Bernardo Kastrup: Are Animals Conscious Like We Are?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
Is there just one type of consciousness-the one only we humans seem to be blessed with? Or does consciousness come in different shapes and forms? Do other species also experience consciousness or something similar to consciousness? I’ve had the pleasure of discussing this with the philosopher and computer engineer Bernardo Kastrup. Enjoy!
If you liked this clip, check out our full interview: • Bernardo Kastrup: Skep...
Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental.
He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the ‘Casimir Effect’ of Quantum Field Theory was discovered).
Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured in Scientific American, the Institute of Art and Ideas, the Blog of the American Philosophical Association, and Big Think, among others. Bernardo’s most recent book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. For more information, freely downloadable papers, videos, etc., please visit www.bernardokastrup.com.
Additional resources:
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 CZcams: czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #bernardokastrup - Věda a technologie
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
it's always seemed odd to me that the question is not the inverse by default ... what reasons would we have to think that animals are _not_ conscious? unless you think human beings are a special species delivered to earth by some divine or external operator. there is no a priori reason to think the evolution of our consciousness is different from any other species
Yes. I mean, how on Earth (quite literally!) _could_ humans have become conscious if not for an evolutionary process? It seems you can either assert consciousness as a strongly emergent quality, one perhaps reserved for the "higher" creatures (whatever that unfortunate term ultimately means), but then you have to define the hard line where such a quality suddenly ceases to exist. Is it in Rabbits? Birds? Frogs? Spider's? Ant's? Because, at least personally, none of those distinctions feels in the least bit well drawn! And so, if you _don't_ wish to play that game, you are left with only two options seemingly remaining on the table. There's panpsychism, of course, and if that's not your cup of tea, then all your left with is that whacky theory dreamed-up by that Charlie fellow, what was it again? Oh, yes! The "theory of evolution by natural selection and genetic mutation", but then that is a bit _outré,_ isn't it?
I joke, but it _is_ a concern of mine, this "evolving awareness" solution. Simply because it looks for all the world (again, to my eyes at least!) as though creatures such as mosquito's and tadpoles and other such little irritants are conscious - which would then mean that consciousness must be a _very_ primative adaptation, and that it must have a very basic function - and yet through the course of a hundred millennia not a single person has been able to adequately explain the how's and why's of it all...
*Not. One. Single. Person.*
It's strange, no? Look, I don't have any special knowledge here, but my best bet is that our conscious, first-person, subjective experience must be either incredibly complicated and chaotic... or it must be so stupendously obvious that it's literally staring at us in the face, and yet due to some typically erroneous intuition or another (such as our belief that the Sun always rises in the East and sets in the West. This is patent nonsense, however, for we know full well that the Sun never moves _anywhere_ relative to the Earth, and thus in reality it is the Earth that sets in the East and rises in the West each day!
I'm hoping consciousness will be something like this. I can't help believing in this type of thing. I mean, I'm a hopeless romantic - and so have been known to grow quite fond of the odd human from time to time - and I'm also dying - as we all are, of course - and I wouldn't mind this consciousness question being solved before I have to lie down and go to sleep once and forever. Knowing why I was given it, however fleetingly, won't change anything after it is taken away again, this time forever, but at least I wouldn't have to die not knowing...
I agree, Consciousness is fundamental. Mind and senses are not the same as Consciousness, but require it to function. Living beings are sentient - they have senses to reveal the world. Inert material is not sentient.
I'll be grand. Universal mind and it's non-self-reflective will drove evolution. We can speculate on the reason, but it's speculation. It needed something to reflect back on it. To experience the universe from the inside perspective.
Outstanding. I've been waiting a while for an interview with Dr. Kastrup. Having Dr. Keating being the one doing the interview is a home run. I read Dr. Kastrup's hypothesis on the E.T. presence and found it both compelling and one that passes the Occam test. Thank you, and hope to see a long form interview in the near future.
21. The Unity of Physics - Grand Unification
Contradictory:
The current Standard Model of particle physics describes three of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, and strong) as distinct quantum fields with different symmetries and coupling constants. Attempts to unify these forces into a single, coherent framework, known as Grand Unified Theories (GUTs), have been met with various challenges, including the hierarchy problem, the proton decay problem, and the difficulty of incorporating gravity.
Non-Contradictory:
Using the monadological framework, the apparent diversity of fundamental forces could be understood as different aspects or facets of a single, unified relational structure between monadic perspectives. The symmetries and coupling constants of the Standard Model could then be seen as emergent properties of the underlying monadic geometry, which could potentially be described by a higher-dimensional, non-commutative algebraic structure:
SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) → G_m = ⨂_i G_i
Here, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) represents the gauge symmetry group of the Standard Model, G_m is the monadic unification group, and ⨂_i G_i denotes a tensor product or non-commutative product of monadic symmetry groups.
Finally some down to earth and mature discussion about consciousness ! thank you gentlemen. I share Bernardo’s amazement how even the smallest single cell creatures display consciousness. As in awareness of their surrounding; seizing up potential prey and enemy or even shooting neuro-toxic arrows at prey (in case of lacrymaria). Just one cell. Not even a neuron cell. The real follow up question is whether its consciousness resides within this tiny cocoon. We don’t need to resort to philosophy just yet to answer that. Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose offer a great option; as in consciousness via microtubules, microscopic structures present in all cells, displaying quantum coherence and thus offering the option of remote entanglement. Being an anesthetic, Hameroff noticed that anesthetics specifically suppress quantum coherence properties of microtubules, suggesting an obvious biological link to people losing consciousness. So it is a great suggestion to start at the intricate structures microtubules display. As such each species might have a slightly different finger print like frequency at which their microtubules vibrate. They may form a collective explaining their extremely complex behavior in individual, not unlike neurons in our brain work together to steer our perceptions and bodily mobility. Neurons work collectively via spatial locality. Likewise distributed microtubules would work collectively via energy locality (i.e. occupying the same energy potential in all 3 directions as per the subatomic energy grid). We might even test this, e.g. by sourcing huge populations (siblings) of Lacrymaria populations in say 100 separate petri-dishes, have 99 exposed to anesthetics entering their membranes and see if the colony in the remainder dish starts behaving erratic or (probably) even freeze in their motion. I would start there.
really amazing, please do more interviews with Berrnardo
Leibniz covered all this in "the monadology".
By making patterns through time structures adapt
Off topic, but you should do a Terrence Howard debunk video.
Self-consciousness, like a mirror, is the recognition of ourselves, by the reflection, from the mind in our brain's other hemisphere.
See: Dual-Brain Psychology
Brian, where's the rest of this interview?
He's got the whole world in his hands...
I was not unconscious, but I was made so i and what I saw became us and that is like me, they became conscious of ourselves, i was not unconscious of this behavior.
The same level, and the same kind, are different questions.
I know I know nothing.
Ultimately….why wanting to know? Where does it ultimately lead?
First, no hard definition of consciousness, so how can we get anywhere? Maybe int the full interview?. Saying it's fundamental is not enough. As far as the structure of perceived and perceiver I don't believe anyone is posing the problem as he has. No one is looking at an organism and saying it's made of little parts (like me), thus so is my mind made of little bits of consciousness." Who is making that argument? We tend to first look at ourselves as conscious and made of parts. THEN we look at other things made of similar parts and assign consciousness to it. The problem with atoms being conscious(panpscyhcism) is that it is UNTESTABLE, just like consciousness is untestable. Need something else.
he sounds Brazilian. is he brazilian? vai brasil!!! also... Douglas Adams on the shelf . #respect
Conscious or self-conscious???
Domestic pets are Conscious Like We Are ,, some cats and dogs are VERY " human "
Thanks
I think the consciousness is à memory mirror ❤
Take a close look at the swan. I say no more.
Odd is anyone thought they weren’t. They all are. I talk to animals all the time. Smarter than humans.
Not like we are, but in their own way. They have different gods and different goals of play
Everybody already knows corvidians are smart, maybe smarter than parrots (a high bar).
Every human was born with a voice. Only few where born with a mind
how profound
love the jokes
Kastrup confuses consiousness with intelligence here. Of course an amoeba is intelligent, otherwise it wouldn´t survive, but that doesn´t mean it´s conscious. Before we talk about the topic we should properly define, what we mean by consciousness at all.
Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine intelligent life of any kind that isn’t also conscious on some level. I’m not sure how to separate one from the other.
@@tcl5853 Here a proposal: Intelligence is a behavior to reach a useful goal (to get food, for instance). Consciousness needs/is self-awareness. Interesting enough, in German, awareness and consciousness are the same word (Bewusstsein).
@@Thomas-gk42 Bernardo is talking about phenomenal consciousness which is the subjective aspect of experiencing the world like all leaving beings do (for example experiencing perceptions and/or sensations), self awareness is like he said a higher level mental function that has evolved through time and only we humans have.
@@patrickdelarosa7743 Serious question, what is that phenomenal consciousness good for? As far as I understood his sermons, he believes, that this basic consciousness is the source of creation, that wouldn´t be subjective, would it? Though he fights panpsychism, that sounds quite panpsychistic for me.
@@Thomas-gk42 Phenomenal consciousness is the experiential aspect of consciousness and it is subjective from the point of view of an universal mind, while panpsychism says everything is conscious, idealism says everything is IN consciousness.
I'm gonna stop you right there, Brian. Nobody uses "Darwinian Evolution" except creationists. Darwin was a smart guy, but he has almost nothing to do with the modern understanding of evolution. Mutation, genetic drift, and allele frequency are not things that Darwin could have known or predicted. In fact, it's not hard to go thru 'The Origin of Species' and find errors in data and conclusions. Using that term also discounts the many, many great minds who put forth their piece of the puzzle along the way. Gregor Mendel, Nettie Stevens, Friedrich Miescher, and James Watson.... just to name a few.
But we all know what he means anyway, Captain Pedantic
@VelkePivo language exists as a tool to help us communicate. If it's not important to be specific, then we may as well go back to grunting at each other.