Jonathan”s continuing role here is so, so important, in opening up the cracks to question!!! Thank you, thank you Jonathan for helping me think more clearly. When you push back it’s quite wonderful your conversants recognize it’s in care & respect.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Great that folk like these can get a public platform. Life is not a single note but a dynamic polyphony which is to be looked at/ listened to with a symphonic ear. Potential -Aquinas- and what Newman referred to as the illative sense give at least background to what McG is examining here.
Just sharing regards the resistance to priority of hemisphere’s. It we transcend the objectivity of the ego, we avoid spitting awareness and so recognise our Oneness.
Yes! Moving to understand everything as dynamic and contextualised, not sliced and static. And it’s exciting to think that is happening in lots of disciplines. For Educational psychologists it’s the preference for DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT over Intelligence testing. (Higher than actuality stands potentiality or possibility, as Iain quotes from Heidegger at 58.27]
From my point of view we should go within the body itself and unravel ITS mysteries before we go any more outside ourselves. Micro-Macro etc. Great chat.
Great conversation. One feature comparing the right and left that was not mentioned as far as I recall is that the right hemishere knows, and values, what the left hemisphere contributes, but the left does not know , never mind understand, what the right hemisphere contributes. Further, the left thinks it knows it all, minus some minor details that can be filled in, the rignt on the other hand knows that it cannot know all, that it is limited, which of course it has to be. It knows more in part by knowing that it knows less.
I like Jonathan’s intros very much, because it puts the talks in context. And it makes up for the fact that some of the conversations are rather rambling and sometimes hard follow In order to track any developing points and bits of wisdom. Here PG explains Newtonian mechanics more than once, and introduces ideas that become spurious in the conversation. IM kind of riffs off what PG says in order to develop and expound what he wants to say, and I was surprised to find that I didn’t pick up much from what PG contributed but my understanding of IM is better now.
Thank you for a wonderful discussion. There is a life-and-death problem in that Modern economics, medicine, government, education, and worldview is based on the mechanistic model. This view is directly responsible for such things as alienation, loss of meaning to life, nihilism, , loss of community, & destruction of the natural world. Climate change, increased suicide rates, clinical depression, addictions, and obesity. It has become perhaps fatally toxic precisely because it insists that it is the only valid way of understanding reality.
I’ve just found this comment in response to a very sobering report by the Gateway Pundit ‘Exclusive Jan 6 Footage’ “Unfortunately, it won't. Only one side and a good portion of independents care about the truth. The other side seeks validation...from any source, and predominantly false sources. In their thinking, the end justifies ANY means.” There’s a lot of truth in that... I have few friends (close friends anyway) because of my ‘kiljoyness’ shall we say? One friend said to me just the other day that the people who invaded the White House deserve severe punishment. He’s got a rather bad case of TDS, it’s very regrettable. This mentality at least demonstrates that people know deep down that western civilisation has been stockpiling problems and a reckoning is overdue... and they are resisting it ‘Orange-man-bad’
Seems to me from afar that what happened at the white house was terrible for the USA and the west. It's the madness on the right. That doesn't mean the left is not mad in many ways too - see so called 'trans health care' for the best example. There is a malaise across the political spectrum unfortunately. Rather than being right good, left bad , it's more a case of dogmatic simple minded thinking on right and left being a problem. IE politics as a whole is affected by left hemisphere either/ or approach.
I haven’t listen to all of this... I’ve been trying to discern what this has to do with morality. For instance, I’ve just today become aware of Kate Winslet’s ‘I Am Ruth’ performance and bafta award speech Here’s a comment I’ve posted elsewhere in response to an interview where Kate was making the case for the importance of a “conversation”: This is obviously a very important conversation to be having; I’ve just been trying to discern something specific about the nature of what this ‘dark side of social media’ actually is. I would be very interested to know where, for instance, Mary Eberstadt, Steve Turley, Naomi Wolf and Col Douglas MacGregor are in this “conversation” - My guess is that Kate’s desperation at her speech, imploring for regulation, was really far more in concern about what those people I refer to are discussing than the obviously repugnant bullying and pornography etc that features so significantly on the internet... I.e she’s cynically trying to weaponise the consequences of the sexual revolution, that Eberstadt is trying to draw attention (that word) to, to stop that very conversation.
The relevance of this conversation is that it asks us to think of things in the world “in flow” and only separable from the flow if we slice them away from context in order to look at them, which since the 1940s/50s has been done, in science, in the spirit of “control”. Applying this to Social media goes like this: social media is one of the things in the world, and like everything it is flux, and will change in ways that are shaped by what people attend to. Attention as a moral act? Social media is currently being used by people in ways that attend to rigid definitions of themselves and others. This can change, but it will be thru dynamic processes that are inherently related to the wider contexts. And regulation will be part of the wider context - but only part of the context. What we all do and think and say is also part of the context. And, the way that physicists and other influential thinkers make sense of the world are also part of the wider context - I’m referring now to norms about what we think and define ourselves, which at the moment tends to the static, determined in rigid ways. this could change. So the atom: dynamic, in flux; however, seen as static and defined rigidly, you get something that is a limited understanding. Social media, never static, always In flux. (As to identity… what would happen if it was a norm to think of gender as always in flux, and cast aside the idea that we must narrowly focus on just one aspect?). If the predominant ways of thinking keep shifting In the way, IG and PG discuss, if we can further develop our sense of ourselves and everything in and around us as in dynamic relations to everything else…. then we may see the changes we so badly need.
@@AugustNightingale thank you for your reply. My comment was not well written but in terms of attention changing the world and hence being a moral matter, well the changes being wrought on Ukraine are of paramount moral significance; I implore people to familiarise themselves with the commentary of Col Douglas MacGregor; ‘Russia's Devastating Airstrike on Ukraine’ is his recent contribution. You say “As to identity… what would happen if it was a norm to think of gender as always in flux, and cast aside the idea that we must narrowly focus on just one aspect?“ This sounds to me the kind of thinking that McGilchrist is warning against; Respectfully, I’d suggest you’ve set up a very flawed dichotomy; that of gender as the vast majority of people in the world, through history, are accustomed to think of it, which I think you seem inclined to put in a box labelled ‘the idea that we must narrowly focus on just one aspect’ as opposed to a brave new progressive world of anything goes (so long as it harms no one else). Is that sort of fair!
Once einstine is seen as only part of a larger electron, inflatated lets say, but then that may meen newton knew electrons in apples what color is grey
Are we also forgetting that science uses the left brain more than the right brain. Which leads to thinking narrowly. Science thinks they have things figured out but wait 10 years and things will change. The right brain is open and more resilient.
I think a suggestion I’d make to Philip, perhaps a seemingly trivial semantic matter, but language does matter... is, well, I’m somewhat wary of the term ‘construction’; Philip spoke of his program - ‘reconstruction of quantum theory’; to “build up”. Ok, that might be appropriate but the reason I raise this is, for example, I’m interested in Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism where he basically identifies John Locke’s Second Treatise as the political/philosophical manifesto that has proven so influential... the catalyst of what Hazony calls the Liberal Construction. Now, it was surely heavily influenced by Descartes and moreover Locke was not like a mischievous French intellectual/Post Modernist bent on undermining the ‘bourgeois’ order, as it were. It seems more probable that he was on the autistic spectrum; what’s more, he was a friend of Isaac Newton and the idea of developing a Principia Mathematica for society was evidently rather intoxicating (Hobbes, and the ‘Euclidean Epiphany’ also comes to mind) Now; this ‘Liberal Construction’, as I understand it, is really where the Social Construct, based on consent, effectively displaces the Covenant conception of the world I.e God consciousness. Construction, in this sense, seems to me a very appropriate term I.e like the Tower of Babel, it is human centric and prone to hubris. Hazony contrasts the Liberal Construction with the Protestant Construction (the nation states developed in the wake of the Westphalian treaty but crucially taking their inspiration from ancient Israel). This, to me, seems a less appropriate use of the term ‘construction’, for like ‘social construct’, it implies that it’s rather arbitrarily constructed by people... ‘straight white males’ (Foucault; ’who’s dominating/exploiting who’, all hierarchies are intrinsically exploitative etc etc) and therefore can, and probably should, be deconstructed... I predict that they’ll even try to deconstruct gender. I’m not sure, for instance, that Hazony would be too keen on the idea of the ‘Jewish Construct’ or the ‘Hebrew Construct’. So my rather laboured point, if it isn’t obvious, is that maybe your program is not ‘reconstruction’
I disagree , he has the patience if a saint ! Jonathan , brilliant though he is, was talking far too much, he should have let Iain speak for himself. There is a history to this.
@@jennysteves Iain’s defensiveness is not, for me either bad or dismissive. Defensiveness is not wholly inappropriate, but only when it violates the open, and therefore vulnerable honesty of truthful conversation. They held this trust together admirably! A very rare thing these days, unfortunately.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Jonathan”s continuing role here is so, so important, in opening up the cracks to question!!! Thank you, thank you Jonathan for helping me think more clearly. When you push back it’s quite wonderful your conversants recognize it’s in care & respect.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Great that folk like these can get a public platform. Life is not a single note but a dynamic polyphony which is to be looked at/ listened to with a symphonic ear. Potential -Aquinas- and what Newman referred to as the illative sense give at least background to what McG is examining here.
Thanks so much❤❤
Wonderful discussion. Thank you. Looking forward to Iain and Philip having another conversation soon, please.
I loved this discussion with all of you today. ❤
Just sharing regards the resistance to priority of hemisphere’s. It we transcend the objectivity of the ego, we avoid spitting awareness and so recognise our Oneness.
Yes! Moving to understand everything as dynamic and contextualised, not sliced and static. And it’s exciting to think that is happening in lots of disciplines. For Educational psychologists it’s the preference for DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT over Intelligence testing. (Higher than actuality stands potentiality or possibility, as Iain quotes from Heidegger at 58.27]
Fucking banging conversation lads. Thank you. Especially loved JR creating a debate at the end. Great content
It seems to be 'trendy' to be profane. Why is that? But otherwise, yes.
From my point of view we should go within the body itself and unravel ITS mysteries before we go any more outside ourselves. Micro-Macro etc. Great chat.
Niels Bohr also said, "what we think of as real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
Great conversation. One feature comparing the right and left that was not mentioned as far as I recall is that the right hemishere knows, and values, what the left hemisphere contributes, but the left does not know , never mind understand, what the right hemisphere contributes. Further, the left thinks it knows it all, minus some minor details that can be filled in, the rignt on the other hand knows that it cannot know all, that it is limited, which of course it has to be. It knows more in part by knowing that it knows less.
Another prolongated introduction by JR. Just saying.
And no short description follows. Shut up guys, let IM talk already lol
I like Jonathan’s intros very much, because it puts the talks in context. And it makes up for the fact that some of the conversations are rather rambling and sometimes hard follow In order to track any developing points and bits of wisdom. Here PG explains Newtonian mechanics more than once, and introduces ideas that become spurious in the conversation. IM kind of riffs off what PG says in order to develop and expound what he wants to say, and I was surprised to find that I didn’t pick up much from what PG contributed but my understanding of IM is better now.
Pascal did science, although he utterly rejected Cartesian mechanism. He saw frightenigly far.
What's the rustling sound?
answer: Iain McGilchrist's earbud microphone scratching (rustling) against his beard. I've noticed this on other video interviews of his.
In the biggining we creat the end what inbetween we feel found in the rainmaker
CGJ
Thank you for a wonderful discussion. There is a life-and-death problem in that Modern economics, medicine, government, education, and worldview is based on the mechanistic model. This view is directly responsible for such things as alienation, loss of meaning to life, nihilism, , loss of community, & destruction of the natural world. Climate change, increased suicide rates, clinical depression, addictions, and obesity. It has become perhaps fatally toxic precisely because it insists that it is the only valid way of understanding reality.
Such a central point (not really a point bad language that need change) that imbalance is crucial to truth 🤔
I’ve just found this comment in response to a very sobering report by the Gateway Pundit ‘Exclusive Jan 6 Footage’
“Unfortunately, it won't. Only one side and a good portion of independents care about the truth. The other side seeks validation...from any source, and predominantly false sources. In their thinking, the end justifies ANY means.”
There’s a lot of truth in that... I have few friends (close friends anyway) because of my ‘kiljoyness’ shall we say? One friend said to me just the other day that the people who invaded the White House deserve severe punishment. He’s got a rather bad case of TDS, it’s very regrettable.
This mentality at least demonstrates that people know deep down that western civilisation has been stockpiling problems and a reckoning is overdue... and they are resisting it ‘Orange-man-bad’
Seems to me from afar that what happened at the white house was terrible for the USA and the west. It's the madness on the right. That doesn't mean the left is not mad in many ways too - see so called 'trans health care' for the best example. There is a malaise across the political spectrum unfortunately. Rather than being right good, left bad , it's more a case of dogmatic simple minded thinking on right and left being a problem. IE politics as a whole is affected by left hemisphere either/ or approach.
27:00
Ehat if you switch on thinking before university. Yes it would be messy for a time but like an unfolding flower uno
I haven’t listen to all of this... I’ve been trying to discern what this has to do with morality.
For instance, I’ve just today become aware of Kate Winslet’s ‘I Am Ruth’ performance and bafta award speech
Here’s a comment I’ve posted elsewhere in response to an interview where Kate was making the case for the importance of a “conversation”:
This is obviously a very important conversation to be having; I’ve just been trying to discern something specific about the nature of what this ‘dark side of social media’ actually is. I would be very interested to know where, for instance, Mary Eberstadt, Steve Turley, Naomi Wolf and Col Douglas MacGregor are in this “conversation”
-
My guess is that Kate’s desperation at her speech, imploring for regulation, was really far more in concern about what those people I refer to are discussing than the obviously repugnant bullying and pornography etc that features so significantly on the internet... I.e she’s cynically trying to weaponise the consequences of the sexual revolution, that Eberstadt is trying to draw attention (that word) to, to stop that very conversation.
The relevance of this conversation is that it asks us to think of things in the world “in flow” and only separable from the flow if we slice them away from context in order to look at them, which since the 1940s/50s has been done, in science, in the spirit of “control”. Applying this to Social media goes like this: social media is one of the things in the world, and like everything it is flux, and will change in ways that are shaped by what people attend to. Attention as a moral act? Social media is currently being used by people in ways that attend to rigid definitions of themselves and others.
This can change, but it will be thru dynamic processes that are inherently related to the wider contexts. And regulation will be part of the wider context - but only part of the context. What we all do and think and say is also part of the context. And, the way that physicists and other influential thinkers make sense of the world are also part of the wider context - I’m referring now to norms about what we think and define ourselves, which at the moment tends to the static, determined in rigid ways. this could change.
So the atom: dynamic, in flux; however, seen as static and defined rigidly, you get something that is a limited understanding. Social media, never static, always In flux. (As to identity… what would happen if it was a norm to think of gender as always in flux, and cast aside the idea that we must narrowly focus on just one aspect?).
If the predominant ways of thinking keep shifting In the way, IG and PG discuss, if we can further develop our sense of ourselves and everything in and around us as in dynamic relations to everything else…. then we may see the changes we so badly need.
@@AugustNightingale thank you for your reply. My comment was not well written but in terms of attention changing the world and hence being a moral matter, well the changes being wrought on Ukraine are of paramount moral significance; I implore people to familiarise themselves with the commentary of Col Douglas MacGregor; ‘Russia's Devastating Airstrike on Ukraine’ is his recent contribution.
You say “As to identity… what would happen if it was a norm to think of gender as always in flux, and cast aside the idea that we must narrowly focus on just one aspect?“
This sounds to me the kind of thinking that McGilchrist is warning against;
Respectfully, I’d suggest you’ve set up a very flawed dichotomy; that of gender as the vast majority of people in the world, through history, are accustomed to think of it, which I think you seem inclined to put in a box labelled ‘the idea that we must narrowly focus on just one aspect’ as opposed to a brave new progressive world of anything goes (so long as it harms no one else).
Is that sort of fair!
Is that sort of fair? I meant... not sure where the exclamation mark came from 🙄 I blame AI
Once einstine is seen as only part of a larger electron, inflatated lets say, but then that may meen newton knew electrons in apples what color is grey
Are we also forgetting that science uses the left brain more than the right brain. Which leads to thinking narrowly. Science thinks they have things figured out but wait 10 years and things will change. The right brain is open and more resilient.
11:00
I'd love to hear eric weinstein's input on this....
I think yall could do some great work together
By always relating to Truth your mind has to become lost in a diophonia right.
Things become rigid as you try to express the ineffable, Being Truth
I think a suggestion I’d make to Philip, perhaps a seemingly trivial semantic matter, but language does matter... is, well, I’m somewhat wary of the term ‘construction’; Philip spoke of his program - ‘reconstruction of quantum theory’; to “build up”. Ok, that might be appropriate but the reason I raise this is, for example, I’m interested in Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism where he basically identifies John Locke’s Second Treatise as the political/philosophical manifesto that has proven so influential... the catalyst of what Hazony calls the Liberal Construction.
Now, it was surely heavily influenced by Descartes and moreover Locke was not like a mischievous French intellectual/Post Modernist bent on undermining the ‘bourgeois’ order, as it were. It seems more probable that he was on the autistic spectrum; what’s more, he was a friend of Isaac Newton and the idea of developing a Principia Mathematica for society was evidently rather intoxicating (Hobbes, and the ‘Euclidean Epiphany’ also comes to mind)
Now; this ‘Liberal Construction’, as I understand it, is really where the Social Construct, based on consent, effectively displaces the Covenant conception of the world I.e God consciousness. Construction, in this sense, seems to me a very appropriate term I.e like the Tower of Babel, it is human centric and prone to hubris. Hazony contrasts the Liberal Construction with the Protestant Construction (the nation states developed in the wake of the Westphalian treaty but crucially taking their inspiration from ancient Israel). This, to me, seems a less appropriate use of the term ‘construction’, for like ‘social construct’, it implies that it’s rather arbitrarily constructed by people... ‘straight white males’ (Foucault; ’who’s dominating/exploiting who’, all hierarchies are intrinsically exploitative etc etc) and therefore can, and probably should, be deconstructed... I predict that they’ll even try to deconstruct gender.
I’m not sure, for instance, that Hazony would be too keen on the idea of the ‘Jewish Construct’ or the ‘Hebrew Construct’.
So my rather laboured point, if it isn’t obvious, is that maybe your program is not ‘reconstruction’
Actually I meant ‘Jewish Construction’, not that probably makes that much difference
In case it wasn’t fairly obvious, I have something more like ‘reconceptualisation’ of quantum theory
...in mind. 🙄 I’ll get there in the end
Iain's mastery of communication, and his excellent books, are not done service by his QA defensiveness. It was quite disappointing.
I disagree , he has the patience if a saint ! Jonathan , brilliant though he is, was talking far too much, he should have let Iain speak for himself. There is a history to this.
Imagine spending hours and hours listening to people who just don’t quite get it , enough to send anyone over the edge
Yes, I was surprised when Iain became briefly emotional and defensive, although I loved his reply.
@@jennysteves Iain’s defensiveness is not, for me either bad or dismissive. Defensiveness is not wholly inappropriate, but only when it violates the open, and therefore vulnerable honesty of truthful conversation. They held this trust together admirably! A very rare thing these days, unfortunately.
Person on the right should disable adaptive lighting. Your video is being messed up by this useless "feature".
Iain takes up too much of the time denying the other guest enough time to speak
hdh