommend the first 30 40 minutes of this video too czcams.com/video/AF2uTbmHCMA/video.html
It's only baffling if you keep trying to define it as a an emergent phenomenon produced by purely physical processes ( i.e. _"it's from mindless/non-conscious processes occurring at the atom-molecule substrate"; "It's the result of brain chemistry and nothing more"; "If the bran dies the consciousness associated with it no longer exists"_ ). ------- But it's easy to let go of that irrational belief by observing that consciousness cannot be defined purely by objective or mathematical descriptions (...because awareness, intent, emotion, thought, attention, perception, qualia, subjectivity.)
For God's sake interview Bernardo Kastrup!
assuming there is no spectrum that consciousness lies upon is what seems open the door for an apparent "quantum" leap in awareness to consciousness. I think this assumption is poorly thought out. There are certainly many levels or degrees of consciousness in the animate world. I think you can reasonably call the response to stimuli of single celled organism to their surrounding a very basic form of awareness. I think you can draw an uninterrupted line from at least there to conscious awareness. If not even deeper to awareness as the fundamental nature of existence.
This is so transparently about fear of death.
Suppose for the sake of argument that panpsychism were true; that consciousness was in some sense fundamental.
It doesn't change the fact that your personal consciousness and sense of self is dependent upon the processes going on inside your skull, when you die, they will stop.
If you doubt this, volunteer for a lobotomy. Your won't.
It's not that this isn't an interesting topic worth exploring, but so much of the discussion is obviously motivated by trying to imagine a way that consciousness isn't dependent upon our mortal brains, and that's why there's invariably so much bullshit bandied about in these discussions.
We don't know _how_ the brain generates consciousness, but there's no question that it does.
I'll believe anyone who disputes this if and only if they put their money where their mouth is and volunteer for a lobotomy.
@@b.g.5869 you are absolutely right and I wasn't implying anything else. This has nothing to do with the fear of death. When the system that supports "your" consciousness disappears you disappear. This changes nothing about what happens when you die or when you get a lobotomy.
Wait what's wrong with the electricity theory of consciousness?
explain how electricity generates consciousness?
i'm waiting ......
@@Dion_Mustard I don't claim to know, nor am I really a huge proponent of it, just found it weird how flippantly he dismissed it as if it had been conclusively proven to be wrong.
I do think there's a possibility that electricity or electromagnetism plays an important part in consciousness or is consciousness itself (Electromagnetic theories of consciousness)
@@LoVeLoVe-bi2rq possibly plays a part..but electricity itself does not generate consciousness. for instance, many people who have had cardiac arrest where the brain flat lines within seconds have often experienced out of body states and had lucid consciousness separate from their body, so this puts an end to your electricity theory because these people had no electrical input in their brain. even a "brain storm" during the dying process doesn't explain the experience because many people have floated away from their body and witnessed things in other parts of the building.
look up non-local consciousness.
EM theories have a LOT to offer to this debate in my (non-expert) opinion, but most academics won't even look at the theory long enough to refute it. It is weird. Cemi field theory is a particularly well-developed take on this idea, and it connects very well to other ideas like resonance theory, global workspace theory, and integrated information theory.
The kind of debate you'd love to gatecrash after three pints.
No, the problem with materialism is not its choice of the brain over other organs as the locus of consciousness. It is not it is composed of materials, just like other parts of the human body, none of which are themselves conscious: self-aware. Plus the principle that an effect cannot be greater than- contain power- not found in its cause. A system of neurons, no matter how vast or complex, could not produce mental events not to be found in a single one. QED.
Please, look for Prof. Mark Solms. He's just published a formidable book about consciousness: The Hidden Spring! I'd love to listen to you interviewing him.
You think Robert Kuhn reads the comments on ten year old clips from his TV show posted to CZcams by PBS?
@@b.g.5869, it says here that this video was published on may 3rd, 2021.
@@franciscoa.camargo4079 It was posted to CZcams on that date. It wasn't filmed then.
This is really really old.
@@b.g.5869 , pity!
@@franciscoa.camargo4079 Why is it a pity?
The universe has no discernable properties without consciousness. Consciousness is what manifests the world as we know it.
Your first sentence is a meaningless tautology. Obviously _discernable_ properties require a _discerner_ (i.e. a conscious agent).
Also, obviously the world _as_ _we_ _know_ _it_ is filtered through our consciousness, but that doesn't entail that objective reality is the product of consciousness.
@@b.g.5869 I can see how it sounds that way. But I mean it in the way that you couldn't make any definitive statements about the properties of objective reality even if you were to try to imagine a possible world where consciousness didn't exist.
The subjective world as we know it is the only verifiable world. Objective reality is just an inference. It's unclear how meaningful it is to say that something exists which in principle, could never be directly experienced.
@@Ndo01 Do you doubt the mounds of evidence that there were billions of years before life existed? Are you arguing for solipsism? Do you doubt other minds exist?
Because intersubjective agreement is pretty compelling evidence that an objective external world exists, even if we are only ever aware of it in the form of the imperfect way our brains model it based on external stimuli.
Unless you're arguing for solipsism, how do you figure hundreds of independent conscious agents are able to drive on highways with relatively few accidents if objective reality is but a dubious inference?
@@b.g.5869 I believe there were billions of years before biological life existed yes. But due to the hard problem of consciousness, I think consciousness is fundamental, and outside the brain. So time and causality as we experience are just how consciousness interprets/arranges information through our sense organs. I'm not arguing for classic solipsism, but maybe a cosmic-solipsism, where other minds are just fragments of the whole (same as Bernardo Kastrup).
For me, intersubjective agreement and interaction is possible because we're all more or less sharing the same hallucination, in the same way that multiple people can identify the same colour, even though colour is a property that only exists in our minds.
@@Ndo01 You're arguing for, as Kuhn likes to say, a distinction without a difference.
I don't think you have provided a satisfactory response for the fact that thousands - billions actually - of independent conscious agents safely navigate the world, including busy highways, daily.
"Complexity" is an opening bid. But as so easily shown in the interview, easily shot down. There has to be more. One can say the kidney (as well as different systems in the body) is "conscious". As a living system, it has its own needs, agenda. The brain winds up coordinating it all. And most of the stuff that goes on in the brain is not "consciously" accessible to us. These are aspects of bodily regulation. So besides "complexity", there has to be "integration" (IIT?), centralization, coordination, an executive function, that ties together the various agendas of a multi-cellular organism.
The "consciousness" we know about, not only perceives, regulates, reacts, ... has one additional piece. That is a certain self reflexivity. It knows about itself. It not only does things (regulates), but models itself, an organism, as a whole, as a "self" in the world. It also models its own cognitive processes, such as awareness of 'awareness' (meta-cognition). It is "self aware", and knows that it is "self aware".
What is the evolutionary advantage of this additional piece of capability? No-one really knows. Perhaps it gives the organism much greater degrees of freedom, adding to the adaptability and survivability of the species, compared to other organisms with much more limited and automatic repertoires. (This also tangentially touches on another favorite CTT topic: "free will".)
9:32
How do we know our thoughts or emotions don't have "spatial location"? What's the proof that there's no subatomic imprint (like biological neurological inscription that we couldn’t {yet} decode much less see), like a cassette tape ?
It took almost 2500 years to prove the existence of atomic matter (although we didn’t get started until the Scientific Revolution).
This is very good questions because consciousness really is not a product of our brain but is a universal physical phenomenon, recognized by modern Physics. Even the father of Quantum Mechanics state that "Consciousness is fundamental"! If you really want to understand consciousness, I will recommend one book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Very few people take dualism seriously? Maybe not in academic philosophy, but is it not the standard position of most people?
There's materialism, dualism, and idealism. Did McGinn even mention idealism?
Yet. What video did you watch?
These people are not philosophers, they're scientists and commenters on science. They don't even know what philosophy is.
Consiousness is an information-based system that can learn by free will among different probabilistic choices in this virtual reality, thus it is fundamental and any theory of everything should consider it.
Einstein: “no complex problem can be solved at the same level of consciousness which created it”
This, a paradox: We need to become more conscious in order solve the problem of what consciousness is.
Perhaps consciousness when brain observe something external that creates subjective feeling of agency?
You mean to say you only came to that conclusion now?
@Hitogokochi could be a consciousness external in the environment that brain is able to sense.
@@jamesruscheinski8602 Even if that were true, without a brain you wouldn't have any personal conscious experience.
You're engaging in what's known as motivated reasoning. You _want_ consciousness to be somehow or other external to the brain because you want to survive the death of your brain. But we know that our personal conscious experience is dependent upon brain processes; if it weren't, we couldn't reliably render people unconscious using drugs that disrupt particular brain processes.
@@b.g.5869 true on personal consciousness, considering possibility for consciousness in general
@Hitogokochi Nonsense. You definitely need a brain to be conscious. Any attempt to argue otherwise is obvious wishful thinking (on other words, you _want_ consciousness to be independent of matter because you know your brain has an expiration date and you think that if consciousness is independent of brain processes this provides for the possiblity of our personal conscious experience surviving the death of your brain.
But it really doesn't matter ultimately whether materialism is true or not.
Suppose materialism is false, and your 'stuff' isn't actually fundamentally material but fundamentally some sort of mental 'stuff'. Your personal conscious experience is still dependent upon brain processes regardless of whether you're fundamentally material or fundamentally immaterial pixie dust.
When people realize this they're enthusiasm for opposing materialism often wanes.
its because you feel, see, but if you didn't you would realize its the water system, well everything like a pulsing antenna, aura but anyway..
So thees guys seem to be saying conscience arises from material matter ! So what produced material matter ! When you discover the answer you will unravel the mystery !
Is the sense of self simply a process of the hive brain? One brain doesn't give you a sense of self. It is with many brains that you can develop culture, language and intricate societies.
Like discussion electrically drivin items Each in its own right complex and impressive.But missing the point Forgetting that all these wonderful machines are driven by one common factor ELECTRICITY .Cannot see or define it ,invisible source but without 9s none 9f these things work
I find it really disturbing that what Crick called the astonishing *hypothesis* that the brain "generates" consciousness is being talked about as if were fact. Seems rather imprecise and dogmatic to me. It is even more worrying that so few people notice how odd this habit is, given the "hard problem".
This is baffling to them because they're trying everything to explain consciousness instead of using consciousness to explain everything.
They are making a mess of this subject. Consciousness is a real physical phenomenon recognized by modern physics. The father of Quantum Mechanics states - "Consciousness is Fundamental" and he definitely understands what is talking about! One new book is shading light on all these puzzles - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
There is a frontier at every front. A consciousness is a culmination of different realms interacting.
It's baffling because its part of our programme, we haven't been programmed to understand it.
The reason consciousness is so baffling is so obvious that everyone overlooks it. It is because consciousness is an entirely subjective experience, and is thus not amenable to the objective testing methods of science. For example if someone said they had a theory of consciousness and has built a machine which is conscious, it would be impossible to test the claim scientifically. The reason being that the only test would be to become the machine, which is impossible. Consciousness is outside the scope of science.
Let's be very clear about this discussion. Consciousness is not baffling. It is extremely obvious after 3,000 years of observation that consciousness is equivalent to physical brain function. Damage the brain and consciousness suffers proportionately. And just because we haven't isolated the precise mechanism of consciousness doesn't change 3,000 years of evidence. The only thing that is truely baffling is why modern, educated and intelligent people insist on mystery therefore magic. If it can't be explained (yet), there must be some transcendent explanation. If precipitation cannot be explained, it must be the rain god. This problem seems difficult because philosophers not educated in science insist on untestable solutions like emergent consciousness. As if consciousness happens by some form of magic. When all the components; silicon, metal, plastic, rubber, and plasma are present a laptop magically emerges. How exactly your eyes transform light waves into what you see is as big a mystery as consciousness. But it isn't magic. The combination of sense perception, memory, and pattern recognition produces awaremess. Dogs, likewise, are conscious. Albeit with a diminished form. But there is no magic.
@@Hhjhfu247 If you are asserting a belief in magic then the onus is on you to provide the evidence. The fact is there is no evidence for magic.
The wise proprtion their belief according to the evidence
- David Hume
Who's asking?