Extremes of Consciousness Research - Andres Emilsson & Dr. Ogi Ogas, DSPod
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2024
- Humans have long encountered experiences that challenge their rational ideas about the world. Encounters with angels, demons, fairies, gnomes, or other spirits have been the standards of folklore since time immemorial. We agree with Jung that these revelations are scientifically valuable, though best explored through any lens but materialism; i.e. physics. When we learn about common bizarre experiences, we learn about ourselves. Author Ogi Ogas joins us again, alongside Qualia Research Institute's Andrés Gómez Emilsson, to discuss close encounters with the modern version of those elusive, yet timeless, entities. We begin with the phenomenological approaches to studying consciousness. We then compare both guests' experience with non-human minds.
Tell us your thoughts in the comments!!!
Sign up for our Patreon and get episodes early + join our weekly Patron Chat bit.ly/3lcAasB
00:00 Go!
00:05:33 Daniel Dennett
00:07:09 Armchair science?
00:11:10 Philosophical zombie
00:15:30 Consciousness science driven by AI dream?
00:21:27 Dualism: activity vs. actors
00:29:54 Mathematical objects vs. physical bodies
00:37:37 Patterns of what?
00:44:44 All in your head?
00:47:43 Where in the head, exactly?
00:52:21 Any scientific theory of consciousness must...
01:03:33 Boundaries are the mind's machinery
01:17:32 Godlike entities, Laplace's daemon, all-powerful AI
01:19:10 Intex entities & Failsafe Supreme
01:21:53 Ground rules for studying entity encounters
01:25:35 Semantic v. phenomenal content of experience
01:30:11 More about the need for multiplicity of conscious experiences
01:39:14 Eternal recurrence
01:44:23 Recording, observation, attention
01:50:44 Entities as civilizations
02:06:06 Good v. evil civilizations?
02:17:43 Left and right handed minds
02:30:01 Fighting for strength, wisdom embodied
02:41:18 Entity personalities
02:47:14 Closing thoughts
#sciencepodcast,
#ConsciousnessExploration, #FolklorePhenomena, #SpiritEncounters, #JungianPerspectives, #NonHumanIntelligence, #MetaphysicalInquiry, #ParanormalPodcast, #MysticalEncounters, #PsychonautAdventures, #TranspersonalPsychology, #AnomaliesResearch, #BeyondMaterialism, #QuantumConsciousness, #SpiritualJourney, #PhenomenologyOfMind, #PsychedelicExploration, #SupernaturalEncounters, #MetaphysicalPodcast, #CosmicConsciousness, #AncestralWisdom, #InterdimensionalEncounters
Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: / demystifyingscience
AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics / @materialatomics
Join our mailing list bit.ly/3v3kz2S
PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities.
- Blog: DemystifySci.com/blog
- RSS: anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss
- Donate: bit.ly/3wkPqaD
- Swag: bit.ly/2PXdC2y
SOCIAL:
- Discord: / discord
- Facebook: / demystifysci
- Instagram: / demystifysci
- Twitter: / demystifysci
MUSIC:
-Shilo Delay: g.co/kgs/oty671 - บันเทิง
Listen on the go at all podcast locations: anchor.fm/demystifysci
Material solutions to quantum spookiness: www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics
Short films @DemystifySciInvestigates: th-cam.com/channels/UfzVdgNu2xLThgM2qQZmSQ.html
solution to quantum spookiness: QM without foundational problems by C.S. Unnikrishnan in arXiv
I'm very happy for you to have had Mr. Emilsson on here. His work has been indispensable to me in my own efforts. Best wishes to you both.
Truly amazing.. been following Andreas since 2017
You guys got Andres back, that’s wasup.
This one made my whole week ❤
Andres Emilsson for the win
Omg Ogi Ogas.
This will be so much fun to go through and waste all those heart beats that will never come back.
Here we go!
One of my favorite talks. Please do it again!
glad you enjoyed it. please share!
This is a great crossover
I think i remember Terence mckenna saying in a conference the same year the same year that the book Consciousness explained was published, that it should be called Consciousness explained away
Great show. I enjoyed it fully. Not sure how you explain all weird things.
loved the closing thought... "you might be probing at a higher-dimensional junkyard"
That was great haha
Just like in the "Roadside picnic" by the Strugatsky brothers
Great conversation guys. Very valuable and enlightening, especially on listening the second time through, which I recommend. So much to think about and say.
A few thoughts:
-Dr Ogas has trouble with applying philosophy to science. Then he goes on to speak philosophically, correctly in my opinion, that all things are composed of motional occurrences, and that we are “thing” creating beings. Our language and our need to communicate, segments reality. Shilo then, of course, in an aggravated way, tells him that this type of thinking is irrational at base, and that reality needs items in order to have motion. “One needs a flag to have waving”. Materials exist without motion, as he puts it. Ouch.
Democritus lives!
Dr Ogas comes out clearly on top in this, and his “ irrationality” comes through clearly and helpfully.
This discussion is vital and is a necessary philosophical grounding to any fundamental scientific understanding.
-Conciousness can be defined how we choose, and may be defined as living entities assembling a myriad of not-necessarily related sense experiences into organized occurrences that we call materials.
Things. Items. Stuff.
We receive analog, continuous data that we digitize into understandable objects.
Dr Ogas sees Consciousness as being part of all organisms to varying degrees, and which obtain certain levels. Humans, through our languages, are positioned toward the top level. I like this. If 5 told him this, I like 5. Perhaps 3 has been talking to our two wonderful hosts.
-This definition of conciousness is so broad as to be unhelpful though, imho: That all living things have some degree of consciousness.
I have come to appreciate the writings of Julian Jaynes, clinical psychologist, in his work defining conciousness as a human feature. This restricted view of consciousness, I think, helps us with questions of human cultural development and its advance by way of left brain activities such as language development and logical approaches to understanding. This allowed for more effective internal conversation and the creation of an internal “analog I”. Introspection. We quickly advanced intellectually as a result.
-Free will, as discussed by Dr Ogas, is wonderfully defended. The Laplace demon, determinism, is correctly put in its place and defanged. Digital assemblages of analog occurrences are simply human work-arounds that allow us to navigate in this world of continuous motion. Again a hat tip to 5 for helping us see this through the Fail Safe Supreme concept.
-Andres Emilsson’s point about being watchful with regard to diversity (DEI) issues is not only topical but well put.
Good intensions about cultural inclusions must be offset with concerns regarding top-down requirements for implementation. We mustn’t let kindness and caring evolve into coercion and compulsion. He rightly suggests that we are moving along a dangerous path with this and other issues.
Thank you both for this well led discussion with the two fine and generous gentleman.
Though Conciousness was the primary focus, the philosophy of science and how we chew-in on our understanding of reality was addressed and I think pushed toward clarification.
A+
Dr Ogas has a 5th grade understanding of philosophy and not much better understanding of science
Cutting edge discussion. The delicate tangled fringe of reality. my favorite zone.
dmt & interdimensional cross pollination
Establishing a "baseline of consciousness" founded on false proposition and insufficient understanding is no more than prattle / "non-directional motion in Space" is a principle Dr Ogas touches on and that scientific perspective has not yet adopted. He throws "activity" around the way ai developers throw "information" around / phenomenology is a word that has replaced alchemy but not the ology / hmmm... "your consciousness must be able to ..." is Jungian jargon / Dr Emilsson's idea of boundaries was getting warm - or 'pretty close' - with his talk of experiencing and attention within a state of Consciousness / It was interesting. Thank you.
Ogi is exactly right, we are time binding and entity binding beings. Space is information is mind, self or an entity is an activity that is related to an recursive topography.
This was such an enlightening discussion! Loved this episode!
Waiting for part 2
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience.
However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world.
This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective.
For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action.
Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment.
The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience.
Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
26:11 exactly
Anyone have the link Andres Emilsson mentions @2:45:20? TH-cam CC spells it yulina Center in Mexico, no luck searching for that...
eleusinia retreat
As evolution is an eternal ongoing process with motions between formation, dissolution, and re-formation, there are no such things as “constants” in the Universe.
"No constants" is the only true constant.
Interesting to hear the various viewpoints. Well done! Stimulating !
Well, Ogi is straight out the gate with some assertions I'd like to see justified: 1. that the study of consciousness needs mathematics and, 2. that it has something to do with neurons. If he had a bit more philosophy he could at least see that these are metaphysical statements.
LFG DSPOD !! 😝 ✊️
What a dream team!
Dr Ogi Ogas while the movie "the Thing".
That's not a thing! Its an activity!
@2:31:40 Maybe these messages that people come back with from their encounter experiences aren't surprising because they come from those people themselves? If the encounter is not an external thing but an internal one, mightn't it just be a type of dream that comes with some self-discovery packaged inside it?
In fact, even the encounters where something new and radical is learned might still be “internal” but they might involve deeper or more remote aspects of “us” that we had never met before.
What math deals with emergence?
We are more verb than noun
The fellow in monochrome has strong opinions about philosophy …
And given the misunderstandings of Aristotle on which he unconsciously bases his judgements, no surprise.
And he couldn't be more wrong. The relative and quantum models are trivial to reconcile when one has a philosophically sound paradigm.
And, if the fundamental is not even noticed, never mind studied - philosophically unsound speculation is all one can expect.
This talk about the numbers reminds of something I had almost forgotten. While in the dmt-space everything seemed to strange to me that I asked myself how much is 1+1 and the answer was not 2. So wherever this space lies our math does not work in there as it works in this reality. Maybe someone could replicate this question of what is 1 plus 1, if they can remember to ask this themselves when visiting.
As MK Ultra is a thing so is Dan Dennett.
A "thing" has more internal connections than external, and the definition of 'connection' is fluid among sensory experience and ideas.
Connsiousness in the sense of the Rigpa concept of buddismus is only one! like it is only one gravitational potential associated with the universe, we perceive connsiousness as we perceive inertia in a desacelerated car, we all perceive the only one desaceleration. probably coupled with it through the microtubuli.
Nobody can say why consciousness exists.
0:40 (Theory of Consciousness)
“You have to be able to explain EVERY experience…consciousness…theory needs to be complete…”
Best way of thinking about it,
That I’ve heard,
In a SPIRITUAL sense,
Is, consciousness is like a signal,
Sent to a body, (Radio Signal)
Subject to material conditions of the body. (Radio Car Deck)
This can alter the perception of the HUMAN, (Deck) but would not truly be representative of the BEING. (Signal)
Nobody can say what consciousness is. Oh the hubris.
What these guys are trying to describe when they talk about all the interference, waves and resonance is a hologram …
Bergsons Theory of Mind
@23:50 When you talk about "our consciousness" you're already some way down a road of assumptions. Is there some thing that's not consciousness which has consciousness? How do you know that?
@33:00 Ogi almost makes sense when he suggests that there is no objective thing but he trips over because he tries to hang onto some part of it: brains, atoms, etc.. That is a totally incoherent view. If there’s no objective thing then it’s all experience and there’s nothing else. If there’s nothing objective then the experience cannot be an experience OF something out there. If there's no objective thing then how can we justify any inference which assumes that there is?
The biggest trap in our study of consciousness is the temptation to assume that seeming suggests being. There are dozens of experiments which show that that’s not necessarily true.
There are no things, no bodies in motion. Only activity.
Define activity
@DemystifySci_Podcast Interactions/movement can't really define as nothing is really interacting or moving really either. There are no things interacting or moving with other things. There is only this one infinite reality. The mind really just language separates this reality into things without language there is no separation. There is no material without mind. Counciousness is nothing without the material, forces, fields etc are nothing without the material because it's all part of the same reality. There is no separation here. There is only this one reality experiencing itself. Only you, a human being needs separation to try and make sense of reality.
@DemystifySci_Podcast Aslo spend some time contemplating Language. See that language is a problem. Language creates separation in an attempt to make sense of reality. Reality is beyond language beyond concepts and is not seperated into parts as language makes it seem.
Anastasia, you’re begging the question with your objection to the philosophical zombie notion and missing the key issue that it seeks to address. You imagine that there is something going on inside a living organism that is absent from a machine capable of successfully imitating a living organism. This is like a version of the Turing Test.
What the Turing Test illustrates is that the only information we have to determine whether something is a living organism, or even a human, is its outward behaviour. This is how we distinguish living from non-living things and even how we distinguish humans from non-humans. It is only a judgement we make based on the level of complexity we see in behaviour. That we do this is evident in the way that we sometimes project human-like qualities onto some animals when they exhibit certain types of behaviour. There was an example of this in one of your previous videos where you commented on the human-like ‘funeral’ behaviour or corvids.
I’m guessing that you would find it hard to believe that an industrial robot has internal experience. That would be because we don’t generally believe that there is some ‘living essence’ inside an industrial robot. However, if a robot behaved and appeared as a human, or even as an animal, we’d find it harder to reject the idea. At some level of complexity and appearance we might even develop empathy for the robot. This is the subject of several science fiction stories.
At that degree of complexity it would no longer be possible to resist the belief that there is something inside the robot having an experience. This is what the Philosophical Zombie question is getting at: if there were such an entity, how would you know? How could you know?
@12:30 y'all have GOT to learn something more about consciousness: it's very clear what it is (literally everything you understand is explained in terms of perceptions); and you've got to move past your prejudices against various things such as the philosophical zombie experience. It is OBVIOUSLY plausible to think about "actors" that are not conscious; look at a hurricane, a solar system, etc. -- and it's ABSURD to say that it's not plausible since we NOW HAVE philosophical zombies (which Andres brought up as literally his first counter-point)
16:50 it seems like y'all literally just agreed that philosophical zombies exist... Right after saying it's not even plausible...
All ogi seems to be saying is that different parts of the brain handle differentkinds of qualia -- which everyone knows. but he says brains generate conciousness, without any explanation of how, just by using a fancy word (resonance), which doesnt explain anything; and thats after he said -- and then retracted -- that there is nothing (other than resonnacne itself) that could resonnate
Dennet made many mistakes and had an insufficient approach to Consciousness, but he was not alone, as there have been many scientists who say unverifiable nonsense about consciousness. That is to say: this is not a dispute between philosophy and science; It’s about checking the most useful way to approach the problem. Judging by what he proposes, Ogi doesn't help much. Starting with the statement that Stphen Grossberg discovered the "physical key to the dynamics of consciousness" -- well, only he believes in this controversial "discovery" which, a prisoner of mathematics, does not take into account the evolutionary character of consciousness and, therefore, , did not allow ANY step forward in the studies of consciousness.
Daniel Dennett was a god damn genius, ahead of his time. Given "Higher-order truths about chmess", humans are then just higher-order truths about sea water--and evolutionarily, this checks out. Accepting this way of thinking would change how humans interface with the world, if that is the eventual human dream of ending materialism. Being descended from apes is not good enough. Being a mammal or vertebrate is not good enough. Sea water, evolving, crawling out of its own skin onto the land, evolving, eventually thinking that it's all about their own life experiences. The narcissism.
💯
You should probably read his book. Journey of the mind. They definitely take the evolutionary character of Counciousness into account.
@@Krod4321 How can you take seriously a guy who claims to have communicated with aliens?!!
I admit I don't understand the alien encounters, but I also don't understand Savants. Ogi said himself it's a counciousness experience not sitting across the table from an alien in a bodily form. The book is co authored with Sai Goddam and he hasn't had the same alien encounters as Ogi and shouldn't be discredited because of it. The book is very informative and gives the best bottom up approach to counciousness I have come across. Check it out, then see what you think
Consciousness is the emergent phenomenon created by the physical functioning of the brain.
I was glad to learn that you cannot learn about anything, especially anything important by thinking about it. Or imagine about it; even worse! Forget about intuition or inspiration. I think it's high time we stop talking overly much about things too. This is the age of actions. And if my hands can't shape something and demonstrate it to a level that even a linebacker can't deny, now that's what I call knowledge, at least knowledge that even the militant can make good use of. Far better to manipulate and dissect than observe. Time to get knowledge out of the hands of the sensitive, so-called thoughtful types, and into the hands of ... people with really really big hands. Time to toy with and bother things rather than any artsy-fartsy love or admiration for them. Thank God for labs and the world they've given us, rather than the primitive ape-like world of rocks, mud and clownish idiocy they've rescued us from. Brutal nasty past. I say not only make science and technology as virtually non-thinking as possible, I say make them damn near impossible for even the most dull and simple minded to fail to utilize in even their hottest frenzied greed. Only then, in a true democratic cacophony of technology made impossibly easy can the world truly advance to something the William Gibson in all of us would yes frightfully, but certainly most amazingly dream.
....random musings....In the beginning, there was only now. Qualia causes ripples in quantum probability, resulting in fixed wave to particle transition time-points in space-time, which slowly transition more energy from wave to particle, boundary condition, filling in the past and present simultaneously as more particles form boundary conditions for the backward and forwards sweeping quantum wave of imaginary reality. The qualia which biology can feel constitutes wavelengths which can cause resonances in microtubules.
Consciousness involves the mathematics of imaginary numbers.
At the extremes of the uncertainty principle, you either are fixed in space and all frequencies thus spanning all eternity or you are fixed in frequency thus spanning all of space in a single moment of now.
1:13:39 you dont n es math to engineer -- but you mgiht beed it for efficient and precise and conpelx engineering
Lol "aliens are real and communicating with me," bury the lead much?
His forth time on the show
@@DemystifySci_Podcast My bad, I missed those because I just landed from Saturn, I'm here to tell you about the number 1.
@@DemystifySci_Podcast (Your show is rly good, I just also like mild trwling).
@@DemystifySci_Podcast. More Andres, less Ogas
I stopped listening after Ogi Ogas comments on philosophy. Rather painful to hear such a display of ignorance. I'm not a fan of Daniel Dennett, but the simple exercise of looking at his Google scholar gives you a hint of his influence on scientific thinking. Also, it's a common thing among philosophers of science to have a double training in science and philosophy, many of them have double PhDs. Examples of the influence of philosophy on science are many, but to mention a few, Mach's ideas on relativity on Einstein's views; Frege-Russell on mathematical logic and thus computer science, Quine in linguistics,....etc.