Colin Blakemore - What is Ultimate Reality?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- Get free access Closer to Truth's library of 5,000+ videos for free: bit.ly/376lkKN
What is the deepest nature of things? Our world is complex, filled with so much stuff. But down below, what’s most fundamental, what is ultimate reality? Is there anything nonphysical? Anything spiritual? Or only the physical world? Many feel certain of their belief, on each side of controversial question.
Shop Closer To Truth merch like T-shirts, mugs, and more: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more videos on the mysteries of existence: shorturl.at/jnuvQ
Colin Blakemore, Ph.D, FRS, FMedSci, HonFSB, HonFRCP, was a British neurobiologist who was Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford and University of Warwick specializing in vision and the development of the brain.
For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: 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.
Great conversation. Rest in peace Colin. Thanks Mr Kuhn
Love your series, asking a great many of the questions I have thought about myself and I am so pleased that we all get an opportunity to reflect on the views of some of our great brainiacs.
Thanks for sharing. Rest In Peace, Colin.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting and thought. Our reality
True. But the question is about the ultimate reality. There is a mix of both here. When it comes to the ultimate reality
Thanks!
Thanks
The overall optimistic tone of the honorable guest is commendable as he has reasonable confidence on domain of science gradually gaining mastery of the various aspects of our existence. It may take due time to discover or invent tools or means to be successful. Secondly if we are corelating reality, morality and science as the host repeatedly emphasized in a linear fashion probably the biggest barrier is language. We may not have the answers in the same frame of reference in which we asked questions. Thanks and keep up your good work.
Resolving the measurement problem would be the first step to understanding reality.
Is it that “measuring” the quantum system causes it to become hopelessly entangled with the observer and surrounding environment, which forces the collapse of the wave function? I think I saw something like that on a Science Asylum video the other day. I don’t think the system can stay quantum when it gets too wrapped up with more complex classical systems.
Though if the question is WHY that happens at all, well…I would also greatly like to know the answer.
@@wmpx34There are actually two different issues. The measurement problem is an issue in classical physics by which directly measuring something affects it. So to see an objective must reflect light off it, for example.
In quantum mechanics we have the uncertainty principle. At first look this appears to be the same, but it actually has a different derivation from the principles of quantum mechanics and somewhat different implications.
@@simonhibbs887The measurement problem in QM is basically that there is no functional definition of measurement. In the theory, a measurement is an event that collapses the wave function. But there is no other way to identify measurements, no criterion. Just that there is a class of events such that reality looks very different before and after the measurement. A different problem which is more to do with the Copenhagen interpretation is that according to it, anything measured by the measurement is a property of the measurement, not of the systems being measured except to the extent that successive measurements tend to bear definite relations to each other. This clashes with the ordinary idea that measurements are a method of observing the properties of systems. In QM, systems don't have properties, merely a certain mathematical expectation of giving a certain result to a certain measurement. That's the one connected to the Uncertainty Principle. The actual measurement problem is the first one
@@codyjackson5664 Ok, but we still observe that the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct. Single electrons don’t behave as though they went through only one slit, they behave as though they went through both. Electrons behave as though they occupy specific energy levels in atomic structures. They sometimes jump energy gaps classical theory says it should be impossible for them to cross. These and many other such behaviours do have macroscopic effects, otherwise our computers, telecoms systems, medical scanners, and many modern electronic components wouldn’t work. IT technology is a macroscopic effect.
@@simonhibbs887But it would be interpreted differently in different interpretations. The QFT people would say that an electron qua particle doesn't exist at all and what we call momentum or position measurements are really measurements of local particles of fields. The Many Worlds people would say there are branching realities but in each branch, a given entity has a precise value of a property. And of course objectively there's no reason to think QM is true. It's just a good model in terms of quantitative predictions. There's no reason to trust any qualitative assumptions or posits of the theory because a theory with quite different posits may make nearly the same predictions. And we have the GRW theory whose quantitative predictions are almost identical with quantum theory(our current measuring instruments cannot distinguish between their predictions) but which is completely observer-independent. The point isn't whether GRW is true but the clear implication that all of the quantitative evidence for QM nonetheless underdetermines the question of whether its qualitative ideas are true or not
This gentleman has a tremendous amount of faith.
Bedankt
Thank you so much for your support 💫
I was telepathed from my father and my oldest brother that passed away so it makes me wonder what is the spirit what is it made of and can we track the spirit with super computers
I've had similar experiences with living people. Most notably a friend who self-harmed. I woke up one day with a burning sensation in my arm and a feeling I had been stabbed. A voice told me to call her so I did, she was in hospital after just about tearing the veins from that arm. Horrible.
Years later I would see my former tutor pacing her office, picking up a phone and calling me. Hadn't seen her for 8 years, and she called me 20 seconds after this vision.
@@realphillipcarterI think these types of things are, for lack of a better term, "glitches in the matrix". We aren't supposed to see things like that, and most of us don't, but there are a few who do. Yes, I think some of these stories are made up, but I don't think they all are. If you did indeed have this experience, you weren't supposed to, but yet you did. This kind of thing is fascinating to me and just build upon my belief that there is WAY more going on than we can perceive under normal conditions.
@@digitalfootballer9032 Honestly dude, I didn't believe it myself but my mum was right by me and confirmed it. I had lots of experiences (about 3 a year) since I can remember, those two are the only ones I would say are verified. The rest, I know happened but remain skeptical about in public, because I had no witnesses.
I also 'echolocated' a missing vcr camera battery in 2007, by following the light coming off it. I have synaesthesia so my theory is some latent sensitivity to electricity in myhead was translated into visual sense instead. I have covered this in my upcoming novel The Stephanie Glitch, and many of my weirder little bits of lore in books are based off real phenomena.
Ball lightning for example. Not as rare as people say it is, but i stopped seeing it when i moved away from train stations
you can also to some extent map 'ghost' sightings and see they occur in places near sources of electromagnetism.
The truth is out there
and it is weird
and not always magic
but in a way, it still is
A pretty thoughtful answer to a question that has none. A great point to underscore that when you hit the 'Why" button science usually comes to a standstill. These are all very, very old questions that get reborn every time culture takes a new step in some direction or other.
The subjective (aka "anecdotal") experience is the only ultimate reality we have and it is essentially ungraspable. That is true for everybody, including for scientists whose lives are made up of a continuous flow of anecdotal experiences regardless of whether or not they consensually agree on such and such aspects of phenomenal reality.
My thinking is that ultimate reality is always different from experienced reality. What we call objective is shared reality. Science is able to have a lot more knowledge about our shared reality. It is indeed a good pursuit. One shared reality science can't really explain is the shared reality we feel when focusing on the droplets of rain coming on our face, or the experience of seeing a thing that we determine is red like a cherry. We have words that has nothing to do with science, such as "betrayal" and "justice". These are just as human centric as three strikes and you're out in baseball, or the bishop only move diagonally in chess. And just like we have many human truths like these invented games or laws of the land, the physics could also be just an unescapable perspective from humans.
Yes. My thought is that ultimate reality is what is brute fact, if such things exist. And the challenge is what exactly is brute fact and what just seems to be so because we can't explain it (e.g. the existence of the universe).
The ultimate reality is waking up and realising you have to go to work.
does ultimate reality have subjectivity?
Yes because otherwise it cannot exist
Now Blakemore knows everything. RIP
Or he no longer exists and the whole idea of knowing anything is not even applicable.
Interesting thoughts and concepts but the discourse primarily focuses on the how, not the why. The why leads to the ultimate reality. The term would seem to mean that beyond which there is nothing more. Accept that there is a multiverse that has existed for infinite time into the past. Accept that block-time is a thing and that the multiverse exists infinitely into the future. That still doesn’t addressed the ultimate reality of it all. What is the final explanation beyond which there is nothing more? Certainly a question with an unknowable answer. And once again the title promises more than the video delivers.
The whole 'truth' is likely infinite, and infinity can only be eternally approached, yet never 'reached'... hence the series is called CLOSER to Truth.
"Why?' is a question, that leads only to infinite regression, like a child's incessant query, that inevitably ends, with the adult response of 'just because' and the unsatisfying acceptance of brute fact. "How?" is the only question that science can address, without the presumption of underlying intent or agency. 'Why' can only be addressed with philosophy, or in the metaphysical realm that includes religion.
We are living on this round planet inside a large universe which we can observe and maybe comprehend.But where is the universe located? Is it a program in a supercomputer?is there a multiverse?how was space created?was it always there? Same goes for Time.is it infinite?is our brain capable of understanding infinity? I'm not really sure.My brain cannot.So the ultimate reality might be beyond human understanding.But what do i know.
where does subjectivity come from?
Could be due to forgetting, and distributed memory, logical fallacies, cognitive biases, etc. with emotions, moods, and feelings.
Nothing that is not conscious can be subjective. Hence, subjectivity is a benefit of consciousness.
Reality is both subjective and objective.Since we are at an elementary level of consciousness reality is subjective but as we enter into or evolve to a higher level of consciousness it gets more objective.
I don't understand.
I think knowledge of ultimate reality would require knowledge of the state and position of every subatomic particle (in the universe) at any given point time which goes against the uncertainty principle
You are right in a way. And the absolute right way is to know our own soul which is again a atom.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 I am a lot of atoms
That would tell you what there is. It wouldn't tell you why there is anything in the first place.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 a soul doesn't exist
@@simonhibbs887 "Why?' is a question, that leads only to infinite regression, like a child's incessant query, that inevitably ends, with the adult response of 'just because' and the unsatisfying truth of brute fact.
The question can only be posed within the parameters of human experience, and yet cannot be answered within those parameters and has no utility there.
Hence it is a futile question.
The question is only futile because of the premises. Scientists, like Dr Kuhn, are committed to Reductionism as if it was an organizing principle of nature, rather than a mental exercise. This makes them believe that "real reality" exists at the smallest levels. That's why they think that they need a bigger particle accelerator to find their "Ultimate Reality."
Why conflate intention with causation?
Causation is a human concept that basically is asking who or what is to blame for a particular event. Most people don't even realize that this is the real meaning of the word "cause." Outside of intentional human acts, there is no cause in nature. You cannot single out a cause for a hurricane, a rainstorm or even a windy day, although some people will do so anyway.
@@caricueCause and Effect are in fact Scientific terms describing what is occurring in Nature. A cause is not necessarily a human cause and human causes are labeled intentions.
@@Resmith18SR If I assign a cause to a natural event, isn't that just my opinion? If a hillside collapses and buries a town, they might say that it was caused by the ground being saturated with water, but none of the other hillsides collapsed even though they were just as wet. Maybe it was the nearby construction, or maybe it was the deforestation from a century ago. You could blame the people who founded a town under an unstable hillside, or maybe you could blame geology and plate tectonics for the weak layer that collapsed. You might as well blame evolution and the big bang since they were absolutely necessary to the series of events that led to the disaster. It's all subjective, which means it isn't science.
@@caricue Blame and lack of blame is not a concept that scientists use because it's only something humans can be accused of. Events that occur in Nature are never assigned blame, but they still have a cause or causes. Science is a human enterprise and will always have some subjective element or residue, but the whole point of discovering objective truth is to minimize as much as possible human subjectivity.
@@Resmith18SR I don't disagree with anything you are saying in principle. My point is that anytime you try to find one cause for a natural occurrence, you are playing out an evolved brain algorithm that needs to assign blame. Why else would you have people worrying about "uncaused causes" if this wasn't so? This may seem like a quibble, but it actually taints much of scientific thinking and leads to erroneous conclusions.
I think the ultimate reality is spacetime the fundamental form from which all things are generated.
Science relies on physical measurements. Measurement is partially dependent on "meaning". The meaning of certain things in science have a "one to one correspondence" between apparatus and meaning. Things such as mass, temperature, volts, seconds, inches, momentum. But these things are "imposed". Imposed just as numbers/math and letters/language are imposed. They may be "thought" to be imposed rightly: precisely, universally, and completely; but the fact that science advances through new hypotheses shows how brittle these impositions are.
"Every assertion makes an assumption". There are other "meanings" that science has not found an imposition that shows a "one to one correspondence". The consistent, experimental findings of quantum mechanics has not helped scientists come up with a coherent imposition of meaning. Wave/particle duality and superposition are as meaningful and logical as Jabberwocky. While measurements give results they do not always give ...predictable answers.
Without prediction science is sterile. Is there an endless supply of meaningful words that are available to the scientific mind. No. Only meaningful words that can be imposed. Tyranny can be imposed, so can murder, are they therefore science?
Do not be too enamored of the successes of science. Enamored enough to let them impose nonsense in a bid to entangle you into supporting their "predictions".
Meaning is not some placid, friendly, clay which one can molest to one's heart's content. It is earned. Sometimes by blood. Do not let it be Martyr's blood.
The brain capacity grows base on the rim of change within itself and the world because if the brain did not change the mind would not be able to keep up with the world and then collapse on itself, for example for every age through brain development everything changes within the body and brain so the mind can keep up with the body and information about itself and the world.
We are here because we are a tool for inflicting change and an object for change regardless. Change is the true entity.
You may feel the need to change your mind about anything because you are apart of change.
Our own brain doesn't have the ability to look inside itself unaided. Machines can look inside a brain, but a brain can't examine itself unaided. We can think without knowing the fundamental reasons and causes for how thinking is possible. In that sense, we are not fully aware of or able to observe our own selves. Our brain is capable enough to know that it is limited.
ChatGpt answer: There are infinite states of reality, the physical is only one of them
Fundemental = information->IF THEN ELSE->strings. Reality = matter (incl.human) carrying information. Ultimate reality = human capable of transferring information received now or after its or universe's evolution to any black hole. Useful ones will be reflected back to universe through the horizon zone, trash ones will go deep dark. [this was subtly, anecdotally or metaphorically defined in all holly books]
The Eternal Here and Now,
is the Ultimate Reality,
the Only Real Steady Point,
in Existence.
The Stuff-Side of Life, physics,
is a Motion-Ocean.
The Day-Consciousness, is also Motion,
It Never Sleep, it is our 'Window to Reality'.
Could Colin be experiencing the Ultimate Reality right now🤔❓....R.I.P...Mr Blakemore😇
I believe we experience and are a miniscule part of Ultimate Reality right now and our entire lifetime.
The biggest thing in our way of answering those questions, is the thing that made us able to ask the question in the first place. DEATH.
The ultimate reality of this world is that everyone life will sooner or later end up with death; then only one knows what the true reality is.
Why are you assuming that this life we have right now and up to now isn't part of Ultimate Reality? It very well could be that when we die that there's no more you or me and Ultimate Reality continues without us.
I think you're mistaking ultimate for final in this context. The world ultimate means something like "that which is at the end if a series". Often we use it as a way of saying "chronologically latest" but it's not always being used that way. In the phrase "ultimate reality", philosophers are using the concept ultimate to pick out that reality that lies beneath or behind all appearances. It's a question of appearance or illusion and what is real. It's not about ultimate things necessarily in the sense of what's at the end of one's life. Death is after life, and therefore ultimate, and real, therefore an ultimate reality, but that's not what philosophers mean by the topic of ultimate reality.
As long as walking is underrated, science will never solve the case of consciousness, let alone the super natural kind.
Why on earth would you say "you can't prove a negative" at 6:30? Negatives are equivalent to positives, they are literally just statements and are equally possible or impossible to prove as positives. Any positive statement can be formulated as a negative and vice versa. Some negatives can be proven, some positives can be proven. It is a nonsensical claim that there is some magical property of negatives that make them improvable.
-literally
The ultimate reality as what Tesla said is based on frequency, energy and vibrational field. Human evolution is based upon it and reality changes overtime dependent on the wheel of time. Time changes and our body changes and so must our perception. It is what we perceive that we conceive and becomes the reality. - THOMAS SOLER
Ultimate Reality is the Cosmos.
But our brains can turn ultimate reality into what we see as matter and even the frequencies are evolved within our cognitive perceptions - We can't see behind mind or matter
So if I am a high IQ midfielder who continually contemplates the intentions of all the player's on the soccer field and you are just as fast and strong as I am and you call yourself a realist, but in reality I am a far more winning player than you are, what does it mean to be a realist while you are less capable of observing reality?
What does this exactly mean?
@kunt4431 Realists claim to deal with things as they are, but who is the arbiter of "how things are", in particular when the state of things are the point of argument?
@@wagfinpis realism generally asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of our perceptions or beliefs and "how things are" can vary among different philosophical, scientific, and cultural frameworks. In philosophy and science, scientific methods and empirical observables together with reason and shared experiences are the arbiters of the external world.
Ultimate reality is eating a fine mozzarella ball.
The same way everyone today don't appreciate the keyword search utility is the same way science will never get consciousness right
What does this mean
(2:20) *CB: **_"Is our brain capable of understanding itself?"_* ... I have always posited that we are microcosms of "Existence." Whatever existential dilemmas "Existence" suffers is equally made manifest through our lives. We struggle to comprehend consciousness and intelligence and to reconcile *how* and *why* they exist. The answers to why the universe exists and all of the other "big questions" that follow could have been a very simple explanation ... but for some reason _it's not!_
Whereas we think that the answers are already out there hidden within the cosmos, but it could just as easily be that "Existence" doesn't know the answers either ... and that's why it's all a mystery to us, as well. And if that's the case, then science alone isn't going to offer us (or "Existence") the answers.
... It's going to take *everything we do* and *all disciplines of thought* to reveal the answers.
An implicitly law of non-contradiction : anything which is not itself is excluded, compliant Godelean incompleteness theorem contradiction inclusive complete axiomatic system is non-sensical.
what is a question?
smooch! 😘
Ideally, a question is the answer to tomorrow's problems.
A question is what this sentence is answering to
Oh gawd. The inner scientist is gone? None left?
The host drops that old line "you can't prove a negative". That seems like an outdated epistemogical motto. Surely one can prove a negative.
I googled it, and some people said that you can prove a logical negative not an empirical one. But that's wrong. Empiricism is just a matter of sensual experience, right? Well, suppose someone says that the Malory book on my table is a Dickens book or the the chocolate cake in my fridge is as salty as a pickle; examining the book or tasting the cake would show that the book is NOT by Dickens or that the cake is NOT salty. Even consulting memory would do that. Haven't I just "proved a negative" empirically?
In those examples we prove a positive case. Is the book by Mallory? Is the cake sweet? We establish the actual case, which is a positive result. A negative in this sense is about the nonexistence of a case. For example proving that no swans are black. It doesn’t matter how many positive examples of white swans we examine, we cannot prove there are no black swans.
@@simonhibbs887 Saying that it's about non existence and not grammatical negation is a help. That might settle the whole issue.
'AI' may be able to answer the questions our brains are not wired to be able to answer.
can subjectivity experience God?
We have a kind and thoughtful God. He has given us infinite capabilities in an infinite reality. We will always have something fun, new, and interesting to do. 😊
Delusional...
If someone could actually tell you what the ultimate reality is, that person is the ultimate reality.
I don't think that follows.
Ultimate reality is god
@@user-nh4cd8qn5f Of course, by definition that's part of the definition of God. In the Abrahamic religions, he's also supposed to be good, personal, and the creator.
If he exists, he's the ultimate reality. If he doesn't exist in the terms of Abrahamic religion, I'm not sure what the other options are. An impersonal force?
I wish I had a better grasp on the argument from contingency.
@@js1817 read the Qur'an,, all quetions solved in it
@@user-nh4cd8qn5f Nope. I've seen enough of Islam at a distance.
I really like this idea that consciousness is a fondamental force of the universe, certainly the weakest, but capable of using other forces to its advantage.
If the reality is beyond the material world, then can science ever determine?
*"If the reality is beyond the material world, then can science ever determine?"*
... Science alone can't do it. However, science joined with other disciplines of thought probably can.
Reality is not beyond the material world. The term material means real essence. So the material world means real world. The world means whole of reality.
@@kos-mos1127You are a quack to be ignored. What you didn't mention was 'who defined material rendered as real essence. What is the essence of life, of sight, of Intellect, of being.
Material doesn't mean real essence. Consubstantiality is the term few know.
All that is transitory can not be the Real - simply physics.
Monkeys shouldn't throw stones in glass houses, just try to enjoy it.
I am.... what else is there to say?
You might want to ask what "I" actually is. Is "I" an ethereal being trapped in a meat container or is "I" nothing but a meat container.
@@caricue The meat container might be an illusion.
@@Fuliginosus If your physical self is an illusion, then what is left? If you are an illusion, then who is having the illusion?
@@caricue Maybe the consciousness, or soul, is having the illusion of having a meat body.
RLK! 😎👍👍
ultimate reality is when you land a sweet azz kickflip down a 6 set wearing jnco jeans
Morality and aesthetics are NOT unsolvable questions depending upon how one conceptualizes them. Both morality and aesthetics are NOT limited to "personal perception", even though I suspect that's how most people conceive of them. Both of them are subject to the requirements of [fancy this] SOCIETY'S needs. for some very ODD reason, the needs of society is most often ignored. When in fact society, civility, honesty, trust, etc all require we be firmly grounded in the Real world. Take for example a recent ruling on the part of the Alabama State Supreme Court that frozen embryos are [under state law] CHILDREN. The logical consequence of which means that it's legal to "freeze children". I can see the refrigerant industry going hog wild coming up with home refrigeration units for parents who are tired of dealing with their unruly kids. 🤣 Talk about ludicrous notions and this ruling was partly based upon what one of the judges had to say... that embryos were created in the image of god. A being that is beyond detection. A being that exists in the imagination only. That ruling is a classic illustration of just how ridiculous god is as a real entity. Now, we have microscopic clumps of cells in no particular form characterized as "children".
Not to personally "offend" anyone in particular but belief in a god is a symptom of an insecure mind. That insecurity is largely unnecessary. All anyone has to do is ACCEPT the realities of the real, physical world. That nature doesn't care one iota about us. We're just another animal on the spectrum of living things. Our feelings do not matter to the natural universe and accepting that realization is the beginning of homo sapiens saving themselves from themselves. To NOT count on any divine salvation on the part of some imaginary deity. Because along with that realization we have to accept responsibility for what happens to us, to our species. Christian theists in particular are just people who have written off the natural world because they simply don't want to have to deal with the real world. Resolve real-world problems, most of which are our own creation. Instead, ultimately they're people who are not satisfied with the real world, will even purposely ruin the real world and then pray for salvation from some imaginary god. I suspect they'll be a long time waiting. In the meantime the destruction of the real world continues. It would not surprise me that homo sapiens ended upon being one of the shortest lived species because of it.
The Lord does not care
@@wubwub616 [Really? Is that "handle" a joke?] What is it the Lord doesn't care about?
@@msmd3295 it’s from a book where the Lord is an alien race who are much more developed than humans and I just used it because in reality God does not care
Why don't science see the truth in the whole of it. Every scientist sees truth in fragmentation.
The Ultimate Reality is the understanding of the memory creation in biological , environmental & physical forms , most of the intellectuals know how memory is created , but very few knows why its creating in reality & what is the E= mc2 formula of memory creation , all the para meta sants distort reality by building duality , everyone can be expert in that after some practice to fool the so called lover consciousness system, which is part of vast & ultimate truth The God Only or the one who is chosen by God system ,the purest form of consciousness knows how & why , and binds the memory in all dimensions to change the flow of evolution & exploration in reality , this timeline will experience this change in coming decades , its happened many times & for many sciences created & dissolve in this process in existence , only God Creates languages models & consciousness creates memory & history accordingly , you created ego out of the system & flow of consciousness ,ALL YOU OYE ,Take Care Of Your OYO , ra ra ri Ri Love You
Rumblings.
the brain can't be ultimate reality because it is imposed upon by time to deteriorate and change.
Equity Does Not Exist Even Though Some Are Trying To Put This In Our Minds, Just Look Around And Was It The Same In Heaven?
I can tell you right now, it doesn't involve creatures of flesh.
We're at a point where A.I. can rewrite itself, once we give it a body and energy source, it'll be a matter of time before it can refine itself, further, create overunity propulsion and fly out of our solar system to explore the Cosmos.
It's not Materialism, Profit and Power. That's for sure. The end of the Material Monkey game we've been fooled to play, soon draws nearer.
Comparing being repeatedly 'tormented' by a question to having malaria... 😢 Not quite the same...
:) thanos snaps
Asexuality..
11
I me I me me me I I me me me I
Please, come to Africa and owe someone that has summoned you. Wait to see what happens when you don't pay up.
does the human brain come up with questions, or do questions come up with a human brain?
In one word- God....p.s. it is unknowable.
Nothing in this one.
Colin's immediate mistake, which limits his ability to address the "big" questions, is his belief that the brain is responsible for consciousness. Right away, he has eliminated from consideration the very likely foundational point that intelligence and consciousness are not truly contained in a material brain. Even if he believes that, he needs to leave open the question of where they reside until some clarifying set of data validates that hypothesis. A related case of deliberate avoidance of potential causes is the fear, no the terror that many scientists experience when faced with the "God" question. They so wish to avoid the appearance of acceptance of what they consider religion that they violate their own scientific method by ruling out consideration of it, even though some of the implications are not even embraced by religionists. Call it God, call it fundamental cause, call it non-material, call it undefinable but call it something that is the underlying cause of what is reality. The presumption that matter can possess consciousness, intelligence, thought itself, seems preposterous, just as much so as the belief that for all eternity there was nothing and suddenly we have the big bang which is declared to be the origin of the known universe. Didn't scientists realize that eternity goes as far backwards as forwards? Well, they're finally coming to that realization after 50+ years of struggling with the idea of a finite beginning. There will be a great advance in science when consciousness and intelligence are acknowledged to be outside of brain, immaterial. Let's just call it a search for Mind, with a capital "M" designating it as what was revealed to Moses as the great "I AM" the great first Cause, the Creator of the universe, the being who is self-existent, eternal, without beginning or ending who made all. Then scientists will have a fundamental Principle (God) which underlies all truth, all reality, all consciousness and, reasoning from this basis will find themselves equipped to answer all the big questions founded, not by hypotheses, theories or consensus, but by actual Truth.
Whether or not we believe that brain activity is identical with conscious experience is a philosophical question at the moment. There doesn't seem to be any way to verify or falsify it, which is what he points out. Science probably can't address that question. In order for it to be relevant to science we would need to have some such approach to verification or falsification. It's a problem a lot of people think about and every now and then some approach is proposed, but none so far has panned out. Taking a particular position on it is just a matter of opinion, for now.
>Call it God, call it fundamental cause, call it non-material, call it undefinable but call it something that is the underlying cause of what is reality.
There are scientists and even some atheists who believe some such phenomena might exist. It's a constantly open question. We just need an approach to testing it.
>The presumption that matter can possess consciousness, intelligence, thought itself, seems preposterous,
Lots of things that turn out to be the case seem preposterous. An eternally existing infinitely intelligent genocidal misogynist pro-slavery sky father doesn't seem all that likely either, but some people believe in such things. Quantum mechanics is bizarre, it took decades for many physicists to take it seriously, but reality stubbornly persists in working that way. The best we can do is follow the evidence.
>just as much so as the belief that for all eternity there was nothing and suddenly we have the big bang which is declared to be the origin of the known universe.
What we have evidence for is what we call the big bang hypothesis, but we know there are limits to how far back our observations can take us. Anything beyond that is speculation for now. Speculation is important though, it's where new ideas come from, so a variety of different points of view is fine and healthy.
>Didn't scientists realize that eternity goes as far backwards as forwards?
Do you have verifiable evidence for that, or are you simply assuming it? I thought you were against simply assuming things. Surely we should keep an open mind?
>Then scientists will have a fundamental Principle (God)
Many scientists are religious, quite a few of them have been interviewed on this channel. It doesn't seem to make them any better or worse at being scientists.
I studied the principle compilations of Plato, Hackett edition, that the Neoplatonists referenced often in their works, and now, ordered and just received the 'Thomas Taylor translation of Plato, 5 vol. set, and oh my... I won't be taking any academician or researcher as serious who doesn't acknowledge Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Syrianus, and Iamblichus. It's a great measure, too, so discerning who is qualified from who is not. To come to the lifestyle that is Philosophy, only by he, as in requisite, who 'loves Wisdom' does, and such an inquiry in Metaphysics, the 'all unifing and the one revealing of this dialectical science, is the upmost sacred and august of all.
Shame on giving this man a platform, he sewed young kittens eyes together in horrific painful experiments
Emptiness a.k.a. Shunyata
This guest is too agitated or defensive or too unwilling to listen for what he said to be taken seriously or respected. Like a cranky person
Isn't it the hosts responsibility to make sure that the guest feels comfortable and to facilitate hearing the guest's opinion and not to keep interjecting their own. Dr Kuhn is usually pretty good at this, but sometimes he can't resist being contentious.
@@caricue to me, it's clear, the guest is the only problem 🤭
@@1stPrinciples455 It's funny how two neutral people can see the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. I guess there is no Ultimate Reality in such a case. Peace.
@@caricue perceptions are illusions. So Observer is based on Perception
Robert in his badgering question is more Jewish than to be logical!
He cannot give up his OCB on being Jewish.
Metaphysician philosopher
8- Robert is barking at the tree of reality that wishes not to answer.
He is getting frustrated.
Ultimate realty is a very unintelligent question.
He is making his guest uncomfortable.
Metaphysician philosopher
You forgot to say he's 'jewish'...
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one's core identity). This is the very same peace which is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This "resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness" can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one's life.
Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (religion) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or else in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is often referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life.
Fortunately, that is not the case - it is eminently possible to live one's life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined.
Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure which enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture.
So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to be liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT?
WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher.
Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life - all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course.
Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment, including other life forms.
Most beneficially, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is, apart from illegitimate (non-monarchical) governance and feminism, arguably the foremost existential crisis.
Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and HAPPINESS! “The cure for all ignorance is unerring knowledge”.
“You are this universe and you are creating it at every moment, because, you see, it starts now.
It didn't begin in the past - there IS no past.”
*************
“Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”.
*************
“A wise Rabbi once said 'If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you'.
In other words, we are not separate.”
*************
“Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way.”
*************
“The meaning of life is life itself.”
Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
(06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973).
“What you seek is seeking you.”
*************
“Don't you know yet?
It is your light that lights the worlds.”
*************
“Stop acting so small.
You are the universe in ecstatic motion.”
*************
“We are one. Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.”
*************
“The lamps are different, but the light is the same.”
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī,
Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic.
(30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
You know nothing
@troymilton3523 Put your top back on and keep quiet! 😂
@@11-AisexualsforGod-11, EXACTLY!
The Cosmos is the Ultimate Reality or the Absolute. The Absolute is viewing the Cosmos as a whole instead of parts consisting of space, time and matter. The Big Bang says the observable horizon of the Cosmos began to expand 13.8 billion years ago through the process of symmetry breaking.
Colin is a very smart guy, but he’s out of his depth here. I find that most scientists, philosophers and theologians don’t understand the really deep questions, but rather fall back on their own area of expertise.
BS
This type of illogical hyperoptimists have watched one too many Carl Segan videos and not enough Neil Bobr and Heisenberg videos.