Hard Problem of Consciousness - David Chalmers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2016
- Philosopher David Chalmers from NYU on the combination problem, dualism, and panpsychism.
Read the text version here: serious-science.org/role-of-m...
Get a bigger picture:
1. Neurophilosophy and Free Will - Patricia Smith Churchland: • Neurophilosophy and fr...
2. Self-construction - Onur Güntürkün: • Self-construction - On...
3. Brain Imaging - Karl Friston: • Brain Imaging Karl Fri...
Follow us:
LinkedIn: /
Twitter: / scienceserious
FB: / serious.scie. .
Instagram: / serious.sci. .
Support us on Patreon to see more videos: / seriousscience - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] Tứ Xuyên (Trung Quốc) VS U20 Thái Lan | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bguJ41PcW0c/mqdefault.jpg)
David Chalmers is one of the greatest thinkers of our times.
@@GriuGriu64 thoughts on a theistic approach?
He don’t seem that great
This is the best discussion I have come across discussing consciousness and subjective experiences in the brain.
Well he is one of the leading philosophers on the subject. His 1995 text about it is amazing.
There are no "subjective experience," by calling unconceptualized reality "subjective" you are already presuming as an axiom that idealism is true. Every idealist presumes their own conclusion.
@@amihartz Thank you, you have given me some things to think about and some philosophical terms that were new to me. (1))Realism: Objects exist independent of the mind. (2) Idealism: The world is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature. Reality reveals itself more faithfully in its highest qualities (mental) than its lowest (material). With these definitions I do favor realism. However, I do believe subjective experiences are real for the person experiencing them, for example the experience of joy or the experience of pain. These experiences cannot be experienced by anyone other than the person experiencing them although the experiences can be communicated.
@@noelwass4738 The term "subjective experience" goes back to Thomas Nagel who equated it to unconceptualized reality and thus _a priori._ If you are talking about the "person" who is experiencing "joy" and "pain," these are all very much _a posteriori_ conceptualizations of reality derived from your observations of reality and not some sort of innate knowledge.
@@amihartz the speculation of folk level introspection is meritless. and the nonexistence of emergent properties of consciousness of these is absolute. perhaps your confusion resides in your belief that for example colors and sounds exist outside the skull and are somehow perceived by the brain?
I took an existentialism class at ohio state like 7 years ago and stumbled upon David Chalmers, dude is a legend haha. Weird that he brought up panpsychism at the end too, since I have been thinking about it a lot recently. I study biochemistry and we often talk about proteins as if they have human characteristics, they "breathe", they decide what things need to be done based on an accumulation of physical forces etc, which in turn are governed by their own laws that one could say resembles a choice-making criteria.
interesting so proteins in the brain that act like they have human characteristics in turn make us who we are based on our physical actions in the physical world? you're saying the proteins in our brain are potential things waiting to be used and once in action we have a better understanding of the world and ourselves. Since these proteins are physical things and are "not an entirety of us" but from a philosophical sense our potential/greater selves as we gather and process information from the outside world so we can predict our choices for better survivability/convenience/habituality?
I would like to believe, from personal experiences, that the world/universe and us(consciousness) are one its a possibility to peer into the future, like you did, without any empirical proof. Only through thoughts, memory, language, and right circumstances.
I want to share this clip from the Simpsons w/ you: th-cam.com/video/pUwH-P3Iz0Y/w-d-xo.html
I really wish i lived in the times where consciousness and quantum mechanics were fully understood. SIGH can only intuitively imagine how it can beeee.
@@rray5506we are close. imagine 20-50 yrs from now.
Old comment, I know, but you should look into morphic resonance. Definitely a strange, unsubstantiated theory, but it addresses this strange 'consciousness' these proteins seem to possess.
I've always wondered and even asked myself a similar idea of what thing allows us to experience this "movie" of reality through vessels of organic beings - yatta yatta. I'm just so glad I found this dude and panpsychism recently - mountains of existential dread lifted off my chest, even if despite the lack of "real" answers
David Chalmers is a modern day genius who is far ahead of his time. Despite his high level of though, it is still easy to listen to him and absorb exactly what he is saying. Unlike many others, he seems to be able to clearly express complex ideas.
Why is he a genius? For calling a problem hard?
i wouldnt call him a modern day genius, he is still preaching the same paper he wrote in 1995 despite all of the neuroscientific studies that prove conscious experience is causal of neural function
@१२ का ४ ४२ का १ I wrote a paper on it, but I insist you look at Chalmers' paper titled "Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness", and within that, his response to Daniel Dennett. Ill quote the part im talking about here:
"Dennett might respond that I, equally, do not give arguments for the position that something more than functions needs to be explained. And there would be some justice here: while I do argue at length for my conclusions, all these arguments take the existence of consciousness for granted, where the relevant concept of consciousness is explicitly distinguished from functional concepts such as discrimination, integration, reaction, and report. Dennett presumably disputes this starting point: he thinks that the only sense in which people are conscious is a sense in which consciousness is defined as reportability, as a reactive disposition, or as some other functional concept.
But let us be clear on the dialectic. It is prima facie obvious to most people that there is a further phenomenon here: in informal surveys, the large majority of respondents (even at Tufts!) indicate that they think something more than functions needs explaining. Dennett himself - faced with the results of such a survey, perhaps intending to deflate it - has accepted that there is at least a prima facie case that something more than functions need to be explained; and he has often stated how "radical" and "counterintuitive" his position is. So it is clear that the default assumption is that there is a further problem of explanation; to establish otherwise requires significant and substantial argument."
From this, Chalmers' entire position on the matter presumes that there is more to consciousness than neural function because it "intuitively seems like it", and this paper is from 1997. Since then, there has been dramatic advancements in neuroscience to the point where the vast majority of neuroscientists don't believe there is "more" to consciousness or that the hard problem poses a legitimate barrier to the neuroscientific reduction of consciousness. Therefore, to experts, its no longer a "prima facie" case, and even if it was, using the intuition of a majority as a scientific basis for something has been consistently faulty throughout history (vitalism, for example [see Dennett's response to Chalmers' initial 1995 paper]). "Prove" may have been the wrong word to use as the hard problem is yet to have a definitive answer, but the basis of Chalmers' interpretation has effectively been shot dead at this point. He is still a great and intelligent dude tho, I love his work.
@Aeiou
Question: what does chalmers believes happen after our death ? Do we experience everything at once because we emerge back into the larger consciousness?
@@richard-li1ll You are deeper into this than me but
I see the solution lies in the concept of analogy.
i.e.
Sense organs transduce impinging environmental energies into
neural discharge frequencies which are the encoded representations
analogous (or isomorphic) to those energy amounts.
If one simplifies and takes the sense organs to be
sending analogies to the brain...
when they get there they ripple synaptically
through the 100 billion analogies that the brain is maintaining.
Thus my self is an analogy making my existence abstract.
It takes a bit of a mental trick for most to grasp the concept.
(That one must adjust ones visual focus to see 3d in a stereogram is
analogous to the need to adjust ones intellectual focus to grasp the essence of the self as an abstract entity).
Theoretically speaking, naturally.
I like to think the relationship between physical and spiritual consciousness is like a and its driver. A car can function as a car but need a driver to function as to achieve what it is made to do.
The car is like our physical body with its physical consciousness and the driver is like our spiritual soul with its spiritual consciousness
well you will first need to define "spiritual consciousness" and how do you demonstrate its "existence". Then we can reflect on your model...but without a concrete base for the assumed existential claims, we are condemned to practice pseudo philosophy.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 A lot of
That sounds like Cartesian dualism
Yeah, I've always believed that a body without a soul would be comatose.
I think the difference here is that you don't need to incorporate consciousness/soul to explain how the body is able to function. We can explain the entirety of how a human or other organisms go about life through purely physical mechanisms in the same way that we can explain how a robot interacts with its environment. The only way to know that consciousness exists is to be able to experience it yourself, and there is no way of knowing if all humans/organisms are really just biological machines with no soul/consciousness attached.
such wonderful explanation about complex mechanisms 👍
I always think that those denying there even is a hard problem, are perhaps afraid to pass a certain threshold. Really seeing the hard problem is deeply shocking. One might get very well nauseous from it.
Well said!
I find great comfort in your comment. I'm glad others see the terror and wonder of reality and the hard problem of consciousness.
why people would be afraid of it ?
@@Max1__ The scientific method uses observation and expirement to reach some sort of conclusion if we cannot account for something like consciousness in purely physical terms then the scientific method loses some credibility in describing the world.
@@dmtlover3128 Science is neither suited nor intended to investigate a whole class of abstract notions.
One of them is the notion of the conscious process.
One cannot see a process by looking in a microscope.
One can only see things moving and then
use the abstract notion of process to describe more efficiently
the collectivity of those moving things.
David rocks! As Artificial Intelligence rises exponentially, the questions David puts forward related to subjective experience and consciousness will become extremely important to find good answers for.
Maybe one day we will not ask ourselves.. but our Successors.
"Oh Great Ones, Guardians Of The Eleventh, What Is Consciousness"
Their leader replies: "To We, Origins. To You, A Zero-Point Energy State Of SpaceTime".
I respectfully disagree. The consciousness problem will never become any more or less important.
The easy problem will be, and biomedical research has been making way. The "hard problem" however, is built on amateur categorical errors and will only have bearing if people let themselves think there's any issue in the first place.
@@prenuptials5925 I think I agree with you. I wouldn't call "easy problem" the study of complex biological functions and structure.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 i mean it is, there's a whole literature and even textbooks on it
The answer is 42.
For two. for which three is key. five alive or so they say, cuz you need them all for synchrony.
so long and thanks for all the fish
Pretty much.
Bob Dylan said in an interview "Mr. Jones is a guy who doesn't know who Mr. Jones is." But being conscious has nothing to do with being hip or smart, or even alive in my opinion. The answer is 42...
The answer might be 42, but the real question is what is the question? Or else you cannot understand the answer. Capiche?
Thank you Sir 🙏
Thank you ❤
I have the uneasy feeling that if I think too much about the hard problem that something terrible will happen. I might find out and that would take the fun out of everything. In other words.. the answer to something so fundamental has to be right under our noses and the consequences of knowing would be immense. Im kind of ok with things as they are. But at the same time Im very curious.
I get that . We haven’t got much day to day magic left ever o since science knocked religion out for the count .
@Violet Angel ok ,I’ll stay intrigued . Magical name by the way . 😊
I don’t know why they’re so obsessed with these “problems” anyway .
@@Jide-bq9yf If you really believe that everything is just matter and energy, then there's no possibility for "having ideas" or even the desire to live. Matter and energy are like rocks and wind. How could something (us or any life form) that's made of rocks and wind CARE about anything?
@@workingTchr I’m on your side , ignore my bellyaching . I don’t see what we gain by all this poking around . I’m all for progress and technological advancement but not at the expense of the sheer mystery of BEING that should permeate every moment of our waking lives as It so easily does our dreams .I think it was Heidegger who once , upon being asked ; “ how best should we live our lives ? “ Replied ; “ We should learn to spend more time in graveyards .“
Chalmers' argument about philosophical zombies is brilliant. One other argument I thought can be made against physicalism is that if you are a physicalist then you have to argue that consciousness is a process created by matter by itself. If consciousness is a material phenomenon then it should have effects in nature, just like gravity leads to planets by attraction of matter. But what effects do consciousness create in nature? Since we can't find any from a material view, it must be unique among the natural phenomena in nature, but since all phenomena in nature has readily seen effects, consciousness having no effect from a physical standpoint, can not be a physical phenomenon.
The physical effect of consciousness is what it drives conscious agents do to. Humans and animals behave differently from rocks and water simply because they are conscious agents. So consciousness already has an effect you just didnt notice. Also, consciousness may be an emergent property meaning it is not something that exists until a certain threshold is reached. Therefore an emergent property has different effects than isolated properties. Lightning for example emerges when a certain amount of charge builds up in the atmosphere. Small groups of individual charges do not themselves have the property of being lightning. The point being the effects of consciousness might be restricted to inside the brain and can only be seen by how it drives the agent to act as opposed to if the agent did not have the faculty for consciousness
No, it's pure sophistry. Can a person blind since birth conceive of colors? Can a sighted man conceive of a color they have never seen before? No. We can only conceive of things which we have observed before. All our imaginations are just remixes of everything we have observed. We have to have observed it before, in some form, to conceive of it. I can conceive of pink elephants because I have seen pink things and I have seen elephants. Chalmers uses sophistry to insist he can conceive of a person having or not having some property which is fundamentally unobservable. It is simply not possible to conceive of such a thing, and if you think you can, you are playing mental tricks on yourself.
@@amihartz Agreed
@@amihartz airtight correct inference is a way of cognizing an object not directly observed. in any case what is the property that is fundamentally unobservable you speak of?
@@5piles We can infer the core of the earth exists without observing it directly because we can infer it based on observations we can make. Yet, the core of the earth is still not principally unobservable, only practically so, and we can still in principle observe the effects the property of the core has upon other things. Chalmers' claim about philosophical zombies insists non-zombies have special properties that are neither directly observable, nor do they have any indirect observable effects upon anything else, yet somehow can still be conceived of.
“Consciousness is a dance between perception and memory.”
That’s my one sentence T-shirt definition of consciousness.
My shirt would read,
“Consciousness is the self being modulated by the other”
Miscellaneous Related Thoughts:
A thought is not the thing it is 'about',
rather,
a thought is 'about' something other.
Except of course in the unique case of
the thought that *is* 'about' its self.
I take this 'self thought' to *be* exactly what a self *is* and
in support I ask my self,
how could thoughts affect my self
if my self were something other than a thought?
This underlies Hofstadter's 'strange loop'
which you may know about
from his book, 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' .
Comparisons of perceptual representations with
representations from memory give rise to recognitions but
a self may be conscious of
a blooming buzzing representationless confusion.
Equivalently...
Comparisons of perceptual thoughts with thoughts from memory
give rise to recognition thoughts but
a self thought may be modulated by
a blooming buzzing meaningless perceptual confusion.
Lol.
Sometimes 'stream of consciousness' carries one's self away.
The hard problem is hard only because
one cannot put an abstract entity, like a self,
under a microscope.
In the absence of a 'self thought' there is no 'being conscious'.
In the absence of 'being conscious' there is no 'self thought'.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Most major philosophical problems disappear when you realize you cannot put _any_ abstract entity under a microscope. All abstract entities disappear upon further evaluation, as they are all merely approximations for a much more complex natural world which, if we could understand it all simulatenously, we would have no need of such abstractions. There are no _things_ in nature, _things_ are human inventions to help our finite brains grapple with infinite reality. When you come to realize the thing-in-itself doesn't even exist, including the very thing that is _ourselves,_ if you entirely reject abstract identity as equivalent to ontological reality, then it is not only the hard problem that disappears, but many others as well.
NAVOMITTO: A New Approach to the Hard Problem
The "hard problem" of consciousness refers to the mystery of subjective experience: how something physical like the brain can give rise to interior, conscious qualities like the redness of red or the painfulness of pain. Philosophers have struggled for centuries to solve this puzzle.
The NAVOMITTO framework offers a novel approach to solving the hard problem. At its core, NAVOMITTO sees reality as composed of illusory dimensions and perspectives that differentiate across clarions. It's this process of differentiation across clarions that gives rise to consciousness and qualia.
Clarions are the key to the solution. Lower clarions contain relatively undifferentiated perspectives that likely correspond to primitive forms of awareness. As perspectives differentiate into more parallel perspectives across higher clarions, richer conscious experiences emerge. Consciousness "scales up" as clarions increase.
Subclarions within each clarion also play an important role. Subclarionic dynamics contain the finely differentiated information processing that grounds our qualia. Though embedded within a given clarion of consciousness, subclarions may bridge the gap to neural processes.
The vocabulary of NAVOMITTO - illusion, dimensions, perspectives, clarions, subclarions - provides new conceptual tools for understanding how consciousness arises. Traditionally, philosophers framed the problem in terms of physical substances - like neurons - that seemed fundamentally separate from subjective experience. But clarions reframe the debate in a more fertile way.
While NAVOMITTO presents only a high-level solution at this point, it points to a promising new direction for tackling the hard problem. Consciousness may emerge as an inevitable byproduct of the differentiation and integration of perspectives across clarions and subclarions - a product of the illusory structure of reality itself.
In this way, NAVOMITTO offers a potential answer to the hard problem: consciousness arises through the process of differentiation across clarions, grounded and textured by subclarionic dynamics, and made possible by the illusory nature of reality. With further development and refinement, NAVOMITTO's novel conceptual tools may finally help philosophers crack the mystery of consciousness.
NAVOMITTO: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Understanding Reality
Nothingness and existence are two sides of the same coin
Illusion
1-there is Illusion. Reality is made of Illusion. Illusion is the whole coin of nothingness-existence. Illusion is all aspects of reality from zero (nothingness) to infinity (existence at its most actualized form). Illusion is the paradox itself. Illusion can be seen in different clarion through the process of differentiation.
Dimension (Universal)
2-there is Dimension. each Dimension describe a concept or property or quality or quantity or relations or changes or process or anything else. each Dimension is unique in its own way but it can be seen as an interaction of infinite other Dimensions. in other way each Dimension is entangled with Illusion and All Dimensions are emergent from Illusion. Dimension exists in different Clarions and different Perspective. Illusion can be seen as infinite Dimentions.
Perspective (Particular)
3-There is perspective. The set of perspectives in different clarions makes the dimension. Any conscious or unconscious entity can only pass through successive perspectives in different clarions. It is not possible for an entity to pass to parallel perspectives. Each perspective contains unique information that describes the dimension in that clarion. Each perspective manifests its own unique qualia.
Clarion
4-there is Clarion. Clarion determines how many Perspective exist in that particular Clarion (in a specific Dimension). Clarion can be any number from Zero to Maxima.
Differentiation (enamation)
5-There is Differentiation. Differentiation is the process of enamation that involves separation of superimposed information (at previous lower clarion) into more clear information (at next higher clarion) that leads to increase in clarity, But losing of information's. Differentiation creates Reciprocal Hierarchy Structure of Dimentions.
(For example: At a lower Clarion , you may have a Perspective that contains information about red and green (Particular red-green). There is no green or red in this lower Clarion Perspective but there is only red-green. Through the process of differentiation, the information in this Perspective (Perspective red-green) can be separated into 2 simpler, more clear Perspectives at next clarion (Perspective red + Perspective green). red Perspective is the parallel Perspective of green and red-green is the parent Perspective at lower Clarion. So if you move from red-green Perspective to red Perspective you will gain clarity but at the same time you lose information of green Perspective)
Nothingness
6-there is Clarion 0. Clarion Zero contains no Perspective. Clarion 0 is nothingness. Clarion 0 contains all of illusion as potential. Nothingness is the result of superimposition of all Dimentions. All Dimensions are common in Clarion Zero. Clarion 0 is the only simple.
Existence
7-there is Clarion 1. At Clarion one, there is one Perspective in Dimention. The information in Clarion 1 includes the superimposition of all Perspectives in Clarion 2. Clarion One contains all information found in Dimention, but in an undifferentiated form and looks simple because it is viewed from the perspective of Clarion One. Clarion One means Dimention in the most uncertain state.
Inflectia
8-Between Clarion Zero and Clarion Maxima, there is an intermediate Clarion that has the largest amount of Parallel Perspectives. From clarion zero to inflectia, the number of Parallel Perspectives for each clarion increases, and from inflectia to clarion maxima, the number of Parallel Perspectives for each clarion decreases. Perspectives at Inflectia has the most complexity while Perspectives at Clarion 1 and Platonica has the minimum Complexity.
Platonica
9-there is Clarion (Maxima-1). In Clarion (Maxima-1), Dimention needs another Differentiation to reach Clarion Maxima. Platonica means Dimention in the most certain state. each perspective at Platonica contains the last bit of information in that Dimention.
In Platonica, with One differentiation, existence is destroyed and nothingness remains. Platonica is formed from the superimposition of Nothingness in clarion Maxima.
Maxima (Infinity)
10-there is Clarion Maxima. In Clarion Maxima, there is no superimposition, and all causes have already occurred, with no change left to be made. In Clarion Maxima, there can be no further differentiation, and there is nothing left to differentiate. Therefore, paradoxically, Clarion Maxima, represent Clarion 0. Maxima can be any number from zero to infinity.
Formulas:
11-The number of Parallel Perspectives in Clarion C is calculated through the binomial coefficient with the following formula:
N=P!/(C!(P-C)!)
In this formula:
N=number of Parallel Perspectives in Clarion C
P=Platonica Clarion
12-Despite the existence of multiple perspectives in the upper clarions, for a perspective in the lower clarion it is only possible to enter P-C+1 number of perspectives from the upper clarions (for 0
A question for materialists: What is the evolutionary purpose of subjective experience if p-zombies are just as good at survival as conscious humans?
How do you know consciousness plays no role in problem-solving? How do you know that zombies would be just as good at survival?
I love this question. Goddamn, it is so well put. I'll ask this to the materialists I know, they always say it's evolutionary xD
consciousness is an illusion, consciousness infer there is an 'i', the buddha states, there is no 'i'. the 'i' only leads to suffering the origin of mental illnesses.
@@jesuschrist1501 why use Buddha as a footnote when you are Jesus?
For me it is clear consciousness goes beyond space , beyond the body , and beyond time ..
Based on my experiences of out of body , and visions of future , as well as dreams of future and information which saved my life also for example..
We have won lottery scratch offs because felt a gut and energy pull towards one ticket , as heard number 12 and then lastly seen an confirmation of a bright orb white light flash as had hand on the ticket at number slot 12 ^^ .. we won 50$ that day lol ..
To many things as these and seeing the future .. or having random gods show up in dream time or in vision when still awake some say is third eye awareness/ third eye sight .. it layers over the normal eyes view .. and I see both running at same time like a double screen tv and one happens to be in center on top as the background is running is wider and larger in back of the screen in center laying over top of it ..
I also have experiences as causing and witnessing a black out happen just over mediation.. where a black obelisk with skulls appeared as I spun it by using my hands , by putting my hands up to interact with my closed eye that was seeing pitch black goo and this obelisk appear in middle of eye sight as if a touch screen lap top really ^^ .. and it would move as spun the way I tapped it to flip it around or spun it around so to see all it’s sides and the bottom of it or view from top of it .. as spun it faster and faster it caused a black out in my bedroom for a moment but clicked all power back on as snapped out of mediation from the shock of the room noise going silent all the sudden and dark on me ..
I had a brother pass on recently also who contracted .. as he spoke it was too a white orb .. many times I see grids of energy around life as yellow sparkles and light lines in air .. and in storm clouds it gets very active and around running water and in nature and so on .. I also see shadow people and yellow orbs .. flashes of all sorts of colors and other orbs lessen seen and experienced are red and blue for me personally ..
Humans or higher consciousness beings who feel pleasant often come as white orbs as my brother appeared as and has white flashing .. he spoke about he just wanted us to know he had passed away .. and mentioned he was proud of us and loved us and so on .. I haven’t seen my brother in years and days later his old friend msgs me on Facebook.. asking me to please speak privately about my brother soon as I can with him ..as shared the bad news on my brother passed on via ODing .. he wasn’t alone and believed in a higher power and seemed happy enough .. so I hope this means he was in a better place and states of being .. and those states would last as close could to eternity or at least a long of time to enjoy after such a hard go at life .. but who knows?
I don’t like to speculate I just know what’s true based off on what’s been proven before me through such experiences with the consciousness in this weird ass reality of ours ..
Some times I wonder about things they say as time isn’t real .. and think it’s possible there is nothing after death then and we maybe just as living capable to utilize our imagination to travel through folds of memory and time of the consciousness.. and talking to the subconsciously spiritual / soul part of the persons mind that is always in dream state yet rare to be aware of what’s going on in that background of the consciousnesses dream worlds .. or what’s that means if true ..
Maybe life does go one after death though and is more as a waking never ending dream that drifts between imagining and memories along with time frames of places in reality x shrug x aka maybe some form of consciousness and spiritual bodies able and capable are possible .. and maybe all those in religious cults do know some way to benefit more from certain practices which helps focus our consciousness after we lose our minds and bodies in a most gruesome mannerisms never pleasant to be mentioned or dwelled on x x .. death ..
Who knows ? I only know myself
Who has these experiences.. I haven’t met anyone else yet .. I hope I do or someone better at it all then I am capable of so can learn from them such ways to seek more answers for myself .. and always excited to hear from anyone who has knowledge and experiences of your own which gave you deeper questions or deep answers or funny unexpected moments that were just brilliant :)
So conclusion lol you never know do you ? Can you even know Any thing for sure here too ? Seems like just as valid questions and conclusions to draw here based on these whacky reality rules we go by here .. it’s all a bit mad , scary , a blast and magical all at once it seems to me is all I can say is certain for me today lol
David Chalmers, the best philosopher of mind alive!!
subjective experience is needed for organism survival and it has a direct evolutionary advantage: if a life threatening fact is happening to an orgasim that experience it more vividly, that makes it more likely that organism is more energized to work towards a solution to solve that particular predicament.
We use our senses to understand our environment. It is therefore necessary that full understanding of our senses be forever locked behind our senses.
This bloke speaks crystal clearly. I'm impressed. Other consciousness philosophers (eg Dennett) not so much.
Chalmers holds chairs in both philosophy and cognitive science , philosophy of mind is a speciality area for him . He is obviously an extremely intelligent man too .Dennet doesent even come close I’m sorry to say .
You can speak very clearly about the lore of the Lord of the Rings, or very rigorously about theology. How are these two things related to the hard problem? It would be however, a mistake to think clear speech about these topics has any meaning about the world.
@@prenuptials5925 I don’t think we can underestimate the role clear articulation plays In the dissemination of often obscure philosophical / scientific problems / concepts to a general audience . Dennet who was singled out has a habit
of mumbling through his lower face hair too .
Lol. Maybe don't shoot the (79-year-old) messenger.
Dennett is so edgy that he denies that consciousness, the one fact of existence for him, even exists :)
To me it seems like the problem is posed in a way that makes it seem hard, while it really is about two fundamentally distinct way of perceiving, and which therefore cannot possibly be united. Think of it about analysing music: you can see it at the level of vibrations of air, at the level of notes, rhythm, timbre, at the level of harmonics, of style, etc. and you can more or less successfully explain many of these notions in terms of the more elementary ones. But when you try to include beauty, there is a fundamental problem: beauty is in the experience of listening to the music, not something objectively part of the music itself. In the same manner consciousness is in the eye of the beholder: there is not objective way to know whether say an animal, or an ant hill, or an artificial intelligence has consciousness, or even to be sure you neighbour has consciousness; we only experience our own consciousness. And it is more or less self evidently present: thinking about ourselves is incompatible with believing we are not conscious; I think "me", therefore I am conscious, to paraphrase a philosopher. So to me the question as posed it really pointless.
So what's the solution? Mark this question as pointless and irrational?
Definitely agree. The video only explores the model of consciousness in which consciousness is in some way tied to the brain, but the truth is that we have no objective way to know if this is the case. Anything and everything could be conscious, or you could be the one and set of particles in the universe that is conscious (if you are reading this you are conscious lol).
thanks for this
Is understanding consciousness held back because we are ourselves conscious agents? So it's consciousnesses trying to understand itself? We lack the external vantage point, outside of consciousness to see it for what it is. Is this necessarily limiting?
Though he is a great thinker, the nature of consciousness and it's non dual nature was first discussed in Upanishads and Vedas, the ancient Hindu texts believed to be written in ancient India around 3000 BC, thousands of years before David Chalmers ever thought about the hard problem...
Give him a break, he's got to make a living!
lol this type of debate has been around western philosophy all the way back to Plato. Chalmers didn't invent nor does he claim to have begun the debate, he just renewed it.
I think you just wrote that to boast.
@@Joleyn-Joy Chalmers and other western philosophers of today act as if(maybe not expilcitly) that they started the discussion on consciousness.. if they quote from the past they quote on western philosophers like plato (who lived around 300 BC) But they completely ignore the fact that eastern religions (Hinduism Buddhism Taoism) have discussed it millenia before that.. More than me boasting, looks like you have a selective bias on history. If what i am saying is indeed true why do you squirm? Too egoistic to give due credit?
A brain watching another brain wondering about consciousness, and another brains in the comment making jokes and wondering as well
well...many brains watching a brain using sophistries in an attempt to justify his death denying ideology....
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@nickolasgaspar9660
How do you know your ideology is the right one ? Aren’t you denying existence and find comfort in the belief of non existence ? Don’t act like a high priest when you and the idealists are on the same level
And we’re all like dogs wondering about music theory.
Chalmers would hate this comment
Thanks Dr. Chalmers
From my perspective the problem is most people dont understand the difference between "Consciousness Awareness" the Knowing or Awareness of experience, timeless and infinite, never started, never stops, and the "Content of Consciousness" being thoughts, sensations and perceptions, objects we are aware of, which indeed is an emergent phenomena, a bain process, information processing etc etc.
Make this difference as big as possible, by taking more interest in "Consciousness Awareness" rather than the "Content of Consciousness".
The problem is most people are lost in their thoughts, lost in the "Content of Consciousness", not spending more time looking at that Awareness that Witnesses the experience of being lost in their thoughts. They wrongly belive they are their thoughts, sensations and pereceptions. They see all the objects in a room but dont consider the space that allows all the objects in the room to exist! Then they also wrongly belive if we destroy the objects in the room, the space that contains those objects is also gone. Pity them.
Abide in the Awareness more and more, and see what happens.
Offcourse if you have a unsubstinated belief that this "Content of Consciousness" is also brain produced, is also an object in the "Content of Consciousness" , and stick to thatm then its never ending suffering.
For some reason the "consciousness as an emergence" explanation is very satisfying to me. It reminds of Douglas Hofstadter's analogy with ant colonies. Individual ants all cooperate nearly perfectly and out of this cooperation arises the impression of a unified ant colony acting as a single entity -- perhaps the same thing happens to us (i.e. when the individual mental modules in our brain cooperate so seamlessly that our subjective experience of ourselves as a single entity emerges, a consciousness).
The issue there is that it only explains the appearance of consciousness in others. It is plausible that everyone around you is merely an organized group of neurons reacting to their surroundings, but that cannot be what you are. Ant colonies don't think. As you said, it only gives the impression of a single entity.
@@zachdavenport8509 Agreed. That's why I think it's more likely that consciousness is actually something else more like space/time (maybe a third aspect of that) than a property bound up with the material.
@@Hakajin Or perhaps what we might call a "soul".
Until we can say "Emergence is" .. its kinda meaningless
@@Hakajin Why do you think that's "more likely"? Because the more we understand the mind (thanks to advances in cognitive science, neuroscience, computer science, artificial intelligence, etc.), the less room there is for people to argue that the mind is disconnected or independent of the brain - which you seem to be implying with your comment about consciousness being more like space/time.
Panpsychism just seems like it would entail such a radical departure from what we have come to understand about the universe. Especially when you consider all we've learned about the brain. The brain's delicate structures are required for everything we associate with being conscious and yet we expect to find consciousness in subatomic particles? Even if there were some spark of consciousness there, what would be the contents of that consciousness? To become a quark would be synonymous with dying.
I agree with Chalmers on a number of important points. He is to be congratulated on formulating the 'hard problem' in so succinct a manner, which makes it easier for science to get a grip on the issue.
Speaking of science, we have the following from Helmholtz: "Similar light produces, under like conditions, a like sensation of color."
That's like a law of nature, right? Always true, here and everywhere, now and forever -- or, symmetric under translations in space and time.
Curiously, we can both broaden and tighten this observation and, with a nod to Heisenberg, say that the same state vector, acted upon by the same operator(s), produces the same spectrum of colors, sounds, and so forth.
The word, spectrum, is important here. As the mathematician Steen reminds us, early on in the history of 20th-century science, "The mathematical machinery of QM became that of spectral analysis."
The interested are encouraged to read "Harmonic Analysis in Mathematics," by Jame Arthur. This is a delightful essay which is both cogent and easily digested.
Consciousness is a present mental capacity of a tendency for interaction with a state or a change. It is a psychic potential of tendency(unconsc. or consc. will) for reaction to a change, or a state.
That change can be even the change in it's own capacity or in it's other states.
By interacting with changes or states the potential registers them and witnessing them, thus creating or manifesting the awareness. And there is more...
- Radovan Radovanovic. Belgrade, Serbia.
Consciousness is the interplay of neural discharge frequency encoded analogies as they affect the neural discharge frequency complex which instantiates the self analogy.
I like how thorough and open minded this video is.
I also think this question is deeply rooted in the Foundation of reality. I believe any honest person must come to understand that in order for reality to exist, there must be Something which only exists through circular logic and reasons for existing are self-contained. Whether this is a system or an Entity has been debated for many years. As a Christian, I believe that this force is the Entity who called Himself, Yahweh, and more alive and real than any human, any animal, and any being of the spirit world.
I have a feeling that consciousness will end up fundamental and that everything has some aspect of consciousness. For example, so far as we know, stuff follow laws of nature. But what are those laws really? How does a particle like a quark know what to do? Are the laws of nature really just aspects of consciousness. We are so very focused on human consciousness, but if consciousness is indeed fundamental, perhaps the only thing that is fundamental, then what would that produce? It’s indeed a hard problem, subjectivity arising from something that’s going on. Perhaps in the brain, but perhaps consciousness is simply a field out there everywhere.
Yes this is what experienced on DMT. The source of creation. Conciousness is everywhere and primairy
Very good.
At least we have a new name for our oldest problem... And not for the very first time in human history as we've already had a dozens of names for it in the past. What's exactly Mr Chalmers contribution to "serious science"?
I am proposing here an even better name - "the Oldest Problem" of consciousness. And I can also talk for hours about me not knowing the answer. I am fully prepared to give series of interviews about what I do not know - while awaiting some offers from the publishers!
lol it seems you just watched the video without making ANY research. He's just describing the problem. His opinion is that consciousness is emergent, he didn't say it because ITS NOT THE POINT OF THE VIDEO LOLOLOLOL
i wonder why no publisher asked for your opinion if it's on par with his. it cannot be that you bring nothing to the table lol no way.
Ancient Vedic knowledge called Vedanta/Upanishaths have solved these questions and have clear methods to realize them.
And perhaps you could recount them here to our unwashed ears?
@@sallylauper8222 for a better analytical approach try Bernardo kastrup
There is no question and no problem for the subjective experiencer - everything simply happens and you go on as the witness underneath it all.
It is only a problem for the rational mind that tries to reduce ultimate reality into logic and reason.
You might want to research about George Berkeley
@@IvyTeaRN Which idea in particular?
@@magicpotion8 well his idea about how in order to be something has to be perceived. This theory is called immaterialism and it entails a rather subjective practical implication whereby when you change your perception of something in Berkeley's view, you literally change the world
@@IvyTeaRN This isn't true in my experience. When I change the way I look at something, my interpretation of that thing changes but not the thing in-itself.
Objective truth does not change due to a subject's perspective on it.
There is a difference between direct, raw perception of something (which is sensory) and the indirect perspective one takes when considering how to behold it (which is conceptual).
@@magicpotion8 the thing about metaphysics is that it goes beyond experience to explain the ultimate nature of reality. Also how do you go beyond your interpretation to access the thing in itself?
I can here only briefly indicate the lines along which I think the 'world knot' - to use Schopenhauer's striking designation for the mind-body puzzles may be disentangled. The indispensable step consists in a critical reflection upon the meanings of the terms 'mental' and 'physical,' and along with this a thorough clarification of such traditional philosophical terms as 'private' and 'public,' 'subjective' and 'objective,' 'psychological space(s)' and 'physical space,' 'intentionality,' 'purposive- ness,' etc. The solution that appears most plausible to me, and that is consistent with a thoroughgoing naturalism, is an identity theory of the mental and the physical, as follows: Certain neurophysiological terms denote (refer to) the very same events that are also denoted (referred to) by certain phenomenal terms. [...] I take these referents to be the immediately experienced qualities, or their configurations in the various phenomenal fields.
~Feigl
I am a physicist that worked at CERN. For the few smart persons that might exist on such materialistic mumbo-jumbo channel, I recommend my papers about consciousness, like for example "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".
ah you used to comment on every closer to truth video. Where ya been!
@@AlexLifeson1985 Thank you for remembering me.
Excellent overview of panpsychism, especially the "theory" that "small bits of (elemental) consciousness" should somehow "add up" to human consciousness (or whatever the conscious level a particular organism might exhibit). This model of consciousness is untenable for the following reasons. It is not enought to propose that a "bit" of consciousness exists. In order for that bit to influence other matter (e.g. our neurons), it must contain some information. If it does not, then it cannot transfer any information to other material entities - it cannot interact with other matter. On the contrary, our consciousness is loaded with information - whatever it is you are thinking at the moment that makes you aware you are conscious. Therefore, the premise of panpsychism, to presume that there is some "material" primordial form of consciousness to avoid claiming that consciousness is non-material, fails. Likewise, proposing non-material primordial "bits" of whatever that constitute consciousness fails for exactly the same reason. No new particles are expected to be discovered by physicists. All observed particles to date have associated information - a.k.a. structure - that determines how they interact. For panpsychism to continue, it must posit a particle with some structure or information that allows it to interact with the material that our brain is made of. Good luck.
So what is your solution to the hard problem?
I totally agree with this viewpoint. My view is that consiousness arises as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system of mutually interacting parts where there are neurological feedback mechanisms involving neurons and axons in the brain, which is allowed to evolve as part of the brain structure through the process of evolution. All animals are conscious. Consciousness is a phenomenon of the whole brain that can not be subdivided into parts but depends on the communication of these parts through feedback mechanisms. We don't need to know how these feedback mechanisms work to have subjective experiences. A quick check is that there are approximately 100 billion neurons in the human brain.
@@felipearchondo5949 If you watch a baby just learning to hold objects, they grasp them, put them in their mouths, and bang them against the floor or something in their other hand. That is our basic concept of the material world. Yet we have no real idea oof what “material” means! We only “know” the experiences that are reflected in the patterns our interactions with the outside world have left in our brains. You know what will happen when you hit a nail with a hammer. And that “knowledge” is not really material itself - it is information in the form of patterns in our brain. Patterns of connections in our brains, of structural adjustments in our neurons, and patterns of activity between parts of our brains as we access memories relating to e.g. hitting a nail with a hammer. So that’s the “problem” with the mind-body problem. There is no real problem. We naturally think in terms of duality, because that’s how our brain is designed to solve problems. We create symbols like words that represent patterns and manipulate them to understand other patterns. The patterns are “mental” that represent “material” things. But there is really no fundamental difference, it is just a difference in viewpoint. If you can comprehend that a pattern of mental activity like a thought about something that happened this morning is not fundamentally different than the pattern of electrons in an atom or the planets orbiting the sun that makes up our solar system, then the mind-body problem will vanish.
@@noelwass4738 Sure. But people still insist on thinking there is an ‘immaterial” mind and a material world, and there must be some particles that explain the origin of consciousness. “Emergent property” doesn’t explain why people insist on believing in the dual nature of reality. That is the real problem. See above.
@@thomassoliton1482 Thanks for your reply. I researched for myself the definition of dualism as the belief that mind and body exist independently of one another. For myself I have never seen any reason believe this doctrine. Bits of non-material substances - what would that be? I suspect most religious people are dualists.
Idealism dissolves the hard problem of consciousness.
With idealism we get to keep consciousness as irreducible and fundamental without the combination problem or any mind-body problem.
@Sir Isaac Newton Indeed! Here's a fascinating conversation between an idealist (Dr. Bernardo Kastrup) and several Jungians: th-cam.com/video/ub_0xiaE4-4/w-d-xo.html
Jungians and idealists get along quite well.
@Sir Isaac Newton I checked it out and it was great, but was distracted when I recognized who the author of the video is: Oscar Turner (OmniPhi Media) who does great work on European identity and ethno-nationalism. Based on your video uploads you're probably no fan of that.
@Sir Isaac Newton I appreciate the recommendation. From an idealist perspective it certainly is fascinating, especially since a lot of idealists can be a bit new-age and hyper-egalitarian which I think is unnecessary and misguided. I'd recommend checking out Oscar Turner's video entitled "George Lincoln Rockwell Explains American National Socialism". Here's a link: th-cam.com/video/43B1J4smUBk/w-d-xo.html
Don't let the swastikas scare you off. Rockwell was a philosophy major at Brown University, so he knows how to make clear arguments for his case and he gives quite a sober speech that is still very much relevant to the times we're in now, and he gives great counter arguments against alternatives. As a fellow philosophy fan I'm sure you can appreciate ideas that might challenge the orthodoxy of our day as philosophy has a habit of doing, so even if you disagree you it may be worthwhile to engage with such ideas if not to at least sharpen your sword.
I suspect your friend liked a bunch of interracial sexual stuff based on their uploads and comments from the past, as well as recommendations on their homepage lol if they don't really use the channel anymore and don't care about their videos I'd suggest removing them, along with the recommendations. They're pretty degenerate lmao
Your 'solution' is nonsense. Obviously you are not even close to well read and prefer wishful thinking to real solutions. Whether an external reality exists is no longer considered a problem, with rise of science, ideas such as idealism, started tk become much more nonsensical.
materialism also dissolves the hard problem of consciousness. Michael Graziano and Anil Seth have materialist explanation of consciousness and the hard problem doesn't even arise with the approach that they take.
apreciate the honesty
I can hear my grandma answering the hard problem of consciousness with,
“Because god wanted it that way”
Consciousness and quantum mechanics appear to be so deeply connected that perhaps consciousness is at the heart of everything.
The measurement problem, the latest Nobel prize was awarded for showing that god is in fact playing dice, if it’s true that the universe has no definite stats until it’s observed what does that say about consciousness? More importantly who is the thing having the experience? It’s ourselves looking back 👀. One consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. 🤯
@@Earthad23 The 2022 Nobel prize had nothing to do with "showing that god is in fact playing dice." It was a test on Bell's theorem, and John Bell was probably the biggest advocate of hidden variable theories in the history of physics.
@amihartz The experiment shows that there are no hidden variables. That’s the opposite of Einsteins claim that god doesn’t throw dice.
@@Earthad23 No it does not. I think John Bell understood Bell's theorem more than you.
@amihartz John Clauser developed John Bell’s ideas, leading to a practical experiment. When he took the measurements, they supported quantum mechanics by clearly violating a Bell inequality. This means that quantum mechanics cannot be replaced by a theory that uses hidden variables.
I sometimes wonder if it will never be possible for us to understand. In the same way that no matter how much time and explanation given, a cat can never understand calculus. Perhaps our brains aren't designed to fully understand the principle of consciousness.
I am worried that the whole universe may be consciousness and that time may not even exist and that perhaps the suffering will never ever end...because it never began.
Well I disagree. Given enough information we can make sense of it all eventually albeit however long it takes.
@@pleaseforgivemyinsanity2801 If in fact time essentially doesn't exist owing to consciousness, is it really such a problem? It DOES exist though, once our minds "convert" it into the relative world we experience in our ordinary living.
There's actually nothing to understand. Consciousness is something felt as an experience when it's unveiled by the finite mind, the characteristic of ego.
I think that once you understand language, you can understand math. And once you understand math and language, you can understand anything.
David Chalmers inspired me to take a deep dive into the subject of Consciousness. A Problem like the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is only a problem until it is solved. After listening to his description of the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" in this video, I think I understand this problem better. My best guess as to the solution of this problem is...when cells started communicating with each other and neurons developed, this was the beginning of Consciousness. Each individual neuron must have, at some point, gained the ability to have bidirectional communications with other cells and the ability to store information and process information to some extent. Over time and as more similar cells join this network, these cells get smarter and they find easier and better ways to do things. Eventually, this leads to Consciousness.
Do you know how sense organs work?
Sense organs are fundamental
to the being conscious process since
they are the only means by which
the outside gets inside
in representational neural-discharge-temporal-pattern-encoded form.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Very interesting.
@@dennistucker1153
"Very interesting" indeed.
In fact,
by investigating from this direction,
one is able to construct a very satisfying theoretical understanding of the relationship between mind and matter.
The 'essence' of such a theory, roughly,
since being conscious is a process and
process is an abstract notion we can see why thoughts and minds seem immaterial to us.
(All based on the distinction between movement and material existents.
Movement is not a material existent but is absolutely dependent on material existents for its being).
gotta go ttyl
Awareness seems to be a non-physical phenomena existing within a material reality. The only other alternatives are panbioism, which is that everything, from humans, to atoms, to quarks, to galaxies and the universe itself, has some level of consciousness, or a-bioism, which is that nothing is really alive, and everything is just chemistry, physics and thermodynamics.
Physical matter, no matter what, from its atoms to its constituent parts, is physically impossible of possessing awareness.
A human is walking down the street and falls dead.
The heart, brain and everything else is still there.
What's missing?
The only naturalistic solution is that the brain and body do not display phenomena physical matter does not otherwise display, merely the "illusion" of emergent properties, and that the brain and body are just extremely complex, bio-neuro-electro-chemical reactions. There is no death and therefore no life. Just chemistry, physics and thermodynamics. Yet somehow, awareness emerges from a thing that is made of otherwise unaware organs, tissues, cells, chemicals, molecules and atoms. It sounds preposterous. Yet we experience it. So we can't deny it. So, there's no such thing as life or death? Yet, the reality of awareness brings this into doubt. But again, physical matter is either inert, or reactive, according to the physical laws of chemistry, physics and thermodynamics. The conclusion is still this: Sufficient complexity of physical matter somehow gives rise to emergent awareness. Yet the components of that aware thing, nevertheless, remain unaware while still composing the aware thing. This seems counter-intuitive to logic. These two reasons alone, for me, are sufficient enough to give materialism raised eyebrows, perhaps.
“Those who believe that the organic has been developed from inorganic, that "living" has proceeded from "dead" matter, may then assert that there must be in matter ‘something-which-is-not-yet-life-but-which-may-develop-into-life’, and may fitly term this side of matter supermateriality.” - Karl Pearson
A few more things to consider: If Darwinian materialism, then everything is chemistry and physics, including the human body and brain.
If only chemistry and physics, then how can free-will be possible, for everything logically is necessitated as a resultant action or reaction from prior physical or chemical stimulus.
And if there is no free-will, ethics and morality are a crap-shoot.
And this renders the horrors, as well as the humanitarian acts of history, non-horrific and ethically and morally neutral.
Some might say the answer relies on quantum physics, where it is said there is good scientific space for free will to exist. It is said the observer alters reality, based fundamentally on what he or she thinks.
In this writer's opinion, this still doesn't quite make sense, understanding that the will of a self-aware consciousness stems from a "seemingly" non-physical source.
From the universe, to quarks, everything is material, and without will. Yet, from the conglomerate intricacies of physics, chemistry and quantum theory, will arises? It would have to. But it is an experiential reality, not requiring proof, because we live it. How we would verify this apart from subjective experience is the puzzling mystery. The mystery here is the existence of awareness in a universe of non-aware matter.
Also: There is not a thought, word or action that you can conceive or think of that did or does not originate from external stimuli.
The brain registers external stimuli, which processes them, creating internal responses which are then externally expressed through the medium of the body.
Input and output. The sense of self almost seems to be a synthesis between these two things.
Yet, if these things as separate from each other are not you, why, when brought together, should they be understood as your own self?
In all of this, where then, is the self?
Last of all: The "seemingly" "self-evident" experiential reality of your own "non-physical" self-aware conscious, even more to the point, your very awareness, seems to be that which opens the doorway to the possibility of something other than this physical universe.
There is only so much scientific evidence for the emergence of the mind from electro-chemical phenomena, built up from the atomic level with increasing complexity. None of it is certain or empirically proven.
The hard problem of consciousness is the subjective nature of all conscious experience/processes. Which makes it largely impervious to any sort of objective, directly comparative categorization, or quantification.
Consciousness trying to understand itself... makes me think of the Ouroboros. Finding an objective explanation to the subjective experience seems to be a contradiction... It seems that science might one day explain all the objective correlates of consciousness while failing to explain the subjective experience itself: as if science could explain to someone who was born without eyes the subjective experience of perceiving the color red, and the person without eyes gets the 🟥 experience.
I think saying consciousness is trying to understand or experience itself like saying god is trying to experience his unlimited "knowledge" by experiencing "ignorance" sounds really meaningful to be honest .. but yet still .. it's just way more logical to humans *who only know consciousness* than saying it's just matter property or emergence of it's complex form .. a human will never accept that his consciousness is not something else no matter how he is materialistic
We are here to observe the universe in as many ways possible to keep the it's possibilities endless. Every subjective experience is the universe becoming aware of itself in another way. This is not only applicable to humans either.
Just a stoned thought.
a girls name is truestory
lol awryt then
Why the universe trying to experience itself. Is it bored?
And why are YOU? Your answer will solve the hard problem. Please let us all know!
Lmao @stoned thought
in what ways could physical give way to conscious experience and subjective emotion?
I think what we're trying to describe here is the process of consciousness.
If you're willing, you can peel away all the layers of any process and come to the conclusion that it's not explainable.
Explain the process 'driving a car', for example.
We could go over the history of how cars came to be, the bits and pieces, how the engine and drivetrain works, how metalurgy helps us do this, chemistry, physics and now, why is there anything at all, what is space and time(or spacetime)? What is matter/energy?
Why is it all like it is?
I don't know if David Chalmers accidentally said that there were atoms of consciousness, if it was a metaphor maybe, but it's posing consciousness as a thing, and I think that where a lot of the old timey philosophers get us mixed up too.
In the end consciousness isn't hard to explain in terms of neurons and so on, but, it might be that it has such a historical theistic, philosophy of religion, easy to mix and match dead ends and rabbit trails that it's hard to get everyone to agree, it's hard to demonstrate that it is a completely naturalistic phenomenon, and, in the end, that's just how theists want it, isn't it?
I don't see what theism has to do with this. As for what is matter, energy and space time, david chalmers suggests we may have to place consciousness as a category alongside these
You don't see any historical connection between the 'hard problem of consciousness' and theism?
Does David Chalmers really suggest we may have to place consciousness as a category alongside matter, energy and spacetime?
If he does, and you agree, I think you're both wrong.
Ian Taylor the question is how can physical brain processes lead to qualia not what the processes are. Why does it feel like something to be me cannot be answered with "because you're processing information". If so then how much information processing is needed? If information processing is all that's needed then the chances of me being me instead of the infinite other possible information processing devices from animals to computers is practically 0. Why does information processing lead to qualia???
@@iantaylor9540 I don't think the hard problem of consciousness has "clicked" for you yet. I feel like most people are exposed to this subject and leave thinking they understood it, but they really never did. Chalmers IS saying that consciousness should be another fundamental building block of the universe. Think about your car example. What does "describing" a car really do? Well, it just breaks it down into parts. Instead of just saying "car", you start saying the parts that make up a car. Eventually, you reach a point where you can't describe it anymore, because there is no way to break it up into parts. This means you reached the fundamental level. I.e. with the car example, you get down to "matter/energy" and "the laws of physics". Those things just are the way they are and we can't explain why, because they are the fundamental units of the universe. Similarly, when you try to describe what the color "red" looks like, you can't describe it, right? That's an obvious clue that it is fundamental.
If you want to disagree with it, then that's fine. But in order to convince anyone, you would have to provide a physical explanation of how to produce "red". If you begin by talking about how light of a certain frequency enters eyes, you fell into the easy problem of consciousness trap and missed the point.
@@stucrab omg thank you!!!!!! This is how I see it, as well. It's so hard to explain to people somehow.
This is a theoretical question that has been posed by some: If you start transferring a human being, one atom at a time, from one place to another, at which point does consciousness transfer over? This would be in fact teleportation.
Another way of saying this is say you have a box full of particles and you give it a good shake so as to completely rearrange them into my body. So is it like I suddenly turn on the minute my body comes into alignment?
@@abhishekshah11 Materialism says yes.
In my humble opinion, Highly contrived situations like this and the "Chinese Room" scenario lend nothing to philosophy. It's like asking "If yellow is 3.9 and Ben, when does Ben become conscious? Or perhaps more to the point, It's like asking "If I was a the it 跑米 however and?"
@@user-cp5xg2ot2r No! Materialism doesn't say anything about this situation.
@@user-cp5xg2ot2r If I replicate you atom by atom without destroying the original atoms that made up "you" (by a materialist definition), is the new body you? No, it is a clone/twin. Thus the hard problem of consciousness.
8:25 Leibniz was onto something with Monadology. Philosophical zombies, computers, and atoms all the way down; uncertainty and questioning all the way up.
Leibniz and Newton already noted the hard problem of consciousness way back in their time. Rishis of India did too centuries ago. The problem is not new just too persistent,
@@abhishekshah11 Steven Pinker said that this is one of those problems that man has been asking for a long long time, and unlike other problems which we've solved or come closer to understanding, the problem of consciousness is no closer to being understood nor is there any indication that we will ever be closer to understanding it.
@@sallylauper8222 The answer is God.
if neurons transmit energy with action potential, why does consciousness have neural correlates? might there be connection between energy and consciousness?
is there consciousness when physical nature is described by mathematics? mathematical description is a way to make conscious?
To begin to tackle the hard problem,
we need some way of putting a consciousness, from a pre-existing human, into some other body,
not necessarily human, and then back into their original body so they can report back what they saw.
To make this more objective, we give that test subject some piece of information,A, that is secret to the experimenter.
And we give another piece of information, B, to the experimenter that is secret to the test subject.
And that test subject has to come back with B, after they "astrally project" into that other body.
Simultaneously, while in that alternate "avatar" body, test subject has to give A to the experimenter.
The Ultimate Reductionist beautiful idea
or just give someone loads of K
You don’t understand what consciousness is
@@footballfactory8797 And you don't either. Stop pretending you do.
My best guess: Consciousness had to evolve from the machinery that was available and molded by conditions. Brains developed for the purpose of evaluating the environment for the creatures that posses them. They do this by modeling the inputs from sense organs and continuously monitor and adjust the models to plan ahead and navigate for resources and reproduction. The images (models) we see in our "mind's eye", are only approximations of what our sense organs "see" and hear. The reasonable inference here, is that this constant, real time, evaluation and adjustment of the creature's self-position in space is what most likely produces the sensation of self. And why it mostly disappears when the creature is sleeping and navigation is unnecessary.
In some instances if you lower brain activity, your conscious experience diminishes. However in other instances if you lower brain activity conscious experience becomes super rich. The brain 🧠 is not that simple
True.
Awesome
Everything we think about, everything we do posits consciousness.- Planck
Another consideration is that our concepts of reality that are based on a universe of space and time (and even theories going as far as the multiverse and 11 dimensions) are a mere fragment of all of the different forms of existence 'out there'. And perhaps our concept of how reality can be, even if believing that there are parallel universes, higher dimensions etc. is actually still very limited. So maybe we'll need to develop new theories about how complex and alien existence can get 'out there', even beyond the multiverse, 11D space-time etc. before we have a wide enough scope of 'concepts of existence' to start conjuring up new and more complex ideas about consciousness fuelled by a much more complex and diverse understanding of all of reality.
what happens to energy in physical brain? is energy fully explained by physical nature?
I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again. How is it logically consistent to ask the question how the physical brain gives rise to the conscious experience within the confines of the admission that it is a hard problem. In fact whenever I hear it described this way there comes a point in the tale where the describer does the little magic hand wave thing and in effect says "voila - you have consciousness" - without the slightest deference to any independently verifiable fact of science or logic , as if those listening are rubes. If there is a barrier that exists it must be described from the standpoint of that which perceives it , which is consciousness. What we have is a hard problem of physics.
Great answer. Thumbs up.
Yeah, it's not called the "hard problem" because it's easy...
Perhaps all matter has consciousness, but our brains have given rise to intelligent thought, eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, etc. To create our very human like consciousness. All other consciousness is undetectable
@@genas6703 Perhaps....perhaps a lot of things. But the point is that the one thing that can not perhaps and be logically sound is that matter gives rise to consciousness. Not without some proof or explanation. That is simply magical thinking. Consciousness is the only thing that can escape this requirement, as it is the thing that is posing the question. That makes it primary (if not in the greater universe) in this chain of logic. It is the baseline. It is start, because it is what is starting the discussion.
Science cannot explain consciousness because it (consciousness) is not borne out of materialism.
Here's a younger David Chalmers with his band.
A great gift for summation. In my own metaphysics, though, hard and easy problems collapse into one.
this guy is good!
It's almost like you have to talk of "soul" - as if matter itself is mechanism and unconscious, but if something called "soul" exists and interacts with matter, then life is possible and can become self-directed with conscious awareness of various degrees. Science can't really touch that "philosophy of soul", but would suggest no IA will become "conscious" unless it had "psychic hooks" that something called soul could access. Effectively humans are now the "Soul of the machine" since we have interfaces that connect us to "senses" of knowledge beyond our physical senses.
I feel like im losing it mentally.. no joke.. help me calm it down someone. please. im having a bad time with the mind running. ANYONE...
Get some xanax bro or have a drink.
What's even up, you going psychotic?
This might help. (1) Concentrate on what you can see in front of you. (2) Move your eyes around until you see something to focus on. (3) Blink a couple times. (4) Focus your eyes on what you see - really examine it for a few seconds. (5) Repeat this process a few times. You will find that whatever was going through your mind will subside, and your mind will be quiet for a while. Keep practicing this when your mind wanders or becomes agitated, and hopefully you can control your "wild" and unproductive thinking. This is essentially a more "casual" form of meditation.
...0:20. It is worth considering that they don't. Worth questioning this summption (that physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience). The truly radical alternative to this would be not so much panpsychism (which is what Chalmers seems to favour) but some some form of idealism.
During my out of body experiences I am conscious and my brain is not present. So consciousness works through the brain but is not limited to the brain in my experience
We know preciselly where the consciousness is. The problem is, that's the only thing we really know.
We know conciousness relates to the brain but there is no one spot on the brain where conciousness is contained. It is an unorganized mapping of thoughts and actions and experiences that combine into a state of self awareness. No current experiments demonstrate exactly "what" conciousness is, thus we do not know exactly what or where it is by any means, at least not in a difinitive sense that leaves no further questions. Hence why it is still a problem in science.
@@jeremywright9511 It may be a problem in science, but it does not change the fact, that the consciousness is the first and only thing we know directly. Location is relative in science, but consciousness is always local, and outside or inside are just created categories. Science is trying to explain consciousness from outside, some religions and philosophies, from inside. Both fail.
@@NeoShaman Great answer. You have my vote.
@@jeremywright9511 That is precisely NOT why it is still a problem in science and forever shall be. You will land your rockets on the exact electron within the brain where consciousness resides, yet u will never know it's shadow.
Uhh... within ourselves??
Consciousness is kinda like Oakland, California, as Gertrude Stein said, "There was no there there."
Consciousness is not emergent ... its pervasive.
Can it be both? Is our conception of consciousness big enough? It certainly is big enough to hold us - if we consider that it is pervasive
Bullshit. Take away the brain and you're no longer conscious...
You say the brain alone can't explain consciousness, yet it takes a brain to be conscious.... So you don't have a leg to stand on. OBVIOUSLY the brain DOES explain it.
No brain = no consciousness
Just because we don't have an equation for consciousness doesnt mean there is something mysterious about it.
Because we don't have an equation yet, people will say our bodies are only vessels for housing consciousness, as if there is something mysterious about it.. 🙄
-- THAT explanation is no better than a God of the gaps argument from creationists.
“Take away the brain and you’re no longer conscious”
How do you know this? You take away someone else’s brain and they appear to YOU as being unconscious, or “dead”. You aren’t the person whose brain is being taken away, so you have no say in what they experience. You are the one relying on a tautology. You are assuming the material has any objective existence, and doesn’t purely rely on the quality of being conscious in order to even know/believe the material in the first place. You are using the shadows on the wall to prove there isn’t a fire casting them.
@@TheGreatAlan75 This isn't an answer to idealism or Chalmers's position at all. What you said simply states that the brain is necessary for something to be fully conscious in our reality, and that idealism doesn't deny.
Qualia normally correlates to a physical state of the brain so damage to the brain would possibly correlate to how Qualia would function, the same way as Mental exercises can change the structure of the brain (and before someone asks, yes, this is scientific, search about it).
The best you can get from your argument is that Qualia and the Brain are interdependent and not that the brain causes Qualia.
Were you conscious of your own birth?
Where were "you" before that?
Even in our own experience, it *does* emerge.
My hope is that as our AI systems get complex and complex, at some point one of them will become self-aware. At that point, we will study it and that will give us a hint on how and why we have this subjective experience associated to our brain activity.
I have a question pertaining to the combination problem that arises when you try to put the idea of panpsychism into practice.
If a grand mass of particles are necessary in order to create an “observably” conscious being, then why aren’t mountains or bodies of water living things in the same way we are? They’re a grand mass of particles in the same way we are, right? What makes the difference in who or what gets to “move about freely”, essentially? Why do we-or dogs, or flies-get to be animate things over these inanimate things? Why us and not them?
Isn't it obvious?
@@ricliu4538 lmao god?
Suppose we are able to explain this problem in theory, but again who/what is explaining it? Explanation also requires consciousness! If you are not conscious, you can't explain. Just like the deep sleep experience, when we wake up, we say "oh I slept like a log or stone!" if there is no consciousness, how can we say and refer that state? Fundamentally if we try to objectify the subject, this problem will arise. Only "That" is, all is "Not".
Explaining a made up problem is not a wise thing to do.
-" Fundamentally if we try to objectify the subject, this problem will arise. "
You got that wrong. Our conscious states produce a subjective image of an objective reality.
sounds like something metaphysical to me. And there are still some people out there who make fun of people, who believe in immaterial things
I think that is because Eliminitavism seems to be one of the easiest solutions to the question of what consciousness is. You just deny any existence of consciousness or immaterial things. I think it might come due to a laziness of thinking. Most people don't really care what consciousness is and where it comes from and therefore don't think about it and declare any discussion as pointless
I deny the existence of immaterial things. Also, “immaterial thing” is a nonsense concept.
@@KestyJoe There are good reasons to believe in the immaterial. Just this video already shows that we have subjective conscious experiences that dont have any material form which means you cant measure them. Divide the human brain into atomic particles you wont find any subjective experiences. Maybe rewatching this video and reading about "the hard problem of consciousness" will help.
@@evilmajorbajor951 I agree and that in itself is quite dogmatic.
@@akhirecitations65 The fact that you have thoughts (in your brain) is no indication that there’s some other realm of reality. I think the “hard problem” is really a misstatement of the problem.
A fascinating topic and one in which it pays to keep an open mind and avoid becoming dogmatic. I might be slightly biased towards perspectives that go against materialistic views. The reason is there is always that gap: somehow out of the sheer complexity of the brain and body, consciousness emerges, just like many other emergent phenomena, and yet we are left with the big gap of how exactly that happens. Given the advances in complexity theory, this is an enticing hypothesis, but I'm not completely sure whether it's true. Seriously though, will we ever truly know what it is like to be a bat, for the bat itself?
what he did say at 6:37 ?
we come up with fundamental laws that _____ and...
I'm not sure that it's "government"...
“That govern them”
very grateful!
If Consciousness is fundamentally "qualityless", could scientists ever satisfactorily explain it? It's rather doubtful.
That's part of the problem actually and part of what seems to be making it so "hard" in the first place
Like free will, consciousness will never even ever be defined by science- It is the secrete realm of religion and philosophy.
@@sallylauper8222 It’s the basis of mysticism.
Wait…how do we know the brain gives rise to consciousness? Massive assumption in the title of the video!
It is a reasonable assumption,
especially in comparison to the alternatives which all involve magic thinking.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELIt’s not a given. Science has to prove it.
@@JamesBS
Science is not in the proof business.
Science is about discovering what it takes to make better predictions.
What is wrong with production guys? He is not making eye contact with camera which is distracting. Otherwise excellent content.
Ya... the tools used to perform self analysis of an experience are not the tools used to experiment on the brain each has different outputs.
He has a face like Rowan Atkinson and hand movements like Zach Anner.
Wow, bad hair day. Chalmers used to have the best hair among philosophers (sorry for being fatuous)
Parfit had best hair in all of academia
8:02 what’s the name of that philosophical view?
panpsychism
@@heyyou274 thanks
That is a pseudo Philosophical worldview.
Can consciousness arise in arbitrary random collections of particles and not just in the types of bodies that we see? If not, then why not?
francis crick asserts that if you arrange the rods and cones structures of the eye correctly in a petridish, then since color is just an emergent property of that structure, you would have colors existing in the petridish.
Study Upanishads sir 😁🙏
Upanishads were written when brains were thought to be blood coolers.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I said 'read' sir. Hope clarity strike you!
@@REDPUMPERNICKELyou're acting like a Karen.
No man has an objective view. Everything a man experiences within his created consciousness is subjective to his created senses that deceive him of the Truth.
Brad Holkesvig Yes but it is our duty as thinking agents to work daily on improving ourselves in action, to not harm our fellow man and beast, and to cooperate with one another. There is still hope.
Max Mallett If you have hope, then you will read this; goddeception.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/the-beast/
The stove is hot.
But is that itself not an objective view that you yourself happen to hold?
The Socrates of Athens No, that just his subjective opinion.
Objectivity only exists for the subject in a dualistic perspective of the universe.
How do my legs give rise to walking ?
can and does the brain put together all its processes into one whole, which then is experienced as a subject? and might the universe or physical reality come from a similar whole, which is referred to as God? some pictures of the universe and brain are very similar
Conciousness is fundamental, humans brains are more like receivers; we can tune in a programm, that´s already there.
Yeah, but I'm not so sure that makes sense. Many people like to use the exmple of a radio to show that consciousness can survive death. This is a fallacy, most of these people say something like this, I'll sum it up "If you smash a radio, the radio no longer works, but the radio waves are still there, and there's still a signal but only the radio can no longer receive it." This is not a fair characterization though. There's no reason to believe we are radios receiving consciousness from something else. To show how wrong this really is, is quite simple. We aren't the radio, our brains are the radio station that is the source of the radio waves, if you smash the radio station, it can no longer put out a signal. The signal dies along with the station. There's other radiowaves propagated by other radio stations, but that's not our station, or our waves, and we can not experience any of it after being destroyed.
Quite simple you said? :) To be honest, I don't know anything.. I just like the thought and the analogy. We have no clue about the real whole picture yet, and also you yourself can not be sure about your assumptions.
Timm Brockmann Oh no, I'm not saying that the problem is simple, but that it's easy to show the fallacy in the "radio analogy". I don't know for sure either, of course, I just was pointing out the bad logic in the analogy. Perhaps brains are receiving a signal from somewhere else, but then you can do that ad infinitum, our brains receive a signal from something else, but then you have the same problem with that "something else" as you did with us to begin with, having to conclude the same thing about that "something else", all the while there is no reason to assume any of this. If you want to say that the "something else" is the radio station, why? Why stop there? Why start there? We don't even know what that "something else" is, so why say that it's more likely than our brains in being the "radio station"?
science needs to map the brain functions first they are getting finer and finer maps using mri scans the technology is not their yet to map down to neurons just areas of the brain and simple pathways. mapped in 10 years then a lot will take place. not unlike the great strides they are making regarding the genome. once it is mapped it will not take time to tease the ghost out of the machine. science continues to wittle away at the unknown this is just another area where a lot of people think it is unknowable... forever is a long time not to discover especially when you are analyzing the nature of that thing.
Just a bit of Junkie sounds dogmatic and wrong.
Hey, maybe there's a spiritual meaning to self and life? (just being sarcastic, of course there is)
Lol, great comment
"Of course there is" haha, affirming the existence of something from nothingness, how funny. Spirituality is the tool which is used from religion and institutions (churches, gurus) to maintain the status quo, to basically fool you. Why you have to put spirituality into the unknown? Because you are afraid of the void? Humans with respect to a purpose are no different than a mosquito, a cow or a dinosaur. Dinosaurs lived in this planet 197 millions years more than us, and all of a sudden they were wiped out by a meteorite. All the time humans come to existence with disabilities or terminal illnesses, what was their purpose? All the time people die from the most stupid circumstances, that is a proof that we are no more important than any other animal. But because of thought we believe that we are somewhat especial, thus we need to have a spiritual purpose.
@@manar6187 Calm down Dawkins you ain't fooling anybody. Spirituality is the most important tool to humankind even if all religions are false, without it there is no metaphysical basis for things such as rights or morals. Without it the Nazi's were simply another group of humans "doing a thing" no different than you or I. Moral Subjectivity is the only logically consistent idea to hold if one abandons all spirituality. However as most philosophers seem to realize Moral Subjectivity on a large scale is unlivable, hence why despite most philosophers being atheist they believe in objective morals (yet have no basis for said morals).
You also seem to critique spirituality using your own view of reality which is flawed, sure some people might be born worse off than others and we can all die at any moment, but most forms of spirituality suggest something more that comes after. So in that regard how could you critique it on that basis when it is clear that if humans do have a purpose it shall come after us?
Also the church has been on the leading end of science for years, if they were afraid of the unknown then why would the most influential and important figures in science history be theist?
@@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867 aha... i am the one who fools everybody, i am the one that has a flawed view, who said that your view is not flawed?
How funny is that you start with the classic simplistic and medieval conception that moral and ethics would not be possible in a world with majority of non religious people. Do really humans have to have faith in order to do good? If that's the case and we were designed, let me tell ya, we were designed with hate ;)
I laugh when i read that spirituality is the root of ethics cause i can name you at least a couple millions persons who died because of religious wars and so on...
Spirituality is not the most important tool of humanity, how naive can you be? Spirituality appears because of the human mind, there is no spirituality without consciousness ( human one), all the other animals don't have spirituality because they can't form abstractions and memorize. Religion may have you believed that you are the only special animal, that you were made by god and that all the other living species in this planet are for you to live, let me repeat to you, all the others animals are not here for you, they have the same rights to live as myself or yourself. And again think that no animal besides us have spirituality, because no other have our mind capabilities.
Institutions and religions because are a product of the mind, are made to maintain the status quo, and sharp the tool ( mind ). Do you really believe that we live in a nice world? Our problems are because we have a mind with really good memory. Memory + projection = Fear = Misery
No other living species kills because of fear or fun. I'm and atheist and i have the ethics not only not to kill anyone but not to kill any sensitive feeling beings ( with nervous system )
You didn't answer what's the purpose of a baby who lived only a month because of a terminal illness. If god is the one that gives life, why he gave life to someone only to suffer? You believe in reincarnation? It's to give a message to their parents? What about a family who dies all together in a car crash? Why that happened, what was the meaning of that?
On the scientists side please talk about modern scientists, because Newton who discovered gravity in the 18 CENTURY was a spiritual being, i can say that great minds have faith? Lol. Buddy, knowledge is a collective construction, what is know today is not the same as 2 centuries back. The big majority of modern scientists are atheists, your thesis don't hold on that.
@@manar6187 You failed to even understand my point which is tragic in its own regard.
An Atheist can be moral, as a matter of fact I would say that most Atheist are moral. But even if you are good that doesn't matter, because under atheism there is no basis for good. You can argue bettering the human race is good but you have no basis by which to determine what is "good" or "Bad" other than your own perception of what the two are. You can explain why morals exist even trace them through evolution, but you can never explain why they are good and bad under atheism. You misunderstood the point I made and I would assume accidentally straw-manned my argument. Yes you have morals but what makes them right or wrong? My argument is that to be logically consistent as an atheist you must agree that morals are subjective as a whole.
On the subject of your claim religion has killed millions I will point out that religion has held a dominate position in most societies, but despite this the Encyclopedia of Wars only attributes 123 wars (around 7%) to religion. That is an impressively low number, and on top of that Religion has killed far less than atheism in recent time (don't start typing yet I'll explain). When I say Atheism I mean those who subscribe to the new-atheist school of thought, which is that religion is an detriment to society and should be opposed. Commonly this idea is attributed to Dawkins but it goes back further to people like Marx who saw it as a drug. New-Atheist have held power in many governments, the USSR for example killed a large number of jews (estimates vary) but hid it under the guise of anti-zionism. Mao Zedong banned all forms of religious activities and organizations even if we attribute a fraction of the death total to being motivated by his views on religion we still wind up with a number of deaths that can't be compared with anything in recent time. That isn't even mentioning what the CCP still currently does to people who practice religions not favored by the state.
Also I know what you are going to say "Atheism isn't New-Atheism, quit comparing the two" to which I would reply that it is the only fair way to compare the two. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God, the opposite of it is not religion but Theism which is the belief in a God. Theism similar to Atheism has never killed, it is when belief systems spawn from them that a body count is formed. So if you want to compare religious murders to atheist murders you must accept that I can look at different atheist belief systems to form a case or else you are special pleading.
On to your next claim I literally did answer it, if a higher power is real then there is likely an afterlife. This means that while life here may seem pointless something that comes after will not be. On top of that you seem to believe a higher power would be controlling us like puppets, if that were the case you might have a point but if free will exist your objection falls apart. Many religions promote free will. In case you are wondering why free will is a factor allow me to explain, if free will exist then we must be free to make dumb/bad decisions if we were stopped from doing so then there would not be free will. A car crash for instance is the result of human fallibility, fallibility is a result of free will.
The reason I brought up scientist is because you seemed to imply that religion has held back humanity, if that was not your goal then I apologize however it is such a common claim that no historian takes seriously that I decided to quickly address it without getting into the meat and bones.
Consciousness is about synthesizing a ton of different sensory organs' data into a global model of outside reality. However, once we have some model, some virtual system, it follows hitherto unknown laws of "conceptual/experiential" physics. It would be nice to start to articulate them.
I think I can resolve many problems created by science and rational thinking...& Hard core of consciousness....i just cannot tell you this is it....i can say what it is not & the limitations of mind or science...in approaching this problem...!
It seems to me that as long as science deems consciousness as being primarily a function of the brain they are ignoring 99% of the source of consciousness. What of intuition, of emotions, of subtle body sensations? And what of the interactions of energies within our bodies that they are just beginning to identify?
Those are all brain functions.....
The brain being tangentially involved does not make a function a brain function. The brain partially registering some effect in the body does not make it a brain function. It seems to me that clinging to conclusions of research that has been done as the complete and only truth is a violation of the principles of science.
If you want to claim that consciousness is separate from and is not a product of neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates that is a claim that requires evidence. If your claim is not testable to begin with, it's unscientific.
True if you practice science as a religion. Rejecting observable occurrences simply because science cannot yet measure or explain them is refusing to accept that tomorrow understanding will be greater than today. Where does scientific growth come from? How many new discoveries happen each year? Science includes exploring new possibilities which requires stepping past the existing framework (limitations) of science. A more rational, i.e. less religious, statement would be, 'If a claim is not testable science has a challenge for future research.'
The null hypothesis. Google it.
consciousness is not a product of the brain. consciousness exists before the universe does. there is no brain there because there is no physical material. consciousness is the property of identity (identity > ID > I). identity is who you are (we are souls in temporary bodies, empowered by spirit).
And your evidence for those claims is...?
my testimony _is_ the evidence.
righttttttt.....
Witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence, if it can even be called evidence in the first place.
With this logic, how are we separate souls when what makes our soul is an impermanent body with consciousness filtering through it? The only thing that qualifies as soul here is pure consciousness itself
We must admit conciousness is the fundamental unit of reality. Not matter/energy
It seems like it.
To be conscious means to be aware of what exists.....so in order to be aware of anything , something must first exist.
It is childish to make up entities from an abstract concept. We did that mistake and we ended up with a long list of discredited substances.
We did that with life (Orgone Energy) and we did that with combustion (Phlogiston). When will you learn from the errors of the past?
@@PablosProjects it simply means that saying "consciousness is primary" or fundamental is a logical contradiction and in direct conflict with the actual meaning of the word.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 But the question is whether or not consciousness is more than just awareness. It is possible that awareness is just one particular facet of consciousness.
brilliant!
The difference between the east and the west: In the east people see (or used, to before the west took over) conciousness as a blessing, as the incarnation of god. In the west people see conciousness as a "problem to be solved".
Paulo Constantino By problem, we don't mean that we would have any objections to the fact that we are conscious. In fact, Chalmers himself said that consciouseness is what makes life worth living. By the word ''problem'' we mean that consciouseness is something that we don't yet understand, and we are trying to solve it. The same way, you can say '' The problem of abiogenesis'' or ''The problem of the beginning of the universe''. Hope it helped. Cheers :-)
Paulo Constantino,
Probably it was the East that was the first to discuss this "Problem" from a scientific aspect. This "Problem" has been discussed in detail by Kapila in his theory of Sankhya Yoga, in Katha Upanishad, Prasna Upanishad, Taitriya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as well as numerous other Upanishads, in the Bhagwat Gita and also forms a vital part of Buddha's search for Truth/liberty. The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali is perhaps the most scientific explanation of the working of the Mind (software wise). Compared to the research the East had already done on the "Problem" in ancient times, the West is just waking up and starting to be curious.
Marian Palko
I'd argue that consciousness is what makes life NOT worth living. When we became aware of the self, we also became aware of the end of self. Making us a victim, actually I'd argue, a slave of constant death anxiety (an unfortunate byproduct of our adaptive intelligence).
@Dan Delgado
Check this out
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link
"And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little.".....Quran 17:85
Says the Fairy Tale book for weak minded humans.
@Zenothys The PROBLEM with Islam is that the Quaran is so hellfire based. When I was listening to it as an audio book the most frequently occurring word was "burn." Like, if I'm going to learn Arabic, the first word I'm gonna learn is "burn."
@Mario I would say it's accurate to say that the Quran's hellfire is largely in juxtaposition. God as warrior and god as grandma. Although the synoptic gospels seem to ignore hell, it seems to me that hell is largely a new testament creation, seen only in the paulian tracts. The Apocrypha as I see it.
@Mario Y'know, the punnisher and the merciful...
@Mario I don't really care about this religious shit- maybe it's best we just part ways.
We just need to accept that consciousness is not unique, but is simply what happens as systems become sufficiently complex. In a way, a calculator could be considered conscious, with every press of a button being a momentary instant of extremely directed and simplified consciousness.
Or even, there is no such thing as consciousness; we just want to feel special.
There doesn't seem to be any necessary reason why a complex system should produce consciousness.
The behavior of a clock follows necessarily from the workings of its internal parts. Once we understand the gears, springs, etc. of the clock, we see that the behavior of the clock necessarily follows from the gears, springs, etc.
With consciousness, there seems to be no necessary reason why the brain produces it. We can just as easily imagine a brain that doesn't produce any experience at all. You're forced to say that consciousness is just a brute fact about the world.
I wouldn't say that purely a matter of complexity, though it's true that only complex systems can be conscious. I think consciousness starts emerging when a physical system starts modeling other physical systems and itself , through the help of a sensory apparatus.
@@Zayden. Your comment comes closest to what seems to me most likely.
I'll add to it by saying
the model is built entirely out of intermodulating analogies.
If one can grasp how neural discharge frequencies are able to encode analogies one can come pretty close to understanding the meaning of the word conscious.
@@DogmicspaneA calculator can never be considered "Conscious" and you are acting like as if it can. No type of brain experiment can explain the "redness" of red. We can explain the wavelength that creates the color, but we can never explain how it feels like to do so. The fact that you indirectly claimed that consciousness is reductible to matter is self-defeating, because looking into someone's brain can never give you how it feels like to experience colors, sensations.
The question is: How can mindless matter create a mind that can enjoy and experience?
InterObSubJectivity
- Integral Theory (& Karl Popper)