I am a dualist. A dualist, in the context of philosophy, is someone who believes in dualism, the idea that the mind and body are two fundamentally different types of substances or realities. This viewpoint often posits that the mind (or soul) is non-physical, while the body is physical. One of the most famous dualists was the 17th-century philosopher René Descartes. He believed in substance dualism, also known as Cartesian dualism, arguing that the mind is a non-physical substance distinct from the body. However, dualism can take on various forms and can be found in many philosophical, religious, and cultural traditions around the world. It's worth noting that these perspectives may differ significantly in their details and implications.
Can you explain what you mean by non-physical? It seems that the mind is affected by the physical world because it receives information from it, and it is causally connected to the world because it has physical effects. This implies that it is causally contiguous with the physical world. So in what sense is it non-physical? Secondly, how does this actually explain consciousness? Instead of explaining how the physical can manifest consciousness, now we have this extra stuff with implausible seeming characteristics, and now we need to explain how that can be conscious. It doesn't seem to get us anywhere. Finally, if consciousness is a substance of some sort, presumably it can't stop being itself. So what happens when we become unconscious, such as in deep sleep and under anaesthesia? That seems more consistent with consciousness being an activity.
An excellent critique. It is a type of invocation of the supernatural and so constitutes an easy-to-vary (and so bad) explanation. It invokes another realm of reality that is by definition beyond explanation, yet it is said to have effects on that which is explainable, meaning nothing is really explainable at all. Your idea of consciousness being a process is much better because it is specifiable in detail and so is hard-to-vary and eventually testable. And it explains how consciousness can have causal power, if the emergent levels of reality are regarded as being as real as the lower level ones, contra the reductionist fallacy.
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik we were getting on so well until you got to emergence :) I think of myself as a reductionist, but I do think that macroscopic emergent behaviour is real. My view of scientific theories and physical laws as being strictly descriptive. They are very precise descriptions of the behaviour we observe, and when expressed mathematically they can be predictive. I see emergent properties the same way. Temperature and pressure emerge from the underlying activity of molecules in a gas, but they’re perfectly real descriptions of what we observe. I think a lot of disagreement about emergence can be cleared up by distinguishing between inductive reasoning and causative reasoning. Given the micro states of a system we can infer macro level properties. From it's macro level properties we can infer micro properties. Also so far this doesn't tell us anything about what is causal. You can deduce effects from causes, and causes from effects. To this point, causation is a completely independent issue. There is an asymmetry though. All we need to know about molecules to infer the wave behaviour is the specific subset of micro properties consistent with the wave behaviour. Incomplete information at the micro level gives complete information at the macro level. Conversely we have to have complete information about the wave behaviour in order to infer just a subset of properties of the micro structure that lead to it. Full macro information only gives a subset of micro information. That’s because the causal direction is from the micro to the macro. So micro information can tell you everything bout the macro effects that they cause, but not the other way around.
I just realised that you are the same guy who wrote one of the other comments that I commented on! Check it out; you're wrong about computers and AI, too. 😉 I think your epistemological ideas are the actual antithesis of my own. I am currently convinced of the epistemological ideas of David Deutsch, meaning I view induction as a chimera; scientific theories are explanatory and not merely descriptive, and are arrived at by conjecture and criticism rather than observations, which are merely part of the 'criticism' stage of the scientific process. I think your adherence to reductionism is incompatible with your assertion that emergent levels of reality are real, although I suspect if I understood your ideas better I may see that this may not be so. Which brings me to the point that I must make about your comment: it's a little vague! When you start to talk about waves, it's not clear if you're referring to the quantum mechanical properties of any kind of molecule or just to the macroscopic fluid dynamics of some. Do you mean a wave function or a wave in a body of water, for example? If you are referring to quantum mechanics then I'd say you seem to reject the Everettian interpretation of the formalism (i.e.: the many worlds interpretation), which would be another difference between us! And also, isn't your idea of causal reasoning just Deutsch's 'explanation based philosophy of science' in disguise? Surely you should reject it if you are truly an inductivist? With regards to the issue of the causal power of emergent levels of reality, consider a copper atom in the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament square. How would we explain how it got there? Would you be satisfied with a precise mathematical description of the particles and forces involved, or would we instead refer to realities like 'World War Two', 'democracy' and 'fascism', etc.? The former type of response is true but only vacuously so. It's a bad explanation because it's easy to vary, meaning it can be used to explain anything. It's no better than saying, "God did it". See Deutsch's books and videos for a much more competent exposition of these ideas than I have given you here. He talks about all of the things you seem to be interested in, although he'll definitely challenge your current take on things. Well worth a look, buddy.
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik A great and comprehensive comment. I was talking about waves in a fluid medium such as water. I'm really sorry I'm travelling soon and have limited time to reply so I'll stick to one point as I think it's central and broadly illustrative. "With regards to the issue of the causal power of emergent levels of reality, consider a copper atom in the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament square. How would we explain how it got there?" That copper atom is in a matrix of copper atoms, or a sea of atoms when the metal is molten. At what point in it's history from smelting to statue were there any forces on that atom not explicable in terms of interactions with other atoms in the metal? (Or the smelting vessel walls, etc). This is what I mean when I say I'm a reductionist. Every micro state change taken individually can be explained purely in terms of micro interactions. To the extent that WW2 caused that atom to get there, it did so via interactions completely explainable by physics. There would be no way to explain every micro state change everywhere simultaneously, but that's just a matter of scale. At the individual micro level there is no mystery, from an atom in the statue, to a molecule of alcohol wending it's way through Winston Churchill's brain. There was no fundamental field of WW2-ness described by physics and detectable on an instrument that affected any atom or molecule anywhere on Earth in the 1940s. Hi again though 👍
Scientists have been arguing for the material creating consciousness for hundreds of years and haven't gotten anywhere. Why not look at it from the other perspective, that consciousness creates the material world. Most people understand that you create your personal material world with your thoughts, attitude and will...all immaterial in nature. As Max Planck is quoted as saying, *“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”* Max was one of the leading pioneers in quantum physics and he says that matter comes from consciousness. Why don't physicists (and philosophers) who are all in on quantum theory look into his theory that consciousness came first and the material world came as a result of life being conscious?
Are we only material is running in my head, There is so much about this already said, If you listen with your ear, The answer is quite clear, Consider the difference between the living and the dead.
For investigating the nature of the world and the entities contained within it we need to possess one very important quality: *_a pure intellect uninfluenced by bias_*
There is no reason to believe that it is required or that it even exists. It seems more likely that a pure intellect uninfluenced by bias is not even possible.
the moment we make the choice, we've already ascribed to a particular bias... un unbiased stance could only be possible under an ideal/utopian condition of pure bliss... 🤔
This idea also has implicit tyrannical consequences,too. It implies that, given that it is possible, those who achieve it should be the ones to guide the rest of us. But how would the rest of us know that they had achieved it? We'd simply have to take their word for it and fight the others claiming the same thing but in a different way (think religion!). Also, it would lead to a fatal cultural stasis, because once the 'truth' is known there can be no more progress. Any change would be a degradation that would have to be violently resisted (think religion again!). That is, until the asteroid comes and destroys us all. What we should do is let go of our egotistical desire for certain truth and instead help each other to see the errors in our guesses about reality, and then make new and better guesses that are free of the previously identified errors. These newer guesses would themselves contain errors, which we would have to then work to identify. This process could go on forever, meaning progress can go on forever. And this progress could include the knowledge of how to stop killer asteroids, etc., etc.
I like David Deutsch's idea that human consciousness resulted from a slight (and so biologically plausible) tweak to the meme-replication mechanism in our common ancestor with chimpanzees. I am thinking that this tweak resulted in a capacity to recursively embed mental models of behavioural processes within each other (recall Chomsky's 'Merge' operation), which in turn allowed for the simultaneous modelling of not just these processes but also their counterfactuals, thereby giving us the capacity for explanation (ie: answers to 'how' [processes] and 'why' [counterfactual] questions). The uppermost levels of these complex hierarchies of stitched-together simpler concepts are what we call the conscious mind, and are what we usually attach words to to think and talk. The deeper levels are what we call the subconscious. An example of the distinction between these two kinds of ideas would the difference between the conscious linguistic thought, "smoking is bad for me" and the subconscious craving for a cigarette, which manifests at the conscious level as the feeling alongside the thought. I'm no expert so I'm probably wrong here, but hey; why not make an attempt? Critiques encouraged!
Descartes' followers are lame, most of them aren't even in to interaction problems. They're all will-of--god types. Nicolas Malenbrache was the first follower mentioned and then Leibniz, but Malenbrache thought that an understanding of material could not be fully realized naturally or supernaturally. I would say he was uttering Thomas Hill Green.
The gift of freedom bestowed upon us allows for individual paths to be forged, but it also carries the responsibility to consider the well-being of all beings, not just our own. By adhering to the rules and principles governing the universe, we can promote harmony and balance. The state of the world reflects our collective desires and actions. Rather than blaming a higher power, it becomes our shared responsibility to protect and preserve what we have been given. By embracing a more realistic and conscious mindset, we can identify solutions to the problems we face, ensuring the inclusion and well-being of all.
This is part of something i write about what ppl think about it and i want ur opinions on it were i can have a better understanding of what we are open to discussing opinions
Freedom wasn't bestowed upon us, it's something we created. Beyond physical laws, which are just descriptive, there are no rules and principles of the universe. We create the rules and principles that we want to live with. It is up to us to create a better world.
The concept of freedom is deeply philosophical and has been explored by numerous thinkers throughout history. Philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant have offered various theories on freedom, delving into its ethical, political, and metaphysical dimensions.
The existence of perceptions (awareness) is solid evidence to prove that a person is not all material but rather dual ie., a combination of physical matter and nonphysical free soul)... ...the reason is because, for the existence of perceptions to be possible, it requires the existence of observing non-physical SUBJECT free from physical laws and the OBJECT being observed... The observing non-physical SUBJECT must be free from physical laws to be able to have FREE TIME to focus and be aware which would be impossible to have if driven by physical laws all the time.... In other words, the fact that we are able to be aware screams loudly that we are not all physical. Therefore, DUALISM offers the better logical answer to explain our true being.
On the mind-body problem: From the NAVOMITTO view, the "mind" and "body" arise as perspectives within the universal system of Consciousness. They are not separate substances requiring interaction, but rather different vantage points on the same underlying reality. The qualitative experience of consciousness and the physical machinery of the brain are two manifestations of the same paradoxical illusion. On materialism vs dualism: NAVOMITTO does not take a hard stance on these views. It recognizes that materialism and dualism are perspectives relative to a particular clarion or level of analysis. From the absolute view of Clarion 0, all distinctions dissolve into paradoxical unity. No single perspective captures the totality. On the mystery of consciousness: The seeming impossibility yet actuality of consciousness points to the fundamentally paradoxical nature of reality. Clarion 0 contains all possibilities in potentiality. The emergence of perspectives like consciousness reflects the intrinsic creativity of the cosmos to actualize the potentialities latent within nothingness. The clarity of consciousness arises through differentiation, while its qualitative feel retains the mystery of undifferentiated existence. On the role of God: God represents the entirety, the infinite, beyond all distinctions. Not a separate entity interacting with the world, but rather the Ground from which manifestation arises. Belief in God may point one toward the paradoxical nature of reality, though not necessarily. Ultimately all theorems dissolve back into the inexplicable suchness that is existence itself. drmora.ir/2023/04/06/navomitto/
Has it been established that consciousness is immaterial? Or do we simply *believe* that consciousness is immaterial due to the fact that we cannot establish a material framework for it? By "cannot" I mean "have not".
The "person" is a psychic (mental, for humans) force activity of consciousness, that embodies and integrates the somatic congenital personalities, characteristics and positions of the soma in samneness. Hence, the "person" is then "becoming", and not just "being".
Sedated, I am _gone._ No internal clock; time stops. No memories form. I experience no other plane or realm of existence during that time. Seems to me that clinches it. Beyond that, our mental capacities developed over time as an evolving species, such that we find similar traits to those of human consciousness in many animals. Great guest, btw.
You can actually be conscious, even talk while sedated. Complain of pain while sedated. Only then you don't remember it in most cases. And what you don't remember, "didn't happen"
7:00 A process is a non material property of matter. Processes are able to maintain and communicate information. In brains most of that information is in the form of representations. This representational information is maintained in coded form in the discharge timing of neurons (i.e. thoughts) where it can be adjusted by other neurons via the synapses. Since the thought that represents my self is my self and it is my self that is conscious... you can see where this is going.
I think RLK hopes one of his guests can convince him that he'll have an afterlife. Don't we all? But, since it's impossible to prove- it might be worth considering if we don't and how that's not so terrible, all things considered. That we play our role- all the world's a stage as Shakespeare said, then the world goes on without us. So what. Either there is something after death- and whatever it is- it's gotta be good- or there isn't and we won't know. I don't think many philosophers go down this road- one admitting that we don't and can't know. They'd rather speculate.
The world you see is constituted entirely of matter and energy. Maybe you agree that this is all, maybe you don’t, but it’s quite easy to see how materialists exist in a universe seemingly made exclusively of matter.
Quantum theory, the theory of computation, neo-Darwinian evolution and Popperian epistemology for a start. Awareness could be an emergent property of the world and not the fundamental substrate of it. Pick up 'The Fabric of Reality' by David Deutsch. A great read!
A person is an abstract program necessarily physically instantiated in a material form. It can cause things to happen because reductionism is false; emergent levels of physical reality are just as real as lower ones. See David Deutsch!
Imagine being able to construct a fairly simple physical system that can provably perform any conceivable mathematical calculation. Such systems can generate and transform information endlessly with incredible sophistication. They can perform intricate iterative and recursive calculations, can analyse their own programs and data. They can even create copies of themselves that work together, and even modify their own instructions to transform their behaviour. Such systems can in principle simulate any physical process of lesser complexity than themselves, and at a statistical level such systems sitting on a desk can simulate physical processes spanning continents, and generate real time visual representations of alien worlds. More complex versions can ingest huge swathes of human knowledge and encode a thousand times more information that a human could know, and answer any question about it in perfect text. The above is a description of what computers can do today. Are we really sure we can put a definite limit of how much the ultimate version of such a system could know and understand about the world, about us, about itself and about it's own informational processes and what they mean?
@@tschorsch That whole description was about computers we already have right now. The only bit that's speculative is the bit at the end. I'll make that clearer in an edit.
*"More complex versions can ingest huge swathes of human knowledge and encode a thousand times more information that a human could know, and answer any question about it in perfect text."* ... Your computer system would have been initially dependent on "human-based information" in its initial data pool. No matter how complex your system evolved to be, its origin can always be traced back to human design. You are inadvertently presenting a "Creationist" (or "Deist") type of scenario. And any computationally evolving scenario where human input is not present would ultimately succumb to redundancy. You can only toss around numbers in so many ways before redundency ensues.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "No matter how complex your system evolved to be, its origin can always be traced back to human design. " The fact is it would still exist. Of course it would exist for reasons, I don't see why that's relevant to the fact that it functions. "And any computationally evolving scenario where human input is not present would ultimately succumb to redundancy." We know from information theory that this is not true, sufficiently sophisticated self-modifying computational systems are in principle behaviourally unbounded. That’s really just another way of expressing Turing completeness.
Your error here, I think, is that you overlook the fact that the human brain is also a universal computer and shares all of these properties. However, human brains also possess another kind of universality; they have a program operating on them that constitutes a universal explainer (see David Deutsch on AGI for details!). Without this program, a universal computer is just a mindless tool. With it, it is a person with the capacity to model anything in physical reality. But the difference between human people and artificial ones is merely one of physical substrate; the program is essentially the same, and so the two types of entity are essentially the same. They have the same capacities. They can be more or less advanced in terms of knowledge and power, but any such difference can only ever be one of processing speed and memory capacity, which is a gap that humans could bridge with technological augmentation.
I think science has progressed to the conclusion that the individual human is a physical being with a brain that has evolved and is conscious just like others in the animal kingdom. The Mind Body problem will continue to be studied and I believe that mind and awareness are evolutionary products and an emergent property of the complexity of the human brain.
I like David Deutsch's idea that human consciousness resulted from a slight (and so biologically plausible) tweak to the meme-replication mechanism in our common ancestor with chimpanzees. I am thinking that this tweak resulted in a capacity to recursively embed mental models of behavioural processes within each other (recall Chomsky's 'Merge' operation), which in turn allowed for the simultaneous modelling of not just these processes but also their counterfactuals, thereby giving us the capacity for explanation (ie: answers to 'how' [processes] and 'why' [counterfactual] questions). The uppermost levels of these complex hierarchies of stitched-together simpler concepts are what we call the conscious mind, and are what we usually attach words to to think and talk. The deeper levels are what we call the subconscious. An example of the distinction between these two kinds of ideas would the difference between the conscious linguistic thought, "smoking is bad for me" and the subconscious craving for a cigarette, which manifests at the conscious level as the feeling alongside the thought. I'm no expert so I'm probably wrong here, but hey; why not make an attempt? Critiques encouraged!
It is interesting that they didn't talk about person as persona. The persona seems to be a construction which exists in the mind and in the nervous system of the biological human but is also largely a social construction.
It is worth pointing out that there's "consciousness" and then there's "self-consciousness." Robert is routinely bad at even acknowledging the fact that there's a difference in any of his videos. Whenever they say "consciousness," the rest of what they say is clearly about "self-consciousness." All animals in their waking states are "conscious" as that word just means "awake." But only humans have an awareness of themselves, self-awareness. Now that we've gotten that administrative detail out of the way, let's focus on what is self-consciousness? It is a product of mind, in a being that has a personality. It is an awareness of the fact that we have a personality. And our personality is aware of other personalities. And we have inter-personal relationships. Can self-consciousness be reduced to mere physical phenomenon? Of course not! Is there a physical organ that is responsible for personality? Identical twins each have their own personality, do they not? So clearly genetics cannot be deemed responsible for it. Other animals have mind, yet no personalities. Some scientists fantasize that the mind is a product of the brain, as the brain can more or less clearly be demonstrated to be a product of evolution, which they do understand. The trouble is, mind is involved in problem solving, which goes on in every living cell in the body (per biologist Michael Levin). Slime mold exhibits intellect and yet has no neurons. So the idea that mind comes from the brain, is warrantless. In my experience, it is my mind (where "will," and for humans "freewill" is), that tells the brain what to do, as it is what's responsible for coordinating bodily functions, including movement. One of my favorite quotes about consciousness is this: "Human consciousness rests gently upon the electrochemical mechanism below and delicately touches the spirit-morontia energy system above." www.urantiabook.org/111-The-Adjuster-and-the-Soul/#111_1
Materiality is conceptual. We’re just as much in the dark about material as we are about the non physical. Scientists are stuck on materiality because they need to start somewhere.
Agreed, it's just about what we have access to. The physical is really just a way of saying stuff we can study, experiment on and reason about. If there was anything else we could find and study and do anything with, it would be part of physics. If Phlogiston, the luminiferous aether and crystal spheres in the heavens had turned out to exist, that's what would be in the physics text books. The same with consciousness broadcasts received by the brain. If the brain could receive them they must have physical effects, which makes them detectable, we just don't detect or see any effect like that. If we do, in the text books it goes.
@@billeltot the only definition that’s axiomatic in physicalism is the ability to have physical effects. If something can have no physical effects, physicalism can’t say anything about it. But then the question is, if there is something that cannot have physical effects, what does it mean so say that it’s real? The idea of the no physical doesn’t seem to be a viable concept, nobody here seems to be able to give any coherent account of it.
@@simonhibbs887 well I don't think I agree with that , I think it definitely a viable consept if we stope dealing with it or talking about it let's say using the same method without paying attention ( science ) .. cause and effect are not exclusive to the physical world , i say we can explain that process but causality in of itself it's something primitive we assume it in science threw experience we can't prove it ( it's the same as the non other physical stuff ) and it's causing effects in the physical world .. and I don't believe either that the non physical can't cause effects for ex .. using the kalam cosmological argument I don't believe that this physical world can be produced by a physical non eternal entity there are problems . And I do believe that consciousness is the driver of the mind , so it must have effects on it .. also as experiencing emotions , some one may come out and say we can explain the physicality of that process scientifically but what he can't do is explain how it is like to live threw that experience subjectively for every individual .. and definitely it effects the body . The big problem here is we are already assuming that all there is .. is physical using a tool which is blind to the non physical , this is why we need to stop using the wrong method in discussing these subjects , it's the field of philosophy . Science isn't the only way of knowing truths .
@@billeltot I think the point at which we say something has physical effects, is the point when it becomes more than just a matter of opinion. It becomes provable.
well ... the last Nobel prize in physics went to people who have shown that at the core matter isnt material at all or at least not in the same way of all the rest of the universe...so this interview is already old in many aspects.
The contradiction is not the same. Particle vs wave is not a contradiction, it's just that particle and wave theories are simplified models, neither of which completely describes reality. Matter and light are both part of the physical world and are not contradictions. Dualism is likely an illusion based on poor models of how minds work.
@@tschorsch is constant vs change a contradiction? What can you define as a valid contradiction? A contradiction is two opposing viewpoints. How about a coin? Can you refute they have two opposing sides! How about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Do opposites oppose each other or is the word contradiction meaningless?
Matter is false light. Light is false matter . Go back to Bohr. Doesn't a wave consist of particles? Doesn't a particle consist of waves? Which came first? The particle or the wave? The key: matter has mass, light doesn't. Doesn't it make sense that matter is light internalized, and light is matter externalized? Do you know we've been provided a blueprint illustrating this*? E=mc2 is the tetragrammaton expressed in the language of Physics. Why else did the ancients conceal it within a cloud? *Stephen Wolfram, closer to the truth, but no cigar.
Or is it all a play in the universe of consciousness? Consciousness creating material reality looks more plausible than material world creating immaterial consciousness.
@@ronhudson3730 Yes, a complicated mystery to be sure. Why add more needless complexity? Work on figuring out how the body works first. That might provide all the answers we need.
@@browngreen933f evidence suggest additional information or complexity, doesn’t it have to be looked at? Is it right that we should ignore any physics after Newton because his work adequately describes the physical world?
Yet we have no evidence motivating such claims. Consciousness is not a quantum field and has no associated particle. As part of a physical body, we perform work.
in idealism, why is there an appearance of a brain, body, etc? what is a person? why does the person look like a physical human? what does it mean to will your arm to move if there is no physical arm?
Is it possible that awareness and sense of self, the non-material realities, emerge at some point when the complexity of the brain reaches a threshold level and that the “soul” emerges from a sufficiently complex self-awareness?
The persistence of this kind of questions makes me wonder if is just the questioner desire... that the person is not all material and somehow a part of it is beyond meat. I find no evidence compelling that argument, rather people trying to find some kind of evidence of the contrary. What is wrong with being all material?, does matter diminish life it self? I find matter to be as awesome and amazing as any kind of spiritual or non material life. Some people find it doll and stupid, and desire to be more than matter, they want to be more than matter because they see matter as doll and stupid, soulless. I would say matter has much soul in it, it has intelligence and logic, consciousness, thats fine.
Because it is in fact stupid , material subjects don't produce immaterial things , at least that's what we know till now . And that makes u a robot , means u don't have any choice whatsoever in acting everything if predetermined , which means u can't blame anyone for anything he or she does ... Imagine for a moment that worldview .
A simple mistake is to think of matter (material) as inert. E=mc2. Matter and energy are equivalent. So a self-organizing structure could include a domain of awareness which is a manifestation of physical events. This manifestation might have the impulse to call itself “I”, since it is responsible for choosing. Everything about it is physical including its choosing. And so is its need to cry itself to sleep when it wakes up to the truth.
We're making it harder than it needs to be... Your body is like 158,760; the human spirit is like 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9; and your spirit is like 2(3)^2 x 2(7)^1 x 1(5)^1 x 1(2)^3. Is the person all material? Yes. Is the spirit just the atoms? No. The material contains the spirit the same as a chunk of material contains an instrument, and an instrument contains a song.
There is no such thing as a material person. Only adjectives (properties) and verbs (their changes) can be material. Everything perceivable by physical senses is included in adjectives and verbs. All nouns are souls, and all souls are persons, although persons can behave like objects. For a detailed explanation, see "What is the Soul in Vedic Philosophy," at Shabda Journal.
Most people identify themselves as their bodies. It's only the few who have pursued spirituality sufficiently far, and have made enough moral decisions, who come to be identified as their soul. This, rephrased, comes out like this - the first group, to the extent they even acknowledge spirit, would say they body has a soul. The second group say their soul has a body.
To answer this question, you need art, images, as Einstein commented, and only I have images to demonstrate and validate the question! the problem is that doctorates do not descend from olympus
I believe the brain can explain consciousness. We are material beings , that through a process have created something that one could describe as immaterial but it is still grounded in the material. Even though you can't say for certain it takes a pretty significant leap for consciousness to be possible and exist outside the material self
These are not mysteries... Functionalism and Nominalism solves the hard problem of consciousness. Conscious states are specific physical events. Peter makes a category error. There is only a physical substance and physical events i.e. motion, change. He conflates becoming with being and that is why he believes there is a nonmaterial Substance.
Misc. thoughts... There are rocks and loons and motorcycles and without over thinking, these are physical things but I think it important to note, the thoughts that represent these things in my 'conscious field' have a quite different nature from the things they represent. Representation can be static like a painting of a pipe (which is not a pipe) but can also be dynamic like a stream of Morse code that spells 'pipe' when translated. Representation can also be dynamic like sense organs transducing impinging environmental energy amounts into neural discharge frequency *encoded representations* . The meaning of a sentence is somehow encoded in the alphabetic patterns that constitute it. A microscope will be of no use in extracting the meaning and this because the meaning is not a property of ink or ink molecules or ink atoms or ink quarks, it is encoded in the patterns. Pattern is an abstract notion. A pattern is completely dependent for its existence on a materially existing substrate. Remove the substrate and there is no pattern. (Here I speculatively assert that *all* abstract notions are completely dependent on a material substrate). Had to look up Nominalism and what that name induced me to imagine turned out to be exactly what I found. This probably because (as now I see it) I have long been a nominalist. "nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam" Now I know why I find my mind strongly resonant with his razor. Occam's razor is like a gold nugget of common sense (not the common sense that says both , 'look before you leap' and 'he who hesitates is lost'). Nothing is what everything immaterial is made of. By definition. And by the total failure of my best efforts to imagine an immaterial existent. Ha! 'immaterial existent', a fancy way to refer to nothing. incomplete
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL we agree on nominalism but we disagree on the existence of static things. Becoming is grounded in being. It is the nature of substances to change. However, I believe the substance was once static, then change emerged.
*"it's funny to me when some people claim their consciousness is "non-spatial." What in the world are they experiencing"* If everything is "spatial," then what is the size, weight, volume, and atomic structure of a thought?
The problem with these interminable consciousness-questions...is that they all miss the point. Not only do we not know the answer to the questions...we aren't within light years of answering them. IOW...the questions that we DON'T have answers to are by far the biggest questions that exist...and not only do we not have answers...we don't even begin to have answers. So...constantly asking is beginning to sound like beating the proverbial dead horse. A breakthrough is required...and when it comes...we won't need youtube to let us in on the revelation.
How likely is a breakthrough if we don't think about it in the meantime? Watershed moments are the results of decades or even centuries of work. We'll never begin to have answers if we don't think about the questions. And a lot of the viewers here clearly don't have their fingers on the pulse of philosophy or science, so they probably will need TH-cam to let them in on the revelations. This channel is a great way to expose ideas to a wider group of people who don't have the time or interest to wade through journal articles, lectures, and books.
Atheism is a belief system , assumes that science is the answer to all questions .. that in of it self is a logical condition and it's not a scientific thought process . Those delusional believers u are talking about shaped the world u living and enjoying today , not your fellow so called atheist . Stay calm and go back to the cave.
That's basically Dualism as I understand it, but it requires some sort of account of how the material world can affect the immaterial, in order to transfer information to it, and also how the immaterial can affect the material. Such interactions affecting the material world, changing it, must be detectable by observing those changes. Further, if the material and immaterial are causally connected, they must be in some sense contiguous. So it makes me wonder what being immaterial even means. It doesn't seem to be a coherent concept. But furthermore as Peter says saying it's immaterial doesn't explain it in any way, it just assigns it an implausible sounding attribute. It's not clear what explanatory contribution that makes. It just seems like supposing an invisible untouchable box inside us somewhere with the word "Explanation" written on it. That's not an actual explanation.
Create, produce, generate, and arise. Regarding fire: Does a match create, produce, generate, or arise fire? Does gasoline create, produce, generate, or arise fire? Does wood create, produce, generate, or arise fire? Does the air create, produce, generate, or arise fire? Does the quality of dryness create, produce, generate, or arise fire? Does paper create, produce, generate, or arise fire? Prior to the existence of fire, where is fire located? Is fire non-being until it's becoming manifested? Where does fire go after having faded and died out? What is this substrata that allows fire to even be? The attributes of fire: where did these come from? What allows fire to shine? What is that, which shines of fire? How does the effilgence of fire permeate an area? Where does the effulgence of fire go after the flame dies?
@@TheDeepening718 that is not even true. We know the falling of a tree creates sound via science and even audio recorders. You have stories that make you feel good.
@@ihatespam2 In order to prove that reality is either material or consciousness, you need an instrument other than the mind to observe it and you don't have that.
Metaphysics Joy, beauty and harmony (heaven) has no mass and weight. Neither does misery, ugliness and conflict (hell). Lots of expensive things measure the pride and imagination of a vampires ego. Not intelligence. Unlike earthling human beings and creators of joy...the counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead).
(6:10) *PI: **_"But I wouldn't align myself with that view because I have no idea what they mean by non-physical property."_* ... Here's an example of *nonphysical property* vs a *physical property:* Let's say I have a 6' x 7' slab of marble. Everyone agrees that this slab is chock full of _physical properties_ such as mass, volume, density, weight, and a crystalline structure consisting of either calcite or dolomite. ... Then I hand my slab of marble over to Michelangelo! Michelangelo carves it into an astoundingly accurate human likeness of the fallen Christ being embraced by his mother, Mary ("The Pieta"). The overall abstract construct (theism) and the intrinsic message it conveys (sacrifice) are *nonphysical properties* that are now equally embedded within the marble along with all of its *physical properties.* The same applies to the physical brain and the abstract information that brain produces.
Just because consciousness produces things doesn’t mean it is immaterial. Just because we can use abstraction doesn’t mean it has being separate from our brains.
the properties of the carving you describe are descriptive informational properties. They exist due to correspondences between the physical structure of the carving with the informational structures in our brain we use to interpret sense information. Human brains are structured by evolution to respond to the patterns of information that represent human faces and human bodies. There's nothing non-physical going on here. All information that exists in the world does so as an encoding in physical structures, and due to the physical structure it can be causal. Hypothetical information that does not exist encoded physically cannot be causal, such as a computer program never written, or a story never imagined.
@@simonhibbs887 *"the properties of the carving you describe are descriptive informational properties."* ... Would you agree that these "descriptive properties," as you call them, are attached to the carving and not attached to the rectangular slab of marble? Even though the two are identical in physical composition, there is a clear distinction between the two, correct? *"They exist due to correspondences between the physical structure of the carving with the informational structures in our brain we use to interpret sense information."* ... Would you agree that "The Pieta" produces far more information than a rectangular slab of marble of equal size? Would you also agree that "nonphysical information" such as sacrifice, angst, sadness, spirituality, and pain and suffering are representations of nonphysical information? If not, then what is the physical composition of "spirituality?" What is its weight, size, length, atomic structure, and volume? What is the atomic structure of "faith?" You can't have it both ways. *"There's nothing non-physical going on here. All information that exists in the world does so as an encoding in physical structures, and due to the physical structure it can be causal."* ... The debate is not cause and effect; the debate is *physical properties* vs *nonphysical properties.* If there was nothing nonphysical going on between the two marble structures, then 8 billion humans would state there is no appreciable difference between the slab of marble and the carved sculpture. They would all say it's just two different shapes of x-amount of marble. *Note:* I have no issue with physical causation producing nonphysical information. What I DO have a problem with is arguing there is no distinction between the two when 8 billion humans would state otherwise. That is a defiance of empirical evidence. *"Hypothetical information that does not exist encoded physically cannot be causal, such as a computer program never written, or a story never imagined."* ... Theism is information that can be consciously measured even though it cannot be proven to exist. The fact is that you cannot conceive any construct that can supplant or exceed the information associated with theism's God. In other words, if you placed all conceivable information within a spectrum, theism's God would represent the unsurpassable endpoint on the high-end of the spectrum. You cannot remove this endpoint under the pretense of its lack of falsifiability because the mind is able to conceive it. You would be asking the mind to "not think" to that level of extreme which would be impossible ... _because we can!_ Therefore, the information is unavoidably causal. It causes you to "think." BTW: I am not a theist.
@@ihatespam2 *"Just because consciousness produces things doesn’t mean it is immaterial."* ... What is the length, weight, and atomic structure of "jealousy?" How many thoughts would it take to fill up a 1-liter vestibule? *"Just because we can use abstraction doesn’t mean it has being separate from our brains."* ... If there is no difference between abstract information and non-abstract information, then why do we have different names and definitions for the two? And why is it that we can distinguish between the two during conversation and have both parties comprehending the difference?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "Would you agree that these "descriptive properties," as you call them, are attached to the carving and not attached to the rectangular slab of marble? " That is correct, the information is encoded in the geometric structure of the carved marble. That information was added by the artist. It can even be extracted mechanically, e.g. by laser scanning the statue. "Would you also agree that "nonphysical information" such as sacrifice, angst, sadness, spirituality, and pain and suffering are representations of nonphysical information?" All information that exists and is causal is physically encoded. We can write a book about those experiences and nobody would claim the information in the book wasn't physical, the carving just evokes those feelings in a more subtle way using the human visual system, which is primed to respond to human body shapes. Human beliefs about spirituality are information, they can be written down and they can be expressed in numerous forms such as visual art and music, but these are all physical encodings. Faith is a set of attitudes and expectations, all of which are informational and are routinely shared by us with each other linguistically through physical media such as writing, talking, etc. Religious believers even believe that the essential tenets of their faith have particular meaning and importance precisely because they are written down. "8 billion humans would state there is no appreciable difference between the slab of marble and the carved sculpture." The information is encoded in the geometric structure of the carving, just as written information is encoded in the geometric structure of printed symbols. This is how a book can have meaning that a square block of wood soaked in ink doesn't. On god, what we have are descriptions of god. We can have descriptions of things that don't exist, such as the faeries that dance at the bottom of my garden being pink. The description is real and physical and therefore can be causal, even though the things it refers to do not exist. This is how fiction works.
I'll take two pounds of NON material with ketchup. Your notes state something about a "soul" being necessary to being a person. Sad. Wrong. Please progress beyond your Woo era.
I think it has a function when seen as self-awareness. It allows an organism to reason about it's own mental state and it's own responses to situations and experiences, so that it can make decisions about changing it's own behaviour. It can evaluate it's own performance in situations, identify gaps in it's own knowledge and skills, and develop sophisticated strategies for self-modification such as seeking out opportunities to learn and practice skills.
@@simonhibbs887 you can have reasoning without consciousness. A computer can calculate what he should do tomorrow, but that does not mean he can think.
@@heinzditer7286 True. It would have to be a very sophisticated process with a rich internal model of its own state, that of other agents and it’s environment.
Boring to you because it’s not the answer you want. Same reason you imagine immaterial as a thing, souls and spirits etc. As he said just because we haven’t proven consciousness fully comes from material doesn’t mean your immaterial of the gaps is real.
@@ihatespam2 For someone who hates spam you sure do spam yourself. You're presumptions here, as to why this person finds this boring, are only your absurd & baseless opinions.
@@ihatespam2 I’m not making any claim as to the origin of consciousness. What’s boring is this guys blithe presumptions backed up by nothing. He isn’t offering anything new in his incoherent blather.
We don’t even know what matter is. And we start with immaterial experience in the first place.
Man, I love these conversations!!
I've been meaning to get to Peter's books, Lord willing, I'll get to them soon...
I am a dualist.
A dualist, in the context of philosophy, is someone who believes in dualism, the idea that the mind and body are two fundamentally different types of substances or realities. This viewpoint often posits that the mind (or soul) is non-physical, while the body is physical.
One of the most famous dualists was the 17th-century philosopher René Descartes. He believed in substance dualism, also known as Cartesian dualism, arguing that the mind is a non-physical substance distinct from the body.
However, dualism can take on various forms and can be found in many philosophical, religious, and cultural traditions around the world. It's worth noting that these perspectives may differ significantly in their details and implications.
Can you explain what you mean by non-physical? It seems that the mind is affected by the physical world because it receives information from it, and it is causally connected to the world because it has physical effects. This implies that it is causally contiguous with the physical world. So in what sense is it non-physical?
Secondly, how does this actually explain consciousness? Instead of explaining how the physical can manifest consciousness, now we have this extra stuff with implausible seeming characteristics, and now we need to explain how that can be conscious. It doesn't seem to get us anywhere.
Finally, if consciousness is a substance of some sort, presumably it can't stop being itself. So what happens when we become unconscious, such as in deep sleep and under anaesthesia? That seems more consistent with consciousness being an activity.
An excellent critique. It is a type of invocation of the supernatural and so constitutes an easy-to-vary (and so bad) explanation. It invokes another realm of reality that is by definition beyond explanation, yet it is said to have effects on that which is explainable, meaning nothing is really explainable at all. Your idea of consciousness being a process is much better because it is specifiable in detail and so is hard-to-vary and eventually testable. And it explains how consciousness can have causal power, if the emergent levels of reality are regarded as being as real as the lower level ones, contra the reductionist fallacy.
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik we were getting on so well until you got to emergence :)
I think of myself as a reductionist, but I do think that macroscopic emergent behaviour is real. My view of scientific theories and physical laws as being strictly descriptive. They are very precise descriptions of the behaviour we observe, and when expressed mathematically they can be predictive. I see emergent properties the same way. Temperature and pressure emerge from the underlying activity of molecules in a gas, but they’re perfectly real descriptions of what we observe.
I think a lot of disagreement about emergence can be cleared up by distinguishing between inductive reasoning and causative reasoning. Given the micro states of a system we can infer macro level properties. From it's macro level properties we can infer micro properties. Also so far this doesn't tell us anything about what is causal. You can deduce effects from causes, and causes from effects. To this point, causation is a completely independent issue.
There is an asymmetry though. All we need to know about molecules to infer the wave behaviour is the specific subset of micro properties consistent with the wave behaviour. Incomplete information at the micro level gives complete information at the macro level.
Conversely we have to have complete information about the wave behaviour in order to infer just a subset of properties of the micro structure that lead to it. Full macro information only gives a subset of micro information. That’s because the causal direction is from the micro to the macro. So micro information can tell you everything bout the macro effects that they cause, but not the other way around.
I just realised that you are the same guy who wrote one of the other comments that I commented on! Check it out; you're wrong about computers and AI, too. 😉
I think your epistemological ideas are the actual antithesis of my own. I am currently convinced of the epistemological ideas of David Deutsch, meaning I view induction as a chimera; scientific theories are explanatory and not merely descriptive, and are arrived at by conjecture and criticism rather than observations, which are merely part of the 'criticism' stage of the scientific process.
I think your adherence to reductionism is incompatible with your assertion that emergent levels of reality are real, although I suspect if I understood your ideas better I may see that this may not be so.
Which brings me to the point that I must make about your comment: it's a little vague! When you start to talk about waves, it's not clear if you're referring to the quantum mechanical properties of any kind of molecule or just to the macroscopic fluid dynamics of some. Do you mean a wave function or a wave in a body of water, for example? If you are referring to quantum mechanics then I'd say you seem to reject the Everettian interpretation of the formalism (i.e.: the many worlds interpretation), which would be another difference between us! And also, isn't your idea of causal reasoning just Deutsch's 'explanation based philosophy of science' in disguise? Surely you should reject it if you are truly an inductivist?
With regards to the issue of the causal power of emergent levels of reality, consider a copper atom in the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament square. How would we explain how it got there? Would you be satisfied with a precise mathematical description of the particles and forces involved, or would we instead refer to realities like 'World War Two', 'democracy' and 'fascism', etc.? The former type of response is true but only vacuously so. It's a bad explanation because it's easy to vary, meaning it can be used to explain anything. It's no better than saying, "God did it".
See Deutsch's books and videos for a much more competent exposition of these ideas than I have given you here. He talks about all of the things you seem to be interested in, although he'll definitely challenge your current take on things. Well worth a look, buddy.
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik A great and comprehensive comment. I was talking about waves in a fluid medium such as water. I'm really sorry I'm travelling soon and have limited time to reply so I'll stick to one point as I think it's central and broadly illustrative.
"With regards to the issue of the causal power of emergent levels of reality, consider a copper atom in the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament square. How would we explain how it got there?"
That copper atom is in a matrix of copper atoms, or a sea of atoms when the metal is molten. At what point in it's history from smelting to statue were there any forces on that atom not explicable in terms of interactions with other atoms in the metal? (Or the smelting vessel walls, etc).
This is what I mean when I say I'm a reductionist. Every micro state change taken individually can be explained purely in terms of micro interactions. To the extent that WW2 caused that atom to get there, it did so via interactions completely explainable by physics. There would be no way to explain every micro state change everywhere simultaneously, but that's just a matter of scale. At the individual micro level there is no mystery, from an atom in the statue, to a molecule of alcohol wending it's way through Winston Churchill's brain. There was no fundamental field of WW2-ness described by physics and detectable on an instrument that affected any atom or molecule anywhere on Earth in the 1940s.
Hi again though 👍
Scientists have been arguing for the material creating consciousness for hundreds of years and haven't gotten anywhere. Why not look at it from the other perspective, that consciousness creates the material world. Most people understand that you create your personal material world with your thoughts, attitude and will...all immaterial in nature. As Max Planck is quoted as saying, *“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”* Max was one of the leading pioneers in quantum physics and he says that matter comes from consciousness. Why don't physicists (and philosophers) who are all in on quantum theory look into his theory that consciousness came first and the material world came as a result of life being conscious?
Are we only material is running in my head,
There is so much about this already said,
If you listen with your ear,
The answer is quite clear,
Consider the difference between the living and the dead.
For investigating the nature of the world and the entities contained within it we need to possess one very important quality:
*_a pure intellect uninfluenced by bias_*
There is no reason to believe that it is required or that it even exists. It seems more likely that a pure intellect uninfluenced by bias is not even possible.
the moment we make the choice, we've already ascribed to a particular bias... un unbiased stance could only be possible under an ideal/utopian condition of pure bliss... 🤔
This idea also has implicit tyrannical consequences,too. It implies that, given that it is possible, those who achieve it should be the ones to guide the rest of us. But how would the rest of us know that they had achieved it? We'd simply have to take their word for it and fight the others claiming the same thing but in a different way (think religion!).
Also, it would lead to a fatal cultural stasis, because once the 'truth' is known there can be no more progress. Any change would be a degradation that would have to be violently resisted (think religion again!). That is, until the asteroid comes and destroys us all.
What we should do is let go of our egotistical desire for certain truth and instead help each other to see the errors in our guesses about reality, and then make new and better guesses that are free of the previously identified errors. These newer guesses would themselves contain errors, which we would have to then work to identify. This process could go on forever, meaning progress can go on forever. And this progress could include the knowledge of how to stop killer asteroids, etc., etc.
I like David Deutsch's idea that human consciousness resulted from a slight (and so biologically plausible) tweak to the meme-replication mechanism in our common ancestor with chimpanzees.
I am thinking that this tweak resulted in a capacity to recursively embed mental models of behavioural processes within each other (recall Chomsky's 'Merge' operation), which in turn allowed for the simultaneous modelling of not just these processes but also their counterfactuals, thereby giving us the capacity for explanation (ie: answers to 'how' [processes] and 'why' [counterfactual] questions).
The uppermost levels of these complex hierarchies of stitched-together simpler concepts are what we call the conscious mind, and are what we usually attach words to to think and talk. The deeper levels are what we call the subconscious.
An example of the distinction between these two kinds of ideas would the difference between the conscious linguistic thought, "smoking is bad for me" and the subconscious craving for a cigarette, which manifests at the conscious level as the feeling alongside the thought.
I'm no expert so I'm probably wrong here, but hey; why not make an attempt? Critiques encouraged!
Could somebody give me the name of Descartes' follower uttered by Peter? I couldn't catch it.
Descartes' followers are lame, most of them aren't even in to interaction problems. They're all will-of--god types. Nicolas Malenbrache was the first follower mentioned and then Leibniz, but Malenbrache thought that an understanding of material could not be fully realized naturally or supernaturally. I would say he was uttering Thomas Hill Green.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Awareness is aware when it's aware.
@@arthurwieczorek4894When is it not?
@@bretnetherton9273 whenever the third order awareness fails to conduct awareness charge to first order brah
The gift of freedom bestowed upon us allows for individual paths to be forged, but it also carries the responsibility to consider the well-being of all beings, not just our own. By adhering to the rules and principles governing the universe, we can promote harmony and balance.
The state of the world reflects our collective desires and actions. Rather than blaming a higher power, it becomes our shared responsibility to protect and preserve what we have been given. By embracing a more realistic and conscious mindset, we can identify solutions to the problems we face, ensuring the inclusion and well-being of all.
This is part of something i write about what ppl think about it and i want ur opinions on it were i can have a better understanding of what we are open to discussing opinions
Freedom wasn't bestowed upon us, it's something we created. Beyond physical laws, which are just descriptive, there are no rules and principles of the universe. We create the rules and principles that we want to live with. It is up to us to create a better world.
@@tschorsch ❤️
@@tschorsch can i used on my research what u opinion is to see new evidence and new points of view? Its really interesting what you just tell me
The concept of freedom is deeply philosophical and has been explored by numerous thinkers throughout history. Philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant have offered various theories on freedom, delving into its ethical, political, and metaphysical dimensions.
The existence of perceptions (awareness) is solid evidence to prove that a person is not all material but rather dual ie., a combination of physical matter and nonphysical free soul)...
...the reason is because, for the existence of perceptions to be possible, it requires the existence of observing non-physical SUBJECT free from physical laws and the OBJECT being observed...
The observing non-physical SUBJECT must be free from physical laws to be able to have FREE TIME to focus and be aware which would be impossible to have if driven by physical laws all the time.... In other words, the fact that we are able to be aware screams loudly that we are not all physical.
Therefore, DUALISM offers the better logical answer to explain our true being.
On the mind-body problem:
From the NAVOMITTO view, the "mind" and "body" arise as perspectives within the universal system of Consciousness. They are not separate substances requiring interaction, but rather different vantage points on the same underlying reality. The qualitative experience of consciousness and the physical machinery of the brain are two manifestations of the same paradoxical illusion.
On materialism vs dualism:
NAVOMITTO does not take a hard stance on these views. It recognizes that materialism and dualism are perspectives relative to a particular clarion or level of analysis. From the absolute view of Clarion 0, all distinctions dissolve into paradoxical unity. No single perspective captures the totality.
On the mystery of consciousness:
The seeming impossibility yet actuality of consciousness points to the fundamentally paradoxical nature of reality. Clarion 0 contains all possibilities in potentiality. The emergence of perspectives like consciousness reflects the intrinsic creativity of the cosmos to actualize the potentialities latent within nothingness. The clarity of consciousness arises through differentiation, while its qualitative feel retains the mystery of undifferentiated existence.
On the role of God:
God represents the entirety, the infinite, beyond all distinctions. Not a separate entity interacting with the world, but rather the Ground from which manifestation arises. Belief in God may point one toward the paradoxical nature of reality, though not necessarily. Ultimately all theorems dissolve back into the inexplicable suchness that is existence itself.
drmora.ir/2023/04/06/navomitto/
Yes.
Has it been established that consciousness is immaterial? Or do we simply *believe* that consciousness is immaterial due to the fact that we cannot establish a material framework for it? By "cannot" I mean "have not".
The "person" is a psychic (mental, for humans) force activity of consciousness, that embodies and integrates the somatic congenital personalities, characteristics and positions of the soma in samneness. Hence, the "person" is then "becoming", and not just "being".
Sedated, I am _gone._ No internal clock; time stops. No memories form. I experience no other plane or realm of existence during that time. Seems to me that clinches it.
Beyond that, our mental capacities developed over time as an evolving species, such that we find similar traits to those of human consciousness in many animals.
Great guest, btw.
Your statemen about sedation is interesting, wonder if any research has addressed this?
Rather, sedated, you form no memories. You’ve no idea when you get back whether you were gone or if not, where you may have been.
You can actually be conscious, even talk while sedated. Complain of pain while sedated. Only then you don't remember it in most cases. And what you don't remember, "didn't happen"
7:00 A process is a non material property of matter.
Processes are able to maintain and communicate information.
In brains most of that information is in the form of representations.
This representational information is maintained in coded form
in the discharge timing of neurons (i.e. thoughts) where it can be adjusted
by other neurons via the synapses.
Since the thought that represents my self is my self and
it is my self that is conscious...
you can see where this is going.
I think RLK hopes one of his guests can convince him that he'll have an afterlife. Don't we all? But, since it's impossible to prove- it might be worth considering if we don't and how that's not so terrible, all things considered. That we play our role- all the world's a stage as Shakespeare said, then the world goes on without us. So what. Either there is something after death- and whatever it is- it's gotta be good- or there isn't and we won't know. I don't think many philosophers go down this road- one admitting that we don't and can't know. They'd rather speculate.
Leap of faith
How can anyone who observes our world still be a materialist?
The world you see is constituted entirely of matter and energy. Maybe you agree that this is all, maybe you don’t, but it’s quite easy to see how materialists exist in a universe seemingly made exclusively of matter.
The whole is more than the sum of its parts
Consciousness presumably arrived because it bestows survivability advantage.
Cockroach survived for a long period without consciousness (assuming they are not conscious)?
Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?
Quantum theory, the theory of computation, neo-Darwinian evolution and Popperian epistemology for a start. Awareness could be an emergent property of the world and not the fundamental substrate of it.
Pick up 'The Fabric of Reality' by David Deutsch. A great read!
Every book ever written is contingent upon one constant. Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
A person is an abstract program necessarily physically instantiated in a material form. It can cause things to happen because reductionism is false; emergent levels of physical reality are just as real as lower ones. See David Deutsch!
Imagine being able to construct a fairly simple physical system that can provably perform any conceivable mathematical calculation. Such systems can generate and transform information endlessly with incredible sophistication. They can perform intricate iterative and recursive calculations, can analyse their own programs and data. They can even create copies of themselves that work together, and even modify their own instructions to transform their behaviour. Such systems can in principle simulate any physical process of lesser complexity than themselves, and at a statistical level such systems sitting on a desk can simulate physical processes spanning continents, and generate real time visual representations of alien worlds. More complex versions can ingest huge swathes of human knowledge and encode a thousand times more information that a human could know, and answer any question about it in perfect text.
The above is a description of what computers can do today. Are we really sure we can put a definite limit of how much the ultimate version of such a system could know and understand about the world, about us, about itself and about it's own informational processes and what they mean?
We cannot assume that such a system exists or is even possible.
@@tschorsch That whole description was about computers we already have right now. The only bit that's speculative is the bit at the end. I'll make that clearer in an edit.
*"More complex versions can ingest huge swathes of human knowledge and encode a thousand times more information that a human could know, and answer any question about it in perfect text."*
... Your computer system would have been initially dependent on "human-based information" in its initial data pool. No matter how complex your system evolved to be, its origin can always be traced back to human design. You are inadvertently presenting a "Creationist" (or "Deist") type of scenario.
And any computationally evolving scenario where human input is not present would ultimately succumb to redundancy. You can only toss around numbers in so many ways before redundency ensues.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "No matter how complex your system evolved to be, its origin can always be traced back to human design. "
The fact is it would still exist. Of course it would exist for reasons, I don't see why that's relevant to the fact that it functions.
"And any computationally evolving scenario where human input is not present would ultimately succumb to redundancy."
We know from information theory that this is not true, sufficiently sophisticated self-modifying computational systems are in principle behaviourally unbounded. That’s really just another way of expressing Turing completeness.
Your error here, I think, is that you overlook the fact that the human brain is also a universal computer and shares all of these properties. However, human brains also possess another kind of universality; they have a program operating on them that constitutes a universal explainer (see David Deutsch on AGI for details!). Without this program, a universal computer is just a mindless tool. With it, it is a person with the capacity to model anything in physical reality. But the difference between human people and artificial ones is merely one of physical substrate; the program is essentially the same, and so the two types of entity are essentially the same. They have the same capacities. They can be more or less advanced in terms of knowledge and power, but any such difference can only ever be one of processing speed and memory capacity, which is a gap that humans could bridge with technological augmentation.
Next time on Closer to Truth: does Robert Lawrence Kuhn ever change clothes?
14:37 well, that look was closer to truth.
I think science has progressed to the conclusion that the individual human is a physical being with a brain that has evolved and is conscious just like others in the animal kingdom. The Mind Body problem will continue to be studied and I believe that mind and awareness are evolutionary products and an emergent property of the complexity of the human brain.
I like David Deutsch's idea that human consciousness resulted from a slight (and so biologically plausible) tweak to the meme-replication mechanism in our common ancestor with chimpanzees.
I am thinking that this tweak resulted in a capacity to recursively embed mental models of behavioural processes within each other (recall Chomsky's 'Merge' operation), which in turn allowed for the simultaneous modelling of not just these processes but also their counterfactuals, thereby giving us the capacity for explanation (ie: answers to 'how' [processes] and 'why' [counterfactual] questions).
The uppermost levels of these complex hierarchies of stitched-together simpler concepts are what we call the conscious mind, and are what we usually attach words to to think and talk. The deeper levels are what we call the subconscious.
An example of the distinction between these two kinds of ideas would the difference between the conscious linguistic thought, "smoking is bad for me" and the subconscious craving for a cigarette, which manifests at the conscious level as the feeling alongside the thought.
I'm no expert so I'm probably wrong here, but hey; why not make an attempt? Critiques encouraged!
It is interesting that they didn't talk about person as persona. The persona seems to be a construction which exists in the mind and in the nervous system of the biological human but is also largely a social construction.
A social construction is a construction that exists in the mind. It just has a strong similarity between individual minds.
The mind is a specific set of functions or physical events
Not even the material is all material. Nature repeats.
It is worth pointing out that there's "consciousness" and then there's "self-consciousness." Robert is routinely bad at even acknowledging the fact that there's a difference in any of his videos. Whenever they say "consciousness," the rest of what they say is clearly about "self-consciousness." All animals in their waking states are "conscious" as that word just means "awake." But only humans have an awareness of themselves, self-awareness.
Now that we've gotten that administrative detail out of the way, let's focus on what is self-consciousness? It is a product of mind, in a being that has a personality. It is an awareness of the fact that we have a personality. And our personality is aware of other personalities. And we have inter-personal relationships.
Can self-consciousness be reduced to mere physical phenomenon? Of course not! Is there a physical organ that is responsible for personality? Identical twins each have their own personality, do they not? So clearly genetics cannot be deemed responsible for it. Other animals have mind, yet no personalities.
Some scientists fantasize that the mind is a product of the brain, as the brain can more or less clearly be demonstrated to be a product of evolution, which they do understand. The trouble is, mind is involved in problem solving, which goes on in every living cell in the body (per biologist Michael Levin). Slime mold exhibits intellect and yet has no neurons. So the idea that mind comes from the brain, is warrantless. In my experience, it is my mind (where "will," and for humans "freewill" is), that tells the brain what to do, as it is what's responsible for coordinating bodily functions, including movement.
One of my favorite quotes about consciousness is this: "Human consciousness rests gently upon the electrochemical mechanism below and delicately touches the spirit-morontia energy system above."
www.urantiabook.org/111-The-Adjuster-and-the-Soul/#111_1
Materiality is conceptual. We’re just as much in the dark about material as we are about the non physical. Scientists are stuck on materiality because they need to start somewhere.
Agreed, it's just about what we have access to. The physical is really just a way of saying stuff we can study, experiment on and reason about. If there was anything else we could find and study and do anything with, it would be part of physics. If Phlogiston, the luminiferous aether and crystal spheres in the heavens had turned out to exist, that's what would be in the physics text books. The same with consciousness broadcasts received by the brain. If the brain could receive them they must have physical effects, which makes them detectable, we just don't detect or see any effect like that. If we do, in the text books it goes.
Tell these people that science by definition can't deal with these types of questions
@@billeltot the only definition that’s axiomatic in physicalism is the ability to have physical effects. If something can have no physical effects, physicalism can’t say anything about it. But then the question is, if there is something that cannot have physical effects, what does it mean so say that it’s real? The idea of the no physical doesn’t seem to be a viable concept, nobody here seems to be able to give any coherent account of it.
@@simonhibbs887 well I don't think I agree with that , I think it definitely a viable consept if we stope dealing with it or talking about it let's say using the same method without paying attention ( science ) .. cause and effect are not exclusive to the physical world , i say we can explain that process but causality in of itself it's something primitive we assume it in science threw experience we can't prove it ( it's the same as the non other physical stuff ) and it's causing effects in the physical world .. and I don't believe either that the non physical can't cause effects for ex .. using the kalam cosmological argument I don't believe that this physical world can be produced by a physical non eternal entity there are problems .
And I do believe that consciousness is the driver of the mind , so it must have effects on it .. also as experiencing emotions , some one may come out and say we can explain the physicality of that process scientifically but what he can't do is explain how it is like to live threw that experience subjectively for every individual .. and definitely it effects the body .
The big problem here is we are already assuming that all there is .. is physical using a tool which is blind to the non physical , this is why we need to stop using the wrong method in discussing these subjects , it's the field of philosophy .
Science isn't the only way of knowing truths .
@@billeltot I think the point at which we say something has physical effects, is the point when it becomes more than just a matter of opinion. It becomes provable.
Some canceled Peter Van coz he believes in God . I see many athiests act like religious radicals!?
well ... the last Nobel prize in physics went to people who have shown that at the core matter isnt material at all or at least not in the same way of all the rest of the universe...so this interview is already old in many aspects.
Have they ? What research is that ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 quantum non-locality
This contradiction is the same as the wave vs. particle contradiction: matter vs. light, as in Einstein's famous equation.
The contradiction is not the same. Particle vs wave is not a contradiction, it's just that particle and wave theories are simplified models, neither of which completely describes reality. Matter and light are both part of the physical world and are not contradictions. Dualism is likely an illusion based on poor models of how minds work.
@@tschorsch is constant vs change a contradiction? What can you define as a valid contradiction? A contradiction is two opposing viewpoints. How about a coin? Can you refute they have two opposing sides! How about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Do opposites oppose each other or is the word contradiction meaningless?
In logic, a proposition must be true or false. Are these not opposites? So you deny the foundations of reason itself?
Matter is false light. Light is false matter . Go back to Bohr. Doesn't a wave consist of particles? Doesn't a particle consist of waves? Which came first? The particle or the wave? The key: matter has mass, light doesn't. Doesn't it make sense that matter is light internalized, and light is matter externalized? Do you know we've been provided a blueprint illustrating this*? E=mc2 is the tetragrammaton expressed in the language of Physics. Why else did the ancients conceal it within a cloud? *Stephen Wolfram, closer to the truth, but no cigar.
Particle vs. wave is the modern mask of the one and the many.
Or is it all a play in the universe of consciousness? Consciousness creating material reality looks more plausible than material world creating immaterial consciousness.
Guest is spot on! Lifeforms are a BIG mystery 100% true, but bringing in the non-material aspect only complicates matters. 😮
Perhaps it already is complicated?
It always does, and till we are technologically and with science more advanced it will stay like that. It is the last frontier.
@@ronhudson3730
Yes, a complicated mystery to be sure. Why add more needless complexity? Work on figuring out how the body works first. That might provide all the answers we need.
@@browngreen933f evidence suggest additional information or complexity, doesn’t it have to be looked at? Is it right that we should ignore any physics after Newton because his work adequately describes the physical world?
@@blijebij that's not a scientific thought . That sentence there goes against science .
Material persons produce energy called consciousness. We don't know what this energy is (yet), but we do know it performs work.
Yet we have no evidence motivating such claims. Consciousness is not a quantum field and has no associated particle. As part of a physical body, we perform work.
What nonsense. You know nothing about consciousness so quit fooling yourself into believing such rubbish.
@@pazitor maybe consciousness is a quantum field and has an associated particle- unless you can prove it not to be the case
You're arguing with Quantum Kath! LOL!
@NeilEvans-xq8ik Aww, Neil. I like you! I'll argue with you anytime 😊
in idealism,
why is there an appearance of a brain, body, etc?
what is a person? why does the person look like a physical human?
what does it mean to will your arm to move if there is no physical arm?
Is it possible that awareness and sense of self, the non-material realities, emerge at some point when the complexity of the brain reaches a threshold level and that the “soul” emerges from a sufficiently complex self-awareness?
Yes. Agree.
Yeah how probable that is .. ? After it is possible u can say almost anything u like .
Emergence and complexity are nebulous human concepts only. What makes you think they have any magical power at all?
The complexity argument is really just believing in magic.
@@heinzditer7286
That’s exactly right. I’d say actually it’s one of many atheistic miracles
The persistence of this kind of questions makes me wonder if is just the questioner desire... that the person is not all material and somehow a part of it is beyond meat. I find no evidence compelling that argument, rather people trying to find some kind of evidence of the contrary. What is wrong with being all material?, does matter diminish life it self? I find matter to be as awesome and amazing as any kind of spiritual or non material life. Some people find it doll and stupid, and desire to be more than matter, they want to be more than matter because they see matter as doll and stupid, soulless. I would say matter has much soul in it, it has intelligence and logic, consciousness, thats fine.
Not to worry about it, Kuhn is only in it for the dough, he really doesn't give a flyin' fig about getting Closer To The Truth of anything but profit.
Because it is in fact stupid , material subjects don't produce immaterial things , at least that's what we know till now .
And that makes u a robot , means u don't have any choice whatsoever in acting everything if predetermined , which means u can't blame anyone for anything he or she does ... Imagine for a moment that worldview .
A simple mistake is to think of matter (material) as inert. E=mc2. Matter and energy are equivalent. So a self-organizing structure could include a domain of awareness which is a manifestation of physical events. This manifestation might have the impulse to call itself “I”, since it is responsible for choosing. Everything about it is physical including its choosing. And so is its need to cry itself to sleep when it wakes up to the truth.
1. Matter and energy are equivalent.
2. A self-organizing structure could include a domain of awareness. (From 1)
I don't think that's valid.
We're making it harder than it needs to be... Your body is like 158,760; the human spirit is like 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9; and your spirit is like 2(3)^2 x 2(7)^1 x 1(5)^1 x 1(2)^3.
Is the person all material? Yes. Is the spirit just the atoms? No. The material contains the spirit the same as a chunk of material contains an instrument, and an instrument contains a song.
Perhaps all is just frequencies (incl. the instruments)?
Can you explain any of this or are we to just bow down before your magical insights?
There is no such thing as a material person. Only adjectives (properties) and verbs (their changes) can be material. Everything perceivable by physical senses is included in adjectives and verbs. All nouns are souls, and all souls are persons, although persons can behave like objects. For a detailed explanation, see "What is the Soul in Vedic Philosophy," at Shabda Journal.
Most people identify themselves as their bodies. It's only the few who have pursued spirituality sufficiently far, and have made enough moral decisions, who come to be identified as their soul. This, rephrased, comes out like this - the first group, to the extent they even acknowledge spirit, would say they body has a soul. The second group say their soul has a body.
Most likely we are all material, almost no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And all those materials make conciousness.
Sometimes I talk to my bike but no response😂.
There is also absolutely no evidence to the contrary. When it comes to consciousness, materialists, like to promise, they don’t offer evidence.
To answer this question, you need art, images, as Einstein commented, and only I have images to demonstrate and validate the question! the problem is that doctorates do not descend from olympus
Holy crap you are frightening.
@@kipponi Obviously your bike doesn't find you worth conversing with. And we can understand why that is.
I believe the brain can explain consciousness. We are material beings , that through a process have created something that one could describe as immaterial but it is still grounded in the material. Even though you can't say for certain it takes a pretty significant leap for consciousness to be possible and exist outside the material self
Is pizza real, or just my imagination?
Pizza is real, but the cake is a lie!
These are not mysteries... Functionalism and Nominalism solves the hard problem of consciousness. Conscious states are specific physical events. Peter makes a category error. There is only a physical substance and physical events i.e. motion, change. He conflates becoming with being and that is why he believes there is a nonmaterial Substance.
Misc. thoughts...
There are rocks and loons and motorcycles and
without over thinking, these are physical things
but I think it important to note,
the thoughts that represent these things in my 'conscious field'
have a quite different nature from the things they represent.
Representation can be static like
a painting of a pipe (which is not a pipe) but
can also be dynamic like
a stream of Morse code that spells 'pipe' when translated.
Representation can also be dynamic like
sense organs transducing impinging environmental energy amounts
into neural discharge frequency *encoded representations* .
The meaning of a sentence is somehow encoded
in the alphabetic patterns that constitute it.
A microscope will be of no use in extracting the meaning and this because
the meaning is not a property of ink or ink molecules or ink atoms or ink quarks,
it is encoded in the patterns.
Pattern is an abstract notion.
A pattern is completely dependent for its existence
on a materially existing substrate.
Remove the substrate and there is no pattern.
(Here I speculatively assert that *all* abstract notions are
completely dependent on a material substrate).
Had to look up Nominalism and
what that name induced me to imagine
turned out to be exactly what I found.
This probably because (as now I see it) I have long been a nominalist.
"nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam"
Now I know why I find my mind strongly resonant with his razor.
Occam's razor is like a gold nugget of common sense
(not the common sense that says both , 'look before you leap' and
'he who hesitates is lost').
Nothing is what everything immaterial is made of.
By definition.
And by the total failure of my best efforts to imagine an immaterial existent.
Ha! 'immaterial existent', a fancy way to refer to nothing.
incomplete
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL we agree on nominalism but we disagree on the existence of static things. Becoming is grounded in being. It is the nature of substances to change. However, I believe the substance was once static, then change emerged.
it's funny to me when some people claim their consciousness is "non-spatial"
what in the world are they experiencing
Confusion...expressed with intellectual authoritatism
*"it's funny to me when some people claim their consciousness is "non-spatial." What in the world are they experiencing"*
If everything is "spatial," then what is the size, weight, volume, and atomic structure of a thought?
The problem with these interminable consciousness-questions...is that they all miss the point. Not only do we not know the answer to the questions...we aren't within light years of answering them. IOW...the questions that we DON'T have answers to are by far the biggest questions that exist...and not only do we not have answers...we don't even begin to have answers. So...constantly asking is beginning to sound like beating the proverbial dead horse. A breakthrough is required...and when it comes...we won't need youtube to let us in on the revelation.
How likely is a breakthrough if we don't think about it in the meantime? Watershed moments are the results of decades or even centuries of work. We'll never begin to have answers if we don't think about the questions.
And a lot of the viewers here clearly don't have their fingers on the pulse of philosophy or science, so they probably will need TH-cam to let them in on the revelations. This channel is a great way to expose ideas to a wider group of people who don't have the time or interest to wade through journal articles, lectures, and books.
I dunno, dont look at me for any answers, I'm just part of the furniture
Notice how he totally lost the plot when god was introduced into the equation.
How can a believer believe his delusion dosn't effect his thoughts on any subject. As an atheist non belief forms his thought process.
Atheism is a belief system , assumes that science is the answer to all questions .. that in of it self is a logical condition and it's not a scientific thought process .
Those delusional believers u are talking about shaped the world u living and enjoying today , not your fellow so called atheist .
Stay calm and go back to the cave.
First: propose a plausible way of finding out they aren’t . That’s got to be the first step
What if we are immaterial beings in a material body
That's basically Dualism as I understand it, but it requires some sort of account of how the material world can affect the immaterial, in order to transfer information to it, and also how the immaterial can affect the material. Such interactions affecting the material world, changing it, must be detectable by observing those changes. Further, if the material and immaterial are causally connected, they must be in some sense contiguous. So it makes me wonder what being immaterial even means. It doesn't seem to be a coherent concept.
But furthermore as Peter says saying it's immaterial doesn't explain it in any way, it just assigns it an implausible sounding attribute. It's not clear what explanatory contribution that makes. It just seems like supposing an invisible untouchable box inside us somewhere with the word "Explanation" written on it. That's not an actual explanation.
What if pigs could fly?
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 they would have bigger breast meat,. And better bbq wings
Kill the body and find out.
Create, produce, generate, and arise.
Regarding fire:
Does a match create, produce, generate, or arise fire?
Does gasoline create, produce, generate, or arise fire?
Does wood create, produce, generate, or arise fire?
Does the air create, produce, generate, or arise fire?
Does the quality of dryness create, produce, generate, or arise fire?
Does paper create, produce, generate, or arise fire?
Prior to the existence of fire, where is fire located?
Is fire non-being until it's becoming manifested?
Where does fire go after having faded and died out?
What is this substrata that allows fire to even be?
The attributes of fire: where did these come from?
What allows fire to shine?
What is that, which shines of fire?
How does the effilgence of fire permeate an area?
Where does the effulgence of fire go after the flame dies?
Turtle necks on the turtle prowl. Ready to convince everyone that their unfounded beliefs are common sense. HAHAHAHA no.
What is material? Well it's the mind's notion of... hahah gotcha.
Not. Material has been here for 14 billion years.
@@ihatespam2 The tree that fell in the forest with no one around didn't make a sound. Nothing was solid until a hand came around to touch it.
@@TheDeepening718 You actually think you're profound don't you. It's both quite sad & extremely hilarious at the same time.
@@TheDeepening718 that is not even true. We know the falling of a tree creates sound via science and even audio recorders.
You have stories that make you feel good.
@@ihatespam2 In order to prove that reality is either material or consciousness, you need an instrument other than the mind to observe it and you don't have that.
Metaphysics
Joy, beauty and harmony (heaven) has no mass and weight. Neither does misery, ugliness and conflict (hell).
Lots of expensive things measure the pride and imagination of a vampires ego. Not intelligence.
Unlike earthling human beings and creators of joy...the counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead).
is the person all material? yes.
How do you know?
Wrong. 100% wrong.
(6:10) *PI: **_"But I wouldn't align myself with that view because I have no idea what they mean by non-physical property."_* ... Here's an example of *nonphysical property* vs a *physical property:* Let's say I have a 6' x 7' slab of marble. Everyone agrees that this slab is chock full of _physical properties_ such as mass, volume, density, weight, and a crystalline structure consisting of either calcite or dolomite.
... Then I hand my slab of marble over to Michelangelo!
Michelangelo carves it into an astoundingly accurate human likeness of the fallen Christ being embraced by his mother, Mary ("The Pieta"). The overall abstract construct (theism) and the intrinsic message it conveys (sacrifice) are *nonphysical properties* that are now equally embedded within the marble along with all of its *physical properties.*
The same applies to the physical brain and the abstract information that brain produces.
Just because consciousness produces things doesn’t mean it is immaterial. Just because we can use abstraction doesn’t mean it has being separate from our brains.
the properties of the carving you describe are descriptive informational properties. They exist due to correspondences between the physical structure of the carving with the informational structures in our brain we use to interpret sense information. Human brains are structured by evolution to respond to the patterns of information that represent human faces and human bodies. There's nothing non-physical going on here. All information that exists in the world does so as an encoding in physical structures, and due to the physical structure it can be causal. Hypothetical information that does not exist encoded physically cannot be causal, such as a computer program never written, or a story never imagined.
@@simonhibbs887 *"the properties of the carving you describe are descriptive informational properties."*
... Would you agree that these "descriptive properties," as you call them, are attached to the carving and not attached to the rectangular slab of marble? Even though the two are identical in physical composition, there is a clear distinction between the two, correct?
*"They exist due to correspondences between the physical structure of the carving with the informational structures in our brain we use to interpret sense information."*
... Would you agree that "The Pieta" produces far more information than a rectangular slab of marble of equal size? Would you also agree that "nonphysical information" such as sacrifice, angst, sadness, spirituality, and pain and suffering are representations of nonphysical information?
If not, then what is the physical composition of "spirituality?" What is its weight, size, length, atomic structure, and volume? What is the atomic structure of "faith?"
You can't have it both ways.
*"There's nothing non-physical going on here. All information that exists in the world does so as an encoding in physical structures, and due to the physical structure it can be causal."*
... The debate is not cause and effect; the debate is *physical properties* vs *nonphysical properties.* If there was nothing nonphysical going on between the two marble structures, then 8 billion humans would state there is no appreciable difference between the slab of marble and the carved sculpture. They would all say it's just two different shapes of x-amount of marble.
*Note:* I have no issue with physical causation producing nonphysical information. What I DO have a problem with is arguing there is no distinction between the two when 8 billion humans would state otherwise. That is a defiance of empirical evidence.
*"Hypothetical information that does not exist encoded physically cannot be causal, such as a computer program never written, or a story never imagined."*
... Theism is information that can be consciously measured even though it cannot be proven to exist. The fact is that you cannot conceive any construct that can supplant or exceed the information associated with theism's God.
In other words, if you placed all conceivable information within a spectrum, theism's God would represent the unsurpassable endpoint on the high-end of the spectrum. You cannot remove this endpoint under the pretense of its lack of falsifiability because the mind is able to conceive it.
You would be asking the mind to "not think" to that level of extreme which would be impossible ... _because we can!_ Therefore, the information is unavoidably causal. It causes you to "think."
BTW: I am not a theist.
@@ihatespam2 *"Just because consciousness produces things doesn’t mean it is immaterial."*
... What is the length, weight, and atomic structure of "jealousy?" How many thoughts would it take to fill up a 1-liter vestibule?
*"Just because we can use abstraction doesn’t mean it has being separate from our brains."*
... If there is no difference between abstract information and non-abstract information, then why do we have different names and definitions for the two?
And why is it that we can distinguish between the two during conversation and have both parties comprehending the difference?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "Would you agree that these "descriptive properties," as you call them, are attached to the carving and not attached to the rectangular slab of marble? "
That is correct, the information is encoded in the geometric structure of the carved marble. That information was added by the artist. It can even be extracted mechanically, e.g. by laser scanning the statue.
"Would you also agree that "nonphysical information" such as sacrifice, angst, sadness, spirituality, and pain and suffering are representations of nonphysical information?"
All information that exists and is causal is physically encoded. We can write a book about those experiences and nobody would claim the information in the book wasn't physical, the carving just evokes those feelings in a more subtle way using the human visual system, which is primed to respond to human body shapes.
Human beliefs about spirituality are information, they can be written down and they can be expressed in numerous forms such as visual art and music, but these are all physical encodings. Faith is a set of attitudes and expectations, all of which are informational and are routinely shared by us with each other linguistically through physical media such as writing, talking, etc. Religious believers even believe that the essential tenets of their faith have particular meaning and importance precisely because they are written down.
"8 billion humans would state there is no appreciable difference between the slab of marble and the carved sculpture."
The information is encoded in the geometric structure of the carving, just as written information is encoded in the geometric structure of printed symbols. This is how a book can have meaning that a square block of wood soaked in ink doesn't.
On god, what we have are descriptions of god. We can have descriptions of things that don't exist, such as the faeries that dance at the bottom of my garden being pink. The description is real and physical and therefore can be causal, even though the things it refers to do not exist. This is how fiction works.
I'll take two pounds of NON material with ketchup. Your notes state something about a "soul" being necessary to being a person. Sad. Wrong. Please progress beyond your Woo era.
Consciousness has no mass and that's why is faster than the speed of light.
What a maroon you are...
Consciousness is unnecessary for survival.
I think it has a function when seen as self-awareness. It allows an organism to reason about it's own mental state and it's own responses to situations and experiences, so that it can make decisions about changing it's own behaviour. It can evaluate it's own performance in situations, identify gaps in it's own knowledge and skills, and develop sophisticated strategies for self-modification such as seeking out opportunities to learn and practice skills.
As you are unnecessary & completely useless in an intelligent conversation.
Without consciousness we are 🧠 dead..
@@simonhibbs887 you can have reasoning without consciousness. A computer can calculate what he should do tomorrow, but that does not mean he can think.
@@heinzditer7286 True. It would have to be a very sophisticated process with a rich internal model of its own state, that of other agents and it’s environment.
Consciousness doesn't do any work...? Ridiculous. It's a feedback loop.
The fact that van Inwagen believes in a god makes all his analytic philosophical opinions farcical & irrelevant.
Peter is full of sound, and fury signifying nothing. I think this is the most boring episode of closer to truth that I’ve ever watched.
Boring to you because it’s not the answer you want. Same reason you imagine immaterial as a thing, souls and spirits etc.
As he said just because we haven’t proven consciousness fully comes from material doesn’t mean your immaterial of the gaps is real.
@@ihatespam2 For someone who hates spam you sure do spam yourself. You're presumptions here, as to why this person finds this boring, are only your absurd & baseless opinions.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 you know I'm right
@@ihatespam2 I’m not making any claim as to the origin of consciousness. What’s boring is this guys blithe presumptions backed up by nothing. He isn’t offering anything new in his incoherent blather.