Can Brain Alone Explain Consciousness? | Episode 1607 | Closer To Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Can physical facts about the brain account for mental experiences of the mind? Has philosophy of mind made progress? We take a 15-year journey with John Searle and David Chalmers.
Season 16, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
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.
#Brain #Consciousness
I misread the title and thought it was "can Brian alone explain conciousness", like it was the journey of a guy trying to research all by himself...still captures my imagination
Life of Brian. ..
Brian Cox
@@NonDelusional74611 Brian sucks .......
Brain May
Brian cant ( playaway)
One of the finest series, aptly titled "Closer To Truth." It may seem disappointing we haven't found the truth yet. The producers never said we would. They only promised us of getting Closer to the Truth.
There is Truth my friend and then there is Ultimate Truth. People everywhere are searching for Truth and they don't even understand what Truth is.
We are all having different experiences in life and it's our experiences that become our Truths. Your experiences are not the same as my experiences and therefore your Truth and my Truth are NOT the same. We are ALL evolving down our own paths of our own personal Truths. Contrary to religion's idea of a one size fits all - everyone's path (back to Source (or God)) is just as unique as is each personal relationship with God. We will ALL eventually return to God where we will ALL reach the same Ultimate Truth. Then we will realize in a very real sense that we are all one with God. We are ALL in this reality of being one with God NOW, however, we allow our personal Truths to obscure this fact. People really should be tolerant of each other. We are ALL here for the same purpose. God bless EVERYONE.
@@garychartrand7378 you’re so lame lmao
"Correlation isn't the same as explanation." What a powerful quote that both sides can use.
Very true but I see correlations being of 2 types. There is physical evidence that can be correlated but there is also different pieces of reasoning that can be correlated. Neither one is considered proof but we have to ask ourselves which one is more likely.
I think it's important to note that if we're talking about 1 to 1 correlations between mental states and brain states then that is sufficient not to explain consciousness but rather say that it is sufficient information to know that it is physical. If we find that it's not 1 to 1 then we need a non-physicalist theory. A human will never understand their own consciousness because we represent these ideas using a subset of our brain. It would require a much larger neural network to be able to fully represent a human brain and then some more for analysing it. That neural network, if conscious itself, would therefore not be able to fully understand itself and the origin of it's own level of consciousness. This is the problem of computational irreducibility as coined by Stephen Wolfram.
@@onlyguitar1001 I pretty much agree on the 1 to 1 complete correlation between physical states and conscious states. What that would say is that consciousness is fundamentally connected to physical matter.
This is probably one of the most amazing and outstanding topics in current discussions at academia and in the world, and you've made an amazing job!
The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot..........Falun Dafa
@@jeffforsythe9514 lol, no!
@@floriathi agree With you, i am not a dualist, or a thesit, (certainly not religions).
For 20 years I've been obsessed with this same mystery. I've ravenously consumed every popular book published by Searles, Chalmers, and many others. Meanwhile, Kuhn has been sitting in their dens (and laboratories), chatting with them. I'm jealous. But of course I'm grateful for getting to watch these conversations here.
I agree with Kuhn that no substantive progress has been made on solving this mystery. Why not? It's very frustrating.
Are we perhaps just asking the wrong questions? Science, by definition, provides objective, 3rd-person explanations. Consciousness, by definition, is a subjective, 1st-person phenomenon. Is it, by definition, absurd to seek an objective explanation for a subjective phenomenon? Maybe it should be trivially obvious that objective theories can't possibly explain even the existence of subjective phenomena. Maybe we have simply tried to stretch the category "explanation" too far.
zenbum Searle solves it best “consciousness reduces causally but not ontologically to the brain.” It is precisely because of the walled off nature of subjective first person experience from the neurobiological processes that it emerges from that we think of this as such a mystery. It is resolved by grasping that everything about first person subjective experience depends 100% on brain function. The more complex brains become, the more complex subjective experience becomes. The more injured, sick or intoxicated brains are the more distorted, malfunctioning, or limited subjective experience and behavior becomes.
Nicholas King religious claims followed by physics non sequitur. You’re deluded and pretentious.
Can you recommend some books or interesting websites on this topic?
@Nicholas King Gibberish
@@adammobile7149 hi adam, to me, this website has been a good starting point - hope you like it...... www.informationphilosopher.com/
I like how David explains that panpsychism has the same problem as the hard problem.. namely, how do the smaller agents of consciousness combine to form the the type we experience.
Yep @14:00. ** However, he does not mention immediately after @14:30 that the "consciousness as basic feature of all physics" utterly fails because that would mean that the wave-function (of collapse probability) would ALWAYS be collapsed into a determined state instead a probabilistic one. And given the double slit experiment and double-erasure experiment, we can see that the wave-function is not "always being watched by a consciousness as soon as it makes any information" given that it creates what I would call "probabilistic-location" wave information when it is not measured initially by one of our instruments. That means there was no "consciousness" collapsing the wave-particle duality into "determined particles" the initial moments.
And @16:02 He mistakenly thinks a "perfect" simulation of a conscious brain (obviously dead and uncounscious/sleeping brains could also be simulated) would still not be conscious but that is only because in his reference/experience, all simulation are and would "always be" imperfect. Yet when you simulate the color blue on a computer... is the color not "perfectly" blue? The same would be true with consciousness if the simulation is able to get it "perfectly." "blue dots going from top to down and then the lower colors get darker after touched" is not a "perfect simulation of rain." That is because "perfect simulations" are copying/making the exact color (or perceivably exact to fallible human eyes) since color is basically just a 1-facet experience it is easy to simulate, not just "close to copying it" which is what is implied by "simulation of rain" in the way we know it today.
A rainstorm in another country does not get us wet, yet it is a perfect replica/copy of how a rainstorm would work here in this country. The same will be true of computer consciousness once that is fully achieved by accident or after we gain an understanding of how to create it.
**even "[physical] panpsychism" @18:25 prematurely conflates consciousness as just information exchange/integration. But that is just changing definitions. Such an "integration" would itself require consciousness. No one looks at a rock or single neuron and thinks "Oh that rock/neuron is just computing 1/1800 as much information as me, and thus it internally experiences 1/1800 of a consciousness." Our brains themselves integrate A TON of information while we are completely unconscious such as deep asleep on anesthesia. We cannot say that a vacuum is "slightly more conscious" than an atom, and thus somehow it has an "internal experience". I would even wager to say that the Sun "integrates" more information than we do.
I can explain consciousness. Everything is made of energy. There is a universal consciousnesses that exists in this energy. When your born your brain is like a magnet. It attracts energy and takes some of this universal consciousness with it. In other words. God is creation. And we are all God hiding behind ego.
@@SoultalkOG I dont see any explanations rather than bold claims.
@@matthiasreichshof9896 check advaita Vedanta in Hinduism and near death experience videos on CZcams.
@Adam Martin Molecules dosnt make "river", they are just moving according to laws of physics, we define what a river is. Where does a river exactly begin and where does it end? Their limitations are also just manmade. They are connected to the oceans and on the other side to almost every sea. The better question is: "How can it be that from unpredictability of quantum systems (microsystems) can become the predictability of the world we experience (macrosystems).
thank you for your excellent interviews and narratives, Robert.
Robbetson
@@kimjongun5172??
Awesome episode. I like that it showed the same two philosophers over the course of 14 years
The problems of understanding consciousness all seem to be based on trying to reconcile it with the physical world yet none of these academics is questioning the hidden assumption: is there any evidence we can find for something behind our experience or is experience all there is?
I’ve not seen Robert discuss dreaming in his videos yet it is one of the most useful tools for illustrating the potential problem with materialism, either exclusive or as part of a dualism. Our dreams contain all the elements we see in what we call our waking life: the world, other people like us with apparent inner life, thoughts, sensations, emotions and the idea of ‘me’, the one experiencing the dream. Yet no-one would dispute that all of this takes place in the mind.
It is commonplace to assume that dreams occur in our minds, that we each have a mind and that the mind has something to do with a brain but what evidence is there for this reasoning? All the information on which we build these assumptions is experienced in exactly the same sort of scenario as we would find in a dream. The only substantive difference between what we call reality and a dream is recognised only after we have woken up from the dream. While we’re in the dream the vast majority of us experience it as though it were real. If a dream is seen as absurd it’s only absurd on reflection after waking.
Given that the entirety of a dream can seem exactly like waking life while we’re experiencing it why do we believe that there is anything to this reality other than the experience we are having?
because it is a ridiculously unlikely idea
@Nicholas King "I know, you don't" is not an argument
@Nicholas King It seems to me that I can argue my point and you can't argue yours
@Nicholas King to put it straight, I am right and you are wrong
@Nicholas King about the idea that dreams are special in a way the OP descriped
I have out of body experiences, I am conscious of being me during these experiences. Due to this I know consciousness works through the brain but doesn't come from the brain.
While possible, that doesnt prove anything. I can imagine something, does that mean its actually happening?
The format of this piece is brilliant; following the progression (or lack thereof) of thought and research on the subject through years and decades is a vivid illustration of just how elusive and nuanced the concept of consciousness is and likely will remain.
I love this series, and Robert Kuhn's dogged quest for an answer to these momentous questions.
I live this series! Great thanks to Robert!
“If we knew how the brain constructs consciousness” Well, sir that’s the crux of the question. The scientific issue is that you’re imposing restrictions on your future observations. In other words you’re looking for what you already believe to be true not simply for what is true.
Great observation!
elgaen555 observer bias.
"We" being you and your imaginary friend presumably
Why do we ask scientists answers for this question ? If we ask about the physical world functioning, of course we ask scientists. Because they have better paths in their logical brain. But how do you know a smarter brain (good at logic, proficient in scientific language) has any better answer than a less smarter brain? Because more logic isn’t gonna give you more answer to this question. Thinking is like you play with your brain and find something that meets your brain’s logical circuit and you say “aha, that makes sense”. But that only means it makes sense to your human brain. A bug doesn’t even have a logical brain, but they exist just as we do.
all questions about what we don't know exist within the context of what we do know. the interlocking web of existing evidence and scientific knowledge should always inform our sense of how likely or probable different hypotheses may be. given everything we know so far about the universe, nature, physics, chemistry and biology, the likelihood that consciousness is an emergent property of neurobiology is exceedingly high, while the likelihood that it exists either in some kind of immaterial way dualistically separate from brains, or as a pantheistic quality somehow present even in electrons is exceedingly low. the attempt to make thinking scientifically conform to a sort of "freshman skepticism" that see s all hypotheses as equally plausible is a popular mistake.
I love the John Searle lectures on Consciousness! I've seen them MANY times lol and I TELL MY ARM TO GO UP AND THE DAMNED THING JUST GOES RIGHT UP!
"The question of how do you interpet the data is always a philosophical question" Well said sir, well said indeed.
You know how deep this stuff is when you're high_
Yep. :)
Yes
Yes
A brain is something you touch, see, hear, smell, taste etc whereas consciousness is experienced inside directly. They are different aspects of the same thing and we have different means of experiencing them.
But bro that's the question how a physical thing can make you experience mental Consciousness.. and Honestly deep Down in me I think that it's because we Do Have a Thing called SOUL...Now Just Carefully hear out my words because I think I Cracked LIFE'S MYSTERY, So.. Its all a Riddle yes it is.. "Everything in existence is a riddle including us.. The thing is we are equipped with a very Powerful Brain and that enable us biologically to make Sense of everything when in reality Nothing in existence is supposed to make sense of.. We as living beings are here just to Experience Mortal Life not to make sense of it(Cherish). Again it's all a Riddle which we'll Never ever be able to solve, Because the creator of this Riddle is none other than GOD himself".. believe me I came to this conclusion after lots of mental analysis.. not influenced by any myth, Religion preachings, Science etc just by Natural intelligence(Inner Instinct) nor with any Outside Stimulation.!
THERE IS INDEED A SUPREME CREATOR OUT THERE WE CALL GOD and he did everything Intentionally the way they are.
@@manjuvishwanathmaity4460 Your creator poses many more problems than it seems to answer. Have you ever encountered a mind that could think/will material into existence? Have you ever encountered a mind that didn't have a brain? You can imagine such but imagination isn't reality. People make/create things for their needs out of existing material which has nothing to do with thinking matter into existence. When fireworks explode, you see light and hear sound. Light and sound are 2 different entities that you experience differently. The same is true of physical and mental as when something happens inside your head you can experience it as a thought or you can experience it as electrical or chemical activity we call physical. They are 2 different ways of experiencing the event albeit more different from each other than sight and sound. The world is real and you are real as you can accept the world as is the way you just accept your idealism/god as a separate reality that somehow interacts with the world. The super mind that you have separated from the world is actually the world. You fit into the world because you are the world and don't need a super human like mind to make you and a world for you to fit into. This is it and you are it. The real question is what is it about the human brain/mind that makes it want to create spirits/gods? Hint: We project other people's mind out to them when we interact and we project visual images that we form in our heads when we see something back outward to the source. You are the god you sense.
@@bobs182 I can't find any relevance to your Statement Sorry dude but if u could make it more easier to understand that would be great in a simple way, and again a physical thing cannot enable you to experience mental Consciousness alone Because there is no SOUL.. There is no life energy in it. Believe me Dude Problems are there for a reason in our life no matter if it's small or big it is there to Stimulate us on a mental level or in other words to Educate our SOUL.
@@manjuvishwanathmaity4460 There is no intentionally outside of brains/minds. An unexamined life is not worth living. Ignorance my be bliss but it's not for me.
@@bobs182 If you're indirectly accusing me of being Ignorant Let me tell you I AM NOT.. and yess IGNORANCE Is Indeed a Bliss but not for those who are curious Naturally. But sometimes u had to trust your intuition too because our intuition is always right ! And one more thing You will eventually get to a point where you will willingly accept that there is a Higher power who is Governing all of it..!
To me it looks so simple. The brain let's us think, speak, remember etc and all these things together is what forms our consciousness.
Wow man, you just solved the hard problem of consciousness.
How can matter(brain) think?
@@thomashoward6357 Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.
@@thomashoward6357 _"Okay, But do you think conciousness still remains post death?'"_
No because when an organ (the brain in this case) stops working it will not be able to produce the same effect when it was alive.
@@rawkeeper7601 you are assuming that consciousness and the computing of a brain are related. I personally don't think so. I consider the physical brain to be a very sophisticated computer/ transceiver that allows the immaterial to interface with the material. Consciousness is a separate phenomenon quite seperate and independent of the physical - as is observed in NDE reports.
After listening to people’s stories of out of body experiences I have to say that I don’t think that consciousness is all in our brains. Too many times we have heard of people being completely unconscious in a coma but somehow the person is able to explain in detail the happenings around them while they’re being operated on or in other cases where they’ve been in a bad accident and they’re hovering above the scene and are able to give specific details and even what was said in some cases.
I think that it’s more like our souls enter a human body and animate it with consciousness. Once our souls leave that body it is dead but our consciousness moves on in the form of energy.
They're just that. Stories. None have ever held up under close scrutiny, from what I've read. And you snuck soul in at the end. What is that? Where? And why can't science find it, or any hint of it? How is "soul" and improvement on "emergent property and process of the brain", other than it "feels" better?
Yes buddy, but we can tell anything we wish, in good or evil intent and interests, but something i say to you isn't always what truly is.... I can lie
@@roblovestar9159 Just because it can't be explained today, it doesn't mean it can't be explained tomorrow. If you told a person 1000 years ago, that plants ate sunlight and made glucose out of it, do you think they would believe you? 1000 years later and photosynthesis is common knowledge. Just because we proved it later, that doesn't mean it wasn't happening before. There's no reason to limit yourself to what's known today, otherwise you'll never be innovative.
@@roblovestar9159 they are not just stories - they are very personal and moving stories - often life changing - often turning skeptics to believers - and often inexplicable...such as the case of pam reynolds who went to surgery , put deep under anaesthesia, her body temperature dropped to 10 degrees celsius, and then she had a sheet covering her head and plugs in her ears and yet during her surgery she described "popping" out of her head and floated to the ceiling where she witnessed her surgery and heard all the conversations. she was able to verify particular things happening whilst her brain was flatlined. she had ultra lucid awareness separate from her body.
and yet someone like you would call this an illusion?
i am sure if that happened to you and things were able to be verified thereafter by the surgeon then you might change your perspective on non-local consciousness.
@@Dion_Mustard In addition, one man reported dying in a car accident with his wife and they both left their bodies and floated above his body. They both watched a paramedic working on him.
Then he woke up and was shocked to find out there never was a paramedic working on him, and his wife was never harmed in the accident! She was never unconscious and didn't experience the same thing as him at all.
There are many more like this. You can do your own research by reading hundreds of unfiltered, self reported NDEs as well ...
I found out that these false positive NDEs did indeed occur more than I was hoping.
They were very vivid experiences, but many turned out to be completely false memories.
Of course these false NDEs would not turn into best selling books.
So if you want the truth, look into both sides and ask yourself "Which of the two types of NDEs are more likely to reach the public? The exciting version that brings people hope? Or the mundane and embarrassing version?"
If you just want to believe in an afterlife, then read the hyped up stories, and ignore everything else, especially the embarrassing ones.
I want hope and meaning as well, but false hope is misleading. I don't want illusions to guide me.
This is the best synthesis I've seen of this fascinating problem. It would be interesting to put Dan Dennett and Giulio Tononi to discuss how current materialism perspective could solve the 'hard problem'.
He interviewed both...
Well if we realize that the "hard problem" of consciousness is a couple of "why" pseudo Philosophical questions then there is no real need to compare one pseudo worldview with an other.....
Dan Dennett is a moron who claims consciousness is an illusory component because he has no idea how to explain it.
What made me change my opinion on this subject are the "Near Death Experiences" where people afterwards accurately gave detailed accounts of information they could not have possibly known, such as the details of what people in the neighboring corridors were doing. In cases where such data exists, it is hard to dismiss this as the brain playing tricks on us.
What made me change my mind on Bigfoot is people saying they saw Bigfoot. You cant argue with that data.
What cemented it for me was a full-blown enlightenment experience that turned my world upside-down and inside-out. The experience of everything being within and being within everything.
September 29th, 2019 was the most Earth-shattering day of this body's life and it reverberated with intensity for weeks before it slowly began to fade, however there is no going back to before that day. It's very much like those who experience an NDE describe it as a life-changing event.
@@justasimpleguy7211 "No going back." Really? If you are talking or thinking: brother you ARE back.
@@SkyRiver1 It wasn't an NDE but a massive shift in consciousness akin to that related by mystics. It stripped bare the fallacy consciousness is a product of brain.
It's something that can't be investigated by the scientific method but has to be experienced. It's about our true nature.
So no, there's no going back to prior beliefs and preconceptions.
@@SkyRiver1 Neti neti. ;-)
this guy has an over-the-top nerdy walk, so you know this documentary is legit! it's the equivalent of having animated graphs and numbers in an infomercial
If people use those criteria to evaluate the legitimacy of claims....that explains many things about the digital dark period of our times.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 if peope can't understand an innocent joke, that tells a lot of bla bla..
Lmfaoooooo
I've enjoyed all of these interviews. Kuhn's questions are good, and his interview subjects are interesting.
Dr. Searle is another whose lectures are available online and you should avail yourself of them.
Dr. Chalmers has psychopath eyes, with zero emotional affect. :)
What's obvious but unstated is that when the term "consciousness" is used in this video and more broadly in the series, it really means "consciousness of consciousness". Awareness of awareness, itself. We're talking about a basic monitoring circuit, at minimum. It can dip into reflexive activity like breathing and take over consciously with no effort. It can model a human interaction, in abstract space or in physical space, to close a deal or juke an opponent on the field.
Julian Jaynes put it best when he said that giving the task of inquiring about consciousness to consciousness is like putting a flashlight into a darkened room and asking it to look around for the dark place in the room. Everywhere it turns it illuminates what is before it and so it concludes there is no dark place in the room.
Regarding John Searle. Exploring something with objective, scientific reasoning means going into it WITHOUT bias. If you go into inquiry with your mind made up you force the data to fit the mold you have created in your mind. David Chalmers seems to delve into this with open eyes and an open mind.
Science means exploring an answer rigorously, whether or not you're biased. If you're rigorous enough your bias can't matter. That's why science is useful.
Can anyone do that. I'd like to meet them
@@halweilbrenner9926 Unconscious bias is easily overcome by conscious unbias.
22:20 made me happy for you Robert Kuhn! Given I find Searle’s position the most elegant solution, I see his praise of you as a really substantive compliment.
Hi Neil that's a perfect question and thought, I had a dream once or twice and while dreaming I was having a hard time but in that dream when the going got to much for me I thought to myself in that dream that I was dreaming and got myself out of that situation so basically I had a dream inside of a dream, that's something right ?
Thanks Neil
From Mark
This is a wonderful life pursuit, thanks for bringing us these videos. I also don't have a problem with professors Chalmers and Searle saying almost opposite things.
The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot..........Falun Dafa
@@jeffforsythe9514 Curious why you're repeating that... and giving credit to a cult vs a human/pedant etc To belabor the metaphor, then we need to know what functions the sky itself and the terminals have.
Great great work, product of many years of maturity. I am surprised that David Chalmers is still looking for the “long route” instead of a less Artropic position.
Looking in the brain for consciousness is like looking in the TV for people
Lol
u understood it well. r u a dualist.
@@truthfinder6996 Don't forget about idealism which is a monist theory. According to idealism, it is also the case that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of physical facts about the brain/body.
Perhaps they’re not aware that they’re not looking for consciousness itself in the brain, but looking for the exact detectable mechanisms and manifestations of consciousness in the brain instead.
One usually find people in 80inch screen 📺 TV s. They can fit better there without too too much overcrowding.
There are so many cases of the Out of Body Experience occurring where people describe having "two selves"..the physical body and the separation of the self..or pure consciousness as I like to refer to it..I think the typical explanation of consciousness as a product of the brain has been so drilled into us since school days that it's hard to imagine consciousness as anything other than a product of matter. My gut feeling is consciousness is 'lost' when the brain disintegrates..but then again consciousness is not a physical entity..so I suppose the networks of the brain which support awareness dissolve and therefore we no longer exist..maybe because we rely on the brain for consciousness, then logically we cannot be aware or have consciousness post-death. The deeper question, where does consciousness go without the brain. Does it just linger in time and space, does it evolve into something else, does it transcend to space..who knows. I do not think the brain Produces consciousness, but I do think in order to have awareness we need the tool to make it work ie brain matter.
We will only know when we die.
I so sorry about your future death. Now let us pray 🙏 for non vexation of the soul. Thanks
@Dion: excuse for sounding somewhat silly but when you say consciousness is a product of the brain as most of us assume why is it hard to imagine that it is anything other than a product of matter when the brain where it seems to come from is also made of matter by itself?
@@goerizal1 not sure i understand your point
The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot..........Falun Dafa
Except for the fact that these states can be induced in people using techniques such as TMS. The brain is nearly a billion years of evolved complexity to survive, and it's so powerful it can predict things to the point of hallucinating them.
Conscious experience may be a seperate category (but practically may be a pointless question) but it is forever and inexorably reliant upon the matter it is made up of for its emergent phenomena.
There's absolutely zero substantive evidence to divorce matter and consciousness.
I mostly agree with John. Consciousness seems to require at least some of the properties of the brain (processing, memory, input and output, etc) so for objects with small bandwidth like a fly, a much lesser consciousness will be experienced until essentially zero is reached in an object like a rock. This places plants, viruses, and computers in non-zero territory, right where they belong.
Humans are much better at the easy part, writing down equations (GR, QM), than optimizing the function's input for certain desired properties (Schwarzchild, Kerr, superconductors, consciousness, fine tuning) because optimization is a different class of problem called NP Hard.. because it's hard.. have patience
Love the history of CTT in this episode!
Viruses aren't alive! They're just lumps of inert matter.
In this episode, particularly the final statement you make, you are finally getting closer to truth. Fabulous poetry my friend.
I love this series. I sometimes wonder how time factors into theories of consciousness. For example, what is "now" and where does it go to? Our consciousness experience is linked to this body while at the same time, we are part of an infinite and eternal universe, existing in the moment.
Consciousness is flow of energy
What the hell is the present? It makes no senses.
Consciousness is the epiphenomenon produced by matter and spirit. Brain alone can perform many things such as responding to stimuli, robotic types of "intelligent behaviour" such as playing chess, pack and social behaviour, etc. But higher states of consciousness and deep self-awareness needs something beyond just the "hardware".
The frequency of our DNA is our uplink to the cloud computing capacity of our brains. Thanks for understanding.
The interviewer has the best job in the world!!
The conviction and vigor with which John Searle speaks is really impressive.
John Searle in 20 years can't come close to explaining it I think that speaks volumes. I believe the brain is a receiver and the more complex the biology of the brain the more information it receives and processes. I believe reality is an information field and conscienceless is part of that field.
I think so too - but I have argued that the way we respond to that information does not necessarily qualify us as Conscious - We call it that but we might just be reacting in a very complex way to the incoming information - in other words maybe we aren't actually even alive.... in the sense that we think we are alive.
That is a really interesting idea. I've thought of similar things.
"I believe the brain is a receiver..."
That obviously connotates a transmitter of some sort.
If it IS the case, are there transmitters for each biological brain that is conscious throughout the whole of reality? Just a single one with different simultaneous "frequencies"? Who or what created, operates and maintains it? Or is it something derived from the essence of the universe? Can that signal be tapped into, or changed?
Your stance sparks a ton more questions in me that I won't bore you with. I'm sure most of them are present in every mind that considers such an arrangement of consciousness being transmitted and received.
Good way to put it. Totally agree with the concept
Can I ask based on what? Also, what exactly is an information field?
As a Panpsychist, I'd love to ask Dr. Searle - if consciousness is resultant from material universal processes, what is the "source" of this material? And of course, I'm sure "the big bang" would be the obvious answer, but what was the source of that? It comes down to what is the absolute source of the experience, which we all subjectively know reduces to the non-physical.
Paul Marek *St Thomas Aquinas has joined the chat
There's simply no justification for assuming that, it's just an assertion. We simply don't have any evidence for how the universe and time emerged on which to base an opinion.
Panpsychism by the way could be entirely reconcilable with materialism through Information Integration Theory. If you reject materialism and believe consciousness has a non-physical origin then you are almost certainly a dualist, who might also be a panpsychist.
@@simonhibbs887 Wow. Thanks for this. I've really been taking a deep inner dive on this issue over the last few weeks - sparked by this video - and what I keep reducing it to is fundamental source. What is the fundamental source of material existence and conscious experience? And where I keep ending up is - God - but not ooga booga God - I mean fundamental source God. So why would there be God? (Why is there a why?) From a mere mortal's perspective, fundamental source God makes sense when considering the dualistic nature you've described as a means to knowing one's own Absolute Supremacy as a Creator through the combined experience of experiencing the self from the material and the non-physical conjointly.
Check out Papers 108 to 112 at Urantia.org for a much better articulation of this idea.
According to parmenides, there is no spurse it is eternal
Nice to have conversation with this man. I wish could talk to him.
Thank you for your project, Robert
I’ve read a few of Searle’s papers. He changed my view on perceptual reality completely.
We take out the subjective element of reality in making science an ‘objective’ description. Science can therefore only ever be a partial description - a “view from nowhere”! Yet, empirical reality is always a subjective view from somewhere. Having removed all subjectivity, why do we think that subjective experiences can ever be reduced to an objective “view from nowhere” description through science?
Whereas David Chalmers seems willing to face up to the problems inherent in Panpsychism, John Searle never addresses the problems inherent in physicalism. His straw man dismissal of Panpsychism is almost dishonest.
Correct! This is the problem of an eye trying to look at itself. Looking in a mirror naturally causes distortion.
I do know this - Daves’ looks plus his philosophical background would fit in perfectly with the current line up of Yes . 😁
Brain is only tool we have to understand and handle. So at least we can make it efficient before difficult journey. Going unprepared on unknown explorations it not a sensible approaches. All possibilities needs to be kept in mind.
Better question, what is consciousness.
pink floyd
"The inherent deception in all conceptions
of consciousness
can be traced to the suffix "ness".
This is sometimes referred to as the
"ness" lock monster."
-- Carlos Dwa (From The Unwritten Book: Xellex {the best damn science fiction novel I ever read}).
Consciousness has the same relationship to reality as the "runningness" of a person that can run. There are things that are conscious, but consciousness is merely a concept, and one that is the foundation of as much and similar bullshit as the word spirit/spiritual used to be responsible for.
@fynes leigh You think you understood what I wrote, but you didn't.
@fynes leigh Not really that complicated. Despite your egotistic reaction to being told you did not understand something. Consciousness is not real.
@fynes leigh Not imitation on my part: projection on yours. You are not commenting on someone or something "out there" you are talking about yourself. . . . such mechanical reactions. And your neoGurdjieffian rhetoric is tedious and boring, as are your psuedo-mystical fantasies. Sweet dreams. . . .
Thanks, I enjoy your videos. with respect to the two recent videos about consciousness, please make a third defining what you mean by consciousness. If we can't agree whether a monkey or a dog or a flea or a bacterium or a rock or a proton is conscious, how can we explain what it is? Why should we even try to explain something when we don't even know what we are trying to explain? All progress in philosophical subjects comes from and requires refining the definitions of what we are trying to explain. When you can define consciousness you will have your answer, and looking to quantum physics or whatever is putting the cart before the horse. At least answer this: what do we expect from an "explanation" of consciousness? What should it do?
I could be wrong.. but I think the inquiry is about the subjective experience that "I am", the experience that "I exist".
in my opinion the best definition of consciousness is: person A is conscious if and only if it feels like something to be person A. if it feels like something to be an electron, then electrons are conscious (of course we currently have no reasons to believe that it feels like something to be an electron, so we assume they aren't conscious).
Thank you for making videos like these it was really helpful, to the point where I had a better understanding of myself and the environment I’m constantly in 🎉.
Excelente! Muchas gracias.
Consciousness is awareness,without any object or time.
It is like having only awareness in deep sleep.
It is primary,when it is disturbed,individual and the universe appear,together. Science ,can explore all the things in the universe,like a man standing on the sea shore,going on exploring land.But,unless,he gets into the ocean,he can not find out about the ocean.so unless we go into our inner world,we can not find out pure consciousness.
It would take a philosopher to explain to me the difference between panpsychism and animism. Seems to me we've just gone full-circle, with perhaps the oldest explanation for consciousness becoming one of the newest. No matter what trappings you hang on it - spirits living in rocks, streams and trees, or quantum mechanics as an explanation for everything being aware - it's not scientific, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe we sense it on a deep level, and then pile layers of BS on top of it. That would be your "religion."
i don't wanna invalidate any beliefs here but quantum mechanics is actually a field of research dedicated to studying particle physics- like subatomic particles and probability type stuff, and doesn't reallly touch on things like trying to explain consciousness- at least not so much as trying to understand what the stuff we're made of and interact with is doing- our brains are big and fleshy and made of carbon based cells, and even the dna in those cells are too big for anything to be happening on a quantum scale.. sorry for being a nerd at you but TLDR: brains and consciousness by proxy, are macroscale and quantum mechanics is all microscale, therefore the two are unrelated !
@@milkcherry5191 How are they unrelated, if that macro is made of that micro? Seems a bit weird way to look at things. Some kind of artificial, forceful and provisory separation.
@@milkcherry5191 Watch his interview with Penrose. I don't accept his position but it does show that it might not be irrelevant to quantum mechanics.
@@milkcherry5191 Quantum mechanics *does* touch on consciousness, though. Because we know fundamental particles aren't conscious. A photon can't be conscious because it does not experience time. An electron, if conscious, has exactly the same experience as every other electron in the entire universe, because they're all fungible. Anyone who thinks physics says nothing about panpsychism is ignorant of a great deal of fundamental physics.
I have been trying to track down the Intro music but to no avail.....the credits say its Joseph Schwantner but it does not say what specific piece? Does anyone know the exact name of the intro music?
Keep up with your obsession, Dr. Kuhn. Good job.
I used to firmly believe that we could explain consciousness through biology and materialism, until I hallucinated on DMT. I experienced a reality very different to ours. I communicated with beings, made out of energy. They were so advanced. This reality however crazy and mind-blowing, felt ridiculously real, more real than this reality. That experience forever changed my views of consciousness and the nature of reality.
Did you really? I don’t mean to be a snarky asshole. I mean didn’t you just take some substance that made your brain wiring kind of go haywire and give you pictures and experiences like a super Technicolor dream. I’m not saying that these experiences can be spiritually informing our life expanding but I’m not certain that it means that the actual substance of these experiences are true. I mean I’m all for it. Glimpsing into greater dimensions of reality. But can you say that these beings told you some thing that is real or provable or has a correlation to someone else’s experience of communicating with Being from the beyond? Other than a vague sense of oneness and wonder.
@@JohnnyArtPavlou supposedly everyone that does it has a very similar experience.. so much so that they have named the entities that are seen.
Daniel, okay, cool. A little independent verification. I dig that.
@@JohnnyArtPavlou lol.... yeah.... I guess on the question of is it just your brain firing... we could probably ask that question about everything else as well....
@@JohnnyArtPavlou I totally understand your reasoning. I would would wonder the same thing if I were you. But unfortunately, it's something that needs to be experienced to be understood. All I can say is that what I experienced was not a malfunction in my brain, but I saw complex beings and very intricate geometrical shapes that I can't even imagine now. They had technology so far advanced than any technology we can ever imagine. They had a very advanced way of communication. They didn't talk, but I could understand everything they were saying.
Loss of brain/damage causally correlates to loss of cognitive function, emotional response, sensory, motor and memory functions.
What is affected is even predictable by the location, mode and extent of damage.
so, yes.
Able Baker correct and a powerful argument.
Nothing of those is or require consciousness. Without consciousness you could do whatever you can do, just without knowing it as it should be.
Able Baker that only goes to highlight the limitations of the brain, that doesn’t refute the real and immaterial subjective quality of consciousness
A robot can react to color and sound. That does not mean that it has consciousness.
@@Brosky1998
So, if someone dies from brain injury or disease... Does their consciousness live on in a chronic vegetative state?
Excellent! Very balanced!
HC-JAIPUR (15/05/2020)
Great content!
Nobel laureate Kip Thorne says our universal wavefunction of our currently observed reality is calculated at the fifth dimension. I've always said this is where these contradictions are resolved. Brilliant video!
Great discussion! Although I disagree with the end where it is said that discovering the mechanisms of the brain is not bringing us closer to the 'truth' about consciousness.There is new research on predictive processing for example can be quite informative of at least what we make of the content of our consciousness. This is pointed out nicely by Anil Seth- for anyone interested I really recommend his conversation with Sam Harris on the Making Sense podcast. He makes a really good case of how tackling the easy problems can be useful and also summarizes well a lot of the important views on the topic!
Like when we explained life, magical thinkers still kept assuming invisible agents behind the scene. The same is true with evolution and god as a guiding agent etc.
This why it is a huge problem to have philosophers who don't understand Methodological Naturalism and why it is important to conform to its principles.
lmao.. Sam Harris..
Come on now.
A guy who will not even debate one of the most prominant researchers on NDE but instead get philosphers and his peers for a tap on the back.
I dunno mate. It is not a discussion if your aim if to be right rather than question the other side.
@@alanclw6024 I was talking about Anil Seth lol.. He summarized his views well in that conversation with Sam Harris- I haven't heard so many of his episodes but in this one he let Anil talk most of the time and he had good questions
@@nickolasgaspar9660 yes exactly, the analogy with life is a good one
I wish Robert a very long and healthy life. And here's my prediction. In 20, 30, 40 years, Robert will be doing exactly this episode again and again.
Wonderful episode
The key is studying non local consciousness such as NDE, OBE, Past Life Experiences and Remote Viewing.
😂
» "Man can't rely on only his senses to perceive 'reallity' "
this was a great episode! i had no idea the show goes back to 1999!
Hey Robert, its 2021!! time to talk to them again after 7 years.
you know when evaluating this thing called "substance" its really just oscillations in quantum fields existing in relationship with the speed of causality (aka the speed of light or relative time) this lead me to a more buddhist view point, I can view the real self as this one particular arrangement of quantum oscillations in these fields or I can see my true self as the fields themself. I am not a man experiencing the universe, I am the universe experiencing a man and so are you.
I feel like people who explain consciousness with quantum... anything just can't be bothered to study biology. It's kind of sad hearing Penrose saying it's the "microtubules or something" that are small enough to experience quantum effects and kind of look like strings. Clearly he's out of this area. By the way, psychology is my area, and there is no far transfer of intelligence.
@@dr.victorvs its actually pretty simple to explain consciousness with biology its just and emergent property of more fundamental neurochemical interactions. but the real question is what is the proper description of the interaction and corralations between conscious experience and objective reality, how does our brain turn environmental stimuli into the qualia of existence. what pendrose is saying is not that if certain biological interactions occur on a quantum scale them quantum physics is a part of the question.
its endless
This discussion is best left for after we can even imagine coming up with a proper definition of consciousness. Until then its just screaming across a cliff and explaining what the echo says.
Well said, and for obvious reasons, given that no apprehending apparatus or human being can directly immediately personally apprehend the apprehensions (Or experiences) of another apprehending apparatus, or human being. Reason, consciousness or self-awareness, apart from being relative is an experience, and none can experience the experiences of others - for screamingly obvious reasons.
@H D
What I meant was a definition that can help an outsider determine if something has consciousness or not. And the problem with doing that is exactly what you described is the problem with tree "consciousness". We think other humans have consciousness because they behave like ourselves. Is that all it takes to determine if something is conscious or not, a similarity of external behaviour ? How much similar is enough and why ? What behaviours count as being "aware" on the part of an entity that it is seperate from everything else and why? What about AI that can behave extremely similar to a human ? Are they conscious ? All I'm saying is that we have troubles agreeing to what to even consider as qualifiers of consciousness for an external observer, if there can be any at all either as well.
@H D
You can tell me whatever you want to but fact remains that AI can behave very similar to humans in a lot of ways. And all we can do is measure external observations. Whether an AI is "conscious" or not, whether it only "seems intelligent" but "actually isn't" or not, whether it can "think" or what "concepts" it has etc. are in no way observable to an external observer, so anybody can tell anything about those things and all would be equally valid...and pointless. All we can do is observe external behaviours and according to those things AI can be very similar to humans. Now how much similar means it is conscious or whether such a limit can be found at all is still up for debate because of the reason I said before...we don't have any way of defining consciousness so that it can be identified by an external observer.
@H D
And I'm not talking about anything being "human", only being "conscious". And a lot of things in science is ultimately just an idea, a human concept. That doesn't mean that they can't be a physical object that can't be defined or identified. They are of course deduced indirectly but that doesn't make them subjective either. An example would be X-ray. This of course doesn't mean that consciousness can be objectively defined, or that it can't be objectively defined. We just don't know enough about it say those kinds of things.
Stupid statement
One of the difficulties in understanding consciousness may arise from the fact that, in the name of objectivity, we make a conscious decision to exclude subjective experience from our account of reality, but then turn round and try to include it as an afterthought. Perhaps they both need to be included from the outset.
Perhaps we need two kinds of science. A technological science, which we use to build spaceships and bridges, and then a “pure” science which can include consciousness as something fundamental.
i dont think many understand the WORK you are doing ,Thank You
Love to know John's view of the simulation theory.
Seems the Matrix is beyond his ken.
"Cogito, ergo sum "
"I think, therefore I am".
" Je pense, donc je suis"
René Descartes : Discourse on the Method
And in deep sleep state you seize to exist 😂
Good stuff!
Thank you for the video Sir.
Survey: exists
Me: starts survey right away
Also me: skips survey immediately
Re: 14:00 and the critique of Pan Psychism.
I'll make the assumption that Pan Psychism isn't a thoroughly metaphysical / idealist standpoint and that it concedes a nexus between an "immaterial" consciousness and (in the Human Being for this example) the physical matter of - at least - the brain.
If that reading is correct I am missing something in professor Searle's objection to this stance.
Is it not possible that the "discreet units of consciousness" are arbitrated by the limits of the physical properties of a given brain?
We can conceive , in a Kantian sense, that the noumenal becomes phenomenal - that we can perceive a table, for example, as "a table" rather than the kinetic riot of electrons and quarks that constitute the table at quantum levels - purely because the physical make up and structuring of our brains (and, by extension, our resultant senses), "translate" existence in the distinct way they do.
Because we more readily perceive the table as opposed to the atoms that constitute the table it doesn't follow that we dismiss the existence of the atoms.
If a television programme is broadcast in high definition colour, the fact that I am watching the programme on a 1970s black and white television set - and thus cannot receive the broadcast in either colour or high definition - should not lead me to conclude that the broadcast is not occurring in high definition colour in the initial.
Rather, logic would surely have it that the limitation is with the receiver and not the broadcast.
Is it not therefore possible in logic that the physical brain functions so as to receive and "translate" rather than "create" ex nihilo or sui generis?
Another interesting point I did not hear entertained was the phenomena of neural plasticity. By consciously thinking about something a person can rewire his neural pathways, no sense perception necessary. This means a person is able to change the structure of his brain by using intentional thought .
If we can change our brain by focused thinking then what is doing the thinking? What is it that is changing the brain? Can it be another part of the brain? I'd like to hear a neuroscientist's opinion and some research. Personally, I think consciousness is non-local and merely perceived by the brain-body structure.
Receive and translate what? That's just adding an extra layer of reality without a distinct and articulable reason why is needed or how it would work. Pan-psychism isn't nonsense just because there's no evidence of it, but because it raises as many questions as it purports to answer.
Great production
Some people watch the news every day, I watch closer to truth!
Hope they figure this out before I become worm food
they have....you just need to pay attention to Neuroscience not to groups of philosophers who try to justify their salaries...lol
I've watched a number of these video and I still believe consciousness is external to the brain. To believe that consciousness is the equivalency to our digestive system is, to me, so close-minded, it's astonishing. John Searle is the kind of guy that will dismiss all UFO/UAP to human error - period. I don't get why he even attends these discussions.
I agree. A sperm is conscious as it knows / has a sense of where to go yet has no brain...
@@olwynnsay237 I don't think that's what this guy is saying. He seems to be suggesting that consciousness floats around in the atmosphere somehow, independent of anything other than itself. In other words, nutjob territory.
@@wthomas7955 he's trolling
@@wthomas7955 A bit like saying someone theorising TV, mobile phones, radio, etc before they were invented, speculating invisible waves could somehow exist in the atmosphere, total nut jobs.
@@phild249 None of those things is independent of anything other than itself. Try again.
We need new ways of thinking, indeed! That's called progress.
Fascinating.
The mind, dwells on an eternal "continium" and works in a multidimensional universe... it only connects with the physical dimension through the "physical body", which impacts the mind in a notable way including the different dimensions in which it operates, due to the experiences that the physical body experiments...
The mind has quantum possibilities in the process of "creation" and "decretes" its future...
Nothing is built if it hasn't been dreamed...
I agree with some of what you say. Our minds are indeed eternal, but I don't know if it dwells in a different continuum while it is still attached to your body.
@@MountainFisher How do you know that the mind is eternal? Was there a you before you were born?
@@jewulo I do not believe they are eternal before they come into existence at some point after conception, but some near death experiences where the person left their bodies and learned things they could not possibly have learned from a hallucination. Things like knowing what was said by family members down the hall in the waiting room or objects on the roof of the hospital. Even one famous case where a little girl knew what her mother served for dinner and what her father was doing, tells me the Mind outlives the body.
There is a video by Dr. Gary Habermas here on CZcams about it. Note he also mentions that 20% of NDEs are Hellish in nature, but he has no data like the little girl. I believe that once a mind or soul is conceived it is immortal, better word than eternal, from a religious perspective. The circumstantial evidence for life after death is quite comprehensive and which I find convincing.
I would accept the material explanation of consciousness if they could explain how a memory gets stored in the brain, which neurons are involved, what kind of code is used to make them understandable to a person, which seems to be beyond current neuroscience. And yet, they say there must be such things going on in the brain, there can't be any other explanation.
Sure take a course on Neuroscience or visit the huge data base on Neurosciencenews and search for "how the brain does it.
So even if all the evidence point to the necessary and sufficient role of the brain you are using an Argument from ignorance fallacy to reject that fact?
You make a good point, what is the mechanism we use in which we can put parts of memories together to form a coherent memory of the past.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you are making an argument from necessity, without sufficient evidence. Thank you for saying I need to do a course, without giving any argument which addresses my main point.
@11.55 John Searle says that materialism gives a true account of how the world works. He is absolutely correct but the fine point here is that materialism doesn’t tell us much about what the world actually is! Listen to Bernardo Kastrup’s description of materialism vs idealism - it’s a fascinating debate!
Awesome! Thanks so much
My search into this subject was driven by my Mothers 10 year journey with Alzheimer's to her passing in 2020. Despite the extreme physical deterioration of Mum's brain in this time, she retained her essential essence, scans revealed that much of her brain structure was severely degraded. With a long interest in quantum physics and an openness to the mystery of life, my take on this is that the brain is the interface between consciousness and the material world as we know it, it would seem to me that consciousness is something that exists within the quantum fields, that we simply do not understand at this time. We do know that the sub atomic world is full of mystery, to the point that at the Blank level the concepts of time and space itself cease to exist. The cosmos is far more mysterious than simple Newtonian mechanics, and the great Einstein struggled with many of contradictions that quantum physics brings to the intellect.
or it's just that her most "core" parts of her brain deteriorated last? our brain works by literaly growing new pathways for things when we learn and creates thicker clusters the more intrested in something we are so it's just very possible that since what you consider to be her "essence" is what her brain found most valuable and therefore these things survived the longest.
The answer is, God.
@@talisikid1618 The answer is, you have no idea what you're talking about.
"The problem is how you interpret the data." The 'mind-body problem' is something I studied and contemplated long before this gathering of experts. In the early 1970s I took a number of courses on the subject in psychology and philosophy, it still puzzled me for years later. The only advantage of the mind-body investigation is what it can reveal about our ignorance. Not knowing and the search for knowledge has a habit of directing human contemplation is a milieu of distractive activities. Instead of relying strictly upon the data [by which I mean empirical evidence] imagination can waste a lot of time and resources looking for explanations that have no basis in known fact. One should recall Occam's Razor which claims [in general] the simplest answer is the most likely. By adding such things as disembodied [supernatural] intelligence that can't be studied only complicates the entire inquiry. "Interpreting the data" in such a way to conclude there must be something else other than physics, what is known about the physical universe, steps into a realm known as "jumping to conclusions" which normally abandons the scientific method of drawing conclusions from what is known. Even considering what's known [or not] about quantum entanglement there is no reason to believe at this point that it is somehow related to disembodied intelligence. "Spirit" is nothing more than an emotional construct utilized to infuse a confused mind with a degree of security about one's own demise. If speculation is a necessity to guide investigation, then it should be a mechanism to stick to what has some basis in what can or already has been "proven". Let the data and not the absence of data guide knowledge. If at such a time empirical evidence does make a direct connection to the non-physical and that non-physical exhibits direct relationships to what can be considered intellect [of which there is no evidence whatsoever] introduction and utilization of the speculative supernatural is not scientific inquiry.
But we have not made any progress on consciousness. I was struck by Searle's observation that both dualists and scientific materialists fall into the same trap. I was toying with a similar through recently, the hard core materialists who I think deny the 'hard problem' of conciseness, kind of have this weird world view which turns the original sceptical argument on its head, i.e. that of which I can be certain (i.e. the contents of my conciseness) are an illusion, only things of which I cannot be certain are real - reminds me of the old joke about two behaviourists meeting on the street, with the greeting " You feel fine. How do I feel?"
Also, why should Occam's razor be true, isn't there a quote along the lines of "many a young biologist, nearly cut their throat with Occam's Razor" - meaning they were lead in the wrong direction? You can see it being a condition for a good explanation, especially in a world of limited resources, but what does it necessarily have to do with reality? I suggest reading David Hoffman if you haven't already.
@@johnsawdonify Occam's razor is not a 'truth' statement. It's intended as a guide in the pursuit of knowledge. What is 'true' to a considerable extent is the phenomenon we intelligent beings seem predisposed to complicating thing in our search for answers. Take for example a premature explanation for the origin of the material universe. Instead of a commitment to finding a 'natural' explanation based upon observable and measurable real-world phenomena, in order to comfort or own fragile egos we invent the supernatural of which there never is or will be an understanding because material beings using material methods are incapable of 'proving' anything about a supernatural entities or existence. Thus the supernatural leads to no demonstrative conclusions other than mere opinion. As we all should know, due to flaws in perception, without evidence conclusions are too often flawed as well. On the subject of consciousness and applying Occam's Razor, it does make more sense to draw temporary hypotheses about that phenomenon that the explanation of it is nothing more than a phenomenon of biology we do not as yet understand. It least that hypothesis bases that on what is already known about how the brain works. I don't buy the idea that consciousness and brain being two separate phenomena. The evidence weights far more heavily in the direction of consciousness is an epiphenomenon, a manifestation of brain functioning as yet unknown in its full complexity. Drawing such a reasonable conclusion eliminates myths such as 'spirits', ghosts, demons, angels, gods, etc. Unfortunately, the impulsiveness of human nature makes us predisposed to draw conclusions on little to no evidence. We seem to have to have an answer no matter how ill informed it might be. That aspect of human nature has delivered to our species all forms of destruction.
@@SOMAnxg both you and John Sawdon are full of unsubstantiated blah blah blah. I am too tired and lazy at the moment to engage either of you in a point by point discussion, however, if you wish to engage me at a future time (either close or far) I would be happy to show you the error of your ways. Maybe you would like to know that it is impossible for me to deny there being a God. NOBODY can tell me there is no God. To me that's just crazy.
@@garychartrand7378 People have believed all kinds of crazy things in the past. For example for a very long time people were Convinced the sun revolved around the Earth. 400 yrs ago they were proven wrong with factual, empirical data. For perhaps longer than that people were convinced that time was constant. Einstein demonstrated that is wrong. People used to believe that lightning was the spear of Zeus. Thanks to science it is now known lighting is an imbalance of charged particles (electrons) in the atmosphere. The existence of god is supported by No evidence. Not even the existence if the Earth or living creatures is evidence of the supernatural (god). I suspect you don't want to engage with anyone with different ideas (even though they can support their claims with evidence) because you don't really have any valid counter claims. In any case...be well.
I'm not an expert and far from it, but from a theory/direction standpoint, I wonder if Michael Levins's work would answer some of the proto-conscious stuff. Or am I interpreting Levin's work incorrectly?
Even reality outside your self awareness, isn’t always reality, it’s at the mercy of expanding new reality, or dissolving reality.
Yes, next question.
My OpenMind mm hmm
My OpenMind lmao I remember when I was a 13 year old atheist too
@@Brosky1998 haha that was a wonderful time
Brosky 1998 actually I work in the field of neuroscience. I’ve a medical degree. We’ve never been able to show the existence of the soul.
I was 12 when I stopped believing god(s). I just woke up from Christianity realising it was all just a big charade. That was over 35 years ago now. I’ve done my research and due diligence. Hence the short initial answer.
ps: I'll take John von Neumann over John Searle any day of the week when it comes to quantum physics.
My question is, how can consciousness exist in a material universe? How can an unconscious object create a consciousness being? That would be like saying a boulder can give birth to an elephant...that is a ludicrous thought. For consciousness to exist in the universe, consciousness must be a fundamental aspect of the universe.
Excellent. Thanks 👍 😊
The greater the complexity and cooperation the more conscious the organism. It is perfectly possible in my view that there are fields of consciousness that can be measured should a sufficiently complex organism reach it. Just like gravity for example, should an object reach the required mass its impact on gravity can be measured.
Yes. Just as a magnet alone can demonstrate effects beyond its physical boundaries. But just like a magnet; no magnet - no magnetic field, no brain - no computational field.
Is computation the same as consciousness?
@@neilcreamer8207 I have no idea. But I do know that it's not NOT computation. Right? Consciousness/awareness is processing something. I really am only guessing here, but the alternatives all seem to rhyme with magic and I just can't accept that.
@@tecnoblix Consciousness is a name we give to either experience or the capacity for it. There's no reason to believe that computation or processing is involved. How are you defining magic?
@@neilcreamer8207 It's true that language is one of our primary barriers, but withing the language we use there are clues. Words like "experience" and "capacity". Those are both active kinds of computation. Now, using some of our "capacity" to reason you point out that "There's no reason to believe that computation is involved". That's an assertion that is based on what I have to assume is a mystical wish belief. There is ample reason to believe that computation and processing are involved. That is the whole basis for the scientific method. That would be similar to me saying that there's no reason to believe that computers use processing or computation. Everything we see is an example of why it's probable that consciousness is a matter of computation and processing! It's clearly a reach to EVER suggest otherwise. Now, that doesn't mean it couldn't be, but if that's the first thing you reach for than it's an obvious bias to do so.
this was very revealing
Toward the close of this video I heard Kuhn refer to Chalmers as an advocate for panpsychism. But from what is available on this video, I did not understand Chalmers as distinctly advocating for panpsychism but merely repeating the position he proffered in his 1997 NY Review of Books retort to Searle’s scathing critique of TCM. In reply to Searle’s accusation that he was advocating panpsychism, Chalmers stated: “… I merely explore it and remain agnostic…”. He continues: “I do argue that panpsychism is not as unreasonable as is often thought and that there is no knockdown argument against it.”
Stop looking externally for truth, you won’t find much. The only answers that can be found are deep inside of us all
Not sure what you mean. But I hope you mean more than navel gazing.
@@donjindra She doesnt means you . You need another 5.000 years to grow
@@alchemist6392 Did you read tea leaves for that bit of information?
@donjindra no he read your mother's pubic hairs
I know that the brain does not produce consciousness.
Several years ago I drowned and became separated from my body, yet I was still me. I was not the body. My consciousness was not dependent on the body/mind.
@fynes leigh I am not trying to be plausible. I'm just narrating something I experienced.
@fynes leigh Reality is subjective experience.
@@jonathankelley542 Obviously and necessarily, but it rather depends on what you seek to convey by or mean by the word "reality.
If you ever get anyone using that word "reality" to you and I suggest you ask them to set out clearly what they mean by or seek to convey by that particular word "reality, or you could ask them to define reality, but the chances are all you will get is a synonym of or cognate for the*word*reality because when people use words they very rarely have the faintest idea what they mean by them or seek to convey by them.
It inevitably begs the question "who is reality", and that depends on how you understand yourself to apprehend or experience that which can be apprehended.
The word reality itself is not particularly interesting, but the psychology of whoever uses it is particularly interesting, but it tells you something about what they appear to assume or believe.
Since no apprehending apparatus or human being or man, can directly immediately personally apprehend the apprehensions or experiences of another apprehending apparatus, inevitably you can only wonder what reality is "for him himself.
If you are going to examine the idea of reality and what lies behind it, it is meaningless unless it refers to what a particular apprehending apparatus or man or human being is apprehending, and since he cannot have any idea whatsoever what another apprehending apparatus is apprehending - and a very fortunate thing that is, you can only make assumptions presumptions or believe something about that, since it cannot conceivably directly immediately personally (as directly immediately personally as pain) apprehend the apprehensions of another apprehending apparatus, and I wonder if you can understand *why* that is extremely fortunate. It is remarkably obvious why it is extremely fortunate, or let us say desirable state of affairs.
Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor
does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance
and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man-”world”, (or it could be “reality”).
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, world, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on thisword and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said “embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together, that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they had not thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a
group of contemporary people, even from among those
who have received so to say “a good education,” to state
exactly how they each understand the word “world,” (or it could as easily be “reality”) they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one
would recall even having one’s finger nails pulled out with pliers with a certain tenderness.
I can proffer a fairly clear and simple definition of reality and simultaneously what I seek to convey by or mean by, reality.
Can you?
The interesting thing, and it really is interesting, is how to approach the idea of reality or the word reality, without necessarily imagining believing or assuming something about the experiences or apprehensions of apprehending apparatuses other than oneself, and necessarily that must involve assuming and all believing because it is self evidently impossible to apprehend anything of the apprehensions of other apprehending apparatuses, and I wonder if you can understand why that is an extremely desirable or likeable or good state of affairs.
Not only must whatever reality is conceived to be by a particular individual necessarily and inevitably be an experience or apprehension of sorts, it can only be an experience or apprehension of sorts, and since an apprehending apparatus cannot apprehend anything of the apprehensions of other apprehending apparatuses, it must necessarily - as you correctly say, be subjective because it cannot conceivably be anything *else* depending on how you understand the word "reality" which is merely a symbol for an idea or experience.
Would you agree or suppose that it would appear and I can put it no higher than appear, that when some human beings use the word "reality" they seem to be assuming or believing that it is something that somebody else (other than themselves) experiences or Apprehends?
Is it not difficult enough to come to some understanding of what associations particular words evoke in oneself?
Does not the word "mean" inevitably and only imply or embrace, or connote the associations that are evoked in associating apparatus, or man or human being?
I entirely agree with you that whatever you mean or whatever anyone means by "reality" must necessarily be subjective, and I wonder if you can set out precisely why you make that proposition, and I would be interested to see your reasoning or how you arrive at that proposition.
Would it be a huge imposition to ask you to expatiate on that particular matter?
.
Your brain wasn’t dead. Oxygen deprivation, and possibly some DMT, will alter consciousness
@@vhawk1951kl I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here; and, considering the length of your post, I doubt you do either. Look into structuralist linguistics if you want your own ideas enunciated much more clearly. I dare you to take your thinking to its ultimate conclusion: you'll fall right into Kant. Reality: subjective experience. It's that simple. Man, after all, each man, is a microcosm--a little universe--in which the entirety of reality (all possible subjective experience) is afforded. If you really want my thoughts (and your thoughts for that matter), just read Kant.
My brain rest in a human body, a vessel designed to function as
a receiver; to accept existing knowledge through the kosmos and
imagine, 'as to' contemplate by thinking how my body reacts by
organizing my movement. By taking this knowledge and sorting out
this knowledge into a proper form from unknown chaos to understand
'it' and communicate with other beings, like myself, who are building
and sharpening their minds to discover the meaning of truth and why
we are here and what our purpose is. The brain, like the heart, is a
muscle designed to question what IS the truth, so we can be set free
and be free to all that came - before us.
Dave Chalmers is such a cool dude ! Nice new look !
but he is a pseudo philosophers...unfortunately.