Susan Blackmore - Does Consciousness Lead to God?
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 09. 2021
- Why does the mystery of consciousness lead some to the existence of God and a spirit world, and others to only the physical world and the physical brain? What is it about consciousness that enables such divergent inferences (from smart folks on both sides)? For those who would like to believe in God, can the mere existence of consciousness help their belief?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/3gTb1k5
Susan Jane Blackmore is an English freelance writer, lecturer, and broadcaster on psychology and the paranormal, perhaps best known for her book The Meme Machine.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, 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.
She never once asks herself, “What makes my thinking possible?, Where does it come from?”.
She also strongly believes that consciousness is something that arises from within her. Rather, it’s something that we are linked into and have thoughts and sensations. We experience thinking through consciousness, rather than consciousness causing our thinking.
Basically she is saying, "Consciousness is an illusion, but my conclusion about this illusion is not an illusion".
I think Blackmore is saying we assign biased values to things, but the meaning derived from the conclusion is real.
@@projectmalus No she is not, She is saying that the self you believe in, the evidence doesn’t support it. Even how you think you think, isn’t correct.
If by "basically" you mean "i'm going to make up my own totally inaccurate summary of what her point is" then yes you are absolutely correct.
Have you heard of 5meo dmt?
She's full of crap. This interview was a total waste of time.
The more they study, the less they know. The mystery of existence eludes them totally.
When religion trys to keep a hold where it's no longer needed.
The problem is that people think we see reality as it is. The brain is an icon. Conscious processes come first, matter is a representation of conscious processes. This has been shown empirically by Hoffman and Friston.
The brain is a physical organ made of matter which produces consciousness.
When the brain dies so does consciousness.
@@JamesRichardWiley Physicality is a part of the user interface that evolution grants us. It's not the real world. Furthermore, physicality is an experience. You are trying to say that the brain exists outside of experience in some abstract material world by appealing to the experience of a physical, solid brain.
@@JamesRichardWiley decades of Scientific experiments prove the Opposite. Consciousness lingers beyond death, even after Total destruction of the brain from meningitis
Hoffman has not proven anything empirically -- he admits so himself. It's hypothetical -- again, he admits so himself.
It's you, who want it to be true so badly, that you lie to yourself, and with enough people lying to themselves, it creates an impression of being real. That's how religions are born.
That says little about that fact that if your consciousness is representing a wall in front you and you attempt to walk through the wall; that you in fact hit the wall and can't.
"I cannot grasp all that I am." Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote those words in the fourth century c.e. And now, fourteen centuries later, a science revolution, Renaissance, and an Enlightenment, we still don't know who we are. We're more likely to get an answer among homeless people than among comfortable academics.
.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”
The answers of this lady are perfectly consistent with her structural inconsistency. If she doesn't believe she's an individual, why is she so passionately asserting her own individual ideas?
You experience her speaking her words, but the idea is that as far as her internal conscious experience is concerned, there is no ‘self’ in the driving seat, who is the coordinator and explorer of ‘the world’. As far as I understand, it could be interpreted to mean that the entire world is merely experiential, and some of those experiential modes (having a body, private thoughts etc) do not have any hierarchical superiority to any other mental states. I.E, the thoughts aren’t you - the thoughts are just part of the experience as a whole. As Bernardo Kastrup says, there is most certainly an experiencer, this is entailed in there being an experience. it is just that this experiencer is purely the awareness of what’s happening, not any of what’s happening. I am not my brain, body or thoughts. I am the awareness of those things. This is what I believe is meant by ‘there is no self’.
@@Sierpinskiii The material self ending up in death is certainly illusory, but at the core of that there's the true self. Blackmore's impersonal viewpoint aims to the annihilation of the true self.
@@bluelotus542 What remains in this annihilation is the experiencer, not any notions of ‘who I am’
@@Sierpinskiii"Who am I?" is the basic question that cannot be answered by material science.
Our consciousness is organized around neuronal electrochemical responses. Something happen and cause action in certain molecules, they shift position and bound to special kind of molecules because of that disturbance, so those neuronal became shaped and will respond differently to a now marked and remembered event. New information gets integrated in neuronal structure, our personality is slightly changed, transformation of structure continues adaptation to the next physical event.
Even after watching this channel for the past 1 year ...... still not able to make a decision.....
Is consciousness not just another word for soul?
Everyone is satisfied only with answers they expect and never to real or exact. It's impossible for us to have open minds without preconditioning /prejudices.
That thumbnail and title has absolutely nothing to do, with that was discussed in this clip.
So, here we sit amidst the pointlessness of the Universe.
@@SingtotheMountainStudio each and every one of us(including insects, trees and so on) is the point.... That's the problem...
@@lolnumere But this thumbnail, if what tabansteintv says is true, forces us to see thumbnails in an entirely new way. In fact it is not an exaggeration that this alleged mismatch between thumbnail and content completely upends all we know about the cosmos and reality itself. We can't just dismiss it away, surely.
@@hinteregionsLol.
Being conscious simply means evolution is having an experience of itself. In our case, as humans. The more we pay attention to everything that happens in our mind and body the more we realize that we can't really do anything but observe. The only will we have is the will of "cause and effect" aka. God/Love/oneness. We all have that will, but only if we realize our true identity hiding underneath the egoic experience. Existence itself can only become self-conscious through duality. this is why the universe exists. Our ultimate purpose is to become fully aware of this.
They can deny their own existences - fine for them. I have a hard time doing that - I'm really here.
Listen to the facts of near death experiences ..it will enlighten you. Way more then what this lady did..
Yes!!! Everyone should know what the research for NDE'S show.
You didn't listen to this lady though, did you.
@@hinteregions what do you mean? I listened to every word and she has no clue because she clearly has not looked at the data for NDE's.
@@lindal.7242 What do NDE's tell us about consciousness? What data do you refer to, that she is so remiss in not looking at?
@@hinteregions I left another comment on this post, please read it as it answers your question.
What a lovely lady! She got it right and she has humility to admit that she doesn't know how it really is.
How did she get it right if she does not what it is?
@@preethiuday8247 EXCELLENT point!
I’d say she has no clue.
@@cprove5751 like most people, who can't accept that nihilism (no purpose & no existence after death) is the most probable reality. That, it's not about us.
Consciousness leads to awareness. Awareness of environment. Then adapting to be more aware of it. Relative to its environment. Just as important is its all Relative to its past environment and the ways awareness sensed its environment.
We don’t need neurophysiology or buddhist monks to establish that there isn’t a self. I experience what I call myself just as directly as I experience the apples and trees and skies. They are things ‘I’ am subjected to. There is no sense in which any of the things that are experienced (like the body, brain, or even thoughts) are themselves the experiencer - as we have believed for so long. I feel so aligned with my body, and that ‘I’ appears to be my thoughts. In reality, this consistency and alignment is just as much experiential and in consciousness as the redness of an apple. The entire world has been delivered experientially. It is not conciousness inside my head, but rather my head appearing in consciousness.
You experience nothing 'directly' of the world external to yourself because one's perceptions are mediated if not provided by the five or more senses, there is no 'directly' involved and that is Philosophy 1.01.
No, consciousness always exists inside a mind, and only part of a mind at that. And minds always exist in a biological brain. Every single time.
@@havenbastion Setting aside questions to do with AI. Out of courtesy to our apologist visitors. We should also not speak to them of the seeming autonomy of the complex nervous systems in the heart and gut. Also the 'argument from ignorance,' we don't want them getting hold of our black swan, no telling what they might do.
@@hinteregions When i say directly, I am trying to say that conscious experience is all you are ever subjected to. In that sense, your thoughts are of the same nature as your perceptions of an outside world - they are both subjective and first person. All I am saying is that identification with the former and stating that ‘i am my thoughts’ and feel as if I am just sitting inside my head is just as arbitrary as saying that I identify with a tree that comes into my field of view. Both things appear within consciousness (of course with thoughts being much more consistent). In that way, thoughts are just as direct as my outward perceptions, however of course we are not directly experiencing objective physical reality, as I said, our subjectivity is all we ever have.
@@havenbastion What is your distinction between Mind and consciousness? Additionally I would like to point out the well known ‘hard problem of consciousness’ which is the explanatory gap between the positions of neurons and brain matter in general - to the vivid qualities of experience. More importantly to me however, is the fact that consciousness is what has illuminated to us what we call the brain. When we speak of consciousness, we speak of what it’s like to see blue, or to feel a stomach ache. We seem to have forgotten that no matter how much we delve into the brain, the thing we are delving into is just like the blue, and the stomach ache! It is made up of subjectivity. It has only ever been viewed through the lens of first person consciousness, and thus insistence upon finding an explanatory model between brain activity, and all of consciousness, is like trying to work out how the forms of the flames cause the ignition of the fire. Concsciousness, or experience as a whole if you’d like, has illuminated the entire world we have ever known. Every object, every thought, every emotion, every discovery, every religion and every single hypothesis of reality in fact - occurs within consciousness.
“Very familiar w/ how the brain works” lol
They don't know what they mean. It just sounds smart.
Amazing how intelligent people conclude there is no reason for anything accept their conclusion.
Aha, you must be talking about religious people. Indeed.
So called intelligent people, but for decades has lived in the fog of her own delusions and is blinded to all other reasonable theses.
@@hinteregions that doesn't follow, but why expect logic from a fallacy machine.
@@gwenelbro3719 she is not even aware that she is reasoning that reason doesnt exist!
@@hinteregions no he’s not!! He said intelligent people!!
And yet we are more than our physical existence. Our brain is a biological computer that does a fantastic job making our physical existence possible but it also works with the other aspect of our life, the energy we are made of, energy fields that are part of us but also part of the universe we're connected to. Consciousness is energy that holds knowledge. Our memories etched to energy fields are those we can experience again once we move to the next cycle of life, or as we call: Reincarnation. As we are all connected to the energy that this universe consists of, we are also connected to God as we imagine it to be, the source of that consciousness, the one that holds it all, shares it with everything that creates our reality. We cannot ignore the fact that we are not just a physical body. Energy fields that can be detected and treated. Energy that can be translated into life perception and experience. It is a powerful force that needs to be recognized and understood. I know, because I practice it.
Kuhn has a lot of questions where there's no human able to really answer.
Because no human can. Indeed, fine tuning & the weak & strong anthropic principals are an example. The multi-verse with its substrate of eternal inflation theory may very well be the answer. Yet, it's unfalsifiable, at least in the opinion of the theoretical & experimental physics of today.
And yet we ask. And, as the woman said, we are making a lot of progress in understanding cognition and perception, and that is true, go and see Stanford Prof Robert Sapolsky, his entire course is sitting here on YT free.
They all start with a lot of the history, philosophy, tell what the other scientists think.. Then finally they admit they don't know either ;-)
It may be problematic because of the way questions are proposed. The scientific method is to first make a theory or hypothesis, and then test the theory by accumulating a data set which can be analysed.
_synchronistic mathematics_ takes a slightly different approach.
Science, Religion, Philosophy, Mathematics, Academics, are not interested in finding through examination of empirical evidence and direct subjective experience. These institutions desire validation rather than a new frontier.
Cicero, in the second book of "The Nature of the Gods," gives eloquent expression to this theological status of the visible universe. Since his argument, compounded of elements from Stoic sources, is supremely instructive, we quote it here almost in full, indicating the main logical stages by interpolated headings.
(General statement)
There is then a nature [heat] which holds together and sustains the universe, and it possesses both sensibility and reason. For every- thing which is not separate and simple but joined and connected with other things must have within it some governing principle. In man it is mind, in beasts something similar to mind [sense], from which the appetites arise. ... In each class of things nothing can be or ought to be more excellent than this its governing principle. Hence that ele- ment wherein resides the governing principle of Nature as a whole must be the best of all things and most worthy of power and dominion over all things. Now we see that in certain parts of the cosmos-and there is nothing anywhere in the cosmos which is not a part of the whole-sensibility and reason abide. In that part, therefore, in which the governing principle of the cosmos resides, these same qualities must of necessity be present-only keener and on a grander scale. Therefore the cosmos must also be wise, for that substance which encompasses and holds all things must excel in the perfection of its reason; and this means that the cosmos is God and that all its particular powers arc contained in the divine nature. . . .
Nope, everything began as a hydrogen, and we know for sure proton, neutron and electron are not smart.
Theology is attempting to explain the impossible in terms of the improbable. In other words, it's bullshit.
Yes I believe as much. That all of the universe, all of existence IS itself God and so intelligent. But what exactly is the substratum of God? All indications are pointing to consciousness itself since given the double slit experiment consciousness seems to influence how matter behaves at least at the most fundamental micro level. The consciousness I speak of though is not necessarily everyday human consciousness, that is to say human waking awareness I should add. The ancient Vedic Hindu's were on to this also. There is a fantastic book by Ervin Laszlo "Science and the Akashic Field" that postulates this.
In the quietest of moments in between heartbeats the soul speaks to us through our consciousness. The very essence of life is to live in those precious few moments that we are all allotted when we are born. At first we have no idea of the how's and why's of this world. As we get older we are taught to be as we should be. We are either loved or not by the people around us. Even as a baby we are attuned to this precious gift bestowed upon us by something that as we get older becomes a mysterious presence in our lives. Babies can pick up on these emotional waves emanating from their own parent/s or even from a stranger. Like how the little one reflexively smiles when you smile at them when they're in their crib or stroller, but they do this more so towards the Female form as opposed to the Male. Some sensory conditions that are latent in nature when we are born or conceived whatever you're beliefs are I can and do respect them. It is strange to think that the consciousness of someone might have some indirect route straight to "God" in whatever manifestation you're religious affiliations are and whatever image that may be. It has been said over the years "God" speaks to us. I would like to believe in that notion. But, in doing so I think that I have no way of understanding his dialog that continues to speak to me and show me his everlasting grace and mercy. If I had the chance to sit speak to "God" just one time. Would I ask him the same old questions everyone else wants to ask. But greater still comes the answers to those questions that we have no way of understanding the questions that need to be asked of him. To me He is "God" and doesn't need to answer to anyone or anything on this plane or any other for that matter. Only He knows and sees the paths that we all walk in this life and the next and the one after that and so forth and so on till the end of time. That is if I were to believe in the construct of this postulates of religious beliefs, values and ideologies. I would like to believe that waits for us all beyond the vail of this life as we remove the shroud of passing that we are in the presence of something so beautiful that "It" cannot be expressed by any words that are in use now or in the foreseeable future. Except maybe "LOVE" but even that word binds us and constrict's us from truly loving someone or some omnipresent Being's. However it is my belief that one day a very long time from now that if "God" is in fact real and chooses to show himself for all the world to see so that in the next world we can all sit at the Table of Life and speak to him directly. That would be my hope for all of Humanity.
Everyone stay safe out there.
Peace
Let me simplify your lame attempt to poetically describe our lives in a metaphysical context. The emotion of love is a survival element within the framework of biological evolution.
@@Ascendlocal that's just sooooooooo funnnnny rotf. What a joke you are in your small world.
@@alwaysnaked7642 You do realize your comment is not an argument, Daryl, yes? So, who has the limited, smaller intellect?
@@Ascendlocal well it seem as though you did karen.
@@alwaysnaked7642 I admit that I did, but that has nothing to do with your non-argument
She's speaking the truth no matter how unpalatable it may be to some. Religion, spirituality and the belief in the immaterial gets driven back by each discovery humanity makes and believers have to change the story each time. Why don't they see that maybe the story isn't correct at all and that's ok. We can still live fulfilling lives or at least as fulfilling as believing in fantasies.
I love her articulation of the problem. The "feeling" seems quite compelling, even indisputable. But neuroscience points in a different direction. It doesn't necessarily dispute the "feeling". It just states that it is probably not be fundamental. The old metaphysical interpretations of "spirit" and "soul", don't seem correct.
Though she doesn't say it explicitly, there are hints of the Buddhist notion of "Anatta" and "dependent origination", in her explanation. We may feel the "qualia", for e.g. when looking at the flower. It may feel whole and complete. But it can be deconstructed into the shape of the flower, texture, color, etc. (We also have pattern recognition, machine learning implementations, that do this.). The integrated information brings the pieces together, and leads to a sense of "wholeness". But this could be interfered with. In human beings, drugs, alcohol, psychedelics, sleepiness, can interfere with this.
One can probe more deeply into this "feeling", and see that it is construction. Mindfulness meditation is a tool. One can see (partially from experience), one level looking down at a grosser level, with finer resolution, many of the constitutive elements. One can see it is all constructed, and is a dependent condition.
A number of neuroscientists may give a nod to the Buddhists for being precocious in their intuition. But they lean towards the materialist side of things, and eschew the "panpsychist" tendencies of much of Buddhism.
I was surprised that Susan doesn't believe "materialism" is the answer. Rather she sees there needs to be something more, that incorporates both materialism and consciousness, perhaps a kind of "monism" ("dual aspect monism"?), as a third way (?). In some ways, she maybe moving closer to the Buddhist position.
Thank you for your erudition. It has helped me to understand the issue better when viewed from the perspective of dependent origination.
Well put. Thank you. To me it seems her position is more than only superficially informed by Buddhism. Or that at least her reasoning and meditation (by coincidence or, rather, necessity?) have brought her to more or less the same insights that have informed the Buddhist masters for 2500 years now. As to the 'panpsychism': I never understood why these neuroscientists attributed this perspective or belief to Buddhism. As mainstream Buddhism denies there being anything like a substantial 'self', 'soul', 'mind' anywhere why then would it contradict itself by believing or assuming that there nevertheless ís such a mind at the universal level, i.e. as a feature of the world that exists, as a brute fact, throughout the universe?
The body is an interface between two things: the being and the physical universe that being wishes to perceive and experience. To look at the brain as the source of anything is to look at a switchboard as the source of a corporation. There is an actuality which has no mass, no energy, no motion, no wavelength, no position in space or time, but which can determine all of these. The brain is the point of relationship.
yh conciuosness is infinite and it has high and low vibrations... always try and stay connected to the most high....
nobody comes between you and your creator unless you allow it 🙏🏼👊👍
What season and episode is this? What year was this produced?
Materialism or better "physicalism" is correct. Experience isn't physical, it is the function of physical stuff. One error people make (see below) is to divide the world between material stuff and energy or "forces" . This comes out of Newtonian physics. Physicists now know that stuff can be transmuted into energy using Einstein 's formula E = mc2. There is a lot of energy in "matter" more than enough for the brain to create the self illusion. Don't panic- the woman is not sawn in half. It's a trick.
Due respect, but I disagree. The soul, God, is not, to me, being “cornered” by science. “Au contraríe”, science is “explaining” the intrinsic greatness of the universe, and how we fit into it. Quantum physics is pointing in that direction.
Interesting how she believes there are no souls, but she also doesn't know the aspect of the unknown in our immaterial consciousness.
a very shallow brain that woman possesses
Your self is your subjective reality, feelings are a part of that subjective reality because feelings ride along the stream of consciousness. Your being aware of your feelings makes consciousness more subtle than your feelings, emotions, as well as your thoughts The self Isn't a feeling, it is the reason why you have feelings.
"The self Isn't a feeling, it is the reason why you have feelings." Very well said!
By analogy, many theologians would say that God is not a Supreme Being, indeed God is not a being at all, but rather the Ground of Being. Said another way, God is "nothing;" i.e. no-thing. Therefore, God does not exist, since existence is a predicate of things.
I cant see how consciousness leads to a god or gods. Discovery through science pushes further back the ideas that religious always seems to claim.
if you can't see, then it is called lack of education.
Most people are just so lazy to learn about the many religions available.
In a sense , philosophy is more important than Science
@@dongshengdi773 I have studies Egyptology, Greek Gods, the Nordic Gods, the god of Christian and Judaism. Which one are you referring to? Which ones of the myths have you studied?
@@anthonycraig274 Here is another proof, this British young man says, "there is something eating me inside" that is consciousness guide him to Islam. See the miracle of consciousness Lead to God?
czcams.com/video/fzXU2_dJxZ4/video.html
@@anthonycraig274 Indeed consciousness lead to God.
Here is the proof, it was his own consciousness constantly looping thoughts onto his head and it lead to miracle.
I thought of sharing these videos posted by few Americans this video from former Jewish American, he says constantly looping thoughts and so he asked God guide him to the correct religion that is accepted by God, please watch this it was a miracle in the broad daylight how God guided him to Islam, czcams.com/video/3Y8Tr8-bSx4/video.html
If you want for more miracle claim, then ask me for more, I have got a ton of video like these, unbias claim.
@@anthonycraig274 Quran 41:53 We will show them Our signs in the horizons and *within themselves* until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
We still have no explanation for explanations. -Sorry, that was a bit trite, I guess. My unanswerable question is: Where does *thinking* come from? When did the very first *thought* happen? HOW did it happen? What's it all about, Alfie?
Science often has a limitation and often leads to the logical fallacy that the scientist is only an observer of nature. But the scientist in order to understand the nature of the soul has to investigate with themselves as the subject. One has to assume that the soul is real and to treat ones self as the hypothesis.
But she did do that.
She's absolutely right. And her view allows for new information and makes nature understandable.
This is one of my favorite videos.
She used herself as a subject.
Her appeal to assume nothing matters and only seeing things for what they are as it is is perfect to make ones self as small as appropriately possible and to live in the world as a free person..
It doesn’t matter. Life was the biggest mistake the universe and chemistry ever made. The logical thing to do would be destroy it all to save the world from suffering. Thankfully we are doing just that
You think you are. But what if someone saw that coming and used that destructive energy to guarantee survival?
@@bobnevels9125 then life will be doomed to suffer indefinitely
@@joegibbskins
If the nature of the universe is logical coherence then the answer is just above your head. Funny isn't it. It would also mean every assumption you have is just a description of where you already are that doesn't necessarily apply to anywhere else. Cool insights right?
@@bobnevels9125 Almost everything by that has ever lived died by getting eaten alive. Pretending that things are another way is just sentimental drivel. The universe is a Holocaust as long as consciousness remains within it
I like her arguments, it's the conclusion I differ with..
there are so many dimensions we are yet to discover and ever understand, that in the interim the scientists can only correlate the miniscule data that we currently have--not good and not good enough. Stick with it Bob--we are only scratching the surface.
Anything that can be understood as a scale is a dimension. Amount of left/rightness is not more of a dimension than amount of yellowness, it's just a spacial one.
When i watched this video I noticed that assuming the brain to be consciousness then all one would see would be brain.
I also noticed assuming consciousness to be the brain yielded great insight, even if it was wrong. Like assuming Newtonian physics to be true and ignoring quantum mechanics yields predictable insights that quantum mechanics alone cant provide proving quantum mechanics to be highly verified but inadequate for explaining the world.
But what about black holes and the indestructibility of information and the shifting perfection of perfect coherence?
Only a live organism deliberately keeping itself from being destroyed on a conscious level could maintain logical coherence with a black hole and protecting the information. Logic behaving like a life form by creating life to survive but without thought or intent. Meaning life reflects things that aren't life like mathematical equations.
So I treated everything normatively associated with my personality as dead weight and looked for the perfect informational center to protect that as a human being. Meaning that me as a human being is the only emergent property thats qualified to steer and maintain the informational singularity inside me because im the emergent property that the logic created to do just that. Any other attempt to steer me would be a contradiction.
This implies that hell as a place of torment was logic that failed to perform its operative function and fire took responsibility for coherence and demons took the flesh of human beings as better hosts for coherent stewards of perfect logic. But your life force cant die because information cant be destroyed.
And so those who burn forever are those who fail at their coherent function.
She's probably right, there is no "me" at the center of my mind, but aside from being extremely annoying, she's fundamentally wrong about one thing. She insists we'd all be "better off" if we just recognize the world is pointless and meaningless, and that whatever happens, even whatever decisions we make, is really just the result of random processes. Even if that is true, who would be better off thinking that? Who would feel better about themselves? And what would the consequences be for society at large if we tell people they have no agency and it's all meaningless? That she would just casually assume we'd all be "better off" thinking this really exposes the limitations on her own thinking. Every subjective and objective analysis of the evidence shows the impact of thinking this way is harmful...even if it turns out to be the truth.
I think that how someone feels about a particular thing depends upon the structure of that person's brain. It seems to me that she is ignoring the fact, that she is the ONLY one who has her brain's particular structure. So, for the vast majority of people, it is impossible to believe what she believes, and to feel good about it.
She is right
She is totally wrong . Science has not proven anything .
@@dongshengdi773 lol the very fact that you said that tells me you do not understand the conversation. Sad
Did she not have an out of body experience years ago where her mind/ soul traveled to different places which convinced her of a soul? . .until the hierarchy in the science world told her that to write books on this subject would end her career in science.
(0:50) *"But then you go and look at a radio. What do you find inside? Wires, speakers, diodes, and a vast array of electronic components. This is the true source of all of the sounds that this radio emits."* ... Yah, I'm not buying that "brain" argument.
Good point. The radio is picking up lots of signals and tuning to one.
a lame argument unless you also believe that the radio is also conscious
@@Ascendlocal *"a lame argument unless you also believe that the radio is also conscious"*
... Is a brain conscious? Or does it merely manifest consciousness (like a radio)? Which is it?
@@birdman7135 well, the mystery remains, but lats say it's consciousness is emergent. Not sure how that is analogous to a radio. I mean, metal teeth braces have been known to actually creat sound from broadcast waves from FM frequency when they match the incoming radio frequency
@@Ascendlocal *"Not sure how that is analogous to a radio."*
...That's because it is not - and I don't know how you could be thinking that's the case?
I was comparing the "human brain" to a radio - not "consciousness." Radio signals are processed by a radio and consciousness is processed by the brain.
*"I mean, metal teeth braces have been known to actually creat sound from broadcast waves from FM frequency when they match the incoming radio frequency"*
...The next time a "radio" conceives a song, writes it all out in musical annotation, performs it in a studio, converts it into digital audio, and then plays it through its speakers for the entire world to hear ... you be sure to let me know about it, okay?
Generally good (👍🏼), but the fatal fa law in Susan’s argument occurs starting at the 2.5’ mark when she concludes that there is no soul because neuroscience progressively accounts for more and more of what once was attributed to aspects of ‘soulness’. That coupled with her 25-year experience of not being able to validate various parapsychological phenomena that might indicate an extra dimension to personhood. One can just as easily argue, as I’m sure folk like David Chalmers do, that everything she’s examined as ‘soul’ simply flies under the radar of what a soul actually is. This would be the case whether or not a person believes in the existence of an immortal soul.
As Lao Tse famously said: ' The more you know, the less you know'...
If that is all he said, he wasn't really a smart fella.
@@xspotbox4400 Not as smart as you, obviously...
As a human, there is observable order and direction.
Neuroscience documents brain processes, but seems to me to make the mistake in reasoning of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Can you address this?
Just say correlation doesn't equal causation. Don't make me look up Latin phrases.
Identity the information that makes up person; physical, mind and conscious awareness?
I believe there is a self. However i will argue for the other side. Descartes (philosopher) regarded the pineal gland as the seat of the soul.. removal of this gland in the brain doesnt seem to cause a person to lack a soul (which in Hinduism is the Atman, the consciousness). But then again, consciousness isnt physical of this dimensional fabric i would say. It can join with it, but are not one and the same.
Now i have been meditating myself for years. One of my experiences (which was the most profound) was a samadhi experience which i believe was the 7th jhana (nothingness) because I literally experienced nothing. Yet i experienced. I saw the colour of nothingness. It was probably a high savikalpa samadhi called asmita samadhi. Where only ego sensation remain without bliss. Ego may be void.. evidently.. but consciousness isnt. Or i would have fallen unconscious.
how can you see the color of nothing? doesn't make any sense
@@joaocosta3506 thats why i saw nothing
@@meditator3498 you can't see "nothing", because if it is perceivable, then it's actually something rather than nothing. lol
Well i theorise during deep sleep has a sense of time, its just disorientation that causes us to not see this clear light.
Not refferencing clear light in another sense.
Although if you have the ability to be with that clear light imagine that but thats all that exists and nothing else.
I cant remember there being much sense of spacial dimension (i would call it the 1st dimension) but staying in that state longer youd probably feel in all directions.
Idk im a high thinker, taking the slow path. And no path.
Imagine seeing space beyond your peripheral vision. But everywhere.
Match the three and i guess thats what im trying to explain.
Bit incoherent,
Wait is this the video about consciousness being an illusion? I mean thats rather nuanced but directly through.. methods of exisence its possible maybe.
The invisible looks like space but dark and light at the same time. Not grey.
@@meditator3498 no offense but that is plain bs
If the brain replaces cells, how is their information passed to new cells?
When I perceive red, it is first stimulated in the brain but is it not then communicated to o the soul?
I am curious if there is no self, who is she meditating for?
Universe is doing its stuff? appeal to necessity, since when did universe has will and intent to do stuff?
Meditation does not have to be religious or spiritual. It can just as well be in the category 'exercise.' It can be just a form of 'contemplation.' She is meditating for herself. She also did say but perhaps in the other video of hers on this channel that more than just theorising she tries to observe her own consciousness directly, empirically in what ways she can. I don't think we can take points off her for what is just going the distance.
@@hinteregions And that is what is contradictory, there is no self, then where did herself pop out from? There is no consciousness according to her, so what is she observing.
He explanations are self-contradicting.At least from what I have seen of her.
@@kakalam6004 She did not say there is no consciousness. What would be the point of her devoting her life to studying something she declares does not exist. She has said at worst, the way we are thinking about it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, and that she doesn't know what way we should be thinking about it, but is trying to work it out. There's no contradiction here except the question itself, to which we none of us know the answer. Because we don't know what the right questions are. All this takes place in the context of determinism and the question of [free] will. That physical law does not explain the fact that we 'think therefore we are' to our satisfaction. Under that law we have no volition at all, only the illusion of it. That might be where you misunderstood her?
@@hinteregions My issue is that she is making science as absolute yet saying that when you look at brain there is no soul. This is based on assumption that soul is something tangible or made up of material components, when nobody knows the actual composition of soul or how brain causes consciousness. Her world view is from a point view of a reductionist. How then does she know that is absolute?
I do agree that physical law does not explain the fact that we 'think therefore we are' to our satisfaction, however knowing is attribute of consciousness, as it is activity of mind. That is how we are able to know physical laws in the first place. So sciences becomes relative yet she makes it as absolute.
@@kakalam6004 When you look at the brain there is no soul, that is a fact. What you are saying is based on assumptions that are not scientific, or not the science. You have to look up the law of determinism and learn basic biology and for the latter I recommend Prof Robert Sapolsky.
Is the Universe Fined-Tuned for Consciousness?
~ by physicist Michio Kaku
Apr 6, 2021
That the universe is fine-tuned for life, with multiple physical laws required to be within small ranges, is generally accepted. But can we then make the additional argument that the universe is somehow required to contain consciousness? Such a conclusion may not follow. But the key question is this: is consciousness wholly contingent or somehow special? Maybe some superintelligent being created and designed our universe.
…
The universe is not fine-tuned for anything. Life is an accident for no reason. "The puddle thought, 'The ground must be made just for me. Look how perfectly I fit!"
@@havenbastion WRONG.
the universe is proven to have a beginning , from nothing .
if not fine tuned , it would be just chaotic.
Example, Everything has a Purpose or a function, every ATOM , every DNA ,
but to show you Examples will take me years to finish.
your answer is what you call lack of education and arrogance
@@havenbastion DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language. DNA sequences do not just possess “information” in the strictly mathematical sense described by pioneering information theorist Claude Shannon. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the improbability of the sequence (and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it). But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary dictionary sense of “alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect.” DNA base sequences convey instructions. They perform functions and produce specific effects. Thus, they not only possess “Shannon information,” but also what has been called “specified” or “functional information.”
Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement - and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”
Please explain what ghost are I've seen numerous in my life yet its just a illusion, how then did the people with me see the same thing. Some things are not for us to understand and science dismiss everything they can't test etc or doesn't fit their theory.
Consciousness as fundamental doesn’t mean theres a “little homunculus in there”.
Well put. The homunculus is just mapping how much of our mental process is dedicated to what part of our body. It's very interesting and still a tiny bit useful but not much to do with consciousness.
I approve this message. Sort of. Not entirely, but I agree that defaulting to "because God" or "because soul" does not explain anything. It just hands the problem down the line. The solution is very simple. A brain, as a colony of neurons, is directly analogous to a city, as a colony of people. Brain is to Mind what Society is to Culture. Brains have functional specialisations just as cities do. A neural "thought" is a reduced manifestation of a human thought. Some neurons specialize in detecting movement, some detect horizontal lines, some detect vertical lines, some the colour "red", etc. Put all these specialized neural thoughts together in the context of an experience intercepted by a brain, and you get a human thought. What unifies the disparate neural "experiences" in the neural culture that is the brain? THAT is the self, that is where the solution lies. Hence my interest in DNA entanglement.
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain, nothing more, nothing less. The conscious mind is a sub-set of that, and consciousness itself is a sub-set of the conscious mind, a momentary instance of awareness experienced as the continuity between past and future.
Neuro Science has shown that our Heart has approx: 20,000 neuron receptors and paths that are exactly the same as our brain. Hence, what comes from the mouth comes from the heart.
Huh? Cells all have different functions. Not all cells or particles in a particular arrangement result in emergent complexity.
@@Ascendlocal do your homework first before you comment.
Agree
Quote.. From Above....For those who would like to believe in God, can the mere existence of consciousness help their belief?... Yes...it can as the person is not a body alone.. nor spirit alone or even soul alone.. it' is actually a Unity of the person in the Trinity... of non duality... As God is One ... and all of His Creation is within Him....IMO
Time, space and mind are one process. You’re it! You’re not separate - you’ve just been taught to feel that way.
Wake up.
If you don’t believe on consciousness, how do you explain everything repeating around us? How does an individual progresses from the lower level to higher one if consciousness is not passed on to his/her next life?
I ask respectfully, who said they don't believe in consciousness?
Nothing ever repeats. Only similar things can happen.
So the ultimate reality of all existence, as pointed out by Hinduism wisdom, is Sat Chit Ananda or Existence, Consciousness Joy/Bliss.
One interesting exam question: Where is the brain of a tree?
Tree is made from a sunlight, water and carbon in the air, there is no hole beneath their roots, so a giant tree can't be made from dirt and rocks.
Spectacularly self-contradictory arguments being promulgated here. She asks us to "let go of the idea of free will." Is this not a contradiction? How is it possible to "let go" of the idea of free will without a conscious exercise of free will?
yeah like every times she say "i think that ..."
If free will is assigned to you by an all powerful being who not only knows all things and is present in every cell of your body,
and can intervene in your decisions as often as he pleases
as the Bible stories have shown,
why call it free will.
I thought that, too... Like, "what kind of mental gymnastics is this broad playing here...🤨"
Exactly, how can you let it go, when you have no free will? Impossible!
That's why you'll do what you have been determined to do -- not let it go. 😏
You can ‘let go’ of the idea the world is flat, can’t you? She is saying that the ancient way of thinking about self is wrong, is unfounded in every way as is religion, and must be ‘let go of’ in order that we progress to some understanding better than ancient dualism, which theory we long ago realised does not work and so are trying to improve upon. Don’t worry, it isn’t your fault.
If said, consciousness is illusion, then it is not wrong to give up "self" and just follow the flow of events.
To say there is no reason to be here is still acceptable since "self" is oblivious.
If there is no deeper awareness; man, bird, fish are alike.
7:30 Well you haven't looked good enough because I personally experienced clairevoyance, several visions on my past and predictions made by someone who didn't know me and that were / turned out to be true.
I think religions and specially hindu mysticism was on of the most advanced sciences for these reasons. #nooffence
In Star Trek the Motion picture Decker showed love for the machine that looked like his girlfriend Ilea and Bones admonished him ( “ Decker ! This is a bunch of circuits! A machine)
What’s to keep me from thinking “ hey , she’s just fields and particles! )
And then they evloved into the Son of Man, so... ?
@@maxi-he9dg oh yeah:)
Think about music our brains interpret music but music comes from the outside I think its the same with consciousness
The soul as a piece of pex pipe, a conduit with cross hatching that is the dna double helix. Experience as flow, ego as constriction, like a napkin ring. The person on the inside surface of the pex, a Dyson Sphere inside out world. Is this the microtubule of Penrose?
Parapsychology finds interesting things but then the stricter the control, the more it all vanishes ?? Proof is impossible?
This could be quite normal if it's a bit like the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. These things go against the physical laws but perhaps they are allowed..as long as the chance is there that it could also be coincidence and if nobody is watching to confirm it happened
It could happen easier if if the involved energies are extremely small. Moving objects seems like a really too strong violation.
Changing random sequences could be possible if they are not coming from far away radioactive sources (task too big) but from a simple, almost imperfect random generator inside the computer in front of the person. So this would mean, nothing useful can be done with it.
Human body is actually quite slow, compared to transistors built in our computers. The average PC speed is around 4 billion hertz, while neuronal cells vibrate at only around 400 hertz. And they can emit up to 50 different signals per second, multiply this by 100 billion cells working at the same time, and we can get some notion of our brain's processing power. 400 x 50 x 100.000.000.000 = a huge number of events, specially when considering we're doing this every second of our entire lives.
So, i would say yeah, things are fascinating and can produce a lasting intelligent self-aware sensation. This complexity allow us to navigate the material world better, since this is life we're talking bout and evolution wants to utilize selected molecular properties best it can.
Classical computers could never work this way, they're digital and precise, our mentality is analog, resistant to many anomalies and errors.
And what exactly does all this complexity actually produce, it's not like any of us can extract elements and craft all technologies by himself, we're not so special and smart as we imagine. But once we come together and behave like natural forces, following natural laws and principles, we can transcend over human nature and use our fake mechanical systems to rise over natural workings, to a certain extent. We can do what nature can because we are energy, just like nature is, except we're self delusional, not guided by probabilities and chances. Human consciousness is corrupt, this is why it works so well, our species is trowing weighted dice.
Knowing how the Brain works, is not knowing how to work the brain.
Who knows how to work the brain, knows greater how the brain works.
Who knows how to live truly, who has it been revealed to what it means to be a man. Who knows how to work thy mind rather than the brain working them?
You must know computers and electronics very well then, judging from how well you can use your copy of a common internet browser :)
The neuron firings correlating to experience is an odd question - he never asks how ghrellin secreted in the stomach could cause hunger
And how about fear, love, hate
@@shannon7002 many of these emotions along with others, I'd argue, are based on biological instincts/drives, very often the instinct for self preservation.
Fear: hypothalamus governing the fight or flight response; my brain makes assessments of dangers in the environment based on instinct (snakes, rats) or what I know may be dangerous (speeding cars can kill) or what my higher brain can infer (speeding in wet conditions may be treacherous).
Romantic Love: sexual drive hormones compel us, mediated by: a) accepted social contract ideas (rape is evil, paedophilia is evil, homosexuality is/isn't permitted in this culture etc) and b) compatibility ideas of self and mate based on class, social mobility, profession or personality.
Motherly love I'd argue is also governed by chemistry although there are plenty of examples of failure I guess.
Fraternal or Platonic love I could see as the most mysterious - you love being with someone for their company and personality and you are energised by them even though it has no obvious material or survival benefit for you. This relates to the idea of fun and why we like to have fun or play games. Laughter I guess binds people closer together in communities that aid survival of the individual but that may be an inadequate answer. Maybe it has something to do with practicing skills and strength in numbers. Soldiers feel safer with similar types around them, perhaps.
Hate: hatred and anger are, I understand, very much related biochemically to feelings of love except the object of the feeling (the hated person) suffers an aversion instead of an attraction bias. "Familiarity breeds contempt. These negativevemotions are complex of course when we consider them in the context of people - we often hate people because we perceive them as a danger to us or our society; they may be seen as dirty, immoral, miserly etc to the point of fear of cultural eclipse if their genes spread. Hatred for people is complex but hatred of food or animals could be based on allergies or physical threats (I have a friend who fears cats, he might say he hates them).
Thanks for asking that question, I'm only mulling these things over myself and trying to find the limits to things in my own views and theories. If I'm basing a lot of emotions on self-preservation some baffling phenomena might include suicide, soldiers going to war and religious martyrdom. Are these phenomena the result of brainwashing or an effect of testosterone overdoses or something else?
Brain is a complex anthena and processor of received information
Her consciousness leads us to the world since there is nothing otherwordly. Ground of being is World-God.
It is not a point-less universe, its a point free universe. One seperate person's definition of the universe and life is not the whole understanding of the universe and life.
Practically every creature has a sense of self. We wouldn't be able to function without.
You're absolutely right but a sense of self doesn't mean that there is one.
@@neilcreamer8207
It seem pretty obvious that it is quite real.
@@thomasridley8675 It does seem that way but is seeming the same as being? Experience is real but is it what it seems to be?
@@neilcreamer8207
Would we really know the difference one way or the other ? Probably not !
If they are expecting to prove a supernatural cause. They will be seriously disappointed. Unless all aware creatures are put under that same category.
Our special nature doesn't seem too hold up under questioning.
So what is your take on the subject ?
Robots do.
But seriously folks, the ultimate goal of both science and religion seems to be to learn the ultimate truth about existence. In science it seems to be to reduce us to unimportant accidents of nature riding our little rock pointlessly with no meaning or purpose. In religion it seems to be to find meaning and purpose and provide an option to the existential dread we all share. Even she must look at the joy her children or grandchildren or those of friends exhibit and die a little inside at the (in her estimation) despair of there being nothing of value in their joy. We can’t accept that emotional behaviour and experience, love, joy, elation, anger, pain or sorrow are pointless without meaning. Youre going to climb that long hill to the top to find that you have reach the bottom of the next tall hill. Effort, sacrifice, love, persistence have meaning in our daily lives. It’s a real kick in the crotch to think they have no real meaning beyond the perpetuation of our species.
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and to remove all doubt."--Abraham Lincoln.
When you have nothing to say, say nothing.
Well, now we're talking business, the recognition is coming closer to the very truth how we humans function.
That there are a lot of wrong instructions but also as much good instructions to be where we are now.
Everything seems to work, evolution at its best, positive and negative hand in hand. Randomly pacing its way to ever more modernizing and at the same pace in chaotic state.
What's the meaning, the purpose?
To be deductively coherent with itself in a natural state of perfection.
People often confused what they know about the world with what they feel about the world.
This had used to be to refute optimism in favor of a more realistic cynicism but cynicism as a way of avoiding disappointment is just sunshine and rainbow delusions in reverse. Just another place to hide.
Optimism has become more realistic and cynicism has become the mark of infantile delusion.
If the universe was pointless and we were just part of a pointless origin, then what's the point in what she's saying? We came to this point becuse the point is we evolve and that's the point of the universe 😊
see Dunning Kruger.
There is no beyond the framework of science because folks in science say so.
Science is rigor, and the body of knowledge rigorously obtained.
@@havenbastion We simply do not know if there are factors outside of scientific REACH that have any impact so your statement is not a objective fact. Your are just being had.
She says that consciousness and matter must be fundamentally the same thing yet also claims that the universe is meaningless - how can this be if meaning is the essence of consciousness? The logical conclusion she should reach is that the universe is conscious and meaningful. Quite why she reaches the opposite conclusion is something of a mystery!
The universe is meaningless only if the individual refuses to find meaning or to give it meaning. There is much that is meaningful in the universe, but it is all in the finding and the doing.
You said, "if meaning is the essence of consciousness". "If", is conditional, not guaranteed.
@@danbaron2561 well, you can't have one without the other
@@TH-nx9vf That is just an assertion.
@@danbaron2561 feel free to disprove it if you can, but bear in mind that any refutation will necessarily include both consciousness and meaning 😉
Consciousness leads to truth: let truth determine who's who.
Every lie ever told has been told by a conscious being… ;)
@@foxmeisteruk I can't help thinking that the fact that most mass is binding energy is a bit of a deception; in a good way...😂🍻 I really had to dig for that one.
@@mediocrates3416 Most? No. "All" mass is energy - E=MC2
@@Ascendlocal Take my point, please.
Why do you assume "we are here"???
7:34, there is no physical evidence of life after death because there is no return once that final step is taken. There are, however, first hand accounts of very near death experiences that claim otherwise.
And very near death experiences are not death. Imagery produced during those states is consistent with other products of the unconscious as anyone who regularly records their dreams can attest.
@@publiusovidius7386 That would be because it is all chemically driven. The nervous system responds to stimuli in varying degrees. The amount of cortical steroids as you get closer to realizing that you're about to die probably reaches a peak in one's life.
Those are no different from stories our brains put together while dreaming. Some small percentage of people had a dream of having out of body experience. That’s all.
@@Traderhood There might be a bit more involved. Your body's image of itself in space is mapped to a small chasm on either side of your head. Orientation of limbs and trunk is contained here. A small amount of inflammation in this area might be disorientating the observer leading to the OBE.
@@tanshihus1 I agree. My point was that there's nothing special or otherworldly about NDEs.
You don’t have to get religious to study Vedanta. They have worked this problem for over 3000 years. Moksha is “knowledge” (not belief) of your identity with absolute consciousness. True, its not empirical science. You should try to expand your mind to an understanding that there are non reductionist ways of definitive knowledge. Basically, they have solved the “hard problem”.
Just let go of fear and let it all happen.
ok ..go ahead ...
@@francesco5581 Been there, done that! Fear is the mind-killer. Been shot at, in multiple car and motorcycle accidents, nearly drowned and even survived a midair freefall collision, among many other "fear-inducing" events. Seen numerous friends and colleagues die or be destroyed by bullets and explosives, and once fished my own dead Battalion Commander out of the Savannah river after his face had been eaten away by crabs for 2 days. People who are afraid make me feel simultaneously sorry for them and fill me with a desire to puke.
@@thereligionofrationality8257 nah that does not work with me. My grandfather returned from the russian campaign and was super religious...another who was a pilot in WW2 was super spiritual . You can approach things from many angles and get totally different conclusions. You can get the best from fear and get the worst from not having it ... Is a matter of so many things.
@@francesco5581 I never mentioned anything about spirituality or God, although my opinions on the matter are very much in line with those of the young lady being interviewed here. As far as fear goes, there is not a single positive side effect from it; it causes slow and poor reactions and cripples people psychologically when it becomes a part of their daily lives.
Don't drive your motorbike into the light, it might be another train approaching through the dark tunnel, and you might end up in hospital again.
She's one of the most plausibly speaking minds - oops, there are none, just a series of occuring events being registered by an organism...- of our time. And I think she is right, has been right with most of what she said and wrote. Letting go of anthropocentrism is the mandate of the times we live in and the science we have developed thus far.
It's what Budists figure out logng time ago and for me it makes sense. Ego is an illusion, free will is an illusion.
The Universe experiencing itself through my eyes.
didnt jordan peterson dismantle her arguments and viewpoints
What is being fooled on into thinking it’s conscious
What is this vibration, you humans call a word?
So I guess when I chart that my patient is Conscious, Alert and Oriented…it is meaningless, with no point.
Yes, according to her, with respect to anything besides survival of our species, "it is meaningless, with no point".
@@danbaron2561 yep ridiculous.
The self experience is the only thing we can truly be certain exists. It is self evident and requires no proof.
All experiences are real even if they are not OF something real in an external sense. Experiences require having a working brain and firing neurons. They cannot exist otherwise. Existence is a prerequisite for All things. All things are patterns in a mind (which is itself a metaphor for the patterns in the brain), and sometimes they have an external correlate.
@@havenbastion I think everybody has a piece of the answer. What I was describing in my comment is Solipsism.
I'm pleasantly confused.
The brain is so complex it creates consciousness. Turn off the brain, nothing is left. The situation before we were conceived is the situation that will exist after we die
The soul is a framework bro. If it's a pointless universe you can structure it however you like. If anything you're just proving the need for a soul. Chesterton's fence and all that.
Christians done goofed up big time here, not realizing that in the Bible the word "soul" simply means "life", exemplifying how following an erroneous tradition creates an illusion of truth, which is all that religion is -- an illusion of truth, a mirage.
Them being the same thing, yea, that could be
Universe consciousness
Witness the useless empty meaningless universe of a materialist. She didn’t look deep enough and her world view is pointless and dangerous for everyone.
Thank ppl like this for the meaning crisis we are in. Eternity is real folks and it is the source of consciousness that our brains receive.