Keith Ward - What's the Stuff of Mind and Brain?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Support the show by shopping Closer To Truth merchandise : bit.ly/3P2ogje
Mind stuff consists of perceptions, cognitions, emotions. Brain stuff consists of electrical sparks and circuits and chemical concentrations and flows. These are not similar categories. How do the two relate? How does brain stuff generate mind stuff? What are the new theories of brain and mind? What are the challenges?
For member-only exclusives, register for free today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Keith Ward is a British philosopher, theologian, pastor, and scholar. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and an ordained priest of the Church of England.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast-new episodes drop every Wednesday: shorturl.at/hwGP3
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I get annoyed with people who just can't say "I don't know". This guy said absolutely nothing about the issue and just couldn't say "I don't know" when pushed. Meanwhile, yes the brain is all there is for consciousness, of course. This guy wants something outside the brain but that just doesn't track with... anything.
Often, questions come loaded with hidden assumptions.
Yeah, you're listening for the correct answers, which to you are based on 19th-century materialism.
He kind of got there right at the very end when he said "I believe nobody on earth knows how to do that", but he was certainly dragged to that point kicking and screaming by Robert.
You are absolutely 100% correct. This whole interview I will say in one word......'mess'.
When you declare “of course”, does that mean it’s a matter you take on faith, or do you have an argument?
Oh dear. A good example of how confused some people end up on the matter of consciousness. Once you lose sight of the simple fact that it is a biological process, like digestion say, then it becomes a rather unshackled concept.
But is it a biological process? That's the kicker to me.
@@mdwoods100 Strange question. Is respiration a biological process? Yes. Is digestion? Yes. Why would consciousness, occurring on the basis of neurophysiology, not be also? You have to insert extra unwieldy premisses into the argument to the effect that not all brain processes are biological. It just sounds wrong from the outset.
@@mdwoods100 I don't deny the 'oddness' of the phenomenon, But that's precisely what nervous systems have evolved to do: model the internal and external environment as physical states in the first-person.
@@d.lav.2198keep in mind you’re taking an unproven theory as fact. You’re also using analogies of living systems which have the great mystery of life, which has no material explanation.
It is not a biological process. It is a physiological process and physiology does not explain consciousness.
This is so good. Keep pushing Robert.
You could say consciousness is spiritual because it is beyond the change and decay that time imposes on material phenomena. Our body,mind,senses,intelligence lose their vitality as time goes on but our consciousness being an eternal " in the now " existence experiences no change or deterioration of its existence. Thus, we can say consciousness is spiritual because it seems to be aloof from material phenomena.
How does this square with material effects such as psychedelic drugs and anaesthetics fundamentally altering, disrupting and even switching off consciousness.
@@simonhibbs887 Drugs don't affect the intrinsic nature of consciousness of being that eternal " in the now " existence because while drugs and alcohol may affect our mind and senses by distorting what we experience we being the " knower ' of that experience must persist as the stream of consciousness that " realizes " how drugs and alcohol can affect us.
As for consciousness being switched off even in deep sleep consciousness appears to be switched off but in truth it just lies dormant because there is no objective reality of objects to be aware of, and the understanding that it lies dormant is that even if you were in deep sleep an alarm clock going off of if someone were to touch you or yell in your ear you would wake up thus proving that consciousness is still there.
@@simonhibbs887 Drugs and alcohol may affect our mental clarity but our identity that we exist is not affected by drugs or alcohol because the conscious self underlies mental phenomena thus the mind and intelligence just flow along the stream of consciousness.
In deep sleep our consciousness appears to be switched off but in truth it just lies dormant because if an alarm clock was to alarm or if someone were to touch you or speak in your ear loudly you would wake up, consciousness only appears to switch off in deep sleep because there are no sense objects for our consciousness to be aware of thus it just remains dormant in deep sleep, but as soon as there is any sensation awareness of wakefulness state arises.
@@williamburts3114
If a car were completely disassembled and
all of its components were heaped into a pile,
would you assert that the pile is still a car, only dormant?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL But, we are talking about consciousness and not a car.
This video is a great example of Wisdom, and then empirical intelligence.
If you went to public school, which isn't education, but is conditioning, it's all about memorization and empirical intelligence. The school might even have you believe that you're not smart if you don't ace your test, and this isn't only far fro the truth, but is most certainly an evil the government has part taken in.
It doesn't matter if you can do speed math or memorize all of wikipedia - sure, it might help you become a ceo or politician. Wisdom is the most important.
It’s so hard to believe that anyone can be considered legitimate, and rewarded handsomely with success and prestige, who sees a magical spirit realm causing consciousness.
it's not magic, nor spiritual. There may be one day a measurable science that emerges from it. But nothing physical explains it,. so you venture outwards and look for alternative explanations. Or perhaps we will indeed figure out that it is entirely physical and we are simply missing something. Either way, that particular nobel prize has not been awarded yet for a very good reason. Keep an open mind.
Most of the paramount figures in the history of science disagree with you. Ever heard of Isaac Newton?
It's the same as the cosmologists who claim a universe created ad nihilo. Give them one free miracle and they run the show from there.
@@Samsara_is_dukkha pretty much. One free miracle and a whole lot of free transcendental categories - logic, induction, numbers, the self, and so on and so forth
Some people also believe brains causes consciousness. One doesnt seem obviously more crazy than the other.
It turns out that Robert is not a philosopher. He defines matter as what is real, and if you define matter that way you have declared materialism to be true in advance and then you can be nothing but a materialist. What is real is the big question - so it is for philosophers. Scientists are given a materialistic answer to that question in advance as a working framework, therefore they cannot even ask such a question.
The term 'real' is a loaded and problematic one, but let's run with it a bit. The question is which phenomena are fundamental, and which are contingent on underlying phenomena. Physicalists and idealists can both be realists in that they think there's a 'real world', and they can both think that the physical is real and that the mental is real. The difference is that a physicalist would say that the mental and consciousness is a result of physical causal processes, while an idealist would say that the physical is a result of consciousness and mental processes. It's a matter of what is emergent from, or supervenes on what.
@@simonhibbs887 That's an oversimplified view. I understand that you wanted to be concise and focused only on the main thing, but what you said about physicalism applies to one version of materialism, the most widespread one that recognizes the reality of mind and consciousness, but considers them to be the result of material processes. Physicalism is not that kind of materialism, it is more radical - it does not acknowledge the reality of mind and consciousness at all.
A physicalist holds that nothing but the physical is real. Therefore, the physicalist cannot consider the mental to be real, even as a result of physical processes - for him, the mental is only something that appears to be, but is in fact non-existent. A physicalist believes that everything mental is physical in its true or real nature - it's just how physicality subjectively appears to someone. He thinks: the real must be objective, and the mental is not like that, therefore it is not real.
And just as the physicalist denies the reality of the mental, so the idealist denies the reality of the physical. An idealist believes that there is nothing physical in reality, everything physical is just an illusion, something that exists only in the mind.
Therefore, it cannot be said that „a physicalist would say that the mental and consciousness is a result of physical causal processes, while an idealist would say that the physical is a result of consciousness and mental processes“, but rather: the idealist says that what appears to be physical is actually only mental, while the physicalist says that what appears to be mental is actually only physical.
@@kitstamat9356 You might find the article on physicalism in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy online interesting, particularly the last two sentences of the introductory paragraph. Also the first sentence of the section on Terminology. As always the whole section is informative and approachable. I’ll summarise from my perspective.
Physicalism in modern usage is synonymous with materialism, for me it just means the belief that everything is in principle explicable in terms of physics and physical causation. That technically makes me a structuralist, though I have sympathy for attitude physicalism. As a physicalist I have no problem with the existence of the mental and consciousness. I am after all a conscious being. I just think it’s most likely that consciousness is ultimately explicable in terms of information processing, given that information and computation are physical phenomena.
This original post is dead on. I’m surprised how many commenters on a channel like this take materialism as given
@@deanodebo Except it isn't, because as I pointed out realism and anti-realism is a separate concern from physicalism and it's alternatives. For example Kastrup doesn't deny that there is a real world, nor even that there is a physical world, he just thinks that if they exist they are emergent from consciousness.
Even then anti-realists still use the term 'real' in it's non-technical sense because they still need to be able to communicate in English.
Perhaps speak to Bernardo Kastrup?
Educative
We’re getting further from the truth with this one I’m afraid ..
not at all, the material world is only one small part of reality,.
Keep in mind, science makes no truth claims
@@AlexLifeson1985what is the rest?
good question. Nobody knows the answer, in the same way nobody can explain how the universe began. It requirees a deeper and larger understanding that what our minds are capable of comprehending@@dr_shrinker
There is no reason why they shouldn’t canvas the opinion of the fellow relaxing under the tombstone behind them. Surely he is closer to the truth.
Waves..
Material is the modem for the spiritual and thus can be tuned
Keith specifically stated by 'spiritual' he meant immaterial.
There are oodles of immaterial entities,
'pattern', 'process', 'representation', 'meaning' and 'conscious' are examples.
One is not interested in the patterns that constitute this sentence
(i.e. the patterns of the letters, the pattern of the words), rather,
one is interested in the *meanings* of the words but
mostly insofar as they contribute to the *meaning* of
this sentence as a whole.
The same is true of all proper sentences really.
That printed patterns can convey thoughts is utterly amazing.
Please focus your attention on the *linkage* between pattern and meaning.
What about this linkage?
First note that the meaning is utterly dependent on the pattern.
Second that the pattern is utterly dependent on material existents,
no material existents no pattern, no pattern no meaning.
I wouldn't say matter serves as modem but rather that
matter is the utterly necessary substrate of pattern and
pattern is the utterly necessary substrate of meaning.
Now, process is simply pattern in motion.
Since everything going on in one's brain is demonstrably process
it's not very difficult to grasp the idea that some of these processes
may be serving as the substrates of meanings.
Your turn.
Perhaps you could address the meaning of 'meaning'?
Maybe
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Meaning as in wisdom is the capacity to contextually zero in on relevant bits of information..
But first one need know the one as in all left behind
I think consciousness is an individual's personality that comes to life.
Kuhn asks the absolutely correct questions, but Ward wimps out on his answer of there being “Laws of Thought” that are different from the Laws of Physics. At 6:56 Kuhn asks. “Do you need something like a soul to combine with the brain to make consciousness?” Ward recoils at the use of “a loaded word.” Peer pressure is alive and well in the intelligentsia.
I contend that the thing that is “you” is in fact a spirit (they said soul) and it is consistent with the Laws of Physics. The spirit is not “stuff” in terms of atoms, it is something akin to a field that is located in the same 3-Dimensional space as your brain, but perhaps on a different additional dimension (physicists think there are additional dimensions). Your neurons have electric impulses going through them. Faraday’s Law would say that this electric impulse would create a field around that neuron. This is how your spirit can read each neuron when they fire. Then in the reverse, your spirit can initiate activity in other neurons controlling movement by generating a field around those neurons. This is demonstrated experimentally when magnetic fields are used to block perception of the color red, as well as cause the perception of red that is not present.
The only way your spirit can interact with this physical world is through your body via the brain. That is why there is a direct correlation between the brain and your thoughts. People who have had Near Death Experiences have experienced their spirit being released from the body to move on into the other dimensions of the spiritual universe. But when the body is revived, the connection is reestablished. Those people can’t find the words in this 3-D world to describe what their spirit just experienced.
"The spirit is not “stuff” in terms of atoms, it is something akin to a field that is located in the same 3-Dimensional space as your brain"
Is pattern akin to field?
Since pattern is immaterial
perhaps pattern may serve the purpose for which you invent 'field'.
Since pattern is dependent on material existents
(without which there would be only nothing)
we can at least see a possible linkage between
pattern constituted immaterial mind and material brain.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Mr. Redpumpernickel, your attempt to go with “pattern” is a nice try but misses the mark. Fields are “solid” physics (pardon the play on words), and fields do in fact interact with matter. Patterns are more in the world of information. What is understanding the information? Computers are reading patterns of information all the time, but there is no understanding going on. Computers are not conscious; they can only imitate it.
@@gordonquimby8907
Fields are part of what we mean by matter.
Fields are material existents.
Photons and electrons and quarks etc.
are all material existents though we apprehend them as fields when we investigate them closely.
Everything not matter is conceptual in nature.
Thus my self and my being conscious are abstract in their most fundamental nature.
This may be a little tricky to grasp,
especially by folks who lack a firm grip on the existential status of the concept of abstract (of which pattern and process are fine examples).
My abstract self is absolutely dependent for its abstract existence on the material existence of my body which serves as my substrate.
Thus I am not a materialist.
Neither am I an idealist.
I simply appreciate the necessity
of the role that matter plays
in maintaining my abstract/immaterial existence.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL It is very well possible that I "lack a firm grip on the existential status of the concept of abstract". Guilty as charged! I agree, for that which is you, your spirit, to interact with this 4-D world (universe) we are all dependent upon our material bodies. But physicists are happy with the idea of additional dimensions to reality. It would make sense that there are then additional dimension to our existence. Would it not?
@@gordonquimby8907
"for that which is you, your spirit, to interact with"
I am a 'self', not a spirit.
My self does not interact with the universe.
My self is immaterial/abstract and so without location.
But the substrate of my self,
the processes responsible for my self's abstract existence,
are physical in nature.
The *physical* has two parts (at least).
These are, material existents and movement.
Let's say our understanding of material existents is adequate.
Movement is obviously not a material existent but
is perhaps undeniably an aspect of the physical
(aside: it is only movement that distinguishes process from pattern).
But movement is relative,
i.e., an object moves only relative to other object(s).
This means movement is not a *property* of single objects and
the existence of movement depends on a multi object *context* ).
Does this mean movement is purely conceptual,
in keeping with my earlier assertion that
"everything not matter is conceptual in nature"?
I am not certain of the answer.
It seems absurd to deny the physicality of movement
despite its immaterial and context dependent nature.
You might be thinking, what's the point of all this?
I'm struggling towards the idea that something can be
both physical and immaterial,
something like my self,
body and mind.
areas of thought and feeling in physical brain might point to consciousness?
Many comments here have embedded assumptions of materialism, as do all the questions that Robert is asking Keith. As usual, I have to step in here and clarify things for everyone. Conscious experiences are nonphysical phenomena. That is, these phenomena can not be measured, weighed, detected, located in space, etc., as physical things can be. This is really the end of the story, until we are able to find a connection between conscious experience and the physical. This is the so called hard problem of consciousness. We now have no solution, that is, we have found no connection. We may never solve that, because the solution may not be there in the form a materialist is expecting. Some say, of course it is there, the connection must be there, we just have not found it yet, but that is only an assumption. Assuming materialism might be a very primitve and incorrect approach, similar to a cave man who is certain that the radio/TV in front of him, is the sole source of the voices, the music, and the images that he is hearing and seeing.
Brilliant! Your response is spot on !!
"Conscious experiences are nonphysical phenomena"
Agreed,
but patterns and processes are also nonphysical phenomena
in exactly the same way and for the same reason as are conscious experiences.
Since we cannot deny that
patterns and processes are entirely dependent on physical existents
for their immaterial abstract being,
we cannot deny that conscious experiences are equally dependent.
In fact, it doesn't take a lot of thought before realizing that
being conscious IS a process.
Right?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Brilliant, your response is very good. But I need think about your basic assertion before I become a believer. I need to think about how patterns are different from processes (if they are),, and how these are different from other abstract ideas like mathematics, which for example, are often not entirely dependent on physical existents - indeed, there is a lot of math with no known physical analogy/substrate/existent.
@@jjharvathh
Perhaps this will help...
I think of pattern as being static - like letters and words and sentences printed on a piece of paper.
When I think of process I think, for example, about the making of ketchup...
Tomatoes rolling in at one end, washing, mashing, mixing, cooking, bottling in the middle and boxes rolling out into trucks at the other.
But mostly I think pattern and process are essentially the same except process is pattern become dynamic, process is pattern with movement added.
Consciousness is the integrated measurements that the neurons reflect. The measurements balance with each other, and that’s why it’s different.
“Neuron” is a concept created by consciousness
3:46 the extra component seem to be that which makes physical mater respond to different stimuli in a selective manner... thus far, only biological sructures seem to have that ability/characteristic/property and not other physical structures...
Your computer doesn't respond to data in a selective manner?
I know you might object that computers are made by humans, but you made a statement about what a thing can or can't do, not how that thing came about. Selecting based on stimuli is an action. Computers can perform that action.
@@simonhibbs887a robot does respond to external stimuli... so yes, a computer responds whenever you use any biometric security features or when you press the left vs. the right trackpad/mouse buttons... the robot, imo, is a sophisticated computer...
@@r2c3 They can evaluate complex data against a set of priorities, construct multiple plans of action, use simulations to determine which plan provides an optimal outcome, implement those plans, and dynamically re-evaluate and adjust as a situation changes. They can also signal their intended actions to others, and co-ordinate dynamic group behaviour to collaboratively achieve goals. They can introspect their own state, including their runtime computational state, and in some ways self-modify their own code.
@@simonhibbs887 it sounds very much like a limited form of agency/autonomy... the same as molecualar assembly units...
@@r2c3 It’s a lot more agency or autonomy than displayed by a lot of simple organisms, including ones with primitive brains. Still, I think it counts as responding to different stimuli in a selective manner. I dint think there is anything mysterious about what humans do, every behaviour we have is entirely explicable in physical terms. Cognition, social behaviour, language, etc. It’s all very sophisticated, but explanations for all of it are already within reach. That what we do though, the mystery is why it sometimes feels like an experience doing it. Thats the challenging part. The rest is just neuroscience and information processing.
how does consciousness interact with physical brain?
Never been answered. Descartes said “they simply do interact, just accept it”. Isn’t that enough for you? 😂
This is a bad question. Consciousness is an effect OF the brain, it's not like some sort of plug-in component.
@@Etheralstewi dont think it is well-established that consciousness is an effect of the brain, but let's say it was, then still there is a question of how they interact. If there is a brain and there is something called consciousness which is an affect of the brain then we can ask how do they interact? And how does one arise from the other?
The question seems to presuppose that brain and consciousness are separate. But if brain is part of consciousness or consciousness is part of brain then there wouldnt be two separate things there interacting. There would just be one seamless thing and it wouldnt be mysterious anymore, at least not in the same way.
"Correlation" need not mean either it is a function of the brain or it is nonmaterial. It could very well be the result of interaction among the 3 permanent components (space dimension) of any body (eyes, teeth and bones) and interior of the earth, while brain, all other internal organs and flesh be transient components (time dimension, as linker of future being = future spatial dimension, to current) of each individual body, linking body parts of future beings to the current ones as corresponding to permanent soil and transient plants.
Thus also obviating the necessity to assume existence of an imaginary fourth dimension.
This is very reasonable to consider as that is the ONLY way LIFE can be defined as a MATERIALLY emerging phenomenon, particle physically verifiable by designing the mechanism of that interaction as conditioned through MOBILITY (magnitude and direction of motion) of particles uniquely determined by their sizes (instead of MASS) and centers from and towards which they are generated, accordingly, with subsequent derivation of the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain beings here through them.
The difference among the 3 types of entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) conditioned by threshold numbers of minimum particles of unique center of origin combining inside the earth, would also provlde particle physical meaning to the difference among them.
Such interaction with interior of the earth to cause CONSCIOUSNESS is practically feasible as the maximum possible distance such interaction has to cover (= from any position on the surface of the earth to its center) is always less than half the distance a telephone call between New York and Singapore has to cover.
This SHOULD pave the way to PRACTICALLY PREVENT ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects and all violence ~ AND DEATH) through our conscious influencing of how plants develop and growth on them by PROGRAMMING INTERNALLY the air we exhale and other substances (urine, stool, sweat, tear) each person releases to the soil and plants.
The mathematical model once derived would facilitate such INTERNAL PROGRAMMING of all the stuff we release to the surrounding INDIVIDUALLY, yet only become effective if it tallies with the PROPERTY of the FIELDS of plants conditioned by the MOBILITIES of particles that compose their seeds inside the earth.
If such growth possibility of interacting FIELDS OF PLANTS is linked to VIRTUE of the interacting person through derivation of the sizes of particles, then it would be obvious FIELDS OF PLANTS condition all social virtues too.
That indicates existence of a particle physical correspondece between DIGESTION and subsequent MENTAL FUNCTION to DEVELOPMENT OF (and subsequent growth on) PLANTS and PARTICLE INTERACTIONS INSIDE THE EARTH, accordingly.
Thus growth on plants would only occur if programming by different individuals tallies with the MOBILITIES conditioned interactions inside the earth that composed the seeds of the FIELDS involved, and the ability of relevant affected being to compose the clouds if rectification of nature's mistakes is required.
This brings particle physical purpose to human CONSCIOUSNESS (hence, also to LIFE FUNCTION), as well as a meaningful explanation (though not really SATISFACTORY) to existence of EVIL.
Thus, FIELDS OF PLANTS and CLOUD COMPUTING also become LITERAL, instead of both words (FIELD and CLOUD) being used only metaphorically at present by science.
That facilitates a 100% practically verifiable assumption as to MATTER composing MIND, if it paves the way ONLY to positively influence development of, and growth on, plants through particle physically conditioned VIRTUE.
The spiritual component of consciousness is that it represents absolute existence because our senses, mind, and intelligence just flow along the stream of consciousness thus by underlying all material phenomena it is the support of them thus it is not "of" material phenomena.
Yet we cannot consciously perceive of any existence underlying consciousness because by being absolute existence consciousness is its own basis.
None of your sentences have any meaning whatsoever.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL The meaning is if you take away consciousness you would know nothing since without self-awareness you would have no perception of your mind, senses and intelligence.
@@williamburts3114
Tell me if I paraphrase your comment correctly...
If one is not conscious one is non existent.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL In deep sleep one is not conscious because there are no objects flowing along the stream of consciousness for it to desire to satisfy its pleasure principal nature like there is in wakefulness and dream states but that doesn't mean it discontinues to exist because if someone were to touch you that stimulation would wake you up but to experience that stimulation consciousness would have to be there.
@@williamburts3114
I think that you think that
consciousness is a 'something',
something like material's mass.
"The Law of Conservation of Mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions. In other words, the mass of any one element at the beginning of a reaction will equal the mass of that element at the end of the reaction". - Google Search
But a *pattern*,
made by an arrangement of matter,
begins to 'exist' when the arrangement is made and
ceases to exist when the arrangement is changed.
A process is a pattern whose arrangement changes over time. Movement makes the only difference between a process and a pattern.
Although a pattern may come and go,
the matter serving as the pattern's substrate carries on existing.
Although a process may start and stop,
the matter serving as the process' substrate carries on existing.
Being conscious is a process that starts and stops.
When the being conscious process stops
the self is no longer conscious.
'The self' IS the RUNNING of the being conscious process which means when the process is stopped the self is non existent.
This is my understanding.
Do you follow?
"A physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually." - 1Corinthians 2:14
The stuff is all around us. The light is being changed by these things and we see the changes the light brings us. Our hands touch and feel because of nerves and hairs send signals when being changed by the things outside. The ears are meant to listen to the vibrations through the drum and hairs that vibrate and shift from the energy through the mediums such as water and air. Our body was founded by all this and we share with all this. The neurons reflect the differences integrated together. The brain measures spacetime and aligns to flow and live and bring out more differences and hold them up. Death is only releasing this portion to be reintegrated into the planet to be used again. My differences shared already changed reality by being reality. It’s not what you do for yourself but what you do for the rest of the universe because eventually we all return and cycle again and then rebirth to have another chance but new. That’s why we hold each other up and not ourselves. The power doesn’t come from inside because that inside is all outside.
So you take the external world as given?
@@deanodebo no I’ve been experiencing. Des cartes.
@@Jacobk-g7r huh? I think you misunderstand Descartes.
Recall, Descartes ended up at God in his meditations. His skeptical approach led him there by pure reason. Later, Hume confirmed that skepticism leads to solipsism, and literally the denial of knowledge itself.
And apparently you’re not familiar with 101 critiques of cogito ergo sum
“I think therefore I am”
This assumes the “I”, the self, which has a priori existence.
Therefore it becomes,
“I am and I think, therefore I am”
Begging the question.
I’m not trying to be mean, I genuinely would say you should take into to philosophy. Descartes isn’t saying what you’ve taken it to be.
@@deanodebo he called it god but truly nothing can be god and that’s why they are just names even whatever god you imagine is still a cog in this game.
@@Jacobk-g7r
Ok so you accept Descartes “god” then, right?
He was Roman Catholic.
And do you acknowledge the critique I outlined is valid? It’s not controversial in the least. I certainly didn’t invent it, and I think it’s pretty much common knowledge.
Not until just recently
Agree with Dr Ward. Thank u for clarifying that thing about consciousness. "Thought" n subjective perceptions can 't result or extend from the brain. In fact Some neurologists, n quantum biology experiments n researches r figuring it to be a material thing . This remains a big mystery ! Perhaps there's some soul n energy combined together that science can only prove the energy part about it but science can't reach the abstract (nothingness in our physical world or the emptiness part in it). As i can"t read someone else's mind n vice versa, subjective thought n subjective perspectives r relative to each person then consciousness is relative (relative mind!?).
As I read your comment am I not reading your thoughts?
why does consciousness happen to human being experiencing in time and space?
Why?
Being conscious is what enables human civilizations,
consisting of many millions of people, to exist and thrive.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELcouldnt that have happened without human’s being conscious?
@@highvalence7649
World history tells us that it didn't.
According to the archeological record,
when bicameral civilizations reached the complexity inherent in having a population of about one million,
all such civilizations collapsed back into tribal life for a few hundred years.
Only after people became conscious were they able to create control systems capable of managing the complexities of civilizations with populations in the billions.
It's hard to imagine how purely reactive or instinct driven or bicameral minded people could do that.
Evolution may have held the possibility for a non conscious but very competent other kind of mind able to run large civilizations to have evolved but that's just speculation.
He and Jordan Peterson should have a talk. Wo-wo all the way down.
One of the things that leads people to talk about non-physical processes is they don’t understand what physical processes are or what they can do. So he assumes, and states that physical processes aren’t directed. They are ‘blind and not leading anywhere’. This isn’t correct, entirely physical systems are quite capable of being intentional, and directed towards a goal, and they can communicate that goal and predict their ability to achieve it. All of that can be an entirely physical, mechanical process.
We can have robots controlled by AIs that are initialised with random neural weights. The robot operates in an environment and survives or not based on successfully obtaining resources and avoiding dangers. The AIs that do the best at surviving are copied, with slight random variations, into the next generation and the experiment run over thousands or millions of generations. These experiments have been done in virtual environments. The result is evolved AIs, without a single line of human programmed code controlling their behaviour, that can sense their environment, prioritise activities, identify and obtain resources, avoid dangers, etc. So they can identify an objective, determine a plan of action, and dynamically act in response to the environment to achieve that goal. In some experiments we have even observed such systems evolving altruistic behaviour, giving up resources they need to survive in order to benefit their offspring, because that behaviour promotes survival of that behavioural line of descent.
Everything happening there is entirely physical, it can all be explained in terms of information processing, and none of it was programmed by humans. So clearly physical systems can be intentional. This isn’t theory, it’s an observation.
Then when he talks about performing mathematical calculations being a mental process, he says the laws of physics aren’t concerned with whether you’re right or wrong. However, process of evolution biases physical systems towards survival. Those that survive propagate, that’s as right or wrong as we need for a system to develop effective intentional behaviour. Mathematical calculations are manifestly a physical process, you’re using a calculating machine to read this comment. He tries and end-run around that by talking about end results, but as we can see, that’s not a viable objection. Basically every argument he has against the physicality of mental activity is demonstrably invalid.
You have an inverted mind, my boy. Nor do you have a model, system, explication, and exposition, therefore rendering yourself and your opinions void.
All you ever do is allude to computers, ai, robots, quantum, duality, condition, general relativity. These are not fundamental systems, but what something does.
Light, energy, essence, Nous, principles, truth, justice, good, harmony, likeness, beauty, wisdom, faith, honor, integrity, love, compassion, sight,....all that orders phenomena are non existence things.
All you have proven here is that if you have physical processes controlled by artificial intelligence they will be directed towards some goal. But the problem is that without artificial intelligence they won't, just as Keith claims, and we know that artificial intelligence was created as a product of real conscious intelligence.
Now, if you can prove that artificial intelligence does not have to arise in the way it did, but that it could arise as a result of non-intelligent pure physical activity of matter, in that case you have proved materialism and we can apply you for the Nobel Prize.
@@kitstamat9356 The conditions in which these AIs evolve were created by humans, but the actual processes by which they evolved all have analogues in nature. Reproduction occurs in nature, including in inorganic chemical cycles such as autocatalytic sets. Random variation in behaviour as part of that reproductive process occurs in nature. The fact that the resources, opportunities and dangers in an environment favour the propagation of some variations in behaviour over others to the next generation through survival is also observed.
So the processes by which these AIs evolve all have natural analogues. If something can happen in a lab, it can happen in nature as long as comparable conditions can occur. There’s no Nobel Prize to get because none of this is novel. We observe the evolution of behaviours in organisms in nature, in the study of evolutionary psychology, and copy that process to evolve our own AIs. I didn’t invent that, at this point it’s established engineering. I’m just explaining it.
@@S3RAVA3LM Nothing in physics can tell us how to live our lives, what to value, or how to treat each other. They are completely independent concerns. The fact that transistor semiconductors operate based on the principles of quantum mechanics won't tell anyone that't it's better for all of us to be respectful to others and what it means to live a good life. On the other hand knowing how to give a good life isn't much help when you are performing a difficult calculation. They are however synergistic. Having better technology helps us meet our social needs through communications. Better social skills and compassion for others helps collaborate towards meaningful change in the world.
I've learned a huge amount from my study of science, some of which I apply every working day, and some days off too. I've learned a huge amount about how to think about life, what it is to be a human being, and how the mind functions as an experience from a few people with very strong and deep religious beliefs. I don't think there is any contradiction in these.
@@kitstamat9356if human consciousness evolved from random, non intelligent evolution, then AI evolved from random, non intelligent evolution. - Ai is an extension of the same random processes that started the evolution of the universe, 13 billion years ago. Human consciousness was built on the foundation of the first life on earth.
Everything that exists is the product of random evolution: bird nests, wasp nests, trees, bacteria…. And even the iPhone.
Try again.
0:38 ... stuff I suppose is something you locate in space and that has solidity so you might define it in various ways but consciousness is not in space and it doesn't have solidity so it's not made of stuff consciousness is spiritual as to use the word which will raise everyone's hackles perhaps but that is to say it's not it is not material so anything which is not material is not made of stuff (is it a substance?) KW: substance is another word with a long philosophical history I think that you (is it a mirage? is it a metaphor is it more ) consciousness is real (it's something real it's more than metaphor? ) yeah (it's not stuff if you define stuff as occupying space and time) okay (my kind of stuff is actually broader than space and my kind of stuff is anything that's real ) 1:30 ... 5:06 well if you ask what my consciousness now is that I'd say it consists of a finite visual field which is elliptical in shape and contains colored patches I have thoughts which are framed in my mind which I'm not going to tell you about and then I've got some thoughts which come out of my mouth (yeah) then I got some feelings that I have so all these things are memebers of one conscious now the big philosophical question is what makes these things parts of my consciousness but not only are they not parts of your consciousness you don't even know what's going on (right and in principle can I) and in principle you cannot there is no instrument you could use not even an electrogram to find out what I (and no instrument even in principle ) not even in principle that's what I'd say so 5:52 so Keith what is it that we need to combine with the brain to make this non material consciousness? 6:03 well you need what Buddhists would say is thoughts and feelings and sensations and perceptions
Certainly a thought is not the thing it is about.
A thought is merely a representation of the thing.
Since patterns of paint on canvas can represent a pipe,
it's easy to grasp the idea that
the discharge-timing-patterns of neurons can do the same thing,
i.e. represent a pipe.
Paint is as radically different from the briar of a pipe
as is neural activity.
The key to understanding lies in the patterns that they make.
You could come up with any old nonsense and say it is unexplainable and unmeasurable and therefore irrefutable but that is extremely unconvincing for anyone except the most ignorant and unthinking listener.
Huh?
This guys doesnt knows neurosience proceendings figure out conscieusness is nill so far . Guys conscieusness is spiritual is pseud neurosience. He keep out figure out his conscieusness model. Guys are talking about conscieusness left behind neurosience seriously.
He's trying to describe soul without using the word soul.
Wobble dobble word go hobble
I'm guessing most of us agree that
the man is speaking nonsense but
most of us are interested in theories as to why.
Why do you think he speaks such nonsense?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Because he don't know basic understanding of logic
The gentleman is very delightful. But, also very unscientific. I don't understand how someone can say something that is un known, can never be known. He did say "unknown physics" once, so he left the door open but it seems he would have been more on point if he said he doesn't know what consciousness is.
Keep in mind, the only path to truth is to be “unscientific”. Science doesn’t make truth claims
As a man recently pointed out here in the discussion section on CTT videos, and too, you'll find in the Upanishads: Turiya has been renedered into english as consciousness.
The psycho physical consciousness of man goes no further after death.
Consciousness as a predicate for God is an ok one: something that is all engulfing and pervasive, more subtle than the subtle, an awareness type in absolute knowledge and intellect, beyond the temporal and spatial therefore transcendent, impervious to any subjection in phenomena, something indivisible, simple, pure, subtle, unmoved, immutable - any such antithesis to these characteristics would be circumscribed to phenomena and physics knows an effect cannot be its own cause, nor an attribute its own principle, although the principle is too in the attribute.
any, who claims this isn't science because it seeks that which the mind can't quite process....is to be disregarded for they are a toddler...their irrational logic: only when we can bring God into the lab and test and prob him can there ever be a God i.e. therefore, they have to first become superior to God before they can acknowledge God.
Isn't that disgusting, though? It is most impious and unworthy to respect such ilk.
Consciousness is not with the brain it is outside the brain, the brain only interact with it. Odd enough i mess myself up most times by thinking dark matter could have something to do with the human mind.
Is the brain a part of consciousness or are brain and consciousness two separate things?
The consciousness puzzle is the last bastion of the non materialists. I’m a materialist, simply because materialism has proven to have incredible explanatory and predictive power.
That being said, I have an open mind. Perhaps there is a fundamental component of the universe that’s nonmaterial.
If we can crack the consciousness conundrum, and show that it’s a product of complex neural processes, the non materialist philosophers (like the guy talking today), will have to find another job. Time will tell.
What do you mean materialism has great explanatory and predictive power? Do you mean to say science?
Total nonsense.
Yup
Sense has to do with phenomena. Non sense deals with the intellect and the transcendent principles.
You're right, this is nonsense.
"I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such !
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds
this most minute solar system of the atom together... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious
and intelligent Mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. " I don't know, but this quote by Max Planck sounds really cool.
@@bryanrathvon5820 The world would have fewer problems if people would stop conflating science and religion. Our educational systems are failing us.
@@curiousnomadic1253 The world has much larger problems since scientists invented atomic weapons that was literally the first practical application of nuclear physics. That only goes to show that knowledge has no part to play in the well-needed psychological transformation of Humankind.
"What's the Stuff of Mind and Brain?"
The mind is simply the interaction between the non-physical soul and the physical brain, where the soul is the free independent observing Subject while the physical brain is the Object being observed...
...however, if you keep staring at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama, none of these makes sense to you...
What does the interaction between a non physical soul and the physical brain look like? What would we see happening in the brain when that interaction occurs?
What's the stuff of computers and software ?
I know it's a daft question, but roll with it for a minute.
Are you rolling ?
Electricity? Where are you going with this?
@@deanodebo
"Mind and brain" is like "software and hardware".
Answer one and you've answered both.
@@tedgrant2 how do you figure that? Seems to me an odd analogy.
Software is code written by intelligent beings that is often compiled into machine language and it literally establishes the state of the memory in the computer hardware.
Is that how you think of mind?
Don’t minds think? Reason? Love? Want? Etc?
Software does none of these things
@@deanodebo
But suppose I am right, just for the sake of argument.
In that case, "mind" is just the result of a process in the brain.
Just like a computer game is produced as a process in a computer.
@@deanodebo
It is commonly thought that "AI" will have unexpected consequences.
Maybe the computers will start to evolve a mind of their own.
They might even try to take over the world !