Bruce Hood - Anything Non-physical About the Mind?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2023
- What is consciousness, our inner experience of private awareness? Can consciousness be explained by only physical activities of the physical world? Because if not, if there is anything else required to explain consciousness in addition to the physical brain, then consciousness would defeat a materialistic or physicalistic worldview.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on consciousness as all physical: bit.ly/3LqcWfv
Bruce Hood is a Canadian-born experimental psychologist who specializes in developmental cognitive neuroscience and is the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre, based at the University of Bristol.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.
Robert took him for a little walk there. 👍
Yeah like a dog😂
He should interview Rupert Spira, then it would be Robert’s turn to go on a walk, perhaps bigger than he expected.
I admire academics who concede they don't know an answer to a question, and not try to wiggle out with flashy language.
Robert was a bit feisty in this one. Really liked this side of him.
Meh he's obnoxious af. He only gets like this when he feels offended especially in regard to his opinions or biases
When you change your mind, who is the changer? When somone lost their mind, who lost it? The mind is an object and so is the body.
Since physicists do not know what causes everything that they can observe, it is rather presumptuous to declare what is actually purely physical and what is nonphysical. There will always be hidden variables and unknown factors.
We have enough to define where the gaps are, and if those gaps are too small to fire a neuron, it seems pretty safe to rule certain things out
Theseus's Ship is just like our body, we are actually not the same person (atom by atom, cell by cell) that we used to be 10 years ago, and yet we identify as the same person.
My 12 year old and I were discussing this conundrum. He brought up a good point: how can you divide the brain into equal parts when both sides have 2 different functions? Even if the 2 sides of the brain could function and survive on their own, they wouldn’t accept and experience the information in the same way.
We also discussed that environmental factors are a direct influence on the mind; and so is someone’s individual personality due to their past environmental influences. So, depending on the environmental impact of conditions, the mind would evolve differently. Another factor would be space/time continuum. The way we are constructed as humans we have a limited perception. We focus on the perceived “here and now” and react to that. Even if we were telepathically connected to our alternate “selves” we wouldn’t be experiencing what they are in the same way. We could feel into it, but it would be a completely separate experience. 👍🙌 💫
I think they made a mistake and meant to say two identical copies.
@@simonhibbs887 then it wouldn’t be you. It would be a clone. Different.
@@simonhibbs887 and which one would house your consciousness? As humans we can only perceive from a limited perspective of our bodies. We cannot physically be 2 places at once perceiving the same way. The mind, when you think and recall situations, can be many places at once, but not physically experiencing all in the “now” that a linear time trajectory offers. When you discuss it in the “universal block” theory, all things can exist simultaneously. But you can only perceive from one point of view.
@@karikeillor9114 I believe human beings are physical creatures, so we have a physical identity. A copy of me with the same physical structure and mental processes is a copy. It would think it is me, and would actually think just like me and have an experience of life of it's own, but it would not be me. It's just another person almost exactly like me.
This view does get complicated though when we consider the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. Who we are does change over time, but that's a separate issue.
When we imagine a different perspective or point of view that's all we are doing - imagining it. That's a cognitive process occurring in our physical brains. When I imagine sitting in my mother's living room there's nothing of me that goes to that location. I create an image of it in my head, but for all I know she might have just had the walls painted a different colour.
@@simonhibbs887 it is true that our physicality isn’t there when recalling memories, but our bodies do tend to physically react as if we were due to the cognitive reasoning process. We feel, we think, then we react. Some are almost done simultaneously, it’s that fast. So what our mind thinks we can feel like we’re experiencing, and in the case of sense memory a lot of times re-experience as if it’s happening again, or, for the first time. Our body’s biofeedback is an indication of this.
And “who we are” has everything to do with this issue, because even though our bodies and DNA may be exactly the same, we are experiencing different things, simultaneously, evolving differently, but since we are each in one vessel at a time, we aren’t exactly the same due to our perspective of perception. So essentially we may start off biologically the same, but become different the way we process our individual environmental situations.
And as far as being the same person in multiple locations, there always has to be an original design to build off of. Evolution, chicken and the egg sort of thing. I believe in the egg.
I loved discussing this! Thanks for sharing your pov with me! 🙌👍💫
For someone that believes in the scientific method, it is interesting that one can be so sure either about the existence or non-existence of something that can't be isolated and measured.
Bruce Hood would benefit from reading more about the mind/body problem. He admitted that he was out of his depths.
It's a flawed question, containing dualist assumptions and that is why it cannot be resolved and appears to the casual observer to result in an unverifiable continuing possibility. But what is verifiable is that everything whatsoever perceived physical or non physical at any time is composed 100% of qualia appearing in awareness. Just as it is verifiable that you are the awareness of the universe observing the universe. Because awareness is the ground of existence and everything in it is qualia.
the dualist assumption that mind and matter are distinct?
Anyone that states that the brain is “hardware” and mind is “software” loses me immediately. We will NEVER explain how we were created by that which we have created afterwards. His line of reasoning inverts cause and consequences. Not a valid metaphor for doing actual science, only for language games.
Wow that was super entertaining. 😂😂😂 I loved it! I never seen him argue with anyone.
yes, and it looks like he knows better than the person next to him. this is a unique episode of all I've watched
He even said a bad word @9:40 😂
😂😂😂yes there is a right answer definitely
For what might be non-physical about the brain, a good place to start would be associative learning as a fundamental principle. To this end, two references come to mind:
1) The semiotic theories of Charles Sanders Peirce and Jakob von Uexküll; and
2) Unlimited Associative Learning (UAL): Birch J., Ginsburg S. & Jablonka E. (2020). Unlimited Associative Learning and the origins of consciousness. Biology & Philosophy, 35(6), 1-23.
I would further factor in entanglement (nonlocal selves), but that's another story for another day.
That's really interesting stuff, thanks for the references. I think the only thing vaguely non-physical about the brain is it's informational content, but even then the information is encoded, stored and processes physically.
Probably one of the best interviews. Mr Robert was outstanding.
I really enjoyed this one as well.
I tip my hat to you, Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Excellent intellectual joust! 6:57
These kinds of talking head conversations exemplify the problem of specialists/experts stuck up the back passage of their own cohort bubble. If either of them had done even the simplest of google searches, or had read a little more widely, they may have come across medical instrument inventor *Itzhak Bentov* who wrote two books, using quantum physics, to address the issue of Consciousness. Serious as his undertaking was Bentov nevertheless managed to explain his findings in a quite unique and humorous way.
He included many hand drawings of physical phenomena (e.g. waves, orbits, reciprocating motion etc) as they related to the micro-motion pulses of a body's physiology whilst sat in meditation. A really eye-opening view of the phenomenon of Consciousness.
*(1) Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness* (1988)
*(2) Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation* (2000, posthumously)
*Bear in mind the Yogis, Sufis, Taoists and Shamans have been studying the phenomenon of Consciousness for some 25,000yrs or more.* They all recognise that 'the body is the vehicle' - the physical body being an anatomical and physiological entity - through which Consciousness may be directly appreciated. That mind-body system, in most cases, has to undergo training for that purpose, just as an elite athlete has to train for their high level purpose.
About 2,000yrs ago the most pertinent of these findings were collated into the *Yoga Sutras (by Patanjali).* There have been numerous translations of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. As a Systems Analyst, the version I favor is:
*Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali* (B. K. S. Iyengar)
I found this version the most useful because it has many systems diagrams relating the levels of Consciousness to each other and *relating physical **_phenomena_** (through the sensory organs) to spiritual **_noumena_** (through the organs of the mind).*
Once again, this is all about _training,_ training the body-mind system to be receptive to the direct experiencing of Consciousness. And, as with training for anything, it is most advantageous to have a trainer to guide you around the many obstacles and personal resistances which get in the way of your progress.
*Yogic (inside-out) Sciences* are much more difficult than *Materialist (outside-in) Sciences.* It is much easier to study, and experiment with objective phenomena outside of yourself - isolated from everything else in a controlled situation - and then record their quantities.
It is many orders of magnitude more difficult when the *_object of study is your own whole self_* while it is still connected to the complexity of the world, and contend with _its quantities and also with its qualities._ *To experience how difficult this is, see how long you can just sit with yourself **_without any distractions whatsoever._* No more than 5-10mins before you start barking?
As far as I’m aware universities in the *US (Berekely) and Australia (Melbourne)* are doing the most interesting research on Consciousness using long-term meditators as their subjects. They have noted changes in brain blood flows _away_ from the frontal cortex (the seat of personal identity). That explains some of the utterances of highly spiritualised people around the world exclaiming that they have lost all sense of their identity and _’no longer know who they are.’_
I completely agree with this guest.
Humans will evolve beyond biology.
"Trans-humanist" detected. Here's the reality of those utopian fantasies: if some of the present trends continue (and absent a serious collapse of the economy and civilization, which happens periodically) , the very rich will certainly expand their life spans and mental/physical abilities through bio-engineering. Most of humanity (yourself included, likely), will not have the opportunity to "evolve" in this way, however, and they will be more subservient to the upper 1% than they are now. It's not a world I would want to live in, personally.
Finally someone smart interviewed!
That ending was perfect! Lol
I think this conversation is more about the definition of "being you" than the truth about it. I think you can say both copies are "you" it's just that usually we define being "you" as singular and as a continuation.
Very nice debate❤
"I can't see the entire reality where this universe was made and where i come from, therefore the universe came out of nothing and i am a robot". Maybe don't limit the entire reality by what you can see?
Exactly right. The odds that what we can discern and contemplate due to the particular set of physical properties we can interact with are everything seems small.
Also the Mars thought experiment assumes so many things about what would be possible with non-physical aspects of the mind, and what the relationship between that and the physical is.
we arent limited by what we can see so much anymore. that's why we have a scientific method and instruments to test beyond our own biological limitations.
if you are trying to argue the finer details of the universe and our minds is unknowable, so be it.. but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try or that you are right.
@@scroopynooperz9051 We're completely limited by what we can measure, conceive of, or imagine, which is all based on our place in physical reality. Just because math describes the physical reality we're aware of does nothing to discount potential physical, or non-physical, realities that don't abide by math or by our perspective in the universe.
@@AnthonyFransella lol sounds suspiciously like woowoo to me xD
if we can't measure it, interact with it or otherwise conceive it, what is the use in even discussing it as it'll always be an unfalsifiable stab in the dark.
there is no proof of anything non-physical happening in the brain.
Those are the kind of answers and explanations you get when humans with a high opinion of themselves , think that they can understand and dicern all and everything about this life that was most probably designed by someone or something that defies the human imagination ! 😎
Tools are definitely designed.
If you believe you were probably designed
then you believe that you are probably a tool.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL C'mon put down the Kool-Aid and try...just try for once to use that stagnant grey matter loged up in your thick skull...you can do it .......😀....😎.
No, that's a bold claim you are making that carries a burden of proof. How do you know that it was designed by someone or something?
Bruce's argument goes beyond
After the interview is when the fight started.
Please do interview with Bernardo. Kastrup . He has a book titled Materialism is baloney. Quantum physics tells us, there is no matter as such, Max Plank
If the mind interacts with metaphysical abstracts - through the understanding of ideas, such as numbers - those metaphysical abstracts constitute a portion of the mind’s consciousness, which is the nonphysical part of the mind.
I would say those aren't the only four possibilities. I would suggest that the fifth possibility is that "you" are just a construction - so it might appear that there are now two of "you", but "you" were only an illusion to begin with, so there's no contradiction here. Just two minds operating the same ego software.
I think thats' what he means when he says you are "A" or "B", you're one of these people but not the other.
@@simonhibbs887 I'm saying that the notion of "you" isn't helpful in the question. I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me, or if I'm misunderstanding both you and Kuhn, haha. :)
@@Jacob-Vivimord Oh that's fine, I see what you mean.
It will likely be determined that consciousness is fundamental, owing no debt to matter, to the elements. On the other hand the mind is likely material, emerging at the same point as quantum events.
LMAO at the discussion around @4:05. I feel like I'm in great company when I agree with Bruce that I can't follow that logic. :)
Yes.
Yes, if the brain damages it will effect the mind! Like if the internet modem damages it effects internet connection: It doesn’t mean there is nothing else behind the brain or modem.
In the case of the modem there is a detectable signal running through it.
In the case of the brain all we have is neural activity, no extra signals that are not derrived from the neural activity.
@@uninspired3583 if we zoom out like in case of modem: we can detect awareness/signal going through our brain. That is awareness.
exactly, I like to think the brain acts as more of an antenna to the consciousness "realm"
@@Squillyboy if that were the case, we could examine the antenna and show it's receiving something. There's simply no indication of this in the brain
@@amazinglifeal4235 i can't make sense of your analogy anymore, not clear on what you mean by zoom out
When the mind is disturbed and stressed, the body suffers as well. Ever heard of psychosomatic diseases?
So if you were replicated on Mars and the other you has all the memories up to that point, including stepping onto the teleporter platform, except from the perspective of the you on Mars, you were teleported and there was no malfunction until you were told there was and you met you; then from that point the both of you would not share all the same experiences and you would be two different people. If you had children, the you on Earth would still be responsible for those children. The you on Mars would be able to stay out late and party or do things that the you on Earth could not because the you on Mars would not have children.
To hypothesize, we might be able to prove non-physical nature of mind using a conscious agent which by nature is non-physical. Now the doubt I possibly have is, can an observer/verifier cognize this non-physical process. A sharp logical/analytical mind can ask a question but whether it can comprehend a non-physical phenomenon. I think the place from where questions come out is incapable of finding an answer associated with non-physical existence. There may be further facts. What if we have a non-physical and/or very subtle conscious element within ourselves yet to be experienced, which can help recognise other non-physical activities in our plane. Need more time & stillness!! Journey is on!!
Our identity is essentially the Soul (Ruh) which was there before and after this life.
Robert, I like the way you think... (Also, one cannot entirely know the defining aspects of the character of one's conversant -- unless they disagree on some issue and find themselves in a friendly argument (which is, by all means, a better alternative to martial arts display in a physical skirmish).) I would say that the analogy of trillions of synchronized beer cans giving rise to consciousness was a kind of cheap shot, but it was nonetheless expressed politely. The question of consciousness (or sentience) being emergent quality is also actualized these days with the advancements in information technology known as "generative AI" (or large language models in computational neural networks). So the timing is good...
AI does not have consciousness any more than a mousetrap has consciousness when it closes on a mouse. AI is a simulation of consciousness, not consciousness itself. There is no one in the AI computer. And the concept of emergent properties is inadequate if it is used as a way of reducing consciousness to the material factors with which consciousness is sometimes associated.
Robert poses the notion. What if you replaced every neuron the way you do the planks of a ship - would you still be you? He seems to not realize that that is exactly the case, and that every cell in your body has been replaced since you were born.
@@Eduardude What if you or I were “a simulation of consciousness, not a consciousness itself”? You know, philosophers have long postulated that we can only be (100%) sure of our internal “sense of being” and that the outside world may as well be The Matrix [my loose interpretation] - since we merely decipher our sensory stimuli coming from the outside to the best of our abilities, combined with previous internal states; we construct the model of the outside world in our head - sometimes with more, sometimes with less accuracy… | Mousetrap definitely doesn’t have consciousness: 1) it doesn’t ponder the meaning of its existence with other mousetraps; 2) (and continuing) they neither dispute each other’s assertions, nor do they conspire to, say, storm the building or make a peaceful “pacifist, pro-civil-liberties protests”; 3) (and finally), mousetrap will close on a negligent person’s fingers as likely as it would close on a mouse - (which is an example of its indiscriminate behavior; does it even know what was its prime directive, its purpose in this world)? | I don’t think AI is in any one computer; it is rather spread over vast computing nodes in a datacenter… | The last one (the 4th sentence of your comment I don’t understand). In philosophy and sciences, being emergent means … “having properties as a whole that are more complex than the properties contributed by each of the components individually”. That definition very well extends to the current state of AI. These are deep-learning computer neural networks built on large language models (and realized in FPGA chips)… They seem not only to understand the language (they’ve been trained to understand), but also linguistic subtleties, some basic (physical & mathematical) logic, common concepts and even beyond that. Thinking about that, now once more, and comparing it with classical programming: generative AI is actually amazing. 😀
@@KestyJoe I doubt that Robert, as a trained cognitive neuroscientist and/or neurologist, wouldn’t know “that is exactly the case”… It is precisely the opposite of “not knowing” that motivated him to ask the question - and confront the (once) common misconception… The fine print was about the persistence of the character (if I remember correctly; I don’t have time to re-watch the interview). 😉
@@igor.t8086 that’s why I’m surprised he went there, and that he doesn’t understand that the persistent “self” is an illusion. I’m no more the same “me” vs 10 years ago than my cells.
The Chess master Kuhn does it again.
Endurance on the top of the earth, and the breath such increasing endurance with time will generate during movement. Gravity is a leaves you with a gift of transformation but it seems fucking up is the forte of many thinkers who dislike answers that don't really match with their own.
How does the hardware generate software?
Bruce mentioned it but for some reason it was kind of downplayed...specific perturbations to the brain affect specific aspects of consciousness and self awareness. That is not a trivial point at all even though it is well known and obvious. THAT IS THE POINT.
We always talk about how come physical processes in the brain result in what we call self awareness and/or consciousness. But a huge and often unnoticed or ignored-because-it-is-hiding-in-plain-sight-kind-of-way, implicit assumption in that is that the person experiencing the self awareness has their brain in what we consider a normal working state. If the person's brain is not in a normal working state e.g. very drunk, under influence of drugs, general anesthesia or dead brain - that will have varying degree of effect on the state of self-awareness. The mechanisms/processes that detect and internally perceive the self awareness themselves are part of the brain. If those mechanisms/processes are not working then there is accompanying loss of self awareness. It is not like we have a extra-brain-process mechanism which perceives the self awareness. In other words the processes that detect and internally record/report self awareness themselves are in the brain. Duh. No wonder, whatever they are, when are not in normal working condition, the self awareness goes missing. In other words the very state of self awareness is the state of the brain.
Think of it this way - I know it is obvious in almost a silly way - why doesn't the Anesthesiologist demand some self-respecting, self-awareness from the patient after putting them under general anesthesia? Duh. Because he knows that by administering the general anesthesia the patient's brain has been rendered incapable of producing self-awareness. I am not saying we know exactly how this works but we know consciousness including self-awareness is based on the structure, state and dynamics of the brain processes.
I think this discussion didn't take us to an analysis about the reality of the brain and the mind, but a collection of tests of logical consistence. Not so centered on the question that was initially proposed.
Maybe Mind is all there is.
Where does all the persistent, consistent stream of information about the world around us come from? It can't be generated by the present, conscious aware mind because the aware mind doesn't know what comes next, therefore it must come from somewhere other than the present, conscious, aware mind.
Maybe put down the blunt
@@uninspired3583 blunt seems to be working just fine
@@simonhibbs887 so a mind can only generate what it knows will come next?
@@highvalence7649 There is more to our minds than our immediately present conscious awareness. The vast majority of our cognitive processes are completely unconscious, and that's where most of our ideas, imagination, etc come from and are then presented to our conscious minds.
The claim that conscious awareness and experience is all that exists is not consistent with this account, because if that were the case there would not be any subconscious mind for anything to come from.
If we accept that the subconscious mind is real and fundamental, then that negates the special nature of present conscious awareness, qualia, etc. It means that conscious awareness is only one function of our minds, and since we spend a significant portion of our time unconscious every day, it relegates that present conscious awareness to being just a behaviour of our minds that we sometimes exhibit, and sometimes don't. IMHO this completely sinks the validity of the "consciousness is fundamental" position.
There is a built in copy protection for recreating anything down to it's last iota. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. The mind is a product of the brain . It can't be copied to the level of recreation due to this.
Anything non-physical about the offside rule ?
In order to have a right and wrong answer to whether or not there is something non-physical about the mind, you first need to define "mind" and define "physical" and those definitions are arbitrary, they are just products of how our brain chooses to chop up the world. I think that's Hood's point.
Without definitions, we can observe that, as we make definitions verbally, there is the sounds of your voice as physical tones, and what those tones mean, this illustrates a clear distinction and division of matter and mind.
Maybe “person” is just a concept in a mind at any given instance. If a transporter duplicated me that duplicate would be “me”psychologically at the start but then diverge from me and become his own “person” as “person” is just a concept of self in a real mind. What I AM really, truly, at any moment is the current experience that’s happening RIGHT NOW. “Self” is a concept happening in any experience; real enough, not an “illusion”, but not “REAL” in the same, ultimate ontological sense that “my” current state is. That’s what really real.
The question should be, is there anything non-mind about the physical?
Yes exactly!
Well argued, Robert. Another non-physical argument for the mind is that in a strictly physical world there are no illusions. Physical things are what they are, simply by the Law of Identity. Yet our experience of the world is an illusion taking place inside our heads as an actual physical world could not exist there. Thus the illusion we directly experience, and from which we infer a physical reality, defies a physical explanation.
I don't think that follows. The world as we experience it is a model of reality generated in our minds from our sensory inputs, plus a layer of interpretation based on our expectations and assumptions. This is in principle no different from a weather model in a computer generated from weather station sensor data. The model of the weather is similarly based on a combination of sensory inputs and assumptions built into the software. The weather simulation doesn't defy explanation, and I don't think our model of reality does either. Of course we also have a present aware consciousness, and we don't know how to replicate that, not yet anyway, but I think the relationship between our cognitive model of reality and actual reality is entirely tractable to explanation.
@@simonhibbs887 Keep in mind that any model of reality we experience, and from which we gain knowledge about the world, does not make physical sense because the physical does not of itself model or represent anything. Physical things and physical events simply are what they physically are, no more and no less. Of themselves, they don’t represent anything because as mindless physical things they aren’t about anything. So rather our model of reality explaining the mind, it presupposes the mind.
@@charlesvandenburgh5295 If our internal model of the world did not make sense, then it could not be useful, yet we rely on it and use it effectively all the time.
I agree that in isolation physical objects (by which I mean particles, energy, quantum objects, etc) do not mean anything. However arrangements of physical objects can correspond to arrangements of other physical objects. The position of beads on an abacus don't mean anything intrinsically, but in combination with the rules for using an abacus, and a basket with 3 apples in it, the physical position of the beads in the abacus can correspond to the number of apples in the basket. Hurrah, we can count! So meaning is generated by a set of rules for correspondences between physical structures. This applies to our brains just as much as to the abacus but on a much grander scale.
If you were correct, it would not be possible to construct a functioning computer out of physical components. It wouldn't even be possible to use an abacus.
@@simonhibbs887 As you illustrate, science presumes there is a meaningful correspondence between the world we experience in our heads and a physical world outside of our heads. Since no one can climb outside their heads and confirm a physical world directly, everything known and knowable about such a world comes from our intracranial mental theater. But with no portal within that mental theater connecting it to a world outside of the theater, where is the physical world that the movie says exist. Do we point to the sky and say it is somewhere on the other side of that? While we can form concepts based on the behavior of mental objects in our mental theater to predict the behavior of those objects, concepts as concepts don’t exist in a mindless physical world. So all we’re left with as physical explanations is an inky black unknowable, and any attempt to explain the mental world we directly know by invoking the unknowable explains nothing. On a practical level, we simply label mental objects with certain kinds of mental properties as being physical, which if they were actually physical our heads would explode.
@@charlesvandenburgh5295 "As you illustrate, science presumes there is a meaningful correspondence between the world we experience in our heads and a physical world outside of our heads." - Since we build up that model based on sensory input from the world around us, yes, we have good reason to expect that model to correspond to the world that provided those inputs. This isn't just what 'science' presumes by the way, it's basically the way the human mind and human intellect and understanding of the world was thought to work going all the way back to the ancient greeks. It's what learning is. The portal connecting that mental world to the outside world is our senses, plus our ability to test our perceptions through physical action. This is elementary philosophy going back thousands of years.
My friend's mom has alzheimer's and her mom no longer recognizes her daughter in any way nor does she recognize anyone in any photograph of her life (including photos of herself). If we are to believe that such relationships are spiritual, then it would have to be something that will return to her after she passes away. It is not with her earthly body. Everything was in her brain which is destroyed along with her lifelong relationships. It would be easier to believe in the spiritual if people in this state still recognized their loved ones as if some higher consciousness was in control. There was also someone I went to school with that was in a terrible car crash and got bad head injury. He remembers very little of his life before the crash and his personality is completely different. He recovered enough to understand what a mom and dad are and accepts his parents, but has little to no memory of them before the incident.
I think when we are alive the brain is the one storing the memory but when we die memory will be transferred to the soul.
I can come to the conclusion that there is a soul, But explaining how it works with the brain is almost impossible.
Our souls would have
1. No spatial extension
2. Zero size
3. Exact location only
Quarks have mass but no size. 0D.
Monad would then be the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. (Read Leibniz's Monadology)
What is the definition of zero in math?
Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero. A root of a function is also sometimes known as "a zero of ."
Any non-zero number to the zero power equals one.
Zero to any positive exponent equals zero.
Zero is the subject where counting numbers are the objects.
[Subject]:
a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind.
the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes.
[Object]:
a thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
„If the potential of every number is in the monad, then the monad would be intelligible number in the strict sense, since it is not yet manifesting anything actual, but everything conceptually together in it.“
- Iamblichus On the Monad
The Theology of Arithmetic
Almost all Gnostic systems of the Syrian or Egyptian type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable God, referred to as the Parent or Bythos, or as the Monad by Monoimus.
"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. A being can have a relationship with a God but not the Monad as that would be a contradiction."
- The Apocryphon of John, 180 AD.
I've thought about this when thinking about an infinite universe where it's possible there are multiple copies of you
For how long can this need for magic be sustained? When can one move on? What would it take to impress sufficiently? I'm truly baffled.
Endurance.
What a great conversation!
Lawrence missed a 5th option, perhaps there’s no ‘you’. At least not in the way he is hoping for. ‘You’ might be nothing more than an assembly of aspects, similar to the software example.
Windows 10 is Windows 10 no matter how many computers you put it on. If it was a conscious Windows 10,000, all the computers would be Windows 10,000. And with each different experience, would begin to diverge in the same way the ‘you’s’ on mars and earth would.
4:35 The "essence" of the non physical is relationship.
Obviously the substrate of relationship is matter.
This bit of matter and that bit of matter participate in one or more relationships.
The simplest relationship involves spatial separation and location.
Pattern, process and code are abstract existents.
Abstract existents are immaterial.
Note bene, matter is their substrate for,
without matter they would not, could not, exist.
Abstract existents are ideal tools with which to fashion thoughts.
The fact that matter is their substrate but not their essence
is the fact that makes mind and matter one thing.
The teleporter replicator thought experiment happens in reality with identical twins. To me, it seems sort of supersymmetry is mistaken, and an entire copies made.
This feature of consciousness, will it be or not to be
What is possible beyond the physical brain will further be explore through the physical
Assuming just for the argument that there is a non-physical aspect to the mind, there’s still no logical reason to tag this as “spiritual” or related to anything divine. More likely to be some kind of perception we can’t attribute to the simple senses. Still “sciencey”. Also, we are just animals, so let’s not pretend it would only be a human characteristic.
In the case of multiple personality syndrome (MPS), assume for the sake of simplicity that two personalities exist, A and B in one brain (AB), and that neither personality is aware of the other. Clearly A and B can, according to psychiatric consensus, each be individually conscious when “present”. So then if consciousness requires something besides the material body, are there two non-material entities (A* and B*) in brain AB? How does that work? A* and B* must be “aware” of each other if they are not both inducing consciousness at the same time… or could they be? What if they had an argument and neither was inducing consciousness - would A or B be conscious? These rediculous questions could go on and on, but clearly the whole idea is just nuts. If all individuals require a non-material entity (NME*) to be conscious, how can you deny the possibility that multiple NME*’s might be present in a person? And then why don’t more people exhibit MPS?
You have to define "physical" first. What does that really mean? What is "physical"?
The universe is inside Yours eyes 👀 ❤
There is only one answer: both of them are 'you' and have an inside pov of you. Because it is your copy. And many assumptions are made, like that your pov is determined by your single brain. Therefore this must necessarily be the conclusion
Like others have said, the mind in the brain is like Theseus ship: we don't know how it all comes together in this experience of here and now, but we know it does. Well to be honest the here is not a problem; but the now really is. And that mystery of the experience of the 'now' opposed to the then, might be the same mystery at the basis of the problem of consciousness (at least of its place in the spatial realm)
Mr. Kuhn hasn't thought his desire for consciousness to exist without a body through. Just consciousness without a body would have no sensory input, no communication, no locality. It would be just a thought existing in a void by itself. That would be hell.
Where do you think you are?
"consciousness to exist without a body". I think that is what they call an out of body experience or OoBE. If near death, it is called an NDE.
@rickwyant If consciousness is separate from the brain, why do you believe there would be no awareness of things? Isn't your perspective the exact opposite of the definition for consciousness?
First of all, the title is "Anything Non-physical About the Mind?" - ending with the question mark. Second, "Just consciousness without a body would have no sensory input" - sure, agreed; but "no communication" - I'm not sure... What about telepathy - a direct (hypothetical) exchange of pure information, elemental thought? As for the "no locality" part - don't you know that quantum mechanics is nonlocal (that thingy that spooked Einstein)? And the substrate of this world is quantum-mechanical - or so they say ("they" being the psysicists)... Lastly, "consciousness" would not be as whimsical as "a thought" - but rather somewhat more persistent (and organized) collection of thoughts, bearing at least some idiosyncratic qualities...
What an impoverished view of things! To think that consciousness is nothing but a material something, that the brain is a "meat machine that produces consciousness". Reveals more about the psychologist in the video than it reveals about the world! It reveals that people's minds have become dried out and empty to a significant degree. It reveals that they have never experienced intensely enough what real love is, or else they have forgotten that experience. An experience of love that is sufficiently intense and sufficiently true reveals non-physical reality as indubitably, directly, and definitely as the light of the sun reveals the outer world.
So, we agree that we don't know???
The problem with AI eventually becoming self-aware/conscious is that it's possible to replicate/duplicate precisely. Human/animal consciousness is individualistic.
Except that when you say "individualistic" that's not an inherent property of the conscious experience and awareness itself, it's just that it's harder to copy.
Is there a school of thought that deals with the term 'verify - verification' of an idea and what is the criteria for such?
verificationsim?
@@highvalence7649 Oh? Never heard the word being used thnx!
@@jellojiggle1 there are also theories of "confirmation" in philoophy of science but im not sure your questions concerns that
Bruce says "Brain is a piece of hardware and the mind is the software that runs on it." 0:55. That's a good analogy, yet, it doesn't entail that brain produces the mind. Why not? Because we know that software is never fully produced by hardware: software engineers create the software in their minds and use hardware and other software to implement and then to run the new software.
When it comes to the big question of identity, we can expand the analogy:
We are not a body, the hardware.
We are neither a mind, the software.
We are a Being that is aware.
When I go to sleep then wake up am I the same? I have memories, are they real?
As a programmer, I view physicality as an implementation detail. Is there anything beyond it? Don't know. (But there is a hint in this)
The world is dew/
And yet and yet - Isa
"I have memories, are they real?", yes they are real in that they are memories. Memory is a useful tool for survival and social cohesion. Is the memory of a chair actually a chair. No, it isn't. They're just tools to use when necessary. Do they define self? Yes, I think they do but I am not sure they are fundamental though to what it means to be a conscious being. For instance is the memory of you, you? Just like the chair it's a necessary tool but is the memory of you actually you? Quite probably no.
Imagination isn't a physical thing. Absolute truth is not a physical thing.
You got one right. They aren't things at all. They're both concepts. Do you ever have anything relevant to say?
@@tomjackson7755 So you don't exist.
@@JungleJargon Oh look something else that is completely out of the blue and irrelevant.
@@tomjackson7755 You said there’s no truth.
Information exists as patterns in physical phenomena, such as patterns of ink on paper, the relationship and positions of beads in an abacus, or patterns of electrical charges in a computer memory, or even sequences of photons in an optical signal. These all encode information. Every single bit of information in the world exists as patterns in physical structures in this way. So yes information itself is not 'a' physical thing, but it cannot exist unless encoded physically as a pattern.
I think the person on mars wouldn't have consciousness since the original is still on earth therefore it's someone else. The split brain would be two different versions of an individual but one would be much more like the original which would be obvious overtime. It's like alternate realities and personalities/identities.
And if a computer simulated brain can be conscious, then what if you ran the simulation entirely by hand with pencil and paper? -this was a thought experiment I saw on a video called “Physics Simulations and Simulating the Human Brain” by Physics Videos Eugene Khutoryansky
On the Ship of Theseus, suppose when the first plank is removed and replaced we renamed the ship SOT1. When the next plank is replaced we increment it to SOT2, and so on. The whole problem has nothing to do with the nature of things, only the naming of things. Human every day language is just too crude a system to capture all the subtleties of the physical world and the processes constantly ongoing around us. However it's good enough for most of our purposes, and frankly many of the details it omits are superfluous and would be pointless distractions most of the time. Nevertheless, this is just an edge case where the crudities of language need a bit of additional refinement. Does the same argument apply to human beings? Sure. I'm still 'me' but I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago. The fact that legally and socially I'm considered the same for most purposes, but not all. Now I'm an adult, where prior to 1984 I was not. Persistent identity is simply a convenient fiction of human society.
Interesting comment. And I think true. However, outside the SOT example, there is some aspect of personal identity that doesn’t seem to be explained or even talked about much and I find very puzzling . That is, why am “I” conscious in this body? How did I get here? Etc.
@@pbockhorst Whatever else the brain done, one of it's functions is processing information. Sensations go in, it maintains memories, and decisions come out. Unlike very simple organisms that simply respond to external stimuli directly, higher mammal brains create a mental model of the world that they can reason about. Predators know the layout of their territory, can plan and co-ordinate attacks based on the anticipated behaviour of their prey, etc. We also create mental models of other thinking beings to help us reason about their motivations and behaviour, and indeed of ourselves. I think this is when consciousness arises, when we have a sophisticated internal model of our own mental processes and place in the world that we can reason and wonder about.
@@pbockhorst "why am “I” conscious in this body"
I agree with Simon.
You and I and Simon are selfs.
My self is the thought to which the word 'self' refers when I use it.
It is my self who is conscious.
I believe my being conscious is the process in which my self
is modulated by other thoughts.
All thoughts are about.
What thoughts are about is always something else
except in the unique case of the thought which is about its self.
Agree that thoughts are abstract entities and
one is driven to the conclusion that one is an abstract entity.
This certainly accounts for my sense of being an immaterial existent.
The question then becomes,
'how can matter give rise to abstractions'?
I think the answer is astonishingly simple and
can be found by thinking about how
Magritte's painting of a pipe is not a pipe and
about how language statements like this one,
which consists of mere patterned squiggles,
is able to convey meaning and
about how sense organs and neurons are able
to encode the world around us.
What if consciousness is a real, physical phenomenon that can't be seen or detected and is known only by its effects? Then what?
He would investigate only but this time he argued...
The end of the video illustrates what happens when you try to apply scientific reasoning to an a-scientific question.
Although we cannot prove that consciousness has no metaphysical properties (and will never be able to since it shouldn’t interact with the physical world) doesn’t make the claim more reasonable.
The fact is, according to all our observations, consciousness is created by our brains. A metaphysical element seems to be unnecessary and the idea complicates unnecessarily the description of reality.
The question whether there is or isn’t a metaphysical element to the consciousness is a-scientific same as the question whether god or the spaghetti monster exist.
I’m not saying it’s not an illegitimate question, which it totally is, but science can neither help prove or disprove it.
And also, about some of the questions raised during the interview - we might have question without definitive answers since we’re not asking the right questions. We don’t fully understand even what consciousness is, so how can we be sure we’re asking the correct questions about it?
Fascinating to me as the parent of a child with (diagnosed and treated for the past six years) dissociative identity disorder. He's had it since he was eight, as far as we know, around two years after a violent s. attack when he thought he was going to die. He came close. Anyway the personalities have grown and changed over time. he's 18 now and there are 19 personalities within his precious mind, all different aspects of his own mind. He has the children, the protectors, shadows he has named, and the worst was the ghost of one of the people who hurt him and then took their own life. He blames himself for that because even though he was violently attacked by this person he thinks because he reported him that's why he did it. So this person has taken space in his head too.
Every one of these personalities has a different story and voice. I never really know who I'm talking to but my son, my child, his personality is gone now. They have completely taken over. He can't function anymore. I just took him out of school because he can't do the work. He can't focus on anything. Sometimes when he's one of the children he can't even remember how to hold his bladder. He is completely lost and the meds they put him on just make him sleepy and jerky. He doesn't see me as his mother, he sees me as someone who is there beyond the wall who brings him food and reminds him to do the very basic self-care functions.
Nobody ever hit him in the head. There was no physical brain damage in the attack. It's been altered not due to something physical happening to the brain itself, but something environmental has affected his mind terribly.
What I think is the mind isn't just physical, it's apt to change because of the environment it's in and that dictates how the data it receives is processed.
I also think if we could stop godding up every gap in our understanding we might have the energy to understand the environmental impact on the brain that alters the mind. Deep down I think we already know this stuff but there's this desperation to link it to something supernatural. "Not physical' doesn't mean it has to be something purposely controlling the strings externally.
Firstly I can't imagine how difficult this is for you, best wishes to all of you and my deepest respect for your ongoing love and care for him.
Human neurology is fantastically complex. When the brain forms the neurons reach out in a semi-random searching process to find other neurons to link up to. This means even genetically identical twins have very different low level details of their neural architectures, though all within the parameters of the overall structure of the brain. I'm sure we'll never know what combination of existing neurological structure, previous experiences, and the inciting trauma itself lead to the specific symptoms he experiences. I hesitate to even comment, who am I to intrude with an opinion, so take this as you will. For me, all of these behaviours are your son. That is who he is. All of us are a collection of different neurological processes taking place in various regions of the brain.
Our conscious awareness is a surface layer hiding unfathomable depths of cognitive activity of which we are completely unaware. My wife has Aphantasia, a common situation in which the person has no inner monologue, she does not hear a voice when reading a book and in fact can't even imagine what that is like. Meanwhile our daughter says she is aware of what she is going to say in the future several seconds in advance, even while talking rapidly off the cuff. She also has mild Tourette's syndrome. For me the words just come out as though from nowhere, but she has some internal conscious awareness of the mental processes generating language that I don't have. We all have very different internal experiences of consciousness in many respects, we have different sides to our personalities, and your son is a very special case. I wish I could say something helpful, but I'm not a neurologist or doctor of any kind. I just offer my best wishes.
Maybe these personalities are real? I know a person in our distant family. She had an accident. Afterwards, she talked in another language which she never had learned. The whole personality had changed as if another spirit had entered her body.
So, assumed that this could be true the only way to get rid of those personalities might be the strengthening of body and mind through sime lenghthy procedure to make it impossible for other personalities to enter. I must admit that I myself once in my life had the clear experience of having entered another body and even felt the pulse of the heart. I felt that it was wrong to do that.
I would advise not to exclude such phenomena from consideration. They do not sound scientific, but what can science really tell us about reality?
@@simonhibbs887 Fascinating!
Cannot imagine how difficult it is, best wishes to all of you. I think environmental influence is still physical in some sense, anything that comes through sense and experience changes the brain in a way, like PTSD, there is no direct physical damage, but brain is drastically changed. Some areas shut down and it goes into survival mode, only essential parts work. It is very complex, some parts rewire, some long term damage is there after traumatic event. Fascinating and scary...
Seems like we are not in control at all, we just witness consciousness, which is by-product of processes that happen in the brain, it is all chemistry of the whole system.
@@simonhibbs887 My son has aphantasia too! he's also autistic, was diagnosed with ASD-2 when he was four. He never spoke until he was five but now he speaks with the voice of several people. It's all very strange.
I am also autistic, diagnosed years ago as well, and I think it's really interesting comparing the autistic thought process with the allist. We struggle to communicate with each other and we're the ones told we much change to accomodate the people who aren't autistic. If we don't do that at an early age they push us in to therapies
This term consciousness...
To determine if there is anything non-physical about the mind, you first need to identify / detect a true (i.e. evidence-based) non-physical anomaly in the physical world / Universe.
Not necessarily, the physical world is only the default model in 'our' senses-based analysis of the world. Non-physical dynamics might front-run or carry/sustain the physical world. Empiricism narrows explicitly and massively what we can learn from and about the world.
@@lucnijs2205 The physical world is the real world . The default model of senses- based analysis of the world is called the sensible world. There is no such thing as non-physical dynamics. Physics is the dynamic or the physical world. We are bounded observers in an infinite world and that is the reason we are limited in what we can learn about the world.
@@kos-mos1127
“The physical world is the real world”
Uh huh. That’s a claim. But you can only use non-physical experience - the modeling your mind creates based on sensory input - to make that claim. You have no direct non-modeled access to “reality”
So you want to use a device made of energy & matter, for measuring energy & matter .... to detect a unnatural anomaly such as a soul or spirit not of energy or matter? Good luck.
Science can only explain ... Natural Phenomena ... as it is bound by the Laws of Nature.
Science can never explain how a soul or spirit works, nor can these entities be detected using man made devices.
But Science can prove the existence of the Unnatural ... with the origin of anything that is a Function.
There is zero evidence that nature & natural processes .. can made, operate & improve ... the simplest physical function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago ... or .. the simplest physical function made by Man (Intelligence).
The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories, and Thermodynamic Systems (Functions) ... prove everything is a Function with purpose, form, processes, properties & design ... and .. were made by an Intelligence of an UNNATURAL timeless & infinite System.
Time & Laws of NATURE ... are functions .. made by an UNNATURAL & timeless Intelligence.
Man is a Natural Intelligence ... with a body & Mind ... made by an Unnatural intelligence with only a Mind
The Mind of an Intelligence has to be Unnatural ( soul/spirit).
The Mind of Man is natural (body) & unnatural (soul).
A chimp has a body & Mind .. and 99% of human genes ... but it can not think & do 9% of what the mind & body of Man can think & do.
Animals only have a body ... for freewill, nature & consciousness. Once dead, the animal ceases to exist.
The Body is the Mind of Man when alive ... and is conscious of the Natural.
The Soul is the Mind of Man when the body dies ... and is conscious of the Unnatural.
Both the body & soul .. have freewill, nature, memory, thought, feelings, senses and consciousness. Science can only explain how the body & brain works.
And the Nature of Man ... is clearly corrupt ... and is the body ... which means there must a a common ancestor who passed on this "corruption" by something he & she did ... less than 6x 1000 years ago.
Again. Everything is clearly a Function and we only know Functions are made by an Intelligence. This is how you can use the Laws of nature ... to prove the "existence" or reality of the Unnatural
@@deanodebo The term physical means real. That is not a claim that is the meaning of the word physical. In order to have a model of the world in our mind there needs to be a real world that contains all the information content that is being modeled.
Only by total negation can we arrive at truth. Thinking is limited by the content of thought, memory. Therefore, no thought can ever arrive at truth. All conclusions based on information are false. Consciousness itself is a construct of thought. What happens when thought is silent?
Closer to truth never disappointed me, is very difficult to build new ways of thinking and this Guy just did it. Respect. Btw I'm just and uneducated young man, and I'm not even sober. Thinking allowed
Could consciousness be a fundamental field our brains interact with?
Not likely. That would produce detectable changes.
There is orch orr theory, but it's pretty fringe and not generally regarded as viable.
Yes God's broadcast station and we are receivers. That is the analogy I heard from one of Robert's guests. I can't disprove it so it is true.
There is no such thing as consciousness.
Being conscious is a process
just like being alive is a process
(and by process I mean something astoundingly complex).
Process is an abstract notion and that's why
it feels immaterial to be.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Consciousness is more than just a computational process. If your brain is processing different things at the same time such as size, color, sound, etc who does it report the results to?
@@dissturbbed I agree that being conscious is not a computational process.
Rather, the word conscious refers to the process in which analogy type thoughts modulate the self thought.
Thought I take to be analogy instantiated in coded form by neural discharge frequency.
I find this hypothesis compelling as it unifies mind an matter.
There is a simple, basic proof that illustrates what sentience is, and what it is not. It's called the Quantum Chinese Room. In the Quantum Chinese Room we continue the exploration that began with the Chinese Room - namely, the argument it apparently makes that machines cannot possess understanding because they can be made to appear to be conscious - to observe two points: that we have no capacity to determine the actual state of the room's sentience without the foreknowledge of its construction, and are therefore forced to recognize it as sentient regardless of its 'actual' composition, and that the perception of the sentience of the room is utterly dependent on our perspective - the room is simultaneously 'a perceiver' and also 'not a perceiver' depending on whether you observe inside or outside the room - in other words, it exists in a state of permanent superposition with it's environment and is, therefore, always present in everything - because it can be perceived in everything with the right point of view. This shows that sentience is itself fundamentally non-local, even though our bodies are.
Thought experiments are not evidence.
I greatly enjoy viewing Kuhn’s discussions, and those of other CZcams posters who discuss their views on the origins of the universe, of consciousness and other great mysteries of our existence. The presenters are generally some of the best minds and scholars of their disciplines and so generate sophisticated arguments for their theses. However, I must find serious fault with almost all of the arguments proposed, allowing only that a few discussions such as those by Penrose, Smolin and the like may lead to ways to circumvent the failings of attempts to use inflation theories to explain the origins of the universe.
The great fallacy in the above mentioned discussions on cosmology is that we have only one data “point,” i.e., the current observable universe. Explanations in terms of unobserved deities and multiverses harken back to days of arguments about angels on the heat of a pin, i.e. wholly mythical and unobservable beings and abilities.
Likewise, arguments on the origin and mechanism of consciousness are almost wholly conjectural, and lacking evidence based on measurements necessary for scientific rigor.
My humble conjecture is that the stuff of the universe is eternal, it is simply what is (that one nasty data point), though its forms certainly change (evolve) according to mostly (presently) knowable laws of physics. Mathematics works so well because we evolved beings have found that what we perceive (measure) with our senses, (as interpreted by our consciousness), can be quantified, first as extent and duration, later as force and motion, and most recently as quantum properties and laws.
Similarly, the only mystery of consciousness should be how the first self replicating molecule was formed. We now know that evolution, given certain elements and energy sources, can lead to progressively more complex and adaptable organisms, leading to our current ecosystem (if we can keep it) and our minds. As language and tool usage were enabled by our larger and more complex minds, the system we call consciousness would have co-evolved to allow us to use these abilities to manage our environment to our benefit, e.g., by planning, predicting and socializing. Trying to deduce how this works is a good challenge to physicists and biologists, but is certain to be daunting. This may mean I am a “mechanist” in this matter, but to those looking for deities or quantum gremlins to explain mentation, I say get off of that pinhead and get some data. Then we can do the math, maybe even using quantum computing.
"Mathematics works so well " but unfortunately in many cases it doesn't. When we hit certain barriers such as space time constructs calculating such things as measurements from a particle collider, the formulae become enormous and unmanageable. So when we try to get to a deeper nature of things (read reality as perceived) then our senses are something not particularly dependable. Create an as yet proven idea of space time as a construct of interaction between the nature of measurement as a conscious mode, and the underlying reality, whatever that is, and again we're in difficulties. So now it has become important to consider a whole host of unprovable ideas to see if we can break that barrier. A lot of guesswork and a lot of getting it wrong but there are some interesting discoveries that seem to point to a deeper nature that does not accede to space time such as geometries like the ampituhedron.
I'm not a scientist by the way and do not claim an understanding of the ampitudhedron but I understand the arguments for looking in these directions.
"Similarly, the only mystery of consciousness should be how the first self replicating molecule was formed." not if consciousness somehow has a quantum field nature? It's also interesting that we have evolved a consciousness that can model things that from an evolutionary point of view are completely unnecessary? I say completely but there may be some hidden need to evolve in that direction we can't see yet.
What a head fuke, loved it
They got the teleporter wrong. It always create a copy. The one left back has to be destroyed.
Last night I drank six units of alcohol and found myself bawling out the lyrics of 'The End' by the Doors - "WAITING FOR THE SUMMER RAIN" and it then occurred to me that no computer, no AI, no artificial general intelligence, could ever subjectively experience such qualia moments. I agree with Roger Penrose - consciousness is not computational. Marcel Proust's madeleine would go unexperienced by AI.
Bingo is a game
If my house burns down taking me , that means my house generated me?
exactly, the logic is so silly, yet it's so common to hear these ridicolous arguments.
also, if a house burns down and kills a person in it, that means that house generates people, hahahaha
That new ship IS a NEW ship.
Editing glitch there at the end.
Unless we know the CONSCIOUS thing in the existence we cannot understand and answer the question of MIND as non physical thing. Most urgent aspect our knowing is " experience of conscious by matter ". you can discus with me.
So when you perceive a physical thing, it is supernatural and natural at the same time?
Nonsense.
@@fragileomniscience7647
pcharihar84 didn't mention natural or supernatural.
There are plenty of immaterial existents.
Pattern and process are fine examples.
Yes, both depend for their existence on a material substrate but
neither IS the matter they depend on.
Rather, they are abstract notions.
I'm quite sure thoughts are very much like pattern and process.
Thoughts are very likely encoded by the neural discharge frequency process.
Thoughts are not matter but are thoroughly dependent on a material substrate.
Yes?
Since consciousness is (generated by) material (factors), yes, a computer can become conscious. And that's why we need a system that does not use creativity for individualistic profit, aka capitalism. Artificial consciousness for the purpose of ever-growing profit will make our life miserable, destroy the planet, and probably create unethical “artificial suffering” on the part of the “conscious machines.”
Edit: what is written in parentheses, which was pointed out to me by Christopher in the replies below.
Consciousness, which is a subjective experience, is very obviously NOT "material." It cannot be empirically, directly studied, isolated, quantified, etc. You can certainly argue that it is completely dependent on or generated by material factors, but that is not what you said. I'm not being needlessly persnickety here with wording; clarity of terms and claims is important.
@@christopher9152 Hey, you are entirely correct! Love your comment. Thanks for taking the time to complement my opinion. And I don't want to be needlessly defensive here, but I guess that's what I meant when I said that consciousness “is material," and I thought people would understand it like that. However, it doesn't hurt to clarify, so thanks again.
@@psicologiajoseh There has been no direct scientific observation that consciousness is generated by material factors. Consciousness is not something that can be directly physically observed, therefore it has never been directly observed emerging from or caused by material factors. If someone opens my brain, my consciousness will not pour out like some liquid that could be gathered in a bottle or observed under a microscope. People sometimes argue that consciousness emerges from the brain, but that is just theory, and in many ways poor theory, certainly not direct observation. Check out the Nobel Prize winning (or Nobel Prize nominated) brain scientist John Eccles' book, called The Self and its Brain.
perhaps the great filter is real and is indeed the main explanation for the fermi paradox.
if the evolution (beyond a certain point) of biological intelligence ultimately always creates scenarios where we destroy our environments and ourselves, that would seem to be consistent with what we are experiencing now.
the dangers of a looming WW3 and ultra destructive weapons, our indifference to the destruction of our natural habitat etc. we aren't out of the woods yet and who is to say that any other advanced intelligence ever does make it out of the woods.
maybe the evolution of a certain level of intelligence is just a precursor for the inevitable reset and an Earth intelligence reboot happens all over again soon.
when you say consciousness is generated by material factors, do you mean to propose that all instances of consciousness are generated by material factors?
It is logical and reasonable to not believe the claim that the mind is "non-physical" because you should not believe in things you don't or can't know.
This objection is self refuting
@@sgloobal2025 can you elaborate more on that?
@@redeyewarrior Well because the same can be said for the opposing position
@@sgloobal2025 no it can't because there is no evidence to support a "non-physical" claim so it is unknown and if it is unknown how can one make the claim which has a burden of proof?
@@redeyewarrior everybody who makes a claim, stipulation, or predication has a burden of proof. Its self refutation because you don't know that the mind is a physical thing. You simply assume it is.
Anything non-mental about the physical?
Is the brain the source of the mind or some kind of conduit?
conduit.
If it were a conduit, we could detect and measure the thing it's conducting. So not a conduit.
@@uninspired3583 or maybe we couldn't detect and measure it
@@highvalence7649 then what you have is speculation at best, not a reason to be convinced.
@@uninspired3583 Science is too primitive to trace quantum entanglement. or any other mechanism like that.
Its chemistry...
If someone is interested in this question, read The Big Picture by Sean Carroll, where he answers this exact question. And the answer is no, there's nothing non -physical about the brain, because if there was, then that would necessarily have some kind of an effect on the physical brain, otherwise it would just be useless. Bit the thing is that on a fundamental level, there's nothing about the brain that we can't explain with modern physics such as the Core Theory etc. Not that we understand everything about the brain psychologically (that we don't, obviously), but as far as the actual atoms that constitute our brain go, then there's nothing that we can't explain with a simple naturalistic approach and a bit of knowledge in physics. So there's simply no room for a supernatural, spiritual or some other non-physical dimension.
But I really explained this badly because I am not educated enough on the matter and also English is not my first language haha. So go and read the book guys, it's amazing. Sean Carroll is amazing!
The problem with all that is people do experience telepathy and NDE so empirically those of us who have had such experiences know that we are not just the brain. When you die you will experience the non-physical you that is your essence there is no getting away from this everyone will have that experience just read the NDE literature.
“Anecdotal evidence, which the skeptics so readily dismiss, is actually empirical
observation and ought to be the beginning of investigation, not the end of it.”
Tessa B Dick
But mind does have effects on the physical brain. The extent to which that is true has been brought out in a lot of recent research. Choices we make over the long term create different brain structures. We can to some extent form our own brains over time.
There is nothing in the standard model that would allow for qualia, so physics isn't able to explain how we experience consciousness
1 59 ask the tibetan meditation