Ned Block - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Here's the big question about consciousness, our inner experience of what things feel like. Is consciousness a product of the physical world alone? Because if consciousness is the output of the physical brain by itself, however complex, then consciousness as physicalism would defeat those who believe, or hope for, the existence of nonphysical realities.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on consciousness: www.closertotruth.com/series/...
Ned Block is an American philosopher working in the field of the philosophy of mind who has made important contributions to matters of consciousness and cognitive science.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I see that this channel is getting more and more subscribers everyday, but it deserves more.
This is a wonderful CZcams channel.
@@ROForeverMan ok Sparky
@@ROForeverMan 🙄
@@ROForeverMan you're funny. 😆
@@ROForeverMan 🤣🤣🤣
@@ROForeverMan I don't know what you fo but you certainly have no better grasp on 'existence' than I do 😄
Even if Consciousness is phenomenal, without the physical it does not manifest in any empirical way, the brain thus is essential. It is only "how" this manifestation that occurs that is in question.
*"Even if Consciousness is phenomenal, without the physical it does not manifest in any empirical way, the brain thus is essential. It is only "how" this manifestation that occurs that is in question."*
... Since the first Model T was invented, you had to get into a car, turn it on, and drive it somewhere. In today's world, autonomous cars can self-start and drive to wherever. True, the driver ("me") is still technically operating the vehicle remotely, but I am not included within the car, itself. Likewise, the information that makes up my consciousness can be separated / isolated from the information that makes up my body (which is also "me") because it's all just "information."
This is an example of how dualism and monism can both be accurate in regard to what we call consciousness.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC nondualism.
@@giovonnielewis4329 *"nondualism."*
... True, but we really need a better word than that. Monodulaism would probably be better!
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Ah the point is that without the {to use your analogy} the Model T. "the vehicle" is essential regardless of whether it is remote, or not. A cake is not "flour eggs/etc." but the ingredients are essential to the making. Isolation of the information becomes meaningless if there is nothing that the information can act with, without physical energy no work is done, no matter how good the idea.
@@brianstevens3858 *"Ah the point is that without the {to use your analogy} the Model T. "the vehicle" is essential regardless of whether it is remote, or not."*
... It's only essential if I'm required to drive somewhere (or send my autonomous car somewhere). If no Model-T's existed, the drivers would still be present. There just wouldn't be anything around for them to drive. Likewise, if you took the "me" out of my body, I would still exist as information. I just wouldn't have anything to move around and make it do things.
True, every decision, judgment, and calculation (information) I make requires the energy produced by my body to make them happen, but the information I produced from my many decisions, judgments, and calculations does not go away. It affects everything around me and gets added to all of the other information produced within Existence.
Just like with your cake, everything in existence is alchemized to produce more information.
*"A cake is not "flour eggs/etc." but the ingredients are essential to the making. "*
... You can also have a recipe for a cake (information), but not have the ingredients to make it or an oven to bake it. However, the information a cake produces is more than what you'd have with just the ingredients. The same can be said for all of the biological ingredients that make up a human. Metaphorically speaking, the "cake" is your autonomous self-awareness.
*"if there is nothing that the information can act with, without physical energy no work is done, no matter how good the idea."*
... If energy is information, interaction is information, and whatever the work and interaction produce is information, then you end up with a level playing field (information) no matter if you are evaluating the individual components or what the components produce when combined.
In other words, in "Existence" you can have your cake and eat it, too!
Would it make sense to review these words and definitions that we've inherited in our language and definitions. As a simple example: "The sun moves across the sky and set's in the West" is an inaccurate statement. So when we talk about "material" or "Immaterial" are we not assuming that they are well defined, tested concepts and descriptions of our understanding of reality?
*""The sun moves across the sky and sets in the West" is an inaccurate statement."*
... True, it's not scientifically accurate, but it is considered accurate from the standpoint of an earthbound observer. I understand your argument and agree to an extent, but "unknown things" can only be described using whatever "known things" are available until more is learned about what we are describing.
I'm sure "quantum entanglement" will one day be described in a different way than we are doing right now, but until we do ... it's just "spooky."
Indeed, as though even 'matter' is fully understood...
"The sun APPEARS to move across the sky..." IS true, however. Like Republican talking points, it all depends on perspective.
Reviewing and revising our understanding of such seemingly fundamental but often dimly defined concepts is important and something that scientists and philosophers attempt to do. In this case it's easier said than done since defining something like "immaterial" in any cogent and meaningful way is a hard task. One could even follow Gilbert Ryle in his sardonic remark that "immateriality" (when talking about minds or "souls", as some dualists have historically liked to do) has tended to be defined merely negatively in relation to materiality/corporeality: as something that isn't spatially extended, isn't directly affected by forces of physics and so on. What would immateriality in itself mean?
Absolutely. Most people have no idea what material is, and most ironically the materialists are maybe the best example.
Some experiences people have had flies in the face of people who spend all their time thinking without experiencing.
There is one overriding problem with the "zombie" argument. The problem is not that it is inconceivable, nor even that it is necessarily wrong. The problem is that it cancels out theory of mind. Theory of mind (the recognition that others might have consciousness, etc) is dependent upon observations of like form and like behaviour. If one posits that like form and like behaviour are insufficient for establishing the presence of consciousness, then we have no foundation for the assumption that anyone other than our selves is coonscious.
Dualism implies theism, but materialism does not imply atheism.
Functionalism doesn't matter.
If consciousness exists only as some sort of data processing pattern, nothing stops God from transferring that pattern into an afterlife (or reincarnating it, or whatever). One of the principles of materialism is that consciousness can be moved from one substrate to another by ordinary data transfer processes!
But if dualism is true, you by definition require not only a supernatural residence for the consciousness, but a source capable of creating it, which looks, to the extent it can be understood from our perspective, like God.
@@ROForeverMan Define consciousness.
Mind makes matter
matter makes mind
@@charlessimons1692 your entire conscious experience is a simulated user interface. Matter only renders in when your there to observe it.
@@oocloudoo1549 maybe
If consciousness is 'physical'. then one must consider that everything is conscious-- to a greater or lesser degree.
I guess it could be. That's what pan-theists believe. But proto-pan-theism might also be true, which is the idea everything (like atoms) have the potential to be conscious, but it's only activated once certain conditions are met.
@@Jagonath You seem to accept the concept that everything is conscious (within the limits set by its own form), and as such has a degree of awareness. This allows everything to develop/become aware/learn, at its own rate.
Learning can of course depend upon many factors---not the least is the desire to learn/progress from experience/awareness rather than mindless repetition.
@@electricmanist you would first have to definite what consciousness is
@@TactileTherapy Have you considered that consciousness is an awareness of the self, --of others, --of the world on which we inhabit-- of our solar system-- of the universe.
And for the more advanced, an awareness of that which created all that is.
The person is all material. The brain creates consciousness in concert with the body. The senses, memory, and “processing” areas ramp up to working level, and the conscious state is reached.
The brain does NOT create consciousness. It is only the receiver of consciousness. The proof is the NDEs
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I definitely agree
The "person" is all ENERGY. The brain and the entire neural and sensory network are one organ of translation of one set of energies into another - perhaps kinetic in appearance, but we still only can experience a tiny, tiny fraction of the energies around us - radio? Radar? Go right through us. We are NOT "all there."
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y
Does evidence prove anything?
Does a lack of evidence prove anything?
@@deanodebo assertions and claims certainly don't.
Maybe to know something which is Fundamental and irreducible we have to add something to it so that we can examine its characteristics.afterall we are the product(if not byproduct 😂)of addition and we have a pretty much understanding about many things including ourselves.ineptness or inscrutableness can not be a property of "The Fundamental" if it truly is irreplaceable and we know we are competent.
Computers can do alot and will in the future but creating something self aware is a different ballgame
"Self aware" ro nto it doenst make a difference. If science evolves enough to the point where we can copy every atom of a person and create 100% excact copy and exctach behaviour what difference would it be if person is slef aware or not in human sense
@@urosuros2072 that body would occupy a different location therefore it's not an exact copy. Position matters
Brain as computer based on logic not enough for consciousness; might something as quantum computer based on mathematics in brain provide consciousness?
Would something quantum providing consciousness / mind from brain be material, dualism, or fundamental?
Quantum is just 'small.' Everything at this level of perception is composed of quantum events, no option. For me (VERY personally) I have concluded that the physical universe is NOT necessary, all that we experience can occur without a physical presence, energy alone is sufficient. Not "God,"
David K / You still keep repeating everywhere the term "energy", but you haven't clarified for yourself what "energy" is in reality. IN REALITY, not in theory!
"Energy" is not a thing in itself.
"Energy" is just moving matter.
So what's happening in the material brain in creating the real material emergent process called "consciousness" is just moving matter in a specific way.
There's no mysterious "energy" at action. In reality it is all a real continuous dynamical material process at action in a specific way.
That's all there is.
No voodoo ( non-existent ) "energy" term needed!
Energy is in fact an artificial and redundant theoretical term that's not needed at all in order to correctly understand the real dynamic of the Universe.
Use just the reality which is 'moving aggregations' of something "material" and you're totally OK, because that's the only reality.
How do physical neurons in brain make computations?
How do physical transistors in silicon make computations?
Did I hear correctly that “computer science and AI has made no progress in the science of consciousness so that gives us some reason to think that it’s the wrong approach… It looks like substrate is important..” ?
Please stay to tuned to new and current developments coming out of theoretical computer science and AI.
Do you want to share some of your insights?
If consciousness is something fundamental and can't be explained or accounted in terms of anything else, how is it possible that an immaterial property is able to influence and control a material body? If our universe is conscious, why doesn't every non-living object doesn't possess feelings, emotions and memory?
Something physical has physical attributes that we can detect through our senses, but since we cannot see awareness or detect it through any of our senses how could we call it physical?
Because consciousness is like an intangible hologram that is produced by tangible matter. The amount of evidence for how changing brain states affects conscious experience is large and ever-growing. Furthermore, from studying the brain it is also well understood how neurons interact via electrochemical signals and there is no evidence to suggest that physics works differently in us than everywhere else in the universe. I'm not claiming that consciousness is not strange, but we have over 80 billion neurons in our brains ordered in a very particular neural network that receives information from our senses and processes those sensory inputs in such a way to improve our chance of survival and to reproduce. Until this extreme complexity is well understood we won't know how the hologram that is consciousness arises. A human could never be able to comprehend this level of complexity, maybe cyborgs will though but then that cyborg probably won't understand itself entirely. What I think is a sensible question is to ask if any conscious being could understand how it's own consciousness works at the level of their neural activity.
The issue I have with this series and the thinkers is it is built to be part of the culture war in the US - theology vs science. As such it is coloured by this and I find much of the thought on this topic is coloured by this. It is at the point of dogmatic. The truth of the matter is once we accept that consciousness is not physical until we prove it is (which is the scientific method by the way) then we can quickly move to the important point, this point is that whether or not consciousness is purely physical (that means we can replicate it) does not lend itself to the existence of a God that is represented in works of fiction from stone age tribes.
Can we get past this into the truly interesting questions.
How is “accepting consciousness is not physical until we can prove it is “ part of the scientific method ?
Surely it’s the other way round, for any unexplained phenomena , not just consciousness
If consciousness is entirely material then how do we infer? Why would any constant conjunction occur to us if everything is necessarily connected? Why would time exist? Wouldn't everything be materially sequenced?
Gravity would never be rationalized as it is now: action at a distance.
If the consciousness is entirely material then how do we infer?
First , we have to consider what is the intention of the inference. Mostly emotional I assume you mean , by inferring the nature and sequence of the other questions. This would be the third eye. Which is , surprising to some , open and working for most people but ‘arrythimeticulous’ cognitive connections are a matter of individual behavior. I could dig up a website for you possibly if you’d like but to my ‘eyes’ the functional connectivity of limbic and Orbitofrontal cortex combined with … idk did you want an answer or were you just pointing to the greater emphasis of your other questions?
@@maxsterling8203 Do materialists know that they deny time?
For those who think that consciousness relies on material or the physical body then let them have an Out of Body Experience to the point where they can see their physical body from their Spirit. Let them experience the Spirit Realm which is beyond the Physical. I bet you they'll be telling a completely different story afterwards rethinking their original hypothesis.
That's then certainly from a subjective experience point of view hard to explain or seductive to believe but is it a proof? It might be simply a hallucination, right?
When you are physically outside of your flesh or physical body, there is no such thing as a hallucination. Hallucinations happen only within the brain or the physical body very much like the holographic projections that you are seeing now. When you begin to see with the Eyes of your Spirit it is only then that you will be able to comprehend and differentiate the difference between two or more realms of existence. This physical realm is just one and there are many! Once you are able to see or experience the Spirit Realm that itself is more proof than anything science can offer as proof. It is proof to yourself. Now, the issue is in trying to explain that to others who have not had that experience as you can not bring any proof back with you because it's not physical. You can not measure that which is Spirit or that which is Consciousness as they are both Infinite and Eternal.
@@davidw8668 The evidence strongly indicates that OBEs/NDEs are not hallucination.
@@SquizzMe source ?
I have an out of body experience every time I dream. Doesn't make it real.
Life and Consciousness is Eternal,
All creations is temporary, (physical)
Life and Consciousness cant be created,
Life is Creator, Consciousness is Creation-Ability.
Thoughts is Motion, motion is Stuff, Thoughts-Stuff is the 'stuff-side' of the Life-side,
so, the Perspective, makes the difference between Life-side and Stuff-side.
Electricity is the bottom-line of the Stuff-side, Thoughts is the Finest Stuff.
Woooooooooooooooo
-Ric Flair
And your proof? Another dusty book, perhaps?
True, we are creators... we are what we think deep inside. Our emotions will do the rest. Think about the placebo effect and the nocebo effect. In our country there’s a man that can change his immune system by meditation. See; Wim Hof a.k.a the iceman - scientific breakthrough. Enjoy
I don't know for a fact that consciousness is "only" physical. But it looks like anything beyond physicality is unnecessary for consciousness to be what it is and do what it does -- i.e., postulate, consider, and intend, and do that within the context of awareness of its own continuity. Those functions seem to be achievable in a physical structure.
Given that it is currently impossible to prove that consciousness itself is a physical phenomenon, it seems a bit premature to assert that anything beyond physicality is unnecessary for consciousness to function, no? If it is inherently a non-physical phenomenon (speaking hypothetically) than something beyond physicality is inherently required in order to engage with consciousness.
@@EvilMagnitude What does consciousness do that cannot be explained through a sufficiently capable information processing system? I mean, pretty much all of what we do is postulate, consider, and intend in the context of awareness of one's own continuity. All of those are information processing functions. Even "experience" is information processing plus physical sensations which are "experienced" through the nervous system.
In fact, it appears to me that the "hard" problem of consciousness is hard because folks are trying to explain the "experience" of consciousness solely (soul-ly) as a mental state, rather than a mental-plus-physical state. IOW, it's dismissing the physicality (sensation) of "experience" in order to try to explain it -- when it's that very physicality that creates the "feeling" of experience to begin with.
@@ROForeverMan You're certainly correct in one sense -- EVERYTHING, physical or otherwise, is an idea. But next time I hit my finger with a hammer, I'll remember that it's just an idea, no physicality to it at all.
@@EvilMagnitude I don't think anyone wants dualism to be a fact more than I do. But the kind of evidence required to convince me -- such as reasonably well-controlled remote viewing experiments -- have all had negative or, at best, ambiguous results.
Everything we regard as "conscious" is tied to a physical body. When that physicality is "re-configured" beyond a certain point, any consciousness it had is gone.
Even the awareness of one's own continuity seems to require a physical component -- memory. Unless "consciousness" inhabits some other dimension -- which would be pretty darned interesting -- then it appears to be bound to this dimension. And if it does inhabit some other dimension -- why does it like to hang around this one?
If we're products of evolution, and there's no other spookiness (consciousness without a body) out there, then our brains have gotta be programmable biological computers. And consciousness has got to be a product of a synergy of non-conscious components. So deciphering the nature of consciousness -- about the most beautiful mystery of all if for no other reason than it makes all other beautiful mysteries possible -- may be more of an engineering problem than a philosophical one.
If our own consciousness was "designed" by a non-intelligent process, it can't be terribly complicated, just terribly counter-intuitive at the moment.
I'm not really sure that I want that beautiful mystery to be uncovered, especially with a materialist solution. I prefer that "God" (disembodied consciousness) exists, but the actual truth of the matter is not obligated to abide by my personal preferences.
The problem is fascinating whether there's a materialistic solution or not. Ultimately, I'm more interested in the actual truth of the matter than I am in what that actual truth is.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES, and causal links .... prove the Universe & Life was made by an Unnatural Intelligence, therefore the Mind of an intelligence is unnatural & nonphysical (soul/spirit).
Man is a Natural Intelligence and has a body & mind which is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
Consciousness is simply a FUNCTION of the Mind of an entity(natural or unnatural).
If consciousness is entirely physical, how do you explain the case of Noah Wall who was born without a brain yet had essentially normal consciousness? Noah just cerebrated his 10th birthday on March 6, 2022. Seems to me the theory is flawed if humans can have consciousness even when most of their brain is missing.
SOURCE: "Noah Wall defies the odds and turns 10..." (ITV News, March 7, 2022)
@@maxsterling8203 : Noah Wall was born with 2% of his brain, but that means 98% was missing. Yet his consciousness was relatively normal. He did grow back about 80% of his brain over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that he still had consciousness with 98% of his brain missing. So is consciousness only contained in 2% of a human brain? That kind of violates the claim that the complexity and large size of the human brain is what creates consciousness. How complex could only a bit of brain stem be? If consciousness in the biological world exists that easily, then why haven't they been able to artificially create some form of primitive consciousness in computers?
Hmm
I like the theory that the brain of humans and other animals is actually just an antenna, a receiver. Stream of consciousness is out there like an ocean and the complexity of a brain of a creature determines the level of consciousness. This would explain any acute or chronic brain injury, disease or condition that limits consciousness. The theory states that it’s by the quantum world that this consciousness streams about and points to quantum entanglement that shows two particles can be impacted at any distance instantaneously.
It’s not really a theory though is it. It’s an unfalsifiable claim without any supportive evidence .
Especially if your saying injuries to the antenna look exactly like the injuries we’d expect if the claim was wrong and the brain was the source of consciousness .
Give us some predictive power . Novel predictions that can be tested . That’s what a theory requires
@@tonyatkinson2210 that's fair, it's a claim that's not been tested or can't be tested currently but so are other "theories" that are mainstream.
@@chrisgarret3285 mainstream as in well known ? There’s nothing with scientific speculation about the unknown . It’s only a problem if you claim certainty or suggest phenomena of unknown causes can only be explained by the supernatural
You're talking about the holonomic brain theory, it's real theory. Not a popular one in neuroscience but it's definitely a REAL theory.
@@annalee_the_bananalee3226 thank you, I'll check it out
Well until this moment we have no idea what really matter(physical) is ..
On the sub atomic level there is no existence for such thing that calls matter in the common sense meaning
So what if what we call material and non material are the same with different degrees or frequencies
Why does physical brain develop abstract mathematics that describes physical reality so well?
Mathematics is basically a language, a way of describing regularities that we perceive. Mathematics does not exist of itself.
@@rickwyant Plato would disagree.
@@rickwyant Math was discovered not invented
Language is abstract math , best I got seems fine
Computer Software is still "Material".
the algorithm was first originated in your mind, though and only thereafter it provides the automation of other physical parts...
"I" am uncatchable, "I" am always bigger than everything you can demonstrate on to me! "I" am like invisible! That's the difficulty with self recognition, that it is exactly about the in principal uncatchable and invisible!
@@r2c3 Can you translate your message into human please.
*"Computer Software is still "Material"."*
... And all material is still just "information."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCThanks.
Just say I don't know instead of a collection of empty words.
I think real progress can be made here through self experiments. Try lucid dreaming, going to sleep consciously / waking up consciously, maybe try to think the most conscious thought you can or meditating. Try stop thinking or try to think of a new color, try to stop identifying with your thoughts and see if they become auditory hallucinations
He still failed to explain how you can get a conscious subject out of unconscious objects.
The exact point consciousness emerges isnt known. It's similar to defining when does life begin - both in the context when speaking of a fertilized egg in a womb, and the genesis of life on Earth. There's no prices, absolute moment known right now of when consciousness "activates" hence the great debate.
@@TactileTherapy Yes, but if he's going to say that it's a physical mechanism, then he should be able to point out the physical process that would give rise to conscious awareness so that we can replicate it.
Yes it is
Organisms are not mechanisms.
Why not? Organisms are just mechanisms made out of different stuff, i.e. biological materials rather than non-biological materials.
@@Jagonath Not so. There are fundamental differences, the most obvious being: mechanisms are conceived, built and assembled by fully conscious intelligent designers. The parts making up a mechanism are made separately and assembled fully formed, one by one. The parts making up a mechanism can function independently of the whole mechanism. Mechanisms are static and do not grow. All the parts of a mechanism can be virtually replaced for ever. Most importantly, the parts making up a mechanism have no more consciousness than the whole they form once assembled: mechanisms are not sentient.
Organisms are products of either an unconscious and/or a supra-conscious process likely unknowable to humans. An organism is not assembled part by part. All the parts are grown gradually together and are in constant relationship from the start. Without these relationships, the parts forming an organism cannot exist and function independently. Organisms are dynamic: they are born, grow, decay and eventually die, regardless of any medical treatment they may receive including the replacement of parts (transplants). Organisms are capable of consciousness and of designing mechanisms. By contrast, there is not a single example of any mechanism creating an organism anywhere on planet Earth or anywhere else in the Universe.
The differences are so obvious as to barely require pointing out...
Hoping to see Richard Dawkins and RLK discussion about consciousness and free will ,soon😇
"I" am uncatchable! The self and subject of knowledge can in principal never appear in the physical world! That's the difficulty with self recognition, that it is exactly about the in principal invisible!
Block here seems to be taking a strong materialist position while also being a biological essentialist (i.e. there's something special about the biological brain that can't be replicated in a computer).
This seems like an unusual combination of beliefs to me.
I guess it derives from AI research making no progress on consciousness while cognitive neuroscience is making progress... But cognitive neuroscience doesn't even study consciousness, only observable brain function! It can tell you which neurons recall memory or recognize faces, but not how you have experiences.
If Consciousness is Entirely Physical, then scientists might have found a way to isolate it, pack it, sell in the market and make huge money!!!
Isolated consciousness can also be installed in AI and make it humanized, etc etc etc ... !!!
Eso es una fantasía totalmente, una caricatura del capitalismo, no de la ciencia
@@Moon_Light1495 அறிவியலின் முதல் பயன்பாடு இராணுவத்தில் உள்ளது, பின்னர் பணம் சம்பாதிப்பது.
@@ngurappa5666*
Well, that's certainly true regarding the discovery of nuclear fission.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Why people are pumping billions of dollars to make a working quantum computer?
The Function, Intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES, and causal links .... prove the Universe & Life was made by an Unnatural Intelligence, Man has a body & soul ... and ... the Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
Why does a single cell organism with no brain or nervous system have a fight to live?
That's how it's programmed. Think of them as NPCs from a game
I’ll take a dualist approach over supposed quantum collapse that controls micro tubular dominance over a collective consciousness experience.
It is increasingly popular? Really?
Somebody tell me if this guy ever interview black people! I’ve watched so many of his videos and have yet to see any black people on his show.
He definitely does, as well as other ethnicities. Unfortunately minorities have little representation in these fields for many reasons, hopefully discrimination being a negligible one, but it exists none the less.
Black folks are too sensible for him 😂🤫😆😂😂😂🥶😁😆😀😂 im sorry I could not resist💀🍺 I think it’s true though I watched a video choc full of white Astro physicists lol and the Only gentleman of color in the hour video repeatedly seemed to be by far the most sensible and kept a relatable continuity but also introduced arguments to his own inferences eloquently and what would make me think he wouldn’t be on this channel is only the gloomy reality of the sustenance in this field eg a lot of old guys in fact the African American gentlemen is also the youngest as well as the most down to earth I’ve seen 😯 fascinating really
@@maxsterling8203 If you don't love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, you have no soul.
@@David.C.Velasquez 👍🏻😁 it’s funny you say that ! I am so annoyed by his content - sometimes -BUT I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE GUY , 🤫 I can’t help it LOL 😂
@@David.C.Velasquez thanks man you just made my night
it is irrationality itself what attracts the apes to each other! it is common language among the apes no doubt !
Earthlings hahaha, so small.
"Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?" Well, what ELSE ya got? Certainly not a invisible man.
"In The Beginning" Religion actually got it right. People were in a state of wonderment that we were embodied but there was so much mysterious and frightening outside of us. Science has done a lot to break down nature and explain so much but the wonderment remains. The mystery remains to the point that everything is reducible to fields so the physical is an illusion or subset.
Decent comment by Ned, but far, far away from the obvious positive result.
X-Files
Metaphysics (not physics)
Joy, beauty and harmony (heaven) has no mass and weight.
Misery, ugliness and conflict (hell) has no mass and weight either.
"The perception of beauty is a moral test." Henry David Thoreau. This is the real IQ test. This test also determines if one is conscious (alive) or unconscious (dead).
Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery.
But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate).
The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human.
Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
The evangelical monsters are extremely "desperate" to control a darkship called the Whitehouse. Because working in the dark to suck the joy out of life and destroy the planet is the only way that the loveless, lifeless parasites can survive and thrive.
It's also how the hostile alien invaders keep their human capital (cattle) corralled.
Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead).
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
Didn't even read your whole post but I'm already liking it after the first three sentences
This channel is "closer to truth," not "farther from reality"
Consciousness is not at all physical, and it is the only valuable feature within the miserable material vessel.
But the point is, there's no reason to think that consciousness can exist in the absence of the material vessel.
@@Jagonath Equally, there's also no reason to think that it can't.
@@grantgooch5834 not true
This man thinks he triumphs the ancient: Egyptians, Indians, Greeks.
Is not what he says, it's what he doesn't say; because he has never seen he hasn't Known.
Explaining your thoughts about matter or describing them are local only, not 'properly' explaining
How do you know what he’s thinking
Yes, humans are 100% material. Period.
Proof please.
@@ROForeverMan what do you mean by "exist" if the material doesn't exist. Are you saying that abstractions exist and consciousness is an abstraction like geometry?
@@ROForeverMan So you're asserting a faith-based position. That's fine.
@@ROForeverMan No, you thought I was replying to you when I was replying to the original commenter.
@@ROForeverMan The material is there. The perception of self is an illusion.
(0:55) *NB: **_"It's the view that humans are basically computers, and the mind is basically functioning like a program."_* ... Humans are absolutely not like computers or a program. In fact, humans are no different than any other biological lifeform. It's our innate ability to *process abstract data* that sets us apart from all other biology.
Everything in existence is comprised of *information.* All of your subjective experiences represent information that is assimilated, processed, and analyzed by your brain. Afterward you produce *new information* in the form of "value judgments." These value judgments are then added to the collective database of information that has been collecting data since the beginning. "Existence" uses all of our information along with all previous information to push forward (evolve) into even higher forms of information (emergence).
Now, this is clearly a "common sense" understanding of life, consciousness, and existence that people struggle to accept, yet it's currently the ONLY understanding that unifies the body-mind issue while equally addressing purpose and meaning in our existence. When Mr. Block stated, *_"We have not got the right concepts now, but my hope is that we will develop them."_* we actually DO have the right concepts available to us right now, and I've documented it all in my book. Our divisive, contentious species simply doesn't want to accept it.
We don't ... because _division_ produces more information than _unity._
Hi. I truly hope you're doing great. I have to disagree with your final statement there though. Reason being is, as far as I know, within my 30 odd years of being conscious on this planet, we have never truly been completely united that I'm aware of.
So inorder to make such a bold claim about a united people amounting to less informed life than a divided one, you'd have to have some form of proof of it, which to my knowledge doesn't exist.
Or could there be traces that actually prove the contrary in existence today. Think on it and tell me.
To me the division just makes it easier for the rich to stay rich and the poor to go further and further down.
@@NazzYr101 *"Hi. I truly hope you're doing great. I have to disagree with your final statement there though. "*
... Thank you. And I'm sure others will also disagree.
*"So in order to make such a bold claim about a united people amounting to less informed life than a divided one, you'd have to have some form of proof of it, which to my knowledge doesn't exist."*
... My argument is that "division" produces more information than "unity" and not that a united human society would be less informed. In fact, it was not a reference to human society at all as much as a reference to how new information is created.
In fact, a general rule in the business world is that if two people within an organization consistently agree, ... then one of them is unnecessary.
*"To me the division just makes it easier for the rich to stay rich and the poor to go further and further down."*
... If everyone made the same amount of money, worked the same number of hours and lived in similar-priced homes, then this would represent *less information* then you'd have with a broad spectrum of incomes, working hours, and multi-styled homes.
Existence doesn't care about our petty concerns over equality, lifestyles, sexuality, and political views as much as the *information* that these diverse and divisive societal constructs produce.
This is also why a prokaryote self-divided around four billion years ago. There's more "information" associated with two prokaryotes than you can get with just one.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I can agree to most of what you are saying here honestly.
Although, my point is that we've never tried unity or ever been as able to do so as we may be today;
So perhaps in our beautiful diversity we can still collaborate with one another and produce far more information than we have untill this point. This is why teamwork makes the dream work. But the forces and powers that be have indeed made sure we don't get to such levels of existence. I'm certainly pray that they all grow old and die soon so that we can give it a shot. I'm of the mind that my theory might just be something you may find spectacularly impressive.
And just as a side note: Those prokaryotes were just thinking they'd be far more effective together than working alone. That's probably why they had no choice but to divide. And thankfully so. Look how far we've come due to this essential and important story of division+teamwork
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC dna information from one cell is capable of uniting with its equivalent to form a new variant... 🤔
@@r2c3 *" dna information from one cell is capable of uniting with its equivalent to form a new variant"*
... Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division do not represent "unity." They are the mathematical facilitators of new information.
*Variant: _"a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard."_
Once you have a variant, you have more information than you had before. "Unity" was not the cause because if there was unity, no variant would be necessary.
Two blunt instruments struggling to define the word "physical"! Very 😔
Science has an awful lot to learn. Scientists need to realize that they are traitors to their own rigid principles, other scientists, and science itself when they state unproven opinions as scientific dogma. It becomes the point when the priests of science tout scientific religion, and is in fact the very attitude and behavior they so despise in non-scientific philosophers. A sadly amusing irony.
If an entire cat is quantum mechanical, then it’s game over. Life is not reducible to biology or chemistry. Then one has to determine what synchronicity is, and if all matter and life itself is quantum mechanical “to the observer.”
Enough of the QM nonsense. A quantum particle, field or force is simply a Function .... made by an intelligence. Universal Functions is the explanation to Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago.
Everything in the Universe is an abstract ( time, space, Laws of Nature) or Physical ( matter, energy) FUNCTION.
Man has known for thousands of years what a "function" is and who makes them. The Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, Air, water & Life ... are clearly physical functions ... with purpose, form, design, properties. which are all INFORMATION that matter & energy possess.
The Laws of Nature/Physics are simply ... common INFORMATION .. Man has extracted from natural FUNCTIONS.
The Universe, Man & Machines ... are thermodynamic systems with increasing entropy ... and FUNCTIONS ... which originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter, energy and space, time & Laws to exist & to FUNCTION.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES, and causal links .... prove the Universe & Life was made by an Unnatural Intelligence and the Mind of an Intelligence is Unnatural & nonphysical ( soul/spirit).
Man has a body & soul ... and ... the Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
QM has nothing to do with Man's consciousness which is simply a FUNCTION of Man's mind.
@@ROForeverMan ultimately, I completely agree! 👍🏽
And God breathed into the nostrils of Adam and Man became a living soul.
I prefer Eru Ilúvatar's version of events.
You are missing a comma.
🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, right. Let's see the CZcams video (hey, he can do ANYTHING, that should be child's play...)
Certainly possible.
The soul that gives consciousness is beyond science
It’s also beyond any other process that would demonstrate its existence.
@@G_Demolished yes, always bigger and uncatchable!
The soul is so elusive it's almost as if people just made it up one day...
Define science
I could recommend a couple of books that changed my mind
First
Who cares.
Consciousness is entirely algorithmical. As well as the rest of universe
Consciousness is neither derivable nor explainable by algorithms. Nor is the rest of the universe.
@@terryboland3816 if course it is. It’s current state of algorithm execution. Neurons network and external data passing through it.
@@matterasmachine Where does the algorithm come from? Where does the Universe come from?
@@matterasmachine an algorithm can also be traced back to an intelligent source... from there a new question arises: what is the perfect form of intelligence... could it be pure mathematics...
@@matterasmachine You're claiming that consciousness is reducible to neurons? I'll be interested to see your proof.
This show used to be interesting when I assumed it would be gradually improving, but it seems to be getting worse over the years.
Is a revolving door; going round and round; people may be fooled thinking motion means getting somewhere's, but they're only going in circles.
It’s ok. They still talk to idealists too.
@@G_Demolished I've been following the show for several years and have never seen a Vaiṣṇava interviewed.
The desire to believe in something other than the physical is a desire of the ego to be more than what it is.
Egotism cuts both ways - many materialists seem to inherently dislike the idea of being subject to any kind of higher order or structure ! Robert's conversation with Sarah Coakley gets at this quite well, I think. As there is an egotism in wanting to believe in a higher purpose, there is an egotism in wanting to be rational and 'correct'.
The ego is not physical so doesn't exist.
Nope. Cold hard facts confirm there is a non-physical existence.
This is about the Mind not consciousness.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES, and causal links .... prove the Universe & Life was made by an Unnatural Intelligence, therefore the Mind of an intelligence is unnatural & nonphysical (soul/spirit).
Man is a Natural Intelligence and has a body & mind which is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
Consciousness is simply a FUNCTION of the Mind of an entity(natural or unnatural).
First ten numbers
(0, 1, 2, 3,...9)
First ten dimensions
(0D, 1D, 2D, 3D...9D)
Newton:
"0 is contingent/not-necessary" 🚫
and
"1-9 are necessary" 🚫
(this is the basis of Newton Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic).
Leibniz:
"0 is necessary" ✅
and
"1-9 are contingent (on their predecessor)" ✅
(this is the basis of Leibniz Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic).
[Info on Zero]:
Is zero the most important number?
Zero is the most important number in mathematics. Zero functions as a placeholder. Imagine a number, e.g., 5 and put as many zeroes behind it as you can think of. Zero drastically changes the value of the number from a mere 5 to 50, 500, 5000, 50000 and beyond.
Which is the greatest whole number?
There is no 'largest' whole number. Every whole number has an immediate predecessor, except 0. A decimal number or a fraction that falls between two whole numbers is not a whole number.
Why is it impossible to divide by zero?
The short answer is that 0 has no multiplicative inverse, and any attempt to define a real number as the multiplicative inverse of 0 would result in the contradiction 0 = 1.
Is 0 a rational number?
Yes, 0 is a rational number. Since we know, a rational number can be expressed as p/q, where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. Thus, we can express 0 as p/q, where p is equal to zero and q is an integer.
Is 0 A whole number?
The whole numbers are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on (the natural numbers and zero). Negative numbers are not considered "whole numbers." All natural numbers are whole numbers, but not all whole numbers are natural numbers since zero is a whole number but not a natural number.
Why is 0 a good number?
Zero helps us understand that we can use math to think about things that have no counterpart in a physical lived experience; imaginary numbers don't exist but are crucial to understanding electrical systems.
Zero also helps us understand its antithesis, infinity, in all of its extreme weirdness. 🔘 ♾ ☯️
What 0D looks like?
Zero Dimension (0D): A point which has no dimensions. It has no length, width, or height. It has no size and tells about the location only. We usually represent it by a dot.
Does 0D exist?
There exists only one connected 0D shape: the point. This is the member of all shape families with a zero-dimensional member; this makes it the zero-dimensional hypercube, hyperball, cross polytope, as well as the only zero-dimensional rotatope and toratope.
[Newton vs Leibniz]:
Do you agree with Newton that "0 is contingent" and "1-9 are necessary"?
Newton was a fraud and a moron. Clearly (shown) his logic is flawed at the fundamental level.
(9 is contingent on 8,
8 is contingent on 7, and so on with the exception of 0; necessary)
So why are we learning Newton's backwards Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic?
[Newton vs Leibniz Calculus]:
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
(1D-9D "empirical" only; no correctly defined dimension above 3D)
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
(0D necessary and 1D-9D contingent).