I misread the title and thought it was "can Brian alone explain conciousness", like it was the journey of a guy trying to research all by himself...still captures my imagination
One of the finest series, aptly titled "Closer To Truth." It may seem disappointing we haven't found the truth yet. The producers never said we would. They only promised us of getting Closer to the Truth.
There is Truth my friend and then there is Ultimate Truth. People everywhere are searching for Truth and they don't even understand what Truth is. We are all having different experiences in life and it's our experiences that become our Truths. Your experiences are not the same as my experiences and therefore your Truth and my Truth are NOT the same. We are ALL evolving down our own paths of our own personal Truths. Contrary to religion's idea of a one size fits all - everyone's path (back to Source (or God)) is just as unique as is each personal relationship with God. We will ALL eventually return to God where we will ALL reach the same Ultimate Truth. Then we will realize in a very real sense that we are all one with God. We are ALL in this reality of being one with God NOW, however, we allow our personal Truths to obscure this fact. People really should be tolerant of each other. We are ALL here for the same purpose. God bless EVERYONE.
For 20 years I've been obsessed with this same mystery. I've ravenously consumed every popular book published by Searles, Chalmers, and many others. Meanwhile, Kuhn has been sitting in their dens (and laboratories), chatting with them. I'm jealous. But of course I'm grateful for getting to watch these conversations here. I agree with Kuhn that no substantive progress has been made on solving this mystery. Why not? It's very frustrating. Are we perhaps just asking the wrong questions? Science, by definition, provides objective, 3rd-person explanations. Consciousness, by definition, is a subjective, 1st-person phenomenon. Is it, by definition, absurd to seek an objective explanation for a subjective phenomenon? Maybe it should be trivially obvious that objective theories can't possibly explain even the existence of subjective phenomena. Maybe we have simply tried to stretch the category "explanation" too far.
zenbum Searle solves it best “consciousness reduces causally but not ontologically to the brain.” It is precisely because of the walled off nature of subjective first person experience from the neurobiological processes that it emerges from that we think of this as such a mystery. It is resolved by grasping that everything about first person subjective experience depends 100% on brain function. The more complex brains become, the more complex subjective experience becomes. The more injured, sick or intoxicated brains are the more distorted, malfunctioning, or limited subjective experience and behavior becomes.
I like how David explains that panpsychism has the same problem as the hard problem.. namely, how do the smaller agents of consciousness combine to form the the type we experience.
Yep @14:00. ** However, he does not mention immediately after @14:30 that the "consciousness as basic feature of all physics" utterly fails because that would mean that the wave-function (of collapse probability) would ALWAYS be collapsed into a determined state instead a probabilistic one. And given the double slit experiment and double-erasure experiment, we can see that the wave-function is not "always being watched by a consciousness as soon as it makes any information" given that it creates what I would call "probabilistic-location" wave information when it is not measured initially by one of our instruments. That means there was no "consciousness" collapsing the wave-particle duality into "determined particles" the initial moments. And @16:02 He mistakenly thinks a "perfect" simulation of a conscious brain (obviously dead and uncounscious/sleeping brains could also be simulated) would still not be conscious but that is only because in his reference/experience, all simulation are and would "always be" imperfect. Yet when you simulate the color blue on a computer... is the color not "perfectly" blue? The same would be true with consciousness if the simulation is able to get it "perfectly." "blue dots going from top to down and then the lower colors get darker after touched" is not a "perfect simulation of rain." That is because "perfect simulations" are copying/making the exact color (or perceivably exact to fallible human eyes) since color is basically just a 1-facet experience it is easy to simulate, not just "close to copying it" which is what is implied by "simulation of rain" in the way we know it today. A rainstorm in another country does not get us wet, yet it is a perfect replica/copy of how a rainstorm would work here in this country. The same will be true of computer consciousness once that is fully achieved by accident or after we gain an understanding of how to create it. **even "[physical] panpsychism" @18:25 prematurely conflates consciousness as just information exchange/integration. But that is just changing definitions. Such an "integration" would itself require consciousness. No one looks at a rock or single neuron and thinks "Oh that rock/neuron is just computing 1/1800 as much information as me, and thus it internally experiences 1/1800 of a consciousness." Our brains themselves integrate A TON of information while we are completely unconscious such as deep asleep on anesthesia. We cannot say that a vacuum is "slightly more conscious" than an atom, and thus somehow it has an "internal experience". I would even wager to say that the Sun "integrates" more information than we do.
I can explain consciousness. Everything is made of energy. There is a universal consciousnesses that exists in this energy. When your born your brain is like a magnet. It attracts energy and takes some of this universal consciousness with it. In other words. God is creation. And we are all God hiding behind ego.
@Adam Martin Molecules dosnt make "river", they are just moving according to laws of physics, we define what a river is. Where does a river exactly begin and where does it end? Their limitations are also just manmade. They are connected to the oceans and on the other side to almost every sea. The better question is: "How can it be that from unpredictability of quantum systems (microsystems) can become the predictability of the world we experience (macrosystems).
Very true but I see correlations being of 2 types. There is physical evidence that can be correlated but there is also different pieces of reasoning that can be correlated. Neither one is considered proof but we have to ask ourselves which one is more likely.
I think it's important to note that if we're talking about 1 to 1 correlations between mental states and brain states then that is sufficient not to explain consciousness but rather say that it is sufficient information to know that it is physical. If we find that it's not 1 to 1 then we need a non-physicalist theory. A human will never understand their own consciousness because we represent these ideas using a subset of our brain. It would require a much larger neural network to be able to fully represent a human brain and then some more for analysing it. That neural network, if conscious itself, would therefore not be able to fully understand itself and the origin of it's own level of consciousness. This is the problem of computational irreducibility as coined by Stephen Wolfram.
@@onlyguitar1001 I pretty much agree on the 1 to 1 complete correlation between physical states and conscious states. What that would say is that consciousness is fundamentally connected to physical matter.
@@truthfinder6996 Don't forget about idealism which is a monist theory. According to idealism, it is also the case that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of physical facts about the brain/body.
Perhaps they’re not aware that they’re not looking for consciousness itself in the brain, but looking for the exact detectable mechanisms and manifestations of consciousness in the brain instead.
The problems of understanding consciousness all seem to be based on trying to reconcile it with the physical world yet none of these academics is questioning the hidden assumption: is there any evidence we can find for something behind our experience or is experience all there is? I’ve not seen Robert discuss dreaming in his videos yet it is one of the most useful tools for illustrating the potential problem with materialism, either exclusive or as part of a dualism. Our dreams contain all the elements we see in what we call our waking life: the world, other people like us with apparent inner life, thoughts, sensations, emotions and the idea of ‘me’, the one experiencing the dream. Yet no-one would dispute that all of this takes place in the mind. It is commonplace to assume that dreams occur in our minds, that we each have a mind and that the mind has something to do with a brain but what evidence is there for this reasoning? All the information on which we build these assumptions is experienced in exactly the same sort of scenario as we would find in a dream. The only substantive difference between what we call reality and a dream is recognised only after we have woken up from the dream. While we’re in the dream the vast majority of us experience it as though it were real. If a dream is seen as absurd it’s only absurd on reflection after waking. Given that the entirety of a dream can seem exactly like waking life while we’re experiencing it why do we believe that there is anything to this reality other than the experience we are having?
“If we knew how the brain constructs consciousness” Well, sir that’s the crux of the question. The scientific issue is that you’re imposing restrictions on your future observations. In other words you’re looking for what you already believe to be true not simply for what is true.
Why do we ask scientists answers for this question ? If we ask about the physical world functioning, of course we ask scientists. Because they have better paths in their logical brain. But how do you know a smarter brain (good at logic, proficient in scientific language) has any better answer than a less smarter brain? Because more logic isn’t gonna give you more answer to this question. Thinking is like you play with your brain and find something that meets your brain’s logical circuit and you say “aha, that makes sense”. But that only means it makes sense to your human brain. A bug doesn’t even have a logical brain, but they exist just as we do.
all questions about what we don't know exist within the context of what we do know. the interlocking web of existing evidence and scientific knowledge should always inform our sense of how likely or probable different hypotheses may be. given everything we know so far about the universe, nature, physics, chemistry and biology, the likelihood that consciousness is an emergent property of neurobiology is exceedingly high, while the likelihood that it exists either in some kind of immaterial way dualistically separate from brains, or as a pantheistic quality somehow present even in electrons is exceedingly low. the attempt to make thinking scientifically conform to a sort of "freshman skepticism" that see s all hypotheses as equally plausible is a popular mistake.
@@thomashoward6357 Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.
@@thomashoward6357 _"Okay, But do you think conciousness still remains post death?'"_ No because when an organ (the brain in this case) stops working it will not be able to produce the same effect when it was alive.
@@rawkeeper7601 you are assuming that consciousness and the computing of a brain are related. I personally don't think so. I consider the physical brain to be a very sophisticated computer/ transceiver that allows the immaterial to interface with the material. Consciousness is a separate phenomenon quite seperate and independent of the physical - as is observed in NDE reports.
After listening to people’s stories of out of body experiences I have to say that I don’t think that consciousness is all in our brains. Too many times we have heard of people being completely unconscious in a coma but somehow the person is able to explain in detail the happenings around them while they’re being operated on or in other cases where they’ve been in a bad accident and they’re hovering above the scene and are able to give specific details and even what was said in some cases. I think that it’s more like our souls enter a human body and animate it with consciousness. Once our souls leave that body it is dead but our consciousness moves on in the form of energy.
They're just that. Stories. None have ever held up under close scrutiny, from what I've read. And you snuck soul in at the end. What is that? Where? And why can't science find it, or any hint of it? How is "soul" and improvement on "emergent property and process of the brain", other than it "feels" better?
@@roblovestar9159 Just because it can't be explained today, it doesn't mean it can't be explained tomorrow. If you told a person 1000 years ago, that plants ate sunlight and made glucose out of it, do you think they would believe you? 1000 years later and photosynthesis is common knowledge. Just because we proved it later, that doesn't mean it wasn't happening before. There's no reason to limit yourself to what's known today, otherwise you'll never be innovative.
@@roblovestar9159 they are not just stories - they are very personal and moving stories - often life changing - often turning skeptics to believers - and often inexplicable...such as the case of pam reynolds who went to surgery , put deep under anaesthesia, her body temperature dropped to 10 degrees celsius, and then she had a sheet covering her head and plugs in her ears and yet during her surgery she described "popping" out of her head and floated to the ceiling where she witnessed her surgery and heard all the conversations. she was able to verify particular things happening whilst her brain was flatlined. she had ultra lucid awareness separate from her body. and yet someone like you would call this an illusion? i am sure if that happened to you and things were able to be verified thereafter by the surgeon then you might change your perspective on non-local consciousness.
@@Dion_Mustard In addition, one man reported dying in a car accident with his wife and they both left their bodies and floated above his body. They both watched a paramedic working on him. Then he woke up and was shocked to find out there never was a paramedic working on him, and his wife was never harmed in the accident! She was never unconscious and didn't experience the same thing as him at all. There are many more like this. You can do your own research by reading hundreds of unfiltered, self reported NDEs as well ... I found out that these false positive NDEs did indeed occur more than I was hoping. They were very vivid experiences, but many turned out to be completely false memories. Of course these false NDEs would not turn into best selling books. So if you want the truth, look into both sides and ask yourself "Which of the two types of NDEs are more likely to reach the public? The exciting version that brings people hope? Or the mundane and embarrassing version?" If you just want to believe in an afterlife, then read the hyped up stories, and ignore everything else, especially the embarrassing ones. I want hope and meaning as well, but false hope is misleading. I don't want illusions to guide me.
A brain is something you touch, see, hear, smell, taste etc whereas consciousness is experienced inside directly. They are different aspects of the same thing and we have different means of experiencing them.
But bro that's the question how a physical thing can make you experience mental Consciousness.. and Honestly deep Down in me I think that it's because we Do Have a Thing called SOUL...Now Just Carefully hear out my words because I think I Cracked LIFE'S MYSTERY, So.. Its all a Riddle yes it is.. "Everything in existence is a riddle including us.. The thing is we are equipped with a very Powerful Brain and that enable us biologically to make Sense of everything when in reality Nothing in existence is supposed to make sense of.. We as living beings are here just to Experience Mortal Life not to make sense of it(Cherish). Again it's all a Riddle which we'll Never ever be able to solve, Because the creator of this Riddle is none other than GOD himself".. believe me I came to this conclusion after lots of mental analysis.. not influenced by any myth, Religion preachings, Science etc just by Natural intelligence(Inner Instinct) nor with any Outside Stimulation.! THERE IS INDEED A SUPREME CREATOR OUT THERE WE CALL GOD and he did everything Intentionally the way they are.
@@manjuvishwanathmaity4460 Your creator poses many more problems than it seems to answer. Have you ever encountered a mind that could think/will material into existence? Have you ever encountered a mind that didn't have a brain? You can imagine such but imagination isn't reality. People make/create things for their needs out of existing material which has nothing to do with thinking matter into existence. When fireworks explode, you see light and hear sound. Light and sound are 2 different entities that you experience differently. The same is true of physical and mental as when something happens inside your head you can experience it as a thought or you can experience it as electrical or chemical activity we call physical. They are 2 different ways of experiencing the event albeit more different from each other than sight and sound. The world is real and you are real as you can accept the world as is the way you just accept your idealism/god as a separate reality that somehow interacts with the world. The super mind that you have separated from the world is actually the world. You fit into the world because you are the world and don't need a super human like mind to make you and a world for you to fit into. This is it and you are it. The real question is what is it about the human brain/mind that makes it want to create spirits/gods? Hint: We project other people's mind out to them when we interact and we project visual images that we form in our heads when we see something back outward to the source. You are the god you sense.
@@bobs182 I can't find any relevance to your Statement Sorry dude but if u could make it more easier to understand that would be great in a simple way, and again a physical thing cannot enable you to experience mental Consciousness alone Because there is no SOUL.. There is no life energy in it. Believe me Dude Problems are there for a reason in our life no matter if it's small or big it is there to Stimulate us on a mental level or in other words to Educate our SOUL.
@@manjuvishwanathmaity4460 There is no intentionally outside of brains/minds. An unexamined life is not worth living. Ignorance my be bliss but it's not for me.
@@bobs182 If you're indirectly accusing me of being Ignorant Let me tell you I AM NOT.. and yess IGNORANCE Is Indeed a Bliss but not for those who are curious Naturally. But sometimes u had to trust your intuition too because our intuition is always right ! And one more thing You will eventually get to a point where you will willingly accept that there is a Higher power who is Governing all of it..!
This is the best synthesis I've seen of this fascinating problem. It would be interesting to put Dan Dennett and Giulio Tononi to discuss how current materialism perspective could solve the 'hard problem'.
Well if we realize that the "hard problem" of consciousness is a couple of "why" pseudo Philosophical questions then there is no real need to compare one pseudo worldview with an other.....
There are so many cases of the Out of Body Experience occurring where people describe having "two selves"..the physical body and the separation of the self..or pure consciousness as I like to refer to it..I think the typical explanation of consciousness as a product of the brain has been so drilled into us since school days that it's hard to imagine consciousness as anything other than a product of matter. My gut feeling is consciousness is 'lost' when the brain disintegrates..but then again consciousness is not a physical entity..so I suppose the networks of the brain which support awareness dissolve and therefore we no longer exist..maybe because we rely on the brain for consciousness, then logically we cannot be aware or have consciousness post-death. The deeper question, where does consciousness go without the brain. Does it just linger in time and space, does it evolve into something else, does it transcend to space..who knows. I do not think the brain Produces consciousness, but I do think in order to have awareness we need the tool to make it work ie brain matter. We will only know when we die.
@Dion: excuse for sounding somewhat silly but when you say consciousness is a product of the brain as most of us assume why is it hard to imagine that it is anything other than a product of matter when the brain where it seems to come from is also made of matter by itself?
Except for the fact that these states can be induced in people using techniques such as TMS. The brain is nearly a billion years of evolved complexity to survive, and it's so powerful it can predict things to the point of hallucinating them. Conscious experience may be a seperate category (but practically may be a pointless question) but it is forever and inexorably reliant upon the matter it is made up of for its emergent phenomena. There's absolutely zero substantive evidence to divorce matter and consciousness.
This is a wonderful life pursuit, thanks for bringing us these videos. I also don't have a problem with professors Chalmers and Searle saying almost opposite things.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Curious why you're repeating that... and giving credit to a cult vs a human/pedant etc To belabor the metaphor, then we need to know what functions the sky itself and the terminals have.
I mostly agree with John. Consciousness seems to require at least some of the properties of the brain (processing, memory, input and output, etc) so for objects with small bandwidth like a fly, a much lesser consciousness will be experienced until essentially zero is reached in an object like a rock. This places plants, viruses, and computers in non-zero territory, right where they belong. Humans are much better at the easy part, writing down equations (GR, QM), than optimizing the function's input for certain desired properties (Schwarzchild, Kerr, superconductors, consciousness, fine tuning) because optimization is a different class of problem called NP Hard.. because it's hard.. have patience Love the history of CTT in this episode!
I used to firmly believe that we could explain consciousness through biology and materialism, until I hallucinated on DMT. I experienced a reality very different to ours. I communicated with beings, made out of energy. They were so advanced. This reality however crazy and mind-blowing, felt ridiculously real, more real than this reality. That experience forever changed my views of consciousness and the nature of reality.
Did you really? I don’t mean to be a snarky asshole. I mean didn’t you just take some substance that made your brain wiring kind of go haywire and give you pictures and experiences like a super Technicolor dream. I’m not saying that these experiences can be spiritually informing our life expanding but I’m not certain that it means that the actual substance of these experiences are true. I mean I’m all for it. Glimpsing into greater dimensions of reality. But can you say that these beings told you some thing that is real or provable or has a correlation to someone else’s experience of communicating with Being from the beyond? Other than a vague sense of oneness and wonder.
@@JohnnyArtPavlou lol.... yeah.... I guess on the question of is it just your brain firing... we could probably ask that question about everything else as well....
@@JohnnyArtPavlou I totally understand your reasoning. I would would wonder the same thing if I were you. But unfortunately, it's something that needs to be experienced to be understood. All I can say is that what I experienced was not a malfunction in my brain, but I saw complex beings and very intricate geometrical shapes that I can't even imagine now. They had technology so far advanced than any technology we can ever imagine. They had a very advanced way of communication. They didn't talk, but I could understand everything they were saying.
John Searle in 20 years can't come close to explaining it I think that speaks volumes. I believe the brain is a receiver and the more complex the biology of the brain the more information it receives and processes. I believe reality is an information field and conscienceless is part of that field.
I think so too - but I have argued that the way we respond to that information does not necessarily qualify us as Conscious - We call it that but we might just be reacting in a very complex way to the incoming information - in other words maybe we aren't actually even alive.... in the sense that we think we are alive.
"I believe the brain is a receiver..." That obviously connotates a transmitter of some sort. If it IS the case, are there transmitters for each biological brain that is conscious throughout the whole of reality? Just a single one with different simultaneous "frequencies"? Who or what created, operates and maintains it? Or is it something derived from the essence of the universe? Can that signal be tapped into, or changed? Your stance sparks a ton more questions in me that I won't bore you with. I'm sure most of them are present in every mind that considers such an arrangement of consciousness being transmitted and received.
Lack of oxygen to the brain will do crazy things, like cause hallucinations. Some people will believe anything to make themselves feel better. Fighter pilots that pass out in g force simulators have out of body experiences. They weren't anywhere near death but had these experiences. Pointing to lack of oxygen to the brain as the cause of their hallucination. Whinnery and his researchers placed pilots in gravitational centrifuges Ð similar to the much smaller equipment used to spin a vial of blood on a desktop Ð and examined how the G-forces affected their brains and bodies. The scientists learned that during periods of rapid acceleration, a subject’s blood flows into his lower extremities and away from his brain. The resulting lack of oxygen leads to a period of unconsciousness that lasts on average 12 seconds, followed by another 12 seconds of disorientation. “That’s 24 seconds that you don’t have control over your aircraft,” Whinnery said. “Twenty-four seconds was average. Some people were out a lot longer.” They also asked the pilots to describe the symptoms they experienced while in the centrifuge or in flight. A clear pattern emerged. The first thing they experienced was tunnel vision, which results from a lack of blood flow to the eyes and is a precursor to a blackout. Then, while unconscious, many of the subjects experienced short, vivid dreams, or dreamlets. The dreams were often about past experiences or family and friends. In addition to dreamlets, a significant number of pilots reported having out-of-body experiences. The subjects described the sensation of floating above their planes and looking down at their bodies. Sometimes the dreamlets and out-of-body experiences were accompanied by feelings of euphoria and warmth. Some subjects said they saw a bright light. Surprised by his findings, Whinnery sought out scientific literature about reported out-of-body experiences. He found that out-of-body experiences were reported by cardiac arrest patients who were resuscitated. The pilots and heart attack victims had something in common: a momentary loss of blood to the brain.
The format of this piece is brilliant; following the progression (or lack thereof) of thought and research on the subject through years and decades is a vivid illustration of just how elusive and nuanced the concept of consciousness is and likely will remain.
I have out of body experiences, I am conscious of being me during these experiences. Due to this I know consciousness works through the brain but doesn't come from the brain.
@@enterpassword3313 I think the difference is this person had an experience vs imagination. You can either believe them or not but I do find it disheartening how these people who have had this happen to them are somewhat considered outcasts.
@@enterpassword3313 Ah I see, well I can say one thing from my own experience is when I was hallucinating on *something* I was very well aware that I was hallucinating. This checks out sometimes with other people who have had OBE and recognize its something other. An example is when we are dreaming we wont be aware of it until we wake up, while these people after they "woke up" still understand the OBE as something other than a dream.
@@peacecraft3449 but it was a hallucination though? Meaning you "saw or felt something that wasnt there" not sure why you think obe cant be illusionary. Im sure you can also think enough examples of illusions and strange sensory phenomenon where people are not aware they are hallucinating, magicians will often exploit these. That still doesnt mean obe and similar stuff is not evidence of something we dont understand like the op suggested. ive had a lucid dream feel so real i didnt realise i was dreaming until i woke. Ive had even stranger things happen. Im not saying the way you are thinking of it is wrong, there is just a problem of "measuring experiencing" if that makes sense
There is no "gap", The Subjective(mind) and Objective(matter) experiences are KNOWN. That which KNOWS both, IS what we call CONSCIOUSNESS. We believe that we are the MIND and BODY, so we misinterpret the data. As a result, our Science and Spirituality are materialistic. We do not realize we are EXPERIENCE itself. All that we can say about ourselves, and all that we can say about the world is KNOWN by us. "We" are literally EXPERIENCE itself, everyone of us experiences this. EXPERIENCE (itself) is prior to what is EXPERIENCED. Whatever we decide to call the experience and its contents, is simply KNOWN. That simple KNOWING or EXPERIENCE is "us". The aspect of yourself (subjective), that is currently reading this comment(objective), IS prior to the comment. I know it sounds like I'm speaking in circles. All this "double speak" is because we are attempting to speak about something that cannot be spoken about. Language is one of those KNOWN things, therefore, it cannot be used to know what was prior to it.
I love this series. I sometimes wonder how time factors into theories of consciousness. For example, what is "now" and where does it go to? Our consciousness experience is linked to this body while at the same time, we are part of an infinite and eternal universe, existing in the moment.
Regarding John Searle. Exploring something with objective, scientific reasoning means going into it WITHOUT bias. If you go into inquiry with your mind made up you force the data to fit the mold you have created in your mind. David Chalmers seems to delve into this with open eyes and an open mind.
Science means exploring an answer rigorously, whether or not you're biased. If you're rigorous enough your bias can't matter. That's why science is useful.
this guy has an over-the-top nerdy walk, so you know this documentary is legit! it's the equivalent of having animated graphs and numbers in an infomercial
Nobel laureate Kip Thorne says our universal wavefunction of our currently observed reality is calculated at the fifth dimension. I've always said this is where these contradictions are resolved. Brilliant video!
Thank you for making videos like these it was really helpful, to the point where I had a better understanding of myself and the environment I’m constantly in 🎉.
"The inherent deception in all conceptions of consciousness can be traced to the suffix "ness". This is sometimes referred to as the "ness" lock monster." -- Carlos Dwa (From The Unwritten Book: Xellex {the best damn science fiction novel I ever read}). Consciousness has the same relationship to reality as the "runningness" of a person that can run. There are things that are conscious, but consciousness is merely a concept, and one that is the foundation of as much and similar bullshit as the word spirit/spiritual used to be responsible for.
@fynes leigh Not imitation on my part: projection on yours. You are not commenting on someone or something "out there" you are talking about yourself. . . . such mechanical reactions. And your neoGurdjieffian rhetoric is tedious and boring, as are your psuedo-mystical fantasies. Sweet dreams. . . .
There are numerous pieces of evidence supporting materialism, not mentioned here. That is everything we observe when the brain does not function properly. Like when the brain is physically harmed by an accident, a stroke, a brain tumor or otherwise. It is what happens when brain cells die, like in Alzheimer's diease. It it is what happens when the brain is intoxicated by any kind of mind-altering substance. In all such cases, the mind itself seems to be altered when the brain is, and in a quite predictable manner. Those are the evidence we cannot really get away from. On the other hand are there evidence for dualism as well. The most striking may be near death experiences. Those evidence may be refuted as anecdotal. But a huge pile if anecdotes may turn into substatial evidence. NDOs differ a lot in their contents. They resemble dreams to some degree. But it is still hard to explain how they come to be. They emerge when the brain is in such a state that it should not be able to produce any conscious experiences at all. A person in coma normally does not have dreams. The theory that NDOs emerge when brain cells start to die off can easily be refuted on the basis that people who have had those experiences normally come back to with no substantial brain damage. One possible way of puzzling those contradicting pieces together could be to suggest that as long as the brain is functional, the consciousness is bound to the brain and is subverted under the processes of the brain, but when the brain stops functioning, the mind is somehow able to break loose and exist without the brain. An interesting question in such case is if primitive organisms that have consciousness connected to their nervous system like we have, also have a mind that is able to exist without the brain, or if that is a property only humans are in posession of. Since we cannot ask animals about their possible NDEs, that question is probably hard to investigate.
Obviously... Being conscious is a process - not a content. The being conscious process has so far been a sub-process of the living process. (This may not of necessity always be the case).
It would take a philosopher to explain to me the difference between panpsychism and animism. Seems to me we've just gone full-circle, with perhaps the oldest explanation for consciousness becoming one of the newest. No matter what trappings you hang on it - spirits living in rocks, streams and trees, or quantum mechanics as an explanation for everything being aware - it's not scientific, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe we sense it on a deep level, and then pile layers of BS on top of it. That would be your "religion."
i don't wanna invalidate any beliefs here but quantum mechanics is actually a field of research dedicated to studying particle physics- like subatomic particles and probability type stuff, and doesn't reallly touch on things like trying to explain consciousness- at least not so much as trying to understand what the stuff we're made of and interact with is doing- our brains are big and fleshy and made of carbon based cells, and even the dna in those cells are too big for anything to be happening on a quantum scale.. sorry for being a nerd at you but TLDR: brains and consciousness by proxy, are macroscale and quantum mechanics is all microscale, therefore the two are unrelated !
@@milkcherry5191 How are they unrelated, if that macro is made of that micro? Seems a bit weird way to look at things. Some kind of artificial, forceful and provisory separation.
@@milkcherry5191 Quantum mechanics *does* touch on consciousness, though. Because we know fundamental particles aren't conscious. A photon can't be conscious because it does not experience time. An electron, if conscious, has exactly the same experience as every other electron in the entire universe, because they're all fungible. Anyone who thinks physics says nothing about panpsychism is ignorant of a great deal of fundamental physics.
Loss of brain/damage causally correlates to loss of cognitive function, emotional response, sensory, motor and memory functions. What is affected is even predictable by the location, mode and extent of damage. so, yes.
Re: 14:00 and the critique of Pan Psychism. I'll make the assumption that Pan Psychism isn't a thoroughly metaphysical / idealist standpoint and that it concedes a nexus between an "immaterial" consciousness and (in the Human Being for this example) the physical matter of - at least - the brain. If that reading is correct I am missing something in professor Searle's objection to this stance. Is it not possible that the "discreet units of consciousness" are arbitrated by the limits of the physical properties of a given brain? We can conceive , in a Kantian sense, that the noumenal becomes phenomenal - that we can perceive a table, for example, as "a table" rather than the kinetic riot of electrons and quarks that constitute the table at quantum levels - purely because the physical make up and structuring of our brains (and, by extension, our resultant senses), "translate" existence in the distinct way they do. Because we more readily perceive the table as opposed to the atoms that constitute the table it doesn't follow that we dismiss the existence of the atoms. If a television programme is broadcast in high definition colour, the fact that I am watching the programme on a 1970s black and white television set - and thus cannot receive the broadcast in either colour or high definition - should not lead me to conclude that the broadcast is not occurring in high definition colour in the initial. Rather, logic would surely have it that the limitation is with the receiver and not the broadcast. Is it not therefore possible in logic that the physical brain functions so as to receive and "translate" rather than "create" ex nihilo or sui generis?
Another interesting point I did not hear entertained was the phenomena of neural plasticity. By consciously thinking about something a person can rewire his neural pathways, no sense perception necessary. This means a person is able to change the structure of his brain by using intentional thought . If we can change our brain by focused thinking then what is doing the thinking? What is it that is changing the brain? Can it be another part of the brain? I'd like to hear a neuroscientist's opinion and some research. Personally, I think consciousness is non-local and merely perceived by the brain-body structure.
Receive and translate what? That's just adding an extra layer of reality without a distinct and articulable reason why is needed or how it would work. Pan-psychism isn't nonsense just because there's no evidence of it, but because it raises as many questions as it purports to answer.
We take out the subjective element of reality in making science an ‘objective’ description. Science can therefore only ever be a partial description - a “view from nowhere”! Yet, empirical reality is always a subjective view from somewhere. Having removed all subjectivity, why do we think that subjective experiences can ever be reduced to an objective “view from nowhere” description through science? Whereas David Chalmers seems willing to face up to the problems inherent in Panpsychism, John Searle never addresses the problems inherent in physicalism. His straw man dismissal of Panpsychism is almost dishonest.
As a Panpsychist, I'd love to ask Dr. Searle - if consciousness is resultant from material universal processes, what is the "source" of this material? And of course, I'm sure "the big bang" would be the obvious answer, but what was the source of that? It comes down to what is the absolute source of the experience, which we all subjectively know reduces to the non-physical.
There's simply no justification for assuming that, it's just an assertion. We simply don't have any evidence for how the universe and time emerged on which to base an opinion. Panpsychism by the way could be entirely reconcilable with materialism through Information Integration Theory. If you reject materialism and believe consciousness has a non-physical origin then you are almost certainly a dualist, who might also be a panpsychist.
@@simonhibbs887 Wow. Thanks for this. I've really been taking a deep inner dive on this issue over the last few weeks - sparked by this video - and what I keep reducing it to is fundamental source. What is the fundamental source of material existence and conscious experience? And where I keep ending up is - God - but not ooga booga God - I mean fundamental source God. So why would there be God? (Why is there a why?) From a mere mortal's perspective, fundamental source God makes sense when considering the dualistic nature you've described as a means to knowing one's own Absolute Supremacy as a Creator through the combined experience of experiencing the self from the material and the non-physical conjointly. Check out Papers 108 to 112 at Urantia.org for a much better articulation of this idea.
I've watched a number of these video and I still believe consciousness is external to the brain. To believe that consciousness is the equivalency to our digestive system is, to me, so close-minded, it's astonishing. John Searle is the kind of guy that will dismiss all UFO/UAP to human error - period. I don't get why he even attends these discussions.
@@olwynnsay237 I don't think that's what this guy is saying. He seems to be suggesting that consciousness floats around in the atmosphere somehow, independent of anything other than itself. In other words, nutjob territory.
@@wthomas7955 A bit like saying someone theorising TV, mobile phones, radio, etc before they were invented, speculating invisible waves could somehow exist in the atmosphere, total nut jobs.
Brain is only tool we have to understand and handle. So at least we can make it efficient before difficult journey. Going unprepared on unknown explorations it not a sensible approaches. All possibilities needs to be kept in mind.
This discussion is best left for after we can even imagine coming up with a proper definition of consciousness. Until then its just screaming across a cliff and explaining what the echo says.
Well said, and for obvious reasons, given that no apprehending apparatus or human being can directly immediately personally apprehend the apprehensions (Or experiences) of another apprehending apparatus, or human being. Reason, consciousness or self-awareness, apart from being relative is an experience, and none can experience the experiences of others - for screamingly obvious reasons.
@H D What I meant was a definition that can help an outsider determine if something has consciousness or not. And the problem with doing that is exactly what you described is the problem with tree "consciousness". We think other humans have consciousness because they behave like ourselves. Is that all it takes to determine if something is conscious or not, a similarity of external behaviour ? How much similar is enough and why ? What behaviours count as being "aware" on the part of an entity that it is seperate from everything else and why? What about AI that can behave extremely similar to a human ? Are they conscious ? All I'm saying is that we have troubles agreeing to what to even consider as qualifiers of consciousness for an external observer, if there can be any at all either as well.
@H D You can tell me whatever you want to but fact remains that AI can behave very similar to humans in a lot of ways. And all we can do is measure external observations. Whether an AI is "conscious" or not, whether it only "seems intelligent" but "actually isn't" or not, whether it can "think" or what "concepts" it has etc. are in no way observable to an external observer, so anybody can tell anything about those things and all would be equally valid...and pointless. All we can do is observe external behaviours and according to those things AI can be very similar to humans. Now how much similar means it is conscious or whether such a limit can be found at all is still up for debate because of the reason I said before...we don't have any way of defining consciousness so that it can be identified by an external observer.
@H D And I'm not talking about anything being "human", only being "conscious". And a lot of things in science is ultimately just an idea, a human concept. That doesn't mean that they can't be a physical object that can't be defined or identified. They are of course deduced indirectly but that doesn't make them subjective either. An example would be X-ray. This of course doesn't mean that consciousness can be objectively defined, or that it can't be objectively defined. We just don't know enough about it say those kinds of things.
I have been trying to track down the Intro music but to no avail.....the credits say its Joseph Schwantner but it does not say what specific piece? Does anyone know the exact name of the intro music?
Thanks, I enjoy your videos. with respect to the two recent videos about consciousness, please make a third defining what you mean by consciousness. If we can't agree whether a monkey or a dog or a flea or a bacterium or a rock or a proton is conscious, how can we explain what it is? Why should we even try to explain something when we don't even know what we are trying to explain? All progress in philosophical subjects comes from and requires refining the definitions of what we are trying to explain. When you can define consciousness you will have your answer, and looking to quantum physics or whatever is putting the cart before the horse. At least answer this: what do we expect from an "explanation" of consciousness? What should it do?
in my opinion the best definition of consciousness is: person A is conscious if and only if it feels like something to be person A. if it feels like something to be an electron, then electrons are conscious (of course we currently have no reasons to believe that it feels like something to be an electron, so we assume they aren't conscious).
Yes. Just as a magnet alone can demonstrate effects beyond its physical boundaries. But just like a magnet; no magnet - no magnetic field, no brain - no computational field.
@@neilcreamer8207 I have no idea. But I do know that it's not NOT computation. Right? Consciousness/awareness is processing something. I really am only guessing here, but the alternatives all seem to rhyme with magic and I just can't accept that.
@@tecnoblix Consciousness is a name we give to either experience or the capacity for it. There's no reason to believe that computation or processing is involved. How are you defining magic?
@@neilcreamer8207 It's true that language is one of our primary barriers, but withing the language we use there are clues. Words like "experience" and "capacity". Those are both active kinds of computation. Now, using some of our "capacity" to reason you point out that "There's no reason to believe that computation is involved". That's an assertion that is based on what I have to assume is a mystical wish belief. There is ample reason to believe that computation and processing are involved. That is the whole basis for the scientific method. That would be similar to me saying that there's no reason to believe that computers use processing or computation. Everything we see is an example of why it's probable that consciousness is a matter of computation and processing! It's clearly a reach to EVER suggest otherwise. Now, that doesn't mean it couldn't be, but if that's the first thing you reach for than it's an obvious bias to do so.
@@galoobigboi Well if that is true, then why does brain damage change the mind? Or old age, or drugs? Please don't say that it is because you have altered the ability to pick up consciousness on my meat radio.
We still have those that feel they have something more than a mind generated by brain activity, and an accompanying meat suit. They are so attached to ego that they believe they have souls.
@@AlexC-ss9qf Depends on what perspective you want someone to argue from how they answer that question. If I were an idealist I would say that the brain is how our consciousness experiences a material reality, as such if the brain is damaged the consciousness is effected. That merely establishes correlation not causation. An objection I would raise to you is if consciousness is a product of the brain why do split brain patients have only 1 consciousness? Why does the brain change to the wills of the consciousness, numerous studies have shown that CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) works as good as drugs do. Why would this be the case if the brain created consciousness? CBT involves immaterial things (thoughts and the like) yet somehow these immaterial things have a real effect on the material world. On top of this the Visual Binding Problem is a massive problem, the entire visual system has been mapped out and nowhere can we find where visuals unite to create a unified perception. Unless Quantum Biology (a fairly new field of study) finds an explanation for this, then this problem will remain unsolvable to materialist.
I know that the brain does not produce consciousness. Several years ago I drowned and became separated from my body, yet I was still me. I was not the body. My consciousness was not dependent on the body/mind.
@@jonathankelley542 Obviously and necessarily, but it rather depends on what you seek to convey by or mean by the word "reality. If you ever get anyone using that word "reality" to you and I suggest you ask them to set out clearly what they mean by or seek to convey by that particular word "reality, or you could ask them to define reality, but the chances are all you will get is a synonym of or cognate for the*word*reality because when people use words they very rarely have the faintest idea what they mean by them or seek to convey by them. It inevitably begs the question "who is reality", and that depends on how you understand yourself to apprehend or experience that which can be apprehended. The word reality itself is not particularly interesting, but the psychology of whoever uses it is particularly interesting, but it tells you something about what they appear to assume or believe. Since no apprehending apparatus or human being or man, can directly immediately personally apprehend the apprehensions or experiences of another apprehending apparatus, inevitably you can only wonder what reality is "for him himself. If you are going to examine the idea of reality and what lies behind it, it is meaningless unless it refers to what a particular apprehending apparatus or man or human being is apprehending, and since he cannot have any idea whatsoever what another apprehending apparatus is apprehending - and a very fortunate thing that is, you can only make assumptions presumptions or believe something about that, since it cannot conceivably directly immediately personally (as directly immediately personally as pain) apprehend the apprehensions of another apprehending apparatus, and I wonder if you can understand *why* that is extremely fortunate. It is remarkably obvious why it is extremely fortunate, or let us say desirable state of affairs. Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too. A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it. To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man-”world”, (or it could be “reality”). If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, world, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking. Should one deliberately arrest their attention on thisword and know how to probe them to find just what they understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said “embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together, that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they had not thought of it before. If one has the requisite power and could compel a group of contemporary people, even from among those who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word “world,” (or it could as easily be “reality”) they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one would recall even having one’s finger nails pulled out with pliers with a certain tenderness. I can proffer a fairly clear and simple definition of reality and simultaneously what I seek to convey by or mean by, reality. Can you? The interesting thing, and it really is interesting, is how to approach the idea of reality or the word reality, without necessarily imagining believing or assuming something about the experiences or apprehensions of apprehending apparatuses other than oneself, and necessarily that must involve assuming and all believing because it is self evidently impossible to apprehend anything of the apprehensions of other apprehending apparatuses, and I wonder if you can understand why that is an extremely desirable or likeable or good state of affairs. Not only must whatever reality is conceived to be by a particular individual necessarily and inevitably be an experience or apprehension of sorts, it can only be an experience or apprehension of sorts, and since an apprehending apparatus cannot apprehend anything of the apprehensions of other apprehending apparatuses, it must necessarily - as you correctly say, be subjective because it cannot conceivably be anything *else* depending on how you understand the word "reality" which is merely a symbol for an idea or experience. Would you agree or suppose that it would appear and I can put it no higher than appear, that when some human beings use the word "reality" they seem to be assuming or believing that it is something that somebody else (other than themselves) experiences or Apprehends? Is it not difficult enough to come to some understanding of what associations particular words evoke in oneself? Does not the word "mean" inevitably and only imply or embrace, or connote the associations that are evoked in associating apparatus, or man or human being? I entirely agree with you that whatever you mean or whatever anyone means by "reality" must necessarily be subjective, and I wonder if you can set out precisely why you make that proposition, and I would be interested to see your reasoning or how you arrive at that proposition. Would it be a huge imposition to ask you to expatiate on that particular matter? .
@@vhawk1951kl I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here; and, considering the length of your post, I doubt you do either. Look into structuralist linguistics if you want your own ideas enunciated much more clearly. I dare you to take your thinking to its ultimate conclusion: you'll fall right into Kant. Reality: subjective experience. It's that simple. Man, after all, each man, is a microcosm--a little universe--in which the entirety of reality (all possible subjective experience) is afforded. If you really want my thoughts (and your thoughts for that matter), just read Kant.
you know when evaluating this thing called "substance" its really just oscillations in quantum fields existing in relationship with the speed of causality (aka the speed of light or relative time) this lead me to a more buddhist view point, I can view the real self as this one particular arrangement of quantum oscillations in these fields or I can see my true self as the fields themself. I am not a man experiencing the universe, I am the universe experiencing a man and so are you.
I feel like people who explain consciousness with quantum... anything just can't be bothered to study biology. It's kind of sad hearing Penrose saying it's the "microtubules or something" that are small enough to experience quantum effects and kind of look like strings. Clearly he's out of this area. By the way, psychology is my area, and there is no far transfer of intelligence.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos its actually pretty simple to explain consciousness with biology its just and emergent property of more fundamental neurochemical interactions. but the real question is what is the proper description of the interaction and corralations between conscious experience and objective reality, how does our brain turn environmental stimuli into the qualia of existence. what pendrose is saying is not that if certain biological interactions occur on a quantum scale them quantum physics is a part of the question.
Consciousness is the epiphenomenon produced by matter and spirit. Brain alone can perform many things such as responding to stimuli, robotic types of "intelligent behaviour" such as playing chess, pack and social behaviour, etc. But higher states of consciousness and deep self-awareness needs something beyond just the "hardware".
@@anthonycraig274 He is a doctor specializing in patients with brain injury. Brain injuries can dramatically change your concept of consciousness and awareness suddenly and far beyond what 'life experience' can. One of his books is "the man who mistook his wife for a hat"
@@eniszita7353 Thanks for the reply. I’ll check the review and put it on my wish list. At the moment I am still quite ignorant, I have only read 2 books about this.
Brosky 1998 actually I work in the field of neuroscience. I’ve a medical degree. We’ve never been able to show the existence of the soul. I was 12 when I stopped believing god(s). I just woke up from Christianity realising it was all just a big charade. That was over 35 years ago now. I’ve done my research and due diligence. Hence the short initial answer.
When you are trying to UNDERSTAND Consciousness, who is trying to understand Consciousness? It's you means your Conscious Mind is trying to understand by using your brain. So by analysing brain's activity you will find your understanding process of Consciousness but not Consciousness itself.
"The problem is how you interpret the data." The 'mind-body problem' is something I studied and contemplated long before this gathering of experts. In the early 1970s I took a number of courses on the subject in psychology and philosophy, it still puzzled me for years later. The only advantage of the mind-body investigation is what it can reveal about our ignorance. Not knowing and the search for knowledge has a habit of directing human contemplation is a milieu of distractive activities. Instead of relying strictly upon the data [by which I mean empirical evidence] imagination can waste a lot of time and resources looking for explanations that have no basis in known fact. One should recall Occam's Razor which claims [in general] the simplest answer is the most likely. By adding such things as disembodied [supernatural] intelligence that can't be studied only complicates the entire inquiry. "Interpreting the data" in such a way to conclude there must be something else other than physics, what is known about the physical universe, steps into a realm known as "jumping to conclusions" which normally abandons the scientific method of drawing conclusions from what is known. Even considering what's known [or not] about quantum entanglement there is no reason to believe at this point that it is somehow related to disembodied intelligence. "Spirit" is nothing more than an emotional construct utilized to infuse a confused mind with a degree of security about one's own demise. If speculation is a necessity to guide investigation, then it should be a mechanism to stick to what has some basis in what can or already has been "proven". Let the data and not the absence of data guide knowledge. If at such a time empirical evidence does make a direct connection to the non-physical and that non-physical exhibits direct relationships to what can be considered intellect [of which there is no evidence whatsoever] introduction and utilization of the speculative supernatural is not scientific inquiry.
But we have not made any progress on consciousness. I was struck by Searle's observation that both dualists and scientific materialists fall into the same trap. I was toying with a similar through recently, the hard core materialists who I think deny the 'hard problem' of conciseness, kind of have this weird world view which turns the original sceptical argument on its head, i.e. that of which I can be certain (i.e. the contents of my conciseness) are an illusion, only things of which I cannot be certain are real - reminds me of the old joke about two behaviourists meeting on the street, with the greeting " You feel fine. How do I feel?" Also, why should Occam's razor be true, isn't there a quote along the lines of "many a young biologist, nearly cut their throat with Occam's Razor" - meaning they were lead in the wrong direction? You can see it being a condition for a good explanation, especially in a world of limited resources, but what does it necessarily have to do with reality? I suggest reading David Hoffman if you haven't already.
@@johnsawdonify Occam's razor is not a 'truth' statement. It's intended as a guide in the pursuit of knowledge. What is 'true' to a considerable extent is the phenomenon we intelligent beings seem predisposed to complicating thing in our search for answers. Take for example a premature explanation for the origin of the material universe. Instead of a commitment to finding a 'natural' explanation based upon observable and measurable real-world phenomena, in order to comfort or own fragile egos we invent the supernatural of which there never is or will be an understanding because material beings using material methods are incapable of 'proving' anything about a supernatural entities or existence. Thus the supernatural leads to no demonstrative conclusions other than mere opinion. As we all should know, due to flaws in perception, without evidence conclusions are too often flawed as well. On the subject of consciousness and applying Occam's Razor, it does make more sense to draw temporary hypotheses about that phenomenon that the explanation of it is nothing more than a phenomenon of biology we do not as yet understand. It least that hypothesis bases that on what is already known about how the brain works. I don't buy the idea that consciousness and brain being two separate phenomena. The evidence weights far more heavily in the direction of consciousness is an epiphenomenon, a manifestation of brain functioning as yet unknown in its full complexity. Drawing such a reasonable conclusion eliminates myths such as 'spirits', ghosts, demons, angels, gods, etc. Unfortunately, the impulsiveness of human nature makes us predisposed to draw conclusions on little to no evidence. We seem to have to have an answer no matter how ill informed it might be. That aspect of human nature has delivered to our species all forms of destruction.
@@SOMAnxg both you and John Sawdon are full of unsubstantiated blah blah blah. I am too tired and lazy at the moment to engage either of you in a point by point discussion, however, if you wish to engage me at a future time (either close or far) I would be happy to show you the error of your ways. Maybe you would like to know that it is impossible for me to deny there being a God. NOBODY can tell me there is no God. To me that's just crazy.
@@garychartrand7378 People have believed all kinds of crazy things in the past. For example for a very long time people were Convinced the sun revolved around the Earth. 400 yrs ago they were proven wrong with factual, empirical data. For perhaps longer than that people were convinced that time was constant. Einstein demonstrated that is wrong. People used to believe that lightning was the spear of Zeus. Thanks to science it is now known lighting is an imbalance of charged particles (electrons) in the atmosphere. The existence of god is supported by No evidence. Not even the existence if the Earth or living creatures is evidence of the supernatural (god). I suspect you don't want to engage with anyone with different ideas (even though they can support their claims with evidence) because you don't really have any valid counter claims. In any case...be well.
John Searle talks about being victims of our traditions, but he's totally in the thrall of reductionism. The idea that if you pull stuff apart small enough you implicitly understand it. That's useful as far as it goes, but it isn't how we experience the world. Nor are panpsychism and materialism the only concepts on offer. Idealism insists that conscious awareness does not exist in the brain, but the brain in consciousness. There is only consciousness. That does at least reflect what consciousness feels like, it is proliferating, nor reducible, able to send craft into space and paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It requires huge faith and considerable prejudice to believe that the brain produces consciousness like the liver makes bile.
Searle seems to talk assertively iand quickly (one thing to the next) n a way that prevents the listener from having time to absorb what he is actually saying. Probably does it unconsciously. However his arguements have as many gaps in them as those he disagrees with.
Nope.. I don't think so.. Why should conscious be other than an emergent feature of the brain and body.. I know we want there to be more but nothing in my oppion indicates that. Our brain constructs a version reality to which it reacts.. A conscious fits into the universe like a moth fits into the physical world. I have a hard time to believe what else should be there.
@@svendtang5432 If you are correct, reality exists entirely and exclusively in your head. What you describe as "the physical world", are dyspeptic illusions formed by chemicals and electrical impulses. Useful as a placeholder, but no one behaves as if it were true. It would mean reality is unknowable, which is the opposite of what materialists claim.
@@borderlands6606 you misunderstood.. My bad.. The brain creates a version of the existing reality, it does not create a new reality.. It's bound by the physical aspects of that reality (with some exceptions as such as strong delusions or severe mental illness ).. Emergent is the keyword.. Like a beach where the waves craft the cliff into strange shapes.. Here the brain is creating a construct that makes it easier for us to survive and this, as all things evolving is not perfect, so it sometimes misfires and have sideeffects not only bad ones. We seek patterns, we predict, we plan, we act.. And we are social creatures so we have love and commitment. Art, music and culture is often in earlier cultures a way of bonding get cohesion in the group.. Later in our development when we had less emphasis on the group it is a way of seeking status..
The greater the complexity and cooperation the more conscious the organism. It is perfectly possible in my view that there are fields of consciousness that can be measured should a sufficiently complex organism reach it. Just like gravity for example, should an object reach the required mass its impact on gravity can be measured.
I think John’s premise that panpsychism means that his “belt is conscious” is completely misunderstanding it. If his premise is false, then his conclusion must be false also. No one is saying that inanimate objects are conscious like humans are, yet this guy over decades still can’t get that straight in his head.
That's not as profound as it seems. An ovum was fertilized by a sperm, resulting in a zygote. That zygote eventually grow into you Tis. If a different sperm fertilized the ovum, or the same sperm fertilized a different ovum, a different person other than you would exist with a different consciousness. Consciousness isn't nearly as significant as we assume it is. It's a unique personal characteristic on a continuum like hair color, height, etc. Consciousness is a more complicated characteristic, but the principle is the same.
@@Dazuk2023 how do you know that 'you' are the same 'you' you were before. When you sleep at night, your old self dies, but the memories get transferred to the new 'you', when you wake up in the morning, you have the illusion that 'you' are the 'you' you were yesterday.
Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.
I would accept the material explanation of consciousness if they could explain how a memory gets stored in the brain, which neurons are involved, what kind of code is used to make them understandable to a person, which seems to be beyond current neuroscience. And yet, they say there must be such things going on in the brain, there can't be any other explanation.
Sure take a course on Neuroscience or visit the huge data base on Neurosciencenews and search for "how the brain does it. So even if all the evidence point to the necessary and sufficient role of the brain you are using an Argument from ignorance fallacy to reject that fact?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you are making an argument from necessity, without sufficient evidence. Thank you for saying I need to do a course, without giving any argument which addresses my main point.
The clear fingerprint of quantum fluctuations recorded and measured on the CMB, plainly refutes the argument that quantum mechanics is somehow 'created' by a conscious observer.
recorded and measured you say? are you suggesting the observer of fluctuations demonstrated by the recording and measuring was not aware they were making an observation?
@@fridgemagnet exactly. If one is aware of such an observation, you must be conscious. I don't understand in what way he meant that. @lewSheen also have a go through wheeler's delayed choice experiment.
@@vaishakh7737 obviously the collapse of the wave function happens within the von Neumann-Wigner chain (observation tool, rotes and cones of eyes, neurons and subliminal computation, then final consciousness) it seems highly unluckily that consciousness is the point of collapse. plus we know very little about the superposition because every attempt of testing will change the results, but hey it could be consciousness we don't actually know.
The problem is that ppl without proper knowledge will go around affirming things they assume as the ultimate truth. We must be open to new ideas because the reality is that we do not know about it.
"Engine and horse power are different categories" Pointing out the obvious doesn't help the conversation. The brain produces mind properties like the engine produces torque and horse power.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Contrary to brain, mind properties are unknown. Neurosurgeons work miracles, the connoisseurs of the mind do not go beyond the Socratic "I know I know nothing", Freud pushed secrets into the subconscious without explaining anything, much like Jung to archetypes. And I do not know why I am delighted with music, sometimes Daniel Barenboim points out to something, that it is ravishing, but I do not know why. This is just an example - music completely unnecessary for existence.
@@stangadomski -"mind properties are unknown" -what does that even mean????? -"Neurosurgeons work miracles, the connoisseurs of the mind do not go beyond the Socratic "I know I know nothing"" -You know that we know how to design surgery protocols and address the pathology in a such a way that we know it will improve our patients mental states...right? You know that we have medicine and treatments that ....again.... succesfully improve the quality of our conscious states. -" Freud pushed secrets into the subconscious without explaining anything, much like Jung to archetypes. " -Well you are talking about psychoanalysis and psychiatry of the past when the relevant fields are Neuroscience and Neuropsychoanalysis of the last 20 years! -"And I do not know why I am delighted with music, sometimes Daniel Barenboim points out to something, that it is ravishing, but I do not know why. " -We can analyze and explain people's subjective preferences. Why we like something is a complex process but we can identify the "agents" and conditions responsible for our preferences. i.e some people hate spicy food...turns out it helps NOT to be a super taster(have a tongue with a huge number of taste buds.). We can also profile your blood and see how your endorphins react to a tasty ''threat"!. Are your glands producing more glucocorticoids or adrenaline. Does your brain correlates spice foods with previous happy experiences? You see...We know stuff!!!!!!.we may not know everything but we can not say that everything is a mystery...so lets make up a bigger mystery to explain it.!
How is it that the universe through the human brain (since we are part of the universe) is able to acknowledge its own existence? Theres only one explanation that makes sense and that is we exist in a duel universe, a physical and conscious universe, the universe is conscious and our brains are nothing more than receivers of and able to tune into that conscious aspect.
1. We can be CONSCIOUS of PHYSICAL phenomena, e.g., sensations. And we can be CONSCIOUS of MENTAL phenomena, e.g., thoughts. 2. Notice how CONSCIOUSNESS therefore transcends BOTH physical AND mental phenomena; and therefore consciousness is NOT ITSELF PHYSICAL OR MENTAL! 4. Accounting for mental states in terms of physical states therefore WOULD NOT solve the problem of Consciousness. Q.E.D.
@@z_a_r_c_o I don't know. I ask that question of every other substance dualist I meet, and most of them don't know either. But I figure if quantum entanglement can happen (i.e. spooky action at a distance), then there's no problem with an interaction between the mind and the brain on substance dualism. We don't have to know HOW something happens before we can discover THAT it happens, so I think the interaction problem is on-going, just like quantum mechanics is on-going.
Sam Harper As most likely expected, I agree and disagree. What I agree with is that we don’t have to know how something happens to know that it does... I could not agree with that more. With that said, are you of the mindset that these things even could be understood, or do you think it’s pretty much just a “leap of faith”, so to speak? (just curious)
@@z_a_r_c_o I think it's possible to have models that explain how there can be causal interaction between the mind and the brain, but it could be that none of the models can be tested. It's similar to how we have different physical interpretations to quantum mechanics Nobody really knows what's going on down there, but there are various models that are consistent with what we observe. There are actually models for how interaction happens. There's a book called "The Soul Hypothesis" that has a chapter on the interaction problem. It's a been a while since I read it, but I think the author of that chapter did offer some kind of model for how interaction happens. I had a hard time understanding the book, though, so not only do I not remember what the author said, but even if I did remember what they said, I probably wouldn't understand it well enough to explain it to you. I came up with a model myself a while back. In my model I came up with the idea that minds are able to create energy ex nihilo. That would explain how minds are able to have causal interaction on the brain. I kind of gave up on the model because it didn't explain causation in the other direction.
isn't it interesting that the explanatory power of physics or any formal logic has no access to "things in themselves," only relationships between things? Isn't it interesting that any logic, including the computational structure of the nervous system can be replicated in any sufficiently robust computer. Computers function according to purely abstract rules, and can therefore be built of any material (including wooden pegs and switches). My question is: how can anyone seriously claim that subjective experience can arise from such a wooden computer!? What is subjective experience? The equation is not the phenomenon.
I dont think that conciousness comes solely from information, but is a product of the use of that information. How does one go from subatomic particle interactions to tiny bacteria that 'hunt' for food.
There's got to be a yet discovered massless particle that travels in the regions of the brain that have subjective experiences. This means a new quantum field.
The change of voice from person to person sometimes wakes me back up. PBS Spacetime has one presenter with a deep droning voice that is like super-Ambien for me.
My search into this subject was driven by my Mothers 10 year journey with Alzheimer's to her passing in 2020. Despite the extreme physical deterioration of Mum's brain in this time, she retained her essential essence, scans revealed that much of her brain structure was severely degraded. With a long interest in quantum physics and an openness to the mystery of life, my take on this is that the brain is the interface between consciousness and the material world as we know it, it would seem to me that consciousness is something that exists within the quantum fields, that we simply do not understand at this time. We do know that the sub atomic world is full of mystery, to the point that at the Blank level the concepts of time and space itself cease to exist. The cosmos is far more mysterious than simple Newtonian mechanics, and the great Einstein struggled with many of contradictions that quantum physics brings to the intellect.
or it's just that her most "core" parts of her brain deteriorated last? our brain works by literaly growing new pathways for things when we learn and creates thicker clusters the more intrested in something we are so it's just very possible that since what you consider to be her "essence" is what her brain found most valuable and therefore these things survived the longest.
13:52 this man hasnt tried DMT. This will make you believe in the possibility of panpsychism. But you materialists dont dare truthfully exploring the world.
Hello. DMT user here who thinks utterly differently from you. Just so you know. You would call me a materialist, simply because I do not believe in things that there is no physical evidence for. The ideas you have are coming from your brain. Simple. Not out there. In there. We will make consciousness out of the flow of electrons alone. Your idea of consciousness is just a functional illusion that serves your survival interests. Same as me. It is not mysterious.
@@AdamTait-hy2qh That's a self refuting argument though. If that were the case then all rational thought or lack thereof is nullified, or false. Therefore the argument you just presented is also nullified, or false.
@@kuylerray3295 I think I get your argument - that if electrons can form the basis of consciousness, then consciousness must be "out there". This is not true - if consciousness is an emergence of complex information integration networks, then it IS in us, and not out there. But we could MAKE IT out there, if we could do the same with electrons.
The evidence for consciousness being separate from the brain is all there in the vast literature on Near Death Experiences. If you thoroughly review the scientific peer reviewed cases, you can logically come to no other conclusion.
@@mockupguy3577 certainly, there are many articles on the subject compiled in the New England Journal of medecine, much of which you need to be a professional to access, however there is a book by John C. Hagen titled The Science of Near Death Experiences that deals with these peer reviewed cases.
No my friend, i hope so, but until now at least, we do not have any MATHEMATICAL and strong empirical data and fact....... Only some great and good studies and people narrating so, but we do not own an empirical proof 😔
I misread the title and thought it was "can Brian alone explain conciousness", like it was the journey of a guy trying to research all by himself...still captures my imagination
Life of Brian. ..
Brian Cox
@@NonDelusional74611 Brian sucks .......
Brain May
Brian cant ( playaway)
One of the finest series, aptly titled "Closer To Truth." It may seem disappointing we haven't found the truth yet. The producers never said we would. They only promised us of getting Closer to the Truth.
There is Truth my friend and then there is Ultimate Truth. People everywhere are searching for Truth and they don't even understand what Truth is.
We are all having different experiences in life and it's our experiences that become our Truths. Your experiences are not the same as my experiences and therefore your Truth and my Truth are NOT the same. We are ALL evolving down our own paths of our own personal Truths. Contrary to religion's idea of a one size fits all - everyone's path (back to Source (or God)) is just as unique as is each personal relationship with God. We will ALL eventually return to God where we will ALL reach the same Ultimate Truth. Then we will realize in a very real sense that we are all one with God. We are ALL in this reality of being one with God NOW, however, we allow our personal Truths to obscure this fact. People really should be tolerant of each other. We are ALL here for the same purpose. God bless EVERYONE.
@@garychartrand7378 you’re so lame lmao
This is probably one of the most amazing and outstanding topics in current discussions at academia and in the world, and you've made an amazing job!
The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot..........Falun Dafa
@@jeffforsythe9514 lol, no!
@@floriathi agree With you, i am not a dualist, or a thesit, (certainly not religions).
thank you for your excellent interviews and narratives, Robert.
Robbetson
@@kimjongun5172??
I love the John Searle lectures on Consciousness! I've seen them MANY times lol and I TELL MY ARM TO GO UP AND THE DAMNED THING JUST GOES RIGHT UP!
I can hear his voice.
For 20 years I've been obsessed with this same mystery. I've ravenously consumed every popular book published by Searles, Chalmers, and many others. Meanwhile, Kuhn has been sitting in their dens (and laboratories), chatting with them. I'm jealous. But of course I'm grateful for getting to watch these conversations here.
I agree with Kuhn that no substantive progress has been made on solving this mystery. Why not? It's very frustrating.
Are we perhaps just asking the wrong questions? Science, by definition, provides objective, 3rd-person explanations. Consciousness, by definition, is a subjective, 1st-person phenomenon. Is it, by definition, absurd to seek an objective explanation for a subjective phenomenon? Maybe it should be trivially obvious that objective theories can't possibly explain even the existence of subjective phenomena. Maybe we have simply tried to stretch the category "explanation" too far.
zenbum Searle solves it best “consciousness reduces causally but not ontologically to the brain.” It is precisely because of the walled off nature of subjective first person experience from the neurobiological processes that it emerges from that we think of this as such a mystery. It is resolved by grasping that everything about first person subjective experience depends 100% on brain function. The more complex brains become, the more complex subjective experience becomes. The more injured, sick or intoxicated brains are the more distorted, malfunctioning, or limited subjective experience and behavior becomes.
Nicholas King religious claims followed by physics non sequitur. You’re deluded and pretentious.
Can you recommend some books or interesting websites on this topic?
@Nicholas King Gibberish
@@adammobile7149 hi adam, to me, this website has been a good starting point - hope you like it...... www.informationphilosopher.com/
I like how David explains that panpsychism has the same problem as the hard problem.. namely, how do the smaller agents of consciousness combine to form the the type we experience.
Yep @14:00. ** However, he does not mention immediately after @14:30 that the "consciousness as basic feature of all physics" utterly fails because that would mean that the wave-function (of collapse probability) would ALWAYS be collapsed into a determined state instead a probabilistic one. And given the double slit experiment and double-erasure experiment, we can see that the wave-function is not "always being watched by a consciousness as soon as it makes any information" given that it creates what I would call "probabilistic-location" wave information when it is not measured initially by one of our instruments. That means there was no "consciousness" collapsing the wave-particle duality into "determined particles" the initial moments.
And @16:02 He mistakenly thinks a "perfect" simulation of a conscious brain (obviously dead and uncounscious/sleeping brains could also be simulated) would still not be conscious but that is only because in his reference/experience, all simulation are and would "always be" imperfect. Yet when you simulate the color blue on a computer... is the color not "perfectly" blue? The same would be true with consciousness if the simulation is able to get it "perfectly." "blue dots going from top to down and then the lower colors get darker after touched" is not a "perfect simulation of rain." That is because "perfect simulations" are copying/making the exact color (or perceivably exact to fallible human eyes) since color is basically just a 1-facet experience it is easy to simulate, not just "close to copying it" which is what is implied by "simulation of rain" in the way we know it today.
A rainstorm in another country does not get us wet, yet it is a perfect replica/copy of how a rainstorm would work here in this country. The same will be true of computer consciousness once that is fully achieved by accident or after we gain an understanding of how to create it.
**even "[physical] panpsychism" @18:25 prematurely conflates consciousness as just information exchange/integration. But that is just changing definitions. Such an "integration" would itself require consciousness. No one looks at a rock or single neuron and thinks "Oh that rock/neuron is just computing 1/1800 as much information as me, and thus it internally experiences 1/1800 of a consciousness." Our brains themselves integrate A TON of information while we are completely unconscious such as deep asleep on anesthesia. We cannot say that a vacuum is "slightly more conscious" than an atom, and thus somehow it has an "internal experience". I would even wager to say that the Sun "integrates" more information than we do.
I can explain consciousness. Everything is made of energy. There is a universal consciousnesses that exists in this energy. When your born your brain is like a magnet. It attracts energy and takes some of this universal consciousness with it. In other words. God is creation. And we are all God hiding behind ego.
@@SoultalkOG I dont see any explanations rather than bold claims.
@@matthiasreichshof9896 check advaita Vedanta in Hinduism and near death experience videos on TH-cam.
@Adam Martin Molecules dosnt make "river", they are just moving according to laws of physics, we define what a river is. Where does a river exactly begin and where does it end? Their limitations are also just manmade. They are connected to the oceans and on the other side to almost every sea. The better question is: "How can it be that from unpredictability of quantum systems (microsystems) can become the predictability of the world we experience (macrosystems).
"Correlation isn't the same as explanation." What a powerful quote that both sides can use.
Very true but I see correlations being of 2 types. There is physical evidence that can be correlated but there is also different pieces of reasoning that can be correlated. Neither one is considered proof but we have to ask ourselves which one is more likely.
I think it's important to note that if we're talking about 1 to 1 correlations between mental states and brain states then that is sufficient not to explain consciousness but rather say that it is sufficient information to know that it is physical. If we find that it's not 1 to 1 then we need a non-physicalist theory. A human will never understand their own consciousness because we represent these ideas using a subset of our brain. It would require a much larger neural network to be able to fully represent a human brain and then some more for analysing it. That neural network, if conscious itself, would therefore not be able to fully understand itself and the origin of it's own level of consciousness. This is the problem of computational irreducibility as coined by Stephen Wolfram.
@@onlyguitar1001 I pretty much agree on the 1 to 1 complete correlation between physical states and conscious states. What that would say is that consciousness is fundamentally connected to physical matter.
Looking in the brain for consciousness is like looking in the TV for people
Lol
u understood it well. r u a dualist.
@@truthfinder6996 Don't forget about idealism which is a monist theory. According to idealism, it is also the case that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of physical facts about the brain/body.
Perhaps they’re not aware that they’re not looking for consciousness itself in the brain, but looking for the exact detectable mechanisms and manifestations of consciousness in the brain instead.
One usually find people in 80inch screen 📺 TV s. They can fit better there without too too much overcrowding.
Awesome episode. I like that it showed the same two philosophers over the course of 14 years
The problems of understanding consciousness all seem to be based on trying to reconcile it with the physical world yet none of these academics is questioning the hidden assumption: is there any evidence we can find for something behind our experience or is experience all there is?
I’ve not seen Robert discuss dreaming in his videos yet it is one of the most useful tools for illustrating the potential problem with materialism, either exclusive or as part of a dualism. Our dreams contain all the elements we see in what we call our waking life: the world, other people like us with apparent inner life, thoughts, sensations, emotions and the idea of ‘me’, the one experiencing the dream. Yet no-one would dispute that all of this takes place in the mind.
It is commonplace to assume that dreams occur in our minds, that we each have a mind and that the mind has something to do with a brain but what evidence is there for this reasoning? All the information on which we build these assumptions is experienced in exactly the same sort of scenario as we would find in a dream. The only substantive difference between what we call reality and a dream is recognised only after we have woken up from the dream. While we’re in the dream the vast majority of us experience it as though it were real. If a dream is seen as absurd it’s only absurd on reflection after waking.
Given that the entirety of a dream can seem exactly like waking life while we’re experiencing it why do we believe that there is anything to this reality other than the experience we are having?
because it is a ridiculously unlikely idea
@Nicholas King "I know, you don't" is not an argument
@Nicholas King It seems to me that I can argue my point and you can't argue yours
@Nicholas King to put it straight, I am right and you are wrong
@Nicholas King about the idea that dreams are special in a way the OP descriped
“If we knew how the brain constructs consciousness” Well, sir that’s the crux of the question. The scientific issue is that you’re imposing restrictions on your future observations. In other words you’re looking for what you already believe to be true not simply for what is true.
Great observation!
elgaen555 observer bias.
"We" being you and your imaginary friend presumably
Why do we ask scientists answers for this question ? If we ask about the physical world functioning, of course we ask scientists. Because they have better paths in their logical brain. But how do you know a smarter brain (good at logic, proficient in scientific language) has any better answer than a less smarter brain? Because more logic isn’t gonna give you more answer to this question. Thinking is like you play with your brain and find something that meets your brain’s logical circuit and you say “aha, that makes sense”. But that only means it makes sense to your human brain. A bug doesn’t even have a logical brain, but they exist just as we do.
all questions about what we don't know exist within the context of what we do know. the interlocking web of existing evidence and scientific knowledge should always inform our sense of how likely or probable different hypotheses may be. given everything we know so far about the universe, nature, physics, chemistry and biology, the likelihood that consciousness is an emergent property of neurobiology is exceedingly high, while the likelihood that it exists either in some kind of immaterial way dualistically separate from brains, or as a pantheistic quality somehow present even in electrons is exceedingly low. the attempt to make thinking scientifically conform to a sort of "freshman skepticism" that see s all hypotheses as equally plausible is a popular mistake.
To me it looks so simple. The brain let's us think, speak, remember etc and all these things together is what forms our consciousness.
Wow man, you just solved the hard problem of consciousness.
How can matter(brain) think?
@@thomashoward6357 Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.
@@thomashoward6357 _"Okay, But do you think conciousness still remains post death?'"_
No because when an organ (the brain in this case) stops working it will not be able to produce the same effect when it was alive.
@@rawkeeper7601 you are assuming that consciousness and the computing of a brain are related. I personally don't think so. I consider the physical brain to be a very sophisticated computer/ transceiver that allows the immaterial to interface with the material. Consciousness is a separate phenomenon quite seperate and independent of the physical - as is observed in NDE reports.
After listening to people’s stories of out of body experiences I have to say that I don’t think that consciousness is all in our brains. Too many times we have heard of people being completely unconscious in a coma but somehow the person is able to explain in detail the happenings around them while they’re being operated on or in other cases where they’ve been in a bad accident and they’re hovering above the scene and are able to give specific details and even what was said in some cases.
I think that it’s more like our souls enter a human body and animate it with consciousness. Once our souls leave that body it is dead but our consciousness moves on in the form of energy.
They're just that. Stories. None have ever held up under close scrutiny, from what I've read. And you snuck soul in at the end. What is that? Where? And why can't science find it, or any hint of it? How is "soul" and improvement on "emergent property and process of the brain", other than it "feels" better?
Yes buddy, but we can tell anything we wish, in good or evil intent and interests, but something i say to you isn't always what truly is.... I can lie
@@roblovestar9159 Just because it can't be explained today, it doesn't mean it can't be explained tomorrow. If you told a person 1000 years ago, that plants ate sunlight and made glucose out of it, do you think they would believe you? 1000 years later and photosynthesis is common knowledge. Just because we proved it later, that doesn't mean it wasn't happening before. There's no reason to limit yourself to what's known today, otherwise you'll never be innovative.
@@roblovestar9159 they are not just stories - they are very personal and moving stories - often life changing - often turning skeptics to believers - and often inexplicable...such as the case of pam reynolds who went to surgery , put deep under anaesthesia, her body temperature dropped to 10 degrees celsius, and then she had a sheet covering her head and plugs in her ears and yet during her surgery she described "popping" out of her head and floated to the ceiling where she witnessed her surgery and heard all the conversations. she was able to verify particular things happening whilst her brain was flatlined. she had ultra lucid awareness separate from her body.
and yet someone like you would call this an illusion?
i am sure if that happened to you and things were able to be verified thereafter by the surgeon then you might change your perspective on non-local consciousness.
@@Dion_Mustard In addition, one man reported dying in a car accident with his wife and they both left their bodies and floated above his body. They both watched a paramedic working on him.
Then he woke up and was shocked to find out there never was a paramedic working on him, and his wife was never harmed in the accident! She was never unconscious and didn't experience the same thing as him at all.
There are many more like this. You can do your own research by reading hundreds of unfiltered, self reported NDEs as well ...
I found out that these false positive NDEs did indeed occur more than I was hoping.
They were very vivid experiences, but many turned out to be completely false memories.
Of course these false NDEs would not turn into best selling books.
So if you want the truth, look into both sides and ask yourself "Which of the two types of NDEs are more likely to reach the public? The exciting version that brings people hope? Or the mundane and embarrassing version?"
If you just want to believe in an afterlife, then read the hyped up stories, and ignore everything else, especially the embarrassing ones.
I want hope and meaning as well, but false hope is misleading. I don't want illusions to guide me.
"The question of how do you interpet the data is always a philosophical question" Well said sir, well said indeed.
You know how deep this stuff is when you're high_
Yep. :)
Yes
Yes
A brain is something you touch, see, hear, smell, taste etc whereas consciousness is experienced inside directly. They are different aspects of the same thing and we have different means of experiencing them.
But bro that's the question how a physical thing can make you experience mental Consciousness.. and Honestly deep Down in me I think that it's because we Do Have a Thing called SOUL...Now Just Carefully hear out my words because I think I Cracked LIFE'S MYSTERY, So.. Its all a Riddle yes it is.. "Everything in existence is a riddle including us.. The thing is we are equipped with a very Powerful Brain and that enable us biologically to make Sense of everything when in reality Nothing in existence is supposed to make sense of.. We as living beings are here just to Experience Mortal Life not to make sense of it(Cherish). Again it's all a Riddle which we'll Never ever be able to solve, Because the creator of this Riddle is none other than GOD himself".. believe me I came to this conclusion after lots of mental analysis.. not influenced by any myth, Religion preachings, Science etc just by Natural intelligence(Inner Instinct) nor with any Outside Stimulation.!
THERE IS INDEED A SUPREME CREATOR OUT THERE WE CALL GOD and he did everything Intentionally the way they are.
@@manjuvishwanathmaity4460 Your creator poses many more problems than it seems to answer. Have you ever encountered a mind that could think/will material into existence? Have you ever encountered a mind that didn't have a brain? You can imagine such but imagination isn't reality. People make/create things for their needs out of existing material which has nothing to do with thinking matter into existence. When fireworks explode, you see light and hear sound. Light and sound are 2 different entities that you experience differently. The same is true of physical and mental as when something happens inside your head you can experience it as a thought or you can experience it as electrical or chemical activity we call physical. They are 2 different ways of experiencing the event albeit more different from each other than sight and sound. The world is real and you are real as you can accept the world as is the way you just accept your idealism/god as a separate reality that somehow interacts with the world. The super mind that you have separated from the world is actually the world. You fit into the world because you are the world and don't need a super human like mind to make you and a world for you to fit into. This is it and you are it. The real question is what is it about the human brain/mind that makes it want to create spirits/gods? Hint: We project other people's mind out to them when we interact and we project visual images that we form in our heads when we see something back outward to the source. You are the god you sense.
@@bobs182 I can't find any relevance to your Statement Sorry dude but if u could make it more easier to understand that would be great in a simple way, and again a physical thing cannot enable you to experience mental Consciousness alone Because there is no SOUL.. There is no life energy in it. Believe me Dude Problems are there for a reason in our life no matter if it's small or big it is there to Stimulate us on a mental level or in other words to Educate our SOUL.
@@manjuvishwanathmaity4460 There is no intentionally outside of brains/minds. An unexamined life is not worth living. Ignorance my be bliss but it's not for me.
@@bobs182 If you're indirectly accusing me of being Ignorant Let me tell you I AM NOT.. and yess IGNORANCE Is Indeed a Bliss but not for those who are curious Naturally. But sometimes u had to trust your intuition too because our intuition is always right ! And one more thing You will eventually get to a point where you will willingly accept that there is a Higher power who is Governing all of it..!
This is the best synthesis I've seen of this fascinating problem. It would be interesting to put Dan Dennett and Giulio Tononi to discuss how current materialism perspective could solve the 'hard problem'.
He interviewed both...
Well if we realize that the "hard problem" of consciousness is a couple of "why" pseudo Philosophical questions then there is no real need to compare one pseudo worldview with an other.....
Dan Dennett is a moron who claims consciousness is an illusory component because he has no idea how to explain it.
There are so many cases of the Out of Body Experience occurring where people describe having "two selves"..the physical body and the separation of the self..or pure consciousness as I like to refer to it..I think the typical explanation of consciousness as a product of the brain has been so drilled into us since school days that it's hard to imagine consciousness as anything other than a product of matter. My gut feeling is consciousness is 'lost' when the brain disintegrates..but then again consciousness is not a physical entity..so I suppose the networks of the brain which support awareness dissolve and therefore we no longer exist..maybe because we rely on the brain for consciousness, then logically we cannot be aware or have consciousness post-death. The deeper question, where does consciousness go without the brain. Does it just linger in time and space, does it evolve into something else, does it transcend to space..who knows. I do not think the brain Produces consciousness, but I do think in order to have awareness we need the tool to make it work ie brain matter.
We will only know when we die.
I so sorry about your future death. Now let us pray 🙏 for non vexation of the soul. Thanks
@Dion: excuse for sounding somewhat silly but when you say consciousness is a product of the brain as most of us assume why is it hard to imagine that it is anything other than a product of matter when the brain where it seems to come from is also made of matter by itself?
@@goerizal1 not sure i understand your point
The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot..........Falun Dafa
Except for the fact that these states can be induced in people using techniques such as TMS. The brain is nearly a billion years of evolved complexity to survive, and it's so powerful it can predict things to the point of hallucinating them.
Conscious experience may be a seperate category (but practically may be a pointless question) but it is forever and inexorably reliant upon the matter it is made up of for its emergent phenomena.
There's absolutely zero substantive evidence to divorce matter and consciousness.
This is a wonderful life pursuit, thanks for bringing us these videos. I also don't have a problem with professors Chalmers and Searle saying almost opposite things.
The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot..........Falun Dafa
@@jeffforsythe9514 Curious why you're repeating that... and giving credit to a cult vs a human/pedant etc To belabor the metaphor, then we need to know what functions the sky itself and the terminals have.
I mostly agree with John. Consciousness seems to require at least some of the properties of the brain (processing, memory, input and output, etc) so for objects with small bandwidth like a fly, a much lesser consciousness will be experienced until essentially zero is reached in an object like a rock. This places plants, viruses, and computers in non-zero territory, right where they belong.
Humans are much better at the easy part, writing down equations (GR, QM), than optimizing the function's input for certain desired properties (Schwarzchild, Kerr, superconductors, consciousness, fine tuning) because optimization is a different class of problem called NP Hard.. because it's hard.. have patience
Love the history of CTT in this episode!
I used to firmly believe that we could explain consciousness through biology and materialism, until I hallucinated on DMT. I experienced a reality very different to ours. I communicated with beings, made out of energy. They were so advanced. This reality however crazy and mind-blowing, felt ridiculously real, more real than this reality. That experience forever changed my views of consciousness and the nature of reality.
Did you really? I don’t mean to be a snarky asshole. I mean didn’t you just take some substance that made your brain wiring kind of go haywire and give you pictures and experiences like a super Technicolor dream. I’m not saying that these experiences can be spiritually informing our life expanding but I’m not certain that it means that the actual substance of these experiences are true. I mean I’m all for it. Glimpsing into greater dimensions of reality. But can you say that these beings told you some thing that is real or provable or has a correlation to someone else’s experience of communicating with Being from the beyond? Other than a vague sense of oneness and wonder.
@@JohnnyArtPavlou supposedly everyone that does it has a very similar experience.. so much so that they have named the entities that are seen.
Daniel, okay, cool. A little independent verification. I dig that.
@@JohnnyArtPavlou lol.... yeah.... I guess on the question of is it just your brain firing... we could probably ask that question about everything else as well....
@@JohnnyArtPavlou I totally understand your reasoning. I would would wonder the same thing if I were you. But unfortunately, it's something that needs to be experienced to be understood. All I can say is that what I experienced was not a malfunction in my brain, but I saw complex beings and very intricate geometrical shapes that I can't even imagine now. They had technology so far advanced than any technology we can ever imagine. They had a very advanced way of communication. They didn't talk, but I could understand everything they were saying.
John Searle in 20 years can't come close to explaining it I think that speaks volumes. I believe the brain is a receiver and the more complex the biology of the brain the more information it receives and processes. I believe reality is an information field and conscienceless is part of that field.
I think so too - but I have argued that the way we respond to that information does not necessarily qualify us as Conscious - We call it that but we might just be reacting in a very complex way to the incoming information - in other words maybe we aren't actually even alive.... in the sense that we think we are alive.
That is a really interesting idea. I've thought of similar things.
"I believe the brain is a receiver..."
That obviously connotates a transmitter of some sort.
If it IS the case, are there transmitters for each biological brain that is conscious throughout the whole of reality? Just a single one with different simultaneous "frequencies"? Who or what created, operates and maintains it? Or is it something derived from the essence of the universe? Can that signal be tapped into, or changed?
Your stance sparks a ton more questions in me that I won't bore you with. I'm sure most of them are present in every mind that considers such an arrangement of consciousness being transmitted and received.
Good way to put it. Totally agree with the concept
Can I ask based on what? Also, what exactly is an information field?
Lack of oxygen to the brain will do crazy things, like cause hallucinations.
Some people will believe anything to make themselves feel better. Fighter pilots that pass out in g force simulators have out of body experiences. They weren't anywhere near death but had these experiences. Pointing to lack of oxygen to the brain as the cause of their hallucination.
Whinnery and his researchers placed pilots in gravitational centrifuges Ð similar to the much smaller equipment used to spin a vial of blood on a desktop Ð and examined how the G-forces affected their brains and bodies.
The scientists learned that during periods of rapid acceleration, a subject’s blood flows into his lower extremities and away from his brain. The resulting lack of oxygen leads to a period of unconsciousness that lasts on average 12 seconds, followed by another 12 seconds of disorientation.
“That’s 24 seconds that you don’t have control over your aircraft,” Whinnery said. “Twenty-four seconds was average. Some people were out a lot longer.”
They also asked the pilots to describe the symptoms they experienced while in the centrifuge or in flight. A clear pattern emerged. The first thing they experienced was tunnel vision, which results from a lack of blood flow to the eyes and is a precursor to a blackout. Then, while unconscious, many of the subjects experienced short, vivid dreams, or dreamlets. The dreams were often about past experiences or family and friends.
In addition to dreamlets, a significant number of pilots reported having out-of-body experiences. The subjects described the sensation of floating above their planes and looking down at their bodies. Sometimes the dreamlets and out-of-body experiences were accompanied by feelings of euphoria and warmth. Some subjects said they saw a bright light.
Surprised by his findings, Whinnery sought out scientific literature about reported out-of-body experiences. He found that out-of-body experiences were reported by cardiac arrest patients who were resuscitated. The pilots and heart attack victims had something in common: a momentary loss of blood to the brain.
The format of this piece is brilliant; following the progression (or lack thereof) of thought and research on the subject through years and decades is a vivid illustration of just how elusive and nuanced the concept of consciousness is and likely will remain.
I have out of body experiences, I am conscious of being me during these experiences. Due to this I know consciousness works through the brain but doesn't come from the brain.
While possible, that doesnt prove anything. I can imagine something, does that mean its actually happening?
@@enterpassword3313 I think the difference is this person had an experience vs imagination. You can either believe them or not but I do find it disheartening how these people who have had this happen to them are somewhat considered outcasts.
@@peacecraft3449 what are you talking about? Obviously thats the difference, I was asking how would you know the difference...
@@enterpassword3313 Ah I see, well I can say one thing from my own experience is when I was hallucinating on *something* I was very well aware that I was hallucinating. This checks out sometimes with other people who have had OBE and recognize its something other. An example is when we are dreaming we wont be aware of it until we wake up, while these people after they "woke up" still understand the OBE as something other than a dream.
@@peacecraft3449 but it was a hallucination though? Meaning you "saw or felt something that wasnt there" not sure why you think obe cant be illusionary. Im sure you can also think enough examples of illusions and strange sensory phenomenon where people are not aware they are hallucinating, magicians will often exploit these. That still doesnt mean obe and similar stuff is not evidence of something we dont understand like the op suggested.
ive had a lucid dream feel so real i didnt realise i was dreaming until i woke. Ive had even stranger things happen. Im not saying the way you are thinking of it is wrong, there is just a problem of "measuring experiencing" if that makes sense
There is no "gap", The Subjective(mind) and Objective(matter) experiences are KNOWN. That which KNOWS both, IS what we call CONSCIOUSNESS. We believe that we are the MIND and BODY, so we misinterpret the data. As a result, our Science and Spirituality are materialistic. We do not realize we are EXPERIENCE itself. All that we can say about ourselves, and all that we can say about the world is KNOWN by us. "We" are literally EXPERIENCE itself, everyone of us experiences this. EXPERIENCE (itself) is prior to what is EXPERIENCED. Whatever we decide to call the experience and its contents, is simply KNOWN. That simple KNOWING or EXPERIENCE is "us". The aspect of yourself (subjective), that is currently reading this comment(objective), IS prior to the comment.
I know it sounds like I'm speaking in circles. All this "double speak" is because we are attempting to speak about something that cannot be spoken about. Language is one of those KNOWN things, therefore, it cannot be used to know what was prior to it.
I love this series. I sometimes wonder how time factors into theories of consciousness. For example, what is "now" and where does it go to? Our consciousness experience is linked to this body while at the same time, we are part of an infinite and eternal universe, existing in the moment.
Consciousness is flow of energy
What the hell is the present? It makes no senses.
In this episode, particularly the final statement you make, you are finally getting closer to truth. Fabulous poetry my friend.
The interviewer has the best job in the world!!
Regarding John Searle. Exploring something with objective, scientific reasoning means going into it WITHOUT bias. If you go into inquiry with your mind made up you force the data to fit the mold you have created in your mind. David Chalmers seems to delve into this with open eyes and an open mind.
Science means exploring an answer rigorously, whether or not you're biased. If you're rigorous enough your bias can't matter. That's why science is useful.
Can anyone do that. I'd like to meet them
@@cosmicHalArizona Unconscious bias is easily overcome by conscious unbias.
this guy has an over-the-top nerdy walk, so you know this documentary is legit! it's the equivalent of having animated graphs and numbers in an infomercial
If people use those criteria to evaluate the legitimacy of claims....that explains many things about the digital dark period of our times.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 if peope can't understand an innocent joke, that tells a lot of bla bla..
Lmfaoooooo
Nobel laureate Kip Thorne says our universal wavefunction of our currently observed reality is calculated at the fifth dimension. I've always said this is where these contradictions are resolved. Brilliant video!
The conviction and vigor with which John Searle speaks is really impressive.
Thank you for making videos like these it was really helpful, to the point where I had a better understanding of myself and the environment I’m constantly in 🎉.
I’ve read a few of Searle’s papers. He changed my view on perceptual reality completely.
The key is studying non local consciousness such as NDE, OBE, Past Life Experiences and Remote Viewing.
😂
Better question, what is consciousness.
pink floyd
"The inherent deception in all conceptions
of consciousness
can be traced to the suffix "ness".
This is sometimes referred to as the
"ness" lock monster."
-- Carlos Dwa (From The Unwritten Book: Xellex {the best damn science fiction novel I ever read}).
Consciousness has the same relationship to reality as the "runningness" of a person that can run. There are things that are conscious, but consciousness is merely a concept, and one that is the foundation of as much and similar bullshit as the word spirit/spiritual used to be responsible for.
@fynes leigh You think you understood what I wrote, but you didn't.
@fynes leigh Not really that complicated. Despite your egotistic reaction to being told you did not understand something. Consciousness is not real.
@fynes leigh Not imitation on my part: projection on yours. You are not commenting on someone or something "out there" you are talking about yourself. . . . such mechanical reactions. And your neoGurdjieffian rhetoric is tedious and boring, as are your psuedo-mystical fantasies. Sweet dreams. . . .
There are numerous pieces of evidence supporting materialism, not mentioned here. That is everything we observe when the brain does not function properly. Like when the brain is physically harmed by an accident, a stroke, a brain tumor or otherwise. It is what happens when brain cells die, like in Alzheimer's diease. It it is what happens when the brain is intoxicated by any kind of mind-altering substance. In all such cases, the mind itself seems to be altered when the brain is, and in a quite predictable manner. Those are the evidence we cannot really get away from.
On the other hand are there evidence for dualism as well. The most striking may be near death experiences. Those evidence may be refuted as anecdotal. But a huge pile if anecdotes may turn into substatial evidence. NDOs differ a lot in their contents. They resemble dreams to some degree. But it is still hard to explain how they come to be. They emerge when the brain is in such a state that it should not be able to produce any conscious experiences at all. A person in coma normally does not have dreams. The theory that NDOs emerge when brain cells start to die off can easily be refuted on the basis that people who have had those experiences normally come back to with no substantial brain damage.
One possible way of puzzling those contradicting pieces together could be to suggest that as long as the brain is functional, the consciousness is bound to the brain and is subverted under the processes of the brain, but when the brain stops functioning, the mind is somehow able to break loose and exist without the brain.
An interesting question in such case is if primitive organisms that have consciousness connected to their nervous system like we have, also have a mind that is able to exist without the brain, or if that is a property only humans are in posession of. Since we cannot ask animals about their possible NDEs, that question is probably hard to investigate.
The brain is equal to the TV and radio receiver - while consciousness is the contents of the entire universal existence (LIFE FORCE)
Obviously...
Being conscious is a process - not a content.
The being conscious process has so far been a sub-process of the living process.
(This may not of necessity always be the case).
It would take a philosopher to explain to me the difference between panpsychism and animism. Seems to me we've just gone full-circle, with perhaps the oldest explanation for consciousness becoming one of the newest. No matter what trappings you hang on it - spirits living in rocks, streams and trees, or quantum mechanics as an explanation for everything being aware - it's not scientific, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe we sense it on a deep level, and then pile layers of BS on top of it. That would be your "religion."
i don't wanna invalidate any beliefs here but quantum mechanics is actually a field of research dedicated to studying particle physics- like subatomic particles and probability type stuff, and doesn't reallly touch on things like trying to explain consciousness- at least not so much as trying to understand what the stuff we're made of and interact with is doing- our brains are big and fleshy and made of carbon based cells, and even the dna in those cells are too big for anything to be happening on a quantum scale.. sorry for being a nerd at you but TLDR: brains and consciousness by proxy, are macroscale and quantum mechanics is all microscale, therefore the two are unrelated !
@@milkcherry5191 How are they unrelated, if that macro is made of that micro? Seems a bit weird way to look at things. Some kind of artificial, forceful and provisory separation.
@@milkcherry5191 Watch his interview with Penrose. I don't accept his position but it does show that it might not be irrelevant to quantum mechanics.
@@milkcherry5191 Quantum mechanics *does* touch on consciousness, though. Because we know fundamental particles aren't conscious. A photon can't be conscious because it does not experience time. An electron, if conscious, has exactly the same experience as every other electron in the entire universe, because they're all fungible. Anyone who thinks physics says nothing about panpsychism is ignorant of a great deal of fundamental physics.
Loss of brain/damage causally correlates to loss of cognitive function, emotional response, sensory, motor and memory functions.
What is affected is even predictable by the location, mode and extent of damage.
so, yes.
Able Baker correct and a powerful argument.
Nothing of those is or require consciousness. Without consciousness you could do whatever you can do, just without knowing it as it should be.
Able Baker that only goes to highlight the limitations of the brain, that doesn’t refute the real and immaterial subjective quality of consciousness
A robot can react to color and sound. That does not mean that it has consciousness.
@@Brosky1998
So, if someone dies from brain injury or disease... Does their consciousness live on in a chronic vegetative state?
Re: 14:00 and the critique of Pan Psychism.
I'll make the assumption that Pan Psychism isn't a thoroughly metaphysical / idealist standpoint and that it concedes a nexus between an "immaterial" consciousness and (in the Human Being for this example) the physical matter of - at least - the brain.
If that reading is correct I am missing something in professor Searle's objection to this stance.
Is it not possible that the "discreet units of consciousness" are arbitrated by the limits of the physical properties of a given brain?
We can conceive , in a Kantian sense, that the noumenal becomes phenomenal - that we can perceive a table, for example, as "a table" rather than the kinetic riot of electrons and quarks that constitute the table at quantum levels - purely because the physical make up and structuring of our brains (and, by extension, our resultant senses), "translate" existence in the distinct way they do.
Because we more readily perceive the table as opposed to the atoms that constitute the table it doesn't follow that we dismiss the existence of the atoms.
If a television programme is broadcast in high definition colour, the fact that I am watching the programme on a 1970s black and white television set - and thus cannot receive the broadcast in either colour or high definition - should not lead me to conclude that the broadcast is not occurring in high definition colour in the initial.
Rather, logic would surely have it that the limitation is with the receiver and not the broadcast.
Is it not therefore possible in logic that the physical brain functions so as to receive and "translate" rather than "create" ex nihilo or sui generis?
Another interesting point I did not hear entertained was the phenomena of neural plasticity. By consciously thinking about something a person can rewire his neural pathways, no sense perception necessary. This means a person is able to change the structure of his brain by using intentional thought .
If we can change our brain by focused thinking then what is doing the thinking? What is it that is changing the brain? Can it be another part of the brain? I'd like to hear a neuroscientist's opinion and some research. Personally, I think consciousness is non-local and merely perceived by the brain-body structure.
Receive and translate what? That's just adding an extra layer of reality without a distinct and articulable reason why is needed or how it would work. Pan-psychism isn't nonsense just because there's no evidence of it, but because it raises as many questions as it purports to answer.
Hope for all good thanks for your time and support GOD Bless always 🙏🙏🙏🌍💜💜💜
Some people watch the news every day, I watch closer to truth!
We take out the subjective element of reality in making science an ‘objective’ description. Science can therefore only ever be a partial description - a “view from nowhere”! Yet, empirical reality is always a subjective view from somewhere. Having removed all subjectivity, why do we think that subjective experiences can ever be reduced to an objective “view from nowhere” description through science?
Whereas David Chalmers seems willing to face up to the problems inherent in Panpsychism, John Searle never addresses the problems inherent in physicalism. His straw man dismissal of Panpsychism is almost dishonest.
Correct! This is the problem of an eye trying to look at itself. Looking in a mirror naturally causes distortion.
As a Panpsychist, I'd love to ask Dr. Searle - if consciousness is resultant from material universal processes, what is the "source" of this material? And of course, I'm sure "the big bang" would be the obvious answer, but what was the source of that? It comes down to what is the absolute source of the experience, which we all subjectively know reduces to the non-physical.
Paul Marek *St Thomas Aquinas has joined the chat
There's simply no justification for assuming that, it's just an assertion. We simply don't have any evidence for how the universe and time emerged on which to base an opinion.
Panpsychism by the way could be entirely reconcilable with materialism through Information Integration Theory. If you reject materialism and believe consciousness has a non-physical origin then you are almost certainly a dualist, who might also be a panpsychist.
@@simonhibbs887 Wow. Thanks for this. I've really been taking a deep inner dive on this issue over the last few weeks - sparked by this video - and what I keep reducing it to is fundamental source. What is the fundamental source of material existence and conscious experience? And where I keep ending up is - God - but not ooga booga God - I mean fundamental source God. So why would there be God? (Why is there a why?) From a mere mortal's perspective, fundamental source God makes sense when considering the dualistic nature you've described as a means to knowing one's own Absolute Supremacy as a Creator through the combined experience of experiencing the self from the material and the non-physical conjointly.
Check out Papers 108 to 112 at Urantia.org for a much better articulation of this idea.
According to parmenides, there is no spurse it is eternal
I've watched a number of these video and I still believe consciousness is external to the brain. To believe that consciousness is the equivalency to our digestive system is, to me, so close-minded, it's astonishing. John Searle is the kind of guy that will dismiss all UFO/UAP to human error - period. I don't get why he even attends these discussions.
I agree. A sperm is conscious as it knows / has a sense of where to go yet has no brain...
@@olwynnsay237 I don't think that's what this guy is saying. He seems to be suggesting that consciousness floats around in the atmosphere somehow, independent of anything other than itself. In other words, nutjob territory.
@@wthomas7955 he's trolling
@@wthomas7955 A bit like saying someone theorising TV, mobile phones, radio, etc before they were invented, speculating invisible waves could somehow exist in the atmosphere, total nut jobs.
@@phild249 None of those things is independent of anything other than itself. Try again.
Brain is only tool we have to understand and handle. So at least we can make it efficient before difficult journey. Going unprepared on unknown explorations it not a sensible approaches. All possibilities needs to be kept in mind.
this was very revealing
» "Man can't rely on only his senses to perceive 'reallity' "
Stop looking externally for truth, you won’t find much. The only answers that can be found are deep inside of us all
Not sure what you mean. But I hope you mean more than navel gazing.
@@donjindra She doesnt means you . You need another 5.000 years to grow
@@alchemist6392 Did you read tea leaves for that bit of information?
@donjindra no he read your mother's pubic hairs
This discussion is best left for after we can even imagine coming up with a proper definition of consciousness. Until then its just screaming across a cliff and explaining what the echo says.
Well said, and for obvious reasons, given that no apprehending apparatus or human being can directly immediately personally apprehend the apprehensions (Or experiences) of another apprehending apparatus, or human being. Reason, consciousness or self-awareness, apart from being relative is an experience, and none can experience the experiences of others - for screamingly obvious reasons.
@H D
What I meant was a definition that can help an outsider determine if something has consciousness or not. And the problem with doing that is exactly what you described is the problem with tree "consciousness". We think other humans have consciousness because they behave like ourselves. Is that all it takes to determine if something is conscious or not, a similarity of external behaviour ? How much similar is enough and why ? What behaviours count as being "aware" on the part of an entity that it is seperate from everything else and why? What about AI that can behave extremely similar to a human ? Are they conscious ? All I'm saying is that we have troubles agreeing to what to even consider as qualifiers of consciousness for an external observer, if there can be any at all either as well.
@H D
You can tell me whatever you want to but fact remains that AI can behave very similar to humans in a lot of ways. And all we can do is measure external observations. Whether an AI is "conscious" or not, whether it only "seems intelligent" but "actually isn't" or not, whether it can "think" or what "concepts" it has etc. are in no way observable to an external observer, so anybody can tell anything about those things and all would be equally valid...and pointless. All we can do is observe external behaviours and according to those things AI can be very similar to humans. Now how much similar means it is conscious or whether such a limit can be found at all is still up for debate because of the reason I said before...we don't have any way of defining consciousness so that it can be identified by an external observer.
@H D
And I'm not talking about anything being "human", only being "conscious". And a lot of things in science is ultimately just an idea, a human concept. That doesn't mean that they can't be a physical object that can't be defined or identified. They are of course deduced indirectly but that doesn't make them subjective either. An example would be X-ray. This of course doesn't mean that consciousness can be objectively defined, or that it can't be objectively defined. We just don't know enough about it say those kinds of things.
Stupid statement
I have been trying to track down the Intro music but to no avail.....the credits say its Joseph Schwantner but it does not say what specific piece? Does anyone know the exact name of the intro music?
I love this series, and Robert Kuhn's dogged quest for an answer to these momentous questions.
Thanks, I enjoy your videos. with respect to the two recent videos about consciousness, please make a third defining what you mean by consciousness. If we can't agree whether a monkey or a dog or a flea or a bacterium or a rock or a proton is conscious, how can we explain what it is? Why should we even try to explain something when we don't even know what we are trying to explain? All progress in philosophical subjects comes from and requires refining the definitions of what we are trying to explain. When you can define consciousness you will have your answer, and looking to quantum physics or whatever is putting the cart before the horse. At least answer this: what do we expect from an "explanation" of consciousness? What should it do?
I could be wrong.. but I think the inquiry is about the subjective experience that "I am", the experience that "I exist".
in my opinion the best definition of consciousness is: person A is conscious if and only if it feels like something to be person A. if it feels like something to be an electron, then electrons are conscious (of course we currently have no reasons to believe that it feels like something to be an electron, so we assume they aren't conscious).
Yes. Just as a magnet alone can demonstrate effects beyond its physical boundaries. But just like a magnet; no magnet - no magnetic field, no brain - no computational field.
Is computation the same as consciousness?
@@neilcreamer8207 I have no idea. But I do know that it's not NOT computation. Right? Consciousness/awareness is processing something. I really am only guessing here, but the alternatives all seem to rhyme with magic and I just can't accept that.
@@tecnoblix Consciousness is a name we give to either experience or the capacity for it. There's no reason to believe that computation or processing is involved. How are you defining magic?
@@neilcreamer8207 It's true that language is one of our primary barriers, but withing the language we use there are clues. Words like "experience" and "capacity". Those are both active kinds of computation. Now, using some of our "capacity" to reason you point out that "There's no reason to believe that computation is involved". That's an assertion that is based on what I have to assume is a mystical wish belief. There is ample reason to believe that computation and processing are involved. That is the whole basis for the scientific method. That would be similar to me saying that there's no reason to believe that computers use processing or computation. Everything we see is an example of why it's probable that consciousness is a matter of computation and processing! It's clearly a reach to EVER suggest otherwise. Now, that doesn't mean it couldn't be, but if that's the first thing you reach for than it's an obvious bias to do so.
The amazing thing to me is that the human brain consistently and across cultures refuses to believe that it is capable of producing a mind.
Because it doesn't.
@@galoobigboi Well if that is true, then why does brain damage change the mind? Or old age, or drugs? Please don't say that it is because you have altered the ability to pick up consciousness on my meat radio.
We still have those that feel they have something more than a mind generated by brain activity, and an accompanying meat suit. They are so attached to ego that they believe they have souls.
@@AlexC-ss9qf Depends on what perspective you want someone to argue from how they answer that question. If I were an idealist I would say that the brain is how our consciousness experiences a material reality, as such if the brain is damaged the consciousness is effected. That merely establishes correlation not causation.
An objection I would raise to you is if consciousness is a product of the brain why do split brain patients have only 1 consciousness? Why does the brain change to the wills of the consciousness, numerous studies have shown that CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) works as good as drugs do. Why would this be the case if the brain created consciousness? CBT involves immaterial things (thoughts and the like) yet somehow these immaterial things have a real effect on the material world.
On top of this the Visual Binding Problem is a massive problem, the entire visual system has been mapped out and nowhere can we find where visuals unite to create a unified perception. Unless Quantum Biology (a fairly new field of study) finds an explanation for this, then this problem will remain unsolvable to materialist.
@@cam553 actually it's the opposite. The ego people think they are just a meat suit which is illogical, small mind thinking.
I wish Robert a very long and healthy life. And here's my prediction. In 20, 30, 40 years, Robert will be doing exactly this episode again and again.
I do know this - Daves’ looks plus his philosophical background would fit in perfectly with the current line up of Yes . 😁
I know that the brain does not produce consciousness.
Several years ago I drowned and became separated from my body, yet I was still me. I was not the body. My consciousness was not dependent on the body/mind.
@fynes leigh I am not trying to be plausible. I'm just narrating something I experienced.
@fynes leigh Reality is subjective experience.
@@jonathankelley542 Obviously and necessarily, but it rather depends on what you seek to convey by or mean by the word "reality.
If you ever get anyone using that word "reality" to you and I suggest you ask them to set out clearly what they mean by or seek to convey by that particular word "reality, or you could ask them to define reality, but the chances are all you will get is a synonym of or cognate for the*word*reality because when people use words they very rarely have the faintest idea what they mean by them or seek to convey by them.
It inevitably begs the question "who is reality", and that depends on how you understand yourself to apprehend or experience that which can be apprehended.
The word reality itself is not particularly interesting, but the psychology of whoever uses it is particularly interesting, but it tells you something about what they appear to assume or believe.
Since no apprehending apparatus or human being or man, can directly immediately personally apprehend the apprehensions or experiences of another apprehending apparatus, inevitably you can only wonder what reality is "for him himself.
If you are going to examine the idea of reality and what lies behind it, it is meaningless unless it refers to what a particular apprehending apparatus or man or human being is apprehending, and since he cannot have any idea whatsoever what another apprehending apparatus is apprehending - and a very fortunate thing that is, you can only make assumptions presumptions or believe something about that, since it cannot conceivably directly immediately personally (as directly immediately personally as pain) apprehend the apprehensions of another apprehending apparatus, and I wonder if you can understand *why* that is extremely fortunate. It is remarkably obvious why it is extremely fortunate, or let us say desirable state of affairs.
Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor
does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance
and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man-”world”, (or it could be “reality”).
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, world, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on thisword and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said “embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together, that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they had not thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a
group of contemporary people, even from among those
who have received so to say “a good education,” to state
exactly how they each understand the word “world,” (or it could as easily be “reality”) they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one
would recall even having one’s finger nails pulled out with pliers with a certain tenderness.
I can proffer a fairly clear and simple definition of reality and simultaneously what I seek to convey by or mean by, reality.
Can you?
The interesting thing, and it really is interesting, is how to approach the idea of reality or the word reality, without necessarily imagining believing or assuming something about the experiences or apprehensions of apprehending apparatuses other than oneself, and necessarily that must involve assuming and all believing because it is self evidently impossible to apprehend anything of the apprehensions of other apprehending apparatuses, and I wonder if you can understand why that is an extremely desirable or likeable or good state of affairs.
Not only must whatever reality is conceived to be by a particular individual necessarily and inevitably be an experience or apprehension of sorts, it can only be an experience or apprehension of sorts, and since an apprehending apparatus cannot apprehend anything of the apprehensions of other apprehending apparatuses, it must necessarily - as you correctly say, be subjective because it cannot conceivably be anything *else* depending on how you understand the word "reality" which is merely a symbol for an idea or experience.
Would you agree or suppose that it would appear and I can put it no higher than appear, that when some human beings use the word "reality" they seem to be assuming or believing that it is something that somebody else (other than themselves) experiences or Apprehends?
Is it not difficult enough to come to some understanding of what associations particular words evoke in oneself?
Does not the word "mean" inevitably and only imply or embrace, or connote the associations that are evoked in associating apparatus, or man or human being?
I entirely agree with you that whatever you mean or whatever anyone means by "reality" must necessarily be subjective, and I wonder if you can set out precisely why you make that proposition, and I would be interested to see your reasoning or how you arrive at that proposition.
Would it be a huge imposition to ask you to expatiate on that particular matter?
.
Your brain wasn’t dead. Oxygen deprivation, and possibly some DMT, will alter consciousness
@@vhawk1951kl I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here; and, considering the length of your post, I doubt you do either. Look into structuralist linguistics if you want your own ideas enunciated much more clearly. I dare you to take your thinking to its ultimate conclusion: you'll fall right into Kant. Reality: subjective experience. It's that simple. Man, after all, each man, is a microcosm--a little universe--in which the entirety of reality (all possible subjective experience) is afforded. If you really want my thoughts (and your thoughts for that matter), just read Kant.
you know when evaluating this thing called "substance" its really just oscillations in quantum fields existing in relationship with the speed of causality (aka the speed of light or relative time) this lead me to a more buddhist view point, I can view the real self as this one particular arrangement of quantum oscillations in these fields or I can see my true self as the fields themself. I am not a man experiencing the universe, I am the universe experiencing a man and so are you.
I feel like people who explain consciousness with quantum... anything just can't be bothered to study biology. It's kind of sad hearing Penrose saying it's the "microtubules or something" that are small enough to experience quantum effects and kind of look like strings. Clearly he's out of this area. By the way, psychology is my area, and there is no far transfer of intelligence.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos its actually pretty simple to explain consciousness with biology its just and emergent property of more fundamental neurochemical interactions. but the real question is what is the proper description of the interaction and corralations between conscious experience and objective reality, how does our brain turn environmental stimuli into the qualia of existence. what pendrose is saying is not that if certain biological interactions occur on a quantum scale them quantum physics is a part of the question.
its endless
Consciousness is the epiphenomenon produced by matter and spirit. Brain alone can perform many things such as responding to stimuli, robotic types of "intelligent behaviour" such as playing chess, pack and social behaviour, etc. But higher states of consciousness and deep self-awareness needs something beyond just the "hardware".
The frequency of our DNA is our uplink to the cloud computing capacity of our brains. Thanks for understanding.
Thank you for your project, Robert
To answer this question quicker than the video, the answer is yes, the brain is the only place where conciousness occurs.
apparently the people in the video have not read Oliver Sack's books on how how brain damage can dramatically change consciousness.
@@eniszita7353 I haven’t read that book. I thought consciousness is awareness of the self. Saying so, every experience changes the self.
@@anthonycraig274 He is a doctor specializing in patients with brain injury. Brain injuries can dramatically change your concept of consciousness and awareness suddenly and far beyond what 'life experience' can. One of his books is "the man who mistook his wife for a hat"
@@eniszita7353 Thanks for the reply. I’ll check the review and put it on my wish list.
At the moment I am still quite ignorant, I have only read 2 books about this.
@@eniszita7353 I am currently reading Anki Seth’s book Being You, A new science of consciousness
Yes, next question.
My OpenMind mm hmm
My OpenMind lmao I remember when I was a 13 year old atheist too
@@Brosky1998 haha that was a wonderful time
Brosky 1998 actually I work in the field of neuroscience. I’ve a medical degree. We’ve never been able to show the existence of the soul.
I was 12 when I stopped believing god(s). I just woke up from Christianity realising it was all just a big charade. That was over 35 years ago now. I’ve done my research and due diligence. Hence the short initial answer.
When you are trying to UNDERSTAND Consciousness, who is trying to understand Consciousness? It's you means your Conscious Mind is trying to understand by using your brain. So by analysing brain's activity you will find your understanding process of Consciousness but not Consciousness itself.
"The problem is how you interpret the data." The 'mind-body problem' is something I studied and contemplated long before this gathering of experts. In the early 1970s I took a number of courses on the subject in psychology and philosophy, it still puzzled me for years later. The only advantage of the mind-body investigation is what it can reveal about our ignorance. Not knowing and the search for knowledge has a habit of directing human contemplation is a milieu of distractive activities. Instead of relying strictly upon the data [by which I mean empirical evidence] imagination can waste a lot of time and resources looking for explanations that have no basis in known fact. One should recall Occam's Razor which claims [in general] the simplest answer is the most likely. By adding such things as disembodied [supernatural] intelligence that can't be studied only complicates the entire inquiry. "Interpreting the data" in such a way to conclude there must be something else other than physics, what is known about the physical universe, steps into a realm known as "jumping to conclusions" which normally abandons the scientific method of drawing conclusions from what is known. Even considering what's known [or not] about quantum entanglement there is no reason to believe at this point that it is somehow related to disembodied intelligence. "Spirit" is nothing more than an emotional construct utilized to infuse a confused mind with a degree of security about one's own demise. If speculation is a necessity to guide investigation, then it should be a mechanism to stick to what has some basis in what can or already has been "proven". Let the data and not the absence of data guide knowledge. If at such a time empirical evidence does make a direct connection to the non-physical and that non-physical exhibits direct relationships to what can be considered intellect [of which there is no evidence whatsoever] introduction and utilization of the speculative supernatural is not scientific inquiry.
But we have not made any progress on consciousness. I was struck by Searle's observation that both dualists and scientific materialists fall into the same trap. I was toying with a similar through recently, the hard core materialists who I think deny the 'hard problem' of conciseness, kind of have this weird world view which turns the original sceptical argument on its head, i.e. that of which I can be certain (i.e. the contents of my conciseness) are an illusion, only things of which I cannot be certain are real - reminds me of the old joke about two behaviourists meeting on the street, with the greeting " You feel fine. How do I feel?"
Also, why should Occam's razor be true, isn't there a quote along the lines of "many a young biologist, nearly cut their throat with Occam's Razor" - meaning they were lead in the wrong direction? You can see it being a condition for a good explanation, especially in a world of limited resources, but what does it necessarily have to do with reality? I suggest reading David Hoffman if you haven't already.
@@johnsawdonify Occam's razor is not a 'truth' statement. It's intended as a guide in the pursuit of knowledge. What is 'true' to a considerable extent is the phenomenon we intelligent beings seem predisposed to complicating thing in our search for answers. Take for example a premature explanation for the origin of the material universe. Instead of a commitment to finding a 'natural' explanation based upon observable and measurable real-world phenomena, in order to comfort or own fragile egos we invent the supernatural of which there never is or will be an understanding because material beings using material methods are incapable of 'proving' anything about a supernatural entities or existence. Thus the supernatural leads to no demonstrative conclusions other than mere opinion. As we all should know, due to flaws in perception, without evidence conclusions are too often flawed as well. On the subject of consciousness and applying Occam's Razor, it does make more sense to draw temporary hypotheses about that phenomenon that the explanation of it is nothing more than a phenomenon of biology we do not as yet understand. It least that hypothesis bases that on what is already known about how the brain works. I don't buy the idea that consciousness and brain being two separate phenomena. The evidence weights far more heavily in the direction of consciousness is an epiphenomenon, a manifestation of brain functioning as yet unknown in its full complexity. Drawing such a reasonable conclusion eliminates myths such as 'spirits', ghosts, demons, angels, gods, etc. Unfortunately, the impulsiveness of human nature makes us predisposed to draw conclusions on little to no evidence. We seem to have to have an answer no matter how ill informed it might be. That aspect of human nature has delivered to our species all forms of destruction.
@@SOMAnxg both you and John Sawdon are full of unsubstantiated blah blah blah. I am too tired and lazy at the moment to engage either of you in a point by point discussion, however, if you wish to engage me at a future time (either close or far) I would be happy to show you the error of your ways. Maybe you would like to know that it is impossible for me to deny there being a God. NOBODY can tell me there is no God. To me that's just crazy.
@@garychartrand7378 People have believed all kinds of crazy things in the past. For example for a very long time people were Convinced the sun revolved around the Earth. 400 yrs ago they were proven wrong with factual, empirical data. For perhaps longer than that people were convinced that time was constant. Einstein demonstrated that is wrong. People used to believe that lightning was the spear of Zeus. Thanks to science it is now known lighting is an imbalance of charged particles (electrons) in the atmosphere. The existence of god is supported by No evidence. Not even the existence if the Earth or living creatures is evidence of the supernatural (god). I suspect you don't want to engage with anyone with different ideas (even though they can support their claims with evidence) because you don't really have any valid counter claims. In any case...be well.
i dont think many understand the WORK you are doing ,Thank You
Hey Robert, its 2021!! time to talk to them again after 7 years.
"Cogito, ergo sum "
"I think, therefore I am".
" Je pense, donc je suis"
René Descartes : Discourse on the Method
And in deep sleep state you seize to exist 😂
John Searle talks about being victims of our traditions, but he's totally in the thrall of reductionism. The idea that if you pull stuff apart small enough you implicitly understand it. That's useful as far as it goes, but it isn't how we experience the world. Nor are panpsychism and materialism the only concepts on offer. Idealism insists that conscious awareness does not exist in the brain, but the brain in consciousness. There is only consciousness. That does at least reflect what consciousness feels like, it is proliferating, nor reducible, able to send craft into space and paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
It requires huge faith and considerable prejudice to believe that the brain produces consciousness like the liver makes bile.
Searle seems to talk assertively iand quickly (one thing to the next) n a way that prevents the listener from having time to absorb what he is actually saying. Probably does it unconsciously. However his arguements have as many gaps in them as those he disagrees with.
Nope.. I don't think so..
Why should conscious be other than an emergent feature of the brain and body..
I know we want there to be more but nothing in my oppion indicates that.
Our brain constructs a version reality to which it reacts..
A conscious fits into the universe like a moth fits into the physical world.
I have a hard time to believe what else should be there.
@@svendtang5432 If you are correct, reality exists entirely and exclusively in your head. What you describe as "the physical world", are dyspeptic illusions formed by chemicals and electrical impulses. Useful as a placeholder, but no one behaves as if it were true. It would mean reality is unknowable, which is the opposite of what materialists claim.
@@borderlands6606 you misunderstood.. My bad.. The brain creates a version of the existing reality, it does not create a new reality..
It's bound by the physical aspects of that reality (with some exceptions as such as strong delusions or severe mental illness )..
Emergent is the keyword.. Like a beach where the waves craft the cliff into strange shapes.. Here the brain is creating a construct that makes it easier for us to survive and this, as all things evolving is not perfect, so it sometimes misfires and have sideeffects not only bad ones.
We seek patterns, we predict, we plan, we act..
And we are social creatures so we have love and commitment.
Art, music and culture is often in earlier cultures a way of bonding get cohesion in the group..
Later in our development when we had less emphasis on the group it is a way of seeking status..
The greater the complexity and cooperation the more conscious the organism. It is perfectly possible in my view that there are fields of consciousness that can be measured should a sufficiently complex organism reach it. Just like gravity for example, should an object reach the required mass its impact on gravity can be measured.
Keep up with your obsession, Dr. Kuhn. Good job.
Good stuff!
Love to know John's view of the simulation theory.
Seems the Matrix is beyond his ken.
I think John’s premise that panpsychism means that his “belt is conscious” is completely misunderstanding it. If his premise is false, then his conclusion must be false also. No one is saying that inanimate objects are conscious like humans are, yet this guy over decades still can’t get that straight in his head.
Related question: Why am I this particular consciousness, rather than some other consciousness.
All our cells die and renew through life so why are we still the same person if the machine has been replaced?
maybe because...its your consciousness...lol
That's not as profound as it seems. An ovum was fertilized by a sperm, resulting in a zygote. That zygote eventually grow into you Tis. If a different sperm fertilized the ovum, or the same sperm fertilized a different ovum, a different person other than you would exist with a different consciousness.
Consciousness isn't nearly as significant as we assume it is. It's a unique personal characteristic on a continuum like hair color, height, etc. Consciousness is a more complicated characteristic, but the principle is the same.
@@Dazuk2023 how do you know that 'you' are the same 'you' you were before. When you sleep at night, your old self dies, but the memories get transferred to the new 'you', when you wake up in the morning, you have the illusion that 'you' are the 'you' you were yesterday.
@@User-xw5mk We might be reloaded daily and never know.
Great content!
Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter.
So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.
I would accept the material explanation of consciousness if they could explain how a memory gets stored in the brain, which neurons are involved, what kind of code is used to make them understandable to a person, which seems to be beyond current neuroscience. And yet, they say there must be such things going on in the brain, there can't be any other explanation.
Sure take a course on Neuroscience or visit the huge data base on Neurosciencenews and search for "how the brain does it.
So even if all the evidence point to the necessary and sufficient role of the brain you are using an Argument from ignorance fallacy to reject that fact?
You make a good point, what is the mechanism we use in which we can put parts of memories together to form a coherent memory of the past.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you are making an argument from necessity, without sufficient evidence. Thank you for saying I need to do a course, without giving any argument which addresses my main point.
The clear fingerprint of quantum fluctuations recorded and measured on the CMB, plainly refutes the argument that quantum mechanics is somehow 'created' by a conscious observer.
In what ways? Please explain.
recorded and measured you say? are you suggesting the observer of fluctuations demonstrated by the recording and measuring was not aware they were making an observation?
@@fridgemagnet exactly. If one is aware of such an observation, you must be conscious. I don't understand in what way he meant that.
@lewSheen also have a go through wheeler's delayed choice experiment.
@Lew Sheen also it would be good if you can provide the link of a valid scientific article or paper supporting this claim.
@@vaishakh7737 obviously the collapse of the wave function happens within the von Neumann-Wigner chain (observation tool, rotes and cones of eyes, neurons and subliminal computation, then final consciousness) it seems highly unluckily that consciousness is the point of collapse. plus we know very little about the superposition because every attempt of testing will change the results, but hey it could be consciousness we don't actually know.
Brain and mind are different categories. Like hardware and software.
You are basic as fuck! Y advertise?
The problem is that ppl without proper knowledge will go around affirming things they assume as the ultimate truth. We must be open to new ideas because the reality is that we do not know about it.
"Engine and horse power are different categories" Pointing out the obvious doesn't help the conversation. The brain produces mind properties like the engine produces torque and horse power.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Contrary to brain, mind properties are unknown. Neurosurgeons work miracles, the connoisseurs of the mind do not go beyond the Socratic "I know I know nothing", Freud pushed secrets into the subconscious without explaining anything, much like Jung to archetypes. And I do not know why I am delighted with music, sometimes Daniel Barenboim points out to something, that it is ravishing, but I do not know why. This is just an example - music completely unnecessary for existence.
@@stangadomski
-"mind properties are unknown"
-what does that even mean?????
-"Neurosurgeons work miracles, the connoisseurs of the mind do not go beyond the Socratic "I know I know nothing""
-You know that we know how to design surgery protocols and address the pathology in a such a way that we know it will improve our patients mental states...right?
You know that we have medicine and treatments that ....again.... succesfully improve the quality of our conscious states.
-" Freud pushed secrets into the subconscious without explaining anything, much like Jung to archetypes. "
-Well you are talking about psychoanalysis and psychiatry of the past when the relevant fields are Neuroscience and Neuropsychoanalysis of the last 20 years!
-"And I do not know why I am delighted with music, sometimes Daniel Barenboim points out to something, that it is ravishing, but I do not know why. "
-We can analyze and explain people's subjective preferences. Why we like something is a complex process but we can identify the "agents" and conditions responsible for our preferences.
i.e some people hate spicy food...turns out it helps NOT to be a super taster(have a tongue with a huge number of taste buds.). We can also profile your blood and see how your endorphins react to a tasty ''threat"!. Are your glands producing more glucocorticoids or adrenaline. Does your brain correlates spice foods with previous happy experiences? You see...We know stuff!!!!!!.we may not know everything but we can not say that everything is a mystery...so lets make up a bigger mystery to explain it.!
Excelente! Muchas gracias.
Excellent. Thanks 👍 😊
How is it that the universe through the human brain (since we are part of the universe) is able to acknowledge its own existence? Theres only one explanation that makes sense and that is we exist in a duel universe, a physical and conscious universe, the universe is conscious and our brains are nothing more than receivers of and able to tune into that conscious aspect.
The brain is a construct of consciousness. As is the whole 3d universe.
ps: I'll take John von Neumann over John Searle any day of the week when it comes to quantum physics.
Everything has value, everything is One .... Consciousness ,material, empty, form, whatever exist 💖💖💖🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️
great argument from "salad bar" fallacy.
1. We can be CONSCIOUS of PHYSICAL phenomena, e.g., sensations. And we can be CONSCIOUS of MENTAL phenomena, e.g., thoughts.
2. Notice how CONSCIOUSNESS therefore transcends BOTH physical AND mental phenomena; and therefore consciousness is NOT ITSELF PHYSICAL OR MENTAL!
4. Accounting for mental states in terms of physical states therefore WOULD NOT solve the problem of Consciousness.
Q.E.D.
And me, I'm just an old fashion substance dualist.
so what is your take on the problem of interaction: how does the immaterial "mind stuff" interact with the material "physical stuff".
@@z_a_r_c_o I don't know. I ask that question of every other substance dualist I meet, and most of them don't know either. But I figure if quantum entanglement can happen (i.e. spooky action at a distance), then there's no problem with an interaction between the mind and the brain on substance dualism. We don't have to know HOW something happens before we can discover THAT it happens, so I think the interaction problem is on-going, just like quantum mechanics is on-going.
Sam Harper As most likely expected, I agree and disagree. What I agree with is that we don’t have to know how something happens to know that it does... I could not agree with that more. With that said, are you of the mindset that these things even could be understood, or do you think it’s pretty much just a “leap of faith”, so to speak? (just curious)
@@z_a_r_c_o I think it's possible to have models that explain how there can be causal interaction between the mind and the brain, but it could be that none of the models can be tested. It's similar to how we have different physical interpretations to quantum mechanics Nobody really knows what's going on down there, but there are various models that are consistent with what we observe. There are actually models for how interaction happens. There's a book called "The Soul Hypothesis" that has a chapter on the interaction problem. It's a been a while since I read it, but I think the author of that chapter did offer some kind of model for how interaction happens. I had a hard time understanding the book, though, so not only do I not remember what the author said, but even if I did remember what they said, I probably wouldn't understand it well enough to explain it to you.
I came up with a model myself a while back. In my model I came up with the idea that minds are able to create energy ex nihilo. That would explain how minds are able to have causal interaction on the brain. I kind of gave up on the model because it didn't explain causation in the other direction.
isn't it interesting that the explanatory power of physics or any formal logic has no access to "things in themselves," only relationships between things? Isn't it interesting that any logic, including the computational structure of the nervous system can be replicated in any sufficiently robust computer. Computers function according to purely abstract rules, and can therefore be built of any material (including wooden pegs and switches). My question is: how can anyone seriously claim that subjective experience can arise from such a wooden computer!? What is subjective experience? The equation is not the phenomenon.
I dont think that conciousness comes solely from information, but is a product of the use of that information. How does one go from subatomic particle interactions to tiny bacteria that 'hunt' for food.
There's got to be a yet discovered massless particle that travels in the regions of the brain that have subjective experiences. This means a new quantum field.
Materialism is self-refuting. The brain is a concept created by consciousness. It is impossible that consciousness emerges from the brain.
Its exciting not knowing...🤔🙂 i love drifting off to sleep with this series
The change of voice from person to person sometimes wakes me back up. PBS Spacetime has one presenter with a deep droning voice that is like super-Ambien for me.
My search into this subject was driven by my Mothers 10 year journey with Alzheimer's to her passing in 2020. Despite the extreme physical deterioration of Mum's brain in this time, she retained her essential essence, scans revealed that much of her brain structure was severely degraded. With a long interest in quantum physics and an openness to the mystery of life, my take on this is that the brain is the interface between consciousness and the material world as we know it, it would seem to me that consciousness is something that exists within the quantum fields, that we simply do not understand at this time. We do know that the sub atomic world is full of mystery, to the point that at the Blank level the concepts of time and space itself cease to exist. The cosmos is far more mysterious than simple Newtonian mechanics, and the great Einstein struggled with many of contradictions that quantum physics brings to the intellect.
or it's just that her most "core" parts of her brain deteriorated last? our brain works by literaly growing new pathways for things when we learn and creates thicker clusters the more intrested in something we are so it's just very possible that since what you consider to be her "essence" is what her brain found most valuable and therefore these things survived the longest.
The answer is, God.
@@talisikid1618 The answer is, you have no idea what you're talking about.
13:52 this man hasnt tried DMT. This will make you believe in the possibility of panpsychism. But you materialists dont dare truthfully exploring the world.
quinxx12 the only truth can be found inside yourself
Hello. DMT user here who thinks utterly differently from you. Just so you know. You would call me a materialist, simply because I do not believe in things that there is no physical evidence for. The ideas you have are coming from your brain. Simple. Not out there. In there. We will make consciousness out of the flow of electrons alone. Your idea of consciousness is just a functional illusion that serves your survival interests. Same as me. It is not mysterious.
@@AdamTait-hy2qh That's a self refuting argument though. If that were the case then all rational thought or lack thereof is nullified, or false. Therefore the argument you just presented is also nullified, or false.
@@kuylerray3295 Erm you are going to need to explain some details of your argument, because you didn't present any.
@@kuylerray3295 I think I get your argument - that if electrons can form the basis of consciousness, then consciousness must be "out there". This is not true - if consciousness is an emergence of complex information integration networks, then it IS in us, and not out there. But we could MAKE IT out there, if we could do the same with electrons.
The evidence for consciousness being separate from the brain is all there in the vast literature on Near Death Experiences. If you thoroughly review the scientific peer reviewed cases, you can logically come to no other conclusion.
Can you point me to some to review?
@@mockupguy3577 certainly, there are many articles on the subject compiled in the New England Journal of medecine, much of which you need to be a professional to access, however there is a book by John C. Hagen titled The Science of Near Death Experiences that deals with these peer reviewed cases.
No my friend, i hope so, but until now at least, we do not have any MATHEMATICAL and strong empirical data and fact....... Only some great and good studies and people narrating so, but we do not own an empirical proof 😔
@@kuroryudairyu4567
Which empirical proof are you looking for when it comes to NDE?
@@sergeysmirnov5986 many or just one strong one we, unfortunately, do not have yet
Closer to truth, or just as far after watchign this episode? :-o
Yes