John's work has literally been pivotal. The turn toward the Good has made all the difference. It seems to me that all the "spiritual shadow work" in the world seems useless if it's not consciously oriented toward the Good, aligning with the inner and outer logos. I have thumped Bibles and also been a hard atheist with the whole 4 horseman etc... John's work showed me a new path that leaves those old "God or no God" paradigms behind. I don't argue with people about Gods anymore, now I try to learn what kinds of spiritual practices people find meaningful. People love to share this if given the chance. I can learn from people that I hold very little in common with. Thank you John and all the giants whose shoulders you've been standing on! Keep up the Good work! Question for anyone reading...is there a correlation between "free will" and flow states? It feels like the only time I have actual free will is when I'm completely absorbed in the flow and my shadow self is behind me. That famous Walt Whitman quote about always facing the sun and shadows falling behind made me think of this. I read Walt Whitman's poetry as sacred and I'm always digging. Any insight?
1hr 14 min in… why John Vervaeke is to me an intellectual giant, champion and hero in my eyes. His work has solved my own person meaning crisis and I will forever be grateful.
Thank you for sharing your time and work in preparation and the presentation of this conversation between all of these individuals, and I want to thank them for giving their time, work, knowledge, experience in a public media environment, interesting group of individuals who all see consciousness from different perspectives, made this that much richer, peace
Anil's explanation of the perceptual diversity concept is so thought provoking and John's relevance realization concept is so perfectly captured by his glass example.
JV is extraordinarily well thought through! Just spotted Iain McGilchrist in the audience, and would love to have heard him comment on Anils proposals.
We are in the “experiment” of material consciousness, and forgot that time and space are like training wheels for the development of our transcendental consciousness.
It’s a very hard thing to cover in a session like this. Much to explore, but (as an ethicist) I’d like to attune to JV’s point about the is - ought distinction (and Hume being wrong). I talk about this a little differently, by describing ontology / epistemology / axiology as being part of a dynamical process (there’s a deep relation between them. Clear distinctions don’t seem possible). Great question by the audience member, and excellent answer. I also recognise in a rather meta sense, that this ‘frame’ I’m sharing is based on ontological and epistemological assumptions (axiological too)…
Understanding consciousness shouldn’t be esoteric. Any plausible theory would make sense to any lay individual, and would impart this transcendental understanding, mentioned in the video. Because each one of us is conscious, some level of understanding of theory would impart an extra level of knowledge or awareness.
@@awsm2mcgravy The question is whether you are led to physicalism or idealism. The first is at an impasse while the second is really unverifiable and proceeds from a metaphor that could be stated thus: Phenomenal consciousness is to the universe what you as the dreamer are to your dreams while asleep (just a matter of scale, but this is essentially the Eastern view). Whatever the universe is (atoms, fields, particles, etc.) it is first and always a felt experience, what some call the "I presence". Scientists do not like the idea that Vedanta eons ago knew much more about this subject than they do: but that is true because India´s sages were empirical and whatever formulations they have alwways lead one to silence and finding out for oneself (as Sri Ramana Maharshi would say, the questions eventually dissipate). These guys are academicss, paid to talk and produce books because that is our culture. You yourself (this holds for anyone, anytime, any place) are the best way to understand consciousness and what you will find is that the silence goes way beyond all the discourse.
@@robertoalexandre4250for academia the problem is still that, Neurologists do Not know the source of human Consciousness. And, life is Not inherent in mechanistic atoms. Leaving Abiogenesis wondering in the magical fantasy of fictional belief.
A fruit full discussion! More Whitehead needed, specially, as relates to the so-called combination problem, and the is-ought fallacy, which John rightly disparaged as a relic of our Humean past. Philip I hoped also would’ve chimed in on the question of value, especially given his recent work. Alas, all good.
It surprises me how Anil Seth downsizes consciousnesss to only waking states and even affirms "when consciousness is lost" (only the waking state, a particular pattern of consciousness is temporarily suspended...consciousness is never lost but assumes another pattern than can me measured in the brain). This is a big impediment in Western thinking about consciousness (i.e. only as the waking state and somehow not present in deep or dreamless sleep). The Vedanta includes waking, dream and dreamless states as well as unconcious body activity in what it deems as consciousness. There is always something that it is to be like you or me in those states and experience, even though we may not be aware of it, is occuring. Eastern philosophies (i.e. Vedanta and Buddhism) represent the earliest pure idealism (i.e. that all is consciousness, that the world is projection of phenomenal consciousness - as Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira, for example, have described it). Or as Buddhists say: desire, forms and formlessness are all mind (the latter being synonymous with what we call consciousness).
I get what you say. I am also interested in learning about consciousness and been watching many videos of explanation from different perspective/fields, including Vedanta and Buddishm. It seems like the Eastern thinking of consiousness is more elaborated and deep than the Western. And to my surprise, it's not at all dismissing the scientific evidences, it's actually the opposite. And even able to elaborate more. Adding new insight about what the Western is missing.
@@HINOK8 The Eastern direct path is integral and empirical: they understand that the only way to understand (not intellectually or philosophically) consciousness is through the inner knowing that comes from direct experience. Sri Ramana Maharishi is a case in point: his sparse teachings have been collected by others. Rupert Spira´s "The Nature of Consciousness" (essays) is great too. But again, they will point you directly to the experential. My own long experience in silence and stillness has taught me that all this philosophy and neuroscience is only an added verbal layer to that which we always experience (whether asleep or awake): there is no "hard problem of consciousness" from the POV of our experience, only when we try to fit it in to our scientific paradigms. Consciousness cannot be studied as yet another object (like using a film to understand the screen). All of the gentlemen above disclose an inherent dualism (subject+object divide) and they can talk till the end of the world and proceed no further in explaining onsiousness because the latter just...is what it is (it is what enables everything else). Thanks for the input (the discussion in fascinating nevertheless and there is always something to learned...yet the poetry is not in the lines but in the experience.
You can find case studies of NDE's during general anesthesia. One such example: "Case report Near-death experience in a boy undergoing uneventful elective surgery under general anesthesia" It was a prospective study that was not looking for NDEs but memories during anesthesia. Such cases are hard to believe of course, but be sure to watch the claims being made here. There is no way our current paradigm can explain this data. The doctor in the study stated the boy knew what kind of music was being played. I realize this is hardly proof of anything but I do find it fascinating.
For sure. Honestly what John Vervaeke said about "we should be looking for other hard problems to help answer the hard problem", this is what I have in mind. We should be looking for hard problems, not running away from them. Yes its anecdotal subjective experience, but of course it is, we're talking about consciousness. Lets be brave and take these claims seriously and see if it can take us further
@@alexvlair9290 On being brave and asking hard questions, I feel like this interviewer missed a chance to ask challenging questions related to religious experience. People have extraordinary religious experiences. NDE's are unique in that they have common features where the experiencers also know veridical truth independent of a normally functioning brain. There must be some way to test this idea. I am aware of one such study that was prospective in design. Basically, the researchers compared memories of the hospital with NDE and without and those with NDE had substantially better memory of experiences when their heart was stopped. The problem here is of course blinding and controlling data leakage. The greatest evidence for life after death and perhaps God (or at least a higher power) is knowledge obtained during a nde. There are so many claims of knowing the future after NDE. It just seems so much of it is made up nonsense and actually false or unfalsifiable.
I'd be curious how John would explain how he says relevance (realization) is the base of consciousness, and yet also says that entanglement is at the bottom and relativity/relevance is at the top. (35:33) I'm sure I missed something, but it would help clear up his stance.
It may relate to John’s idea of a dual ontology of both emergence from the bottom and emanation from the top. He uses this dual ontology to explain how complex systems, like consciousness and the mind, arise from more basic physical processes (emergence from the bottom) while also being structured and organized by higher-order patterns, such as meaning, values, and purposes (emanation downward). In particular, he draws on Neoplatonic ideas, where higher levels of reality, like the One or the Good, emanate down and give structure and coherence to the lower levels. This interplay of emergence and emanation is key to understanding how we make sense of the world and find meaning, bridging the gap between scientific and spiritual worldviews. Then he has relevance realisation as the core process linking emergence and emanation. Relevance realisation is how the mind dynamically determines what information or aspects of the world are meaningful or important in a given context. It helps bridge the gap between the bottom-up processes of cognitive emergence and the top-down structures of meaning and purpose.
How can Anil Seth go on so long without a specific definition of consciousness? I presume he’s talking about reflexive self-consciousness, which is why most people in the west struggle so much with the hard problem. There-there, some day you’ll wake up to an Easter view and it will all make sense.
I presume "Eastern" here, but agree. Underlying Seth´s position is body-mind dualism; underlying Goff is consciousnes as driving matter (still a form of dualism) and for Vervaeke, Platonic and subject+object dualism. In Advaita, there is only the context of consciousness (see my post above to address your question about Seth´s very limited view of consciousness) which in turn create the contents (forms) of consciousness (there is no subject+object divide, no mind-body problem and no positing that consciousness works alongside or inherently to essential physical stuff). Here we realize that seers like Sri Ramana in the direct path and silence, understood consciousness far beyond any of these theoreticians or scientists or philosophers.
@@robertoalexandre4250 100% The Advaita cosmology/ontology resolves the hard problem for sure. When I first heard Seth talking about waking, sleeping and general anesthetic of deep formless sleep, I thought this could go somewhere... But he's not connecting the idea that deep formless sleep is still a level of consciousness. I'm exploring the work of neuroscientist Mark Solms, a student/colleague of Jaak Panksepp. He is making the case that consciousness emerges from the brainstem instead of the prefrontal cortex; meaning that consciousness is much more fundamental to our existence and the implications of his argument is that it is shared by at least all vertebrates. I argue (as do the eastern mystics), consciousness is shared by all life and I find his work bringing western neuroscience and philosophy closer to what they've known in the east forever. anyway, thanks for your comment, always good to meet a fellow traveler.
Conscienceness is the realisation and awareness of your existence and perception of your environment . Under anesthesia you paralise the physical body but you don't loose the underlying function .If we remove language from the equation our brain will reason and coexist with it's environment . In many ways language has created a barrier which confuses the reality. Consciousness gives choice to thought and reason to action .Without it we would be very basic life forms. The question is who or what gave us this ability ? Science can try to explain, in our limited knowledge ,partly the function of humans but will never be able to explain it fully .We live in a time of reason or faith, which one will you follow?
@@badreddine.elfejerNeurologists do Not know the source of human Consciousness. And, Abiogenesis is a magical fantasy... being Life is Not inherent in mechanistic atoms. Therefore, reason ventures into Faith. A relationship with the source of Life and Consciousness.
@@someonenotnoone a Legos castle takes an Outside source to build the Legos' castle. Legos can Not build the castle. Likewise, mechanistic (inanimate) atoms/molecules can Not create Life - a living organism. Life is Not inherent in atoms. Therefore, atoms are Not the source of Life and Consciousness. The Limitations of Materialism.
Survival mechanisms and the vehicle dictates the construct of necessity of that group of genetic data, of That which is All things. Neuronal development of consciousness: Sensation-feeling-emotion- thought- idea-black/white- quantinamical thought/ tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Just a thought.
I wonder if Consciousness is a sort of “biological Electromagnetic radiation”, obeying the inverse square law as it dissipates between sources. Our Brains seem to be the sources, factored by our nervous systems, and their is a hierarchy of Consciousness from human beings throughout the entire animal kingdom. We loosely define Consciousness as self awareness, sentience or an awakened state, but it remains ineffable beyond that. Consciousness is essential to explain things like Love, Panpsychism, telepathy, telekinesis and it creates a beautiful web of connectivity between living beings on Earth and hopefully throughout the Universe.
Neo-triune brain theory? Add that with the Newtonian physics( we are carbon based..) and the quantinamical ( the dynamics of the quantum) nature of consciousness in relation to All.
I hate the idea of “consciousness”-that’s what I learn watching videos like this. It feels like a fuzzy idea that’s not very useful. There must be better explanations of what’s happening.
I''m fine with physicalism blended with idealism, why would you want to put all your eggs in one basket? Not ok with interactionism though, dual aspect monism does not deny the agency of the physical, it just gives another approach to agency. Therefore two perfectly valid solutions to one problem.
This is not a function of temporal lobe activity! Dancing in the dark until you fully understand this: th-cam.com/video/JL1oDuvQR08/w-d-xo.html&si=AKn7ThYAWUv2YOVE
It’s amazing to me why scientists can’t understand why more lay people don’t like or are uninterested in science. I know this is prolly a conference for scientists, but how would any normal person understand one thing these people are talking about? I’ve been trying to read and listen to podcasts about neuroscience for 7-8 years and still only get about 20% of what these guys r saying. I luv Ian because he seems to be a little more physical based maybe? Idk what I even mean by that. I’ve listened to hours of the guy on the left and right and still have no idea what they think. This is obviously a me problem, but holy shit this is complex. And something that is worse than this is physics that’s a real shit show. I’m not trying to be negative I do luv these talks and convos. It’s just So frustrating that I’m so ignorant.
Agreed. To my mind it is the new clerisy and completely indigestible. I feel like a dog watching telly. Vervaeke is the worst in this regard, obscure and privileged knowledge that we can never parse, but still I stumble along, not sure for how much longer.
@@rossmcleod7983 I’m right there with u. I left religion after 35 years because it left me wanting. Science has left me wanting also. No passion, no energy, just fumbled up words that the common person can’t understand.
@@mclaytv there’s just no way to get a handle on it, but then they must be struggling too. I came here after experiencing a truly anomalous event and science appears to hold that kind of data in contempt too, which is equally discouraging. So it goes….
If consciousness is a property of life, it must be created. There was a time when there was no life on earth consequently no consciousness. Later life formed and consciousness as well. Then the question is : what unconscious element or structure can give rise to consciousness?
I picture life and consciousness as whirlpools, and quantum fields and matter as the water. Maybe a better question is what is it about the water that allows whirlpools to arise? Its maybe a small leap to assume that life can come from matter if it hasnt been 100% proven, but I think that's probably the case.
Unconscious elements, but not unconscious structure - it is the proper structure of the unconscious that creates the conscious. Conscious things predict their futures, and use knowledge of the past to make choices which affect their predicted futures. This requires the ability to store and retrieve information, as well as the ability to affect their predicted futures - to interact with the world. An appropriately selected box of lego pieces is not fundamentally a car, but can be configured to be one. Similarly, unconscious elements do not fundamentally need to be conscious to be able to be structured in a way that creates consciousness.
If we handicap and limit bots to an eltrodynamical code of measure with messy fluidlike dynamics that can only share our visual frame of reference deaf dumb and blind of the thermodynamical decay & gravity all around us .program it to manipulate and take advantage of miss aligned measure then it will be indistinguishable from the human condition. Why would anyone want to do this ? Hype behind calling something its not stems from Granting soul agency to computation while human biology is mechanical and geology plus astronomy Is created/ simulated in it's image. Next iteration ocums razor scientific standard 1890s library building museum fetishes for singularity left us in judge book by its cover era we all grew up In. Now spacetime & evolution is ready to be reduced by those standards that ignored those warnings lol Artificial intellectual beast of burden robot horsepower utility cpu serfdom is ideal for maintaining on par human intelligence accessing any and all frame of reference knowledge we possess or find valuable. Simulating away nature fine-tuned atoms to form and shape to elevate the human species as we know it much better goals. . Ones pointing smaller not larger to Dysonspheres lol Get to moon & mars a thousand years down the road who knows but I doubt messy colonialism will be the way forward for such generations .
What he's saying doesn't get physics out of consciousness - either way, physics is there. The question is does physics require consciousness and I see literally no argument whatsoever for that.
You need a computer scientist to tell you how a brain stores information and then it is obvious how this information is made conscious. otherwise good luck.
@someonenotnoone u familiar with Nondualism? Check it out sometime, if you're curious, because saying "Consciousness is" what is makes perfect sense in that context.
Vervaeke is the deepest thinker by far here.
John's work has literally been pivotal. The turn toward the Good has made all the difference. It seems to me that all the "spiritual shadow work" in the world seems useless if it's not consciously oriented toward the Good, aligning with the inner and outer logos. I have thumped Bibles and also been a hard atheist with the whole 4 horseman etc... John's work showed me a new path that leaves those old "God or no God" paradigms behind. I don't argue with people about Gods anymore, now I try to learn what kinds of spiritual practices people find meaningful. People love to share this if given the chance. I can learn from people that I hold very little in common with. Thank you John and all the giants whose shoulders you've been standing on! Keep up the Good work!
Question for anyone reading...is there a correlation between "free will" and flow states? It feels like the only time I have actual free will is when I'm completely absorbed in the flow and my shadow self is behind me.
That famous Walt Whitman quote about always facing the sun and shadows falling behind made me think of this. I read Walt Whitman's poetry as sacred and I'm always digging. Any insight?
1hr 14 min in… why John Vervaeke is to me an intellectual giant, champion and hero in my eyes. His work has solved my own person meaning crisis and I will forever be grateful.
💯
Thank you for sharing your time and work in preparation and the presentation of this conversation between all of these individuals, and I want to thank them for giving their time, work, knowledge, experience in a public media environment, interesting group of individuals who all see consciousness from different perspectives, made this that much richer, peace
Anil's explanation of the perceptual diversity concept is so thought provoking and John's relevance realization concept is so perfectly captured by his glass example.
Fantastic video. Fantastic panel and fantastic audience.
JV is extraordinarily well thought through! Just spotted Iain McGilchrist in the audience, and would love to have heard him comment on Anils proposals.
Powerful Verkaeke, an always impressive connectionist
to bad that Donald Hoffman is not present...
or bernardo kastrup
@@MrFou10 Yep,
We need definitions of every noun these guys utter. The moderator is great.
We are in the “experiment” of material consciousness, and forgot that time and space are like training wheels for the development of our transcendental consciousness.
It’s a very hard thing to cover in a session like this. Much to explore, but (as an ethicist) I’d like to attune to JV’s point about the is - ought distinction (and Hume being wrong). I talk about this a little differently, by describing ontology / epistemology / axiology as being part of a dynamical process (there’s a deep relation between them. Clear distinctions don’t seem possible). Great question by the audience member, and excellent answer.
I also recognise in a rather meta sense, that this ‘frame’ I’m sharing is based on ontological and epistemological assumptions (axiological too)…
Understanding consciousness shouldn’t be esoteric. Any plausible theory would make sense to any lay individual, and would impart this transcendental understanding, mentioned in the video. Because each one of us is conscious, some level of understanding of theory would impart an extra level of knowledge or awareness.
@@awsm2mcgravy The question is whether you are led to physicalism or idealism. The first is at an impasse while the second is really unverifiable and proceeds from a metaphor that could be stated thus: Phenomenal consciousness is to the universe what you as the dreamer are to your dreams while asleep (just a matter of scale, but this is essentially the Eastern view). Whatever the universe is (atoms, fields, particles, etc.) it is first and always a felt experience, what some call the "I presence". Scientists do not like the idea that Vedanta eons ago knew much more about this subject than they do: but that is true because India´s sages were empirical and whatever formulations they have alwways lead one to silence and finding out for oneself (as Sri Ramana Maharshi would say, the questions eventually dissipate). These guys are academicss, paid to talk and produce books because that is our culture. You yourself (this holds for anyone, anytime, any place) are the best way to understand consciousness and what you will find is that the silence goes way beyond all the discourse.
@@robertoalexandre4250for academia the problem is still that, Neurologists do Not know the source of human Consciousness.
And, life is Not inherent in mechanistic atoms. Leaving Abiogenesis wondering in the magical fantasy of fictional belief.
I love Anil's pen clicking during ians "actually, anil wrote about this in one of his papers"
42:54- 44:18 *Why machines will never be Conscious* Anil Seth
Beautiful will say, remember 1st thy shared "i" Am came with sincere conversations, and thy shared Feet resting upon!
A fruit full discussion! More Whitehead needed, specially, as relates to the so-called combination problem, and the is-ought fallacy, which John rightly disparaged as a relic of our Humean past. Philip I hoped also would’ve chimed in on the question of value, especially given his recent work. Alas, all good.
It surprises me how Anil Seth downsizes consciousnesss to only waking states and even affirms "when consciousness is lost" (only the waking state, a particular pattern of consciousness is temporarily suspended...consciousness is never lost but assumes another pattern than can me measured in the brain). This is a big impediment in Western thinking about consciousness (i.e. only as the waking state and somehow not present in deep or dreamless sleep). The Vedanta includes waking, dream and dreamless states as well as unconcious body activity in what it deems as consciousness. There is always something that it is to be like you or me in those states and experience, even though we may not be aware of it, is occuring. Eastern philosophies (i.e. Vedanta and Buddhism) represent the earliest pure idealism (i.e. that all is consciousness, that the world is projection of phenomenal consciousness - as Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira, for example, have described it). Or as Buddhists say: desire, forms and formlessness are all mind (the latter being synonymous with what we call consciousness).
I get what you say. I am also interested in learning about consciousness and been watching many videos of explanation from different perspective/fields, including Vedanta and Buddishm. It seems like the Eastern thinking of consiousness is more elaborated and deep than the Western. And to my surprise, it's not at all dismissing the scientific evidences, it's actually the opposite. And even able to elaborate more. Adding new insight about what the Western is missing.
@@HINOK8 The Eastern direct path is integral and empirical: they understand that the only way to understand (not intellectually or philosophically) consciousness is through the inner knowing that comes from direct experience. Sri Ramana Maharishi is a case in point: his sparse teachings have been collected by others. Rupert Spira´s "The Nature of Consciousness" (essays) is great too. But again, they will point you directly to the experential. My own long experience in silence and stillness has taught me that all this philosophy and neuroscience is only an added verbal layer to that which we always experience (whether asleep or awake): there is no "hard problem of consciousness" from the POV of our experience, only when we try to fit it in to our scientific paradigms. Consciousness cannot be studied as yet another object (like using a film to understand the screen). All of the gentlemen above disclose an inherent dualism (subject+object divide) and they can talk till the end of the world and proceed no further in explaining onsiousness because the latter just...is what it is (it is what enables everything else). Thanks for the input (the discussion in fascinating nevertheless and there is always something to learned...yet the poetry is not in the lines but in the experience.
Verveke just can't stop.
You can find case studies of NDE's during general anesthesia. One such example: "Case report
Near-death experience in a boy undergoing
uneventful elective surgery under general
anesthesia"
It was a prospective study that was not looking for NDEs but memories during anesthesia. Such cases are hard to believe of course, but be sure to watch the claims being made here. There is no way our current paradigm can explain this data. The doctor in the study stated the boy knew what kind of music was being played. I realize this is hardly proof of anything but I do find it fascinating.
For sure. Honestly what John Vervaeke said about "we should be looking for other hard problems to help answer the hard problem", this is what I have in mind. We should be looking for hard problems, not running away from them. Yes its anecdotal subjective experience, but of course it is, we're talking about consciousness. Lets be brave and take these claims seriously and see if it can take us further
@@alexvlair9290 On being brave and asking hard questions, I feel like this interviewer missed a chance to ask challenging questions related to religious experience. People have extraordinary religious experiences. NDE's are unique in that they have common features where the experiencers also know veridical truth independent of a normally functioning brain. There must be some way to test this idea. I am aware of one such study that was prospective in design. Basically, the researchers compared memories of the hospital with NDE and without and those with NDE had substantially better memory of experiences when their heart was stopped. The problem here is of course blinding and controlling data leakage. The greatest evidence for life after death and perhaps God (or at least a higher power) is knowledge obtained during a nde. There are so many claims of knowing the future after NDE. It just seems so much of it is made up nonsense and actually false or unfalsifiable.
Time come here in front and remind! Lord what is Beyond the eyes can see?
Shared "i" Am beautiful can see clearly! Concerning resting upon!
I'd be curious how John would explain how he says relevance (realization) is the base of consciousness, and yet also says that entanglement is at the bottom and relativity/relevance is at the top. (35:33)
I'm sure I missed something, but it would help clear up his stance.
It may relate to John’s idea of a dual ontology of both emergence from the bottom and emanation from the top.
He uses this dual ontology to explain how complex systems, like consciousness and the mind, arise from more basic physical processes (emergence from the bottom) while also being structured and organized by higher-order patterns, such as meaning, values, and purposes (emanation downward).
In particular, he draws on Neoplatonic ideas, where higher levels of reality, like the One or the Good, emanate down and give structure and coherence to the lower levels. This interplay of emergence and emanation is key to understanding how we make sense of the world and find meaning, bridging the gap between scientific and spiritual worldviews.
Then he has relevance realisation as the core process linking emergence and emanation. Relevance realisation is how the mind dynamically determines what information or aspects of the world are meaningful or important in a given context. It helps bridge the gap between the bottom-up processes of cognitive emergence and the top-down structures of meaning and purpose.
@@libraryofthemind nicely stated. I'll have to reread that 😀
How can Anil Seth go on so long without a specific definition of consciousness?
I presume he’s talking about reflexive self-consciousness, which is why most people in the west struggle so much with the hard problem.
There-there, some day you’ll wake up to an Easter view and it will all make sense.
I presume "Eastern" here, but agree. Underlying Seth´s position is body-mind dualism; underlying Goff is consciousnes as driving matter (still a form of dualism) and for Vervaeke, Platonic and subject+object dualism. In Advaita, there is only the context of consciousness (see my post above to address your question about Seth´s very limited view of consciousness) which in turn create the contents (forms) of consciousness (there is no subject+object divide, no mind-body problem and no positing that consciousness works alongside or inherently to essential physical stuff). Here we realize that seers like Sri Ramana in the direct path and silence, understood consciousness far beyond any of these theoreticians or scientists or philosophers.
@@robertoalexandre4250 100%
The Advaita cosmology/ontology resolves the hard problem for sure.
When I first heard Seth talking about waking, sleeping and general anesthetic of deep formless sleep, I thought this could go somewhere... But he's not connecting the idea that deep formless sleep is still a level of consciousness.
I'm exploring the work of neuroscientist Mark Solms, a student/colleague of Jaak Panksepp. He is making the case that consciousness emerges from the brainstem instead of the prefrontal cortex; meaning that consciousness is much more fundamental to our existence and the implications of his argument is that it is shared by at least all vertebrates.
I argue (as do the eastern mystics), consciousness is shared by all life and I find his work bringing western neuroscience and philosophy closer to what they've known in the east forever.
anyway, thanks for your comment, always good to meet a fellow traveler.
Conscienceness is the realisation and awareness of your existence and perception of your environment . Under anesthesia you paralise the physical body but you don't loose the underlying function .If we remove language from the equation our brain will reason and coexist with it's environment . In many ways language has created a barrier which confuses the reality. Consciousness gives choice to thought and reason to action .Without it we would be very basic life forms. The question is who or what gave us this ability ? Science can try to explain, in our limited knowledge ,partly the function of humans but will never be able to explain it fully .We live in a time of reason or faith, which one will you follow?
I search reason in faith. Why it should or / or?
A reasonable account on the functionality of faith would be great.
@@badreddine.elfejerNeurologists do Not know the source of human Consciousness. And, Abiogenesis is a magical fantasy... being Life is Not inherent in mechanistic atoms.
Therefore, reason ventures into Faith. A relationship with the source of Life and Consciousness.
@@steveflorida5849 A castle isn't inherent in legos but can be built from them.
@@someonenotnoone a Legos castle takes an Outside source to build the Legos' castle. Legos can Not build the castle. Likewise, mechanistic (inanimate) atoms/molecules can Not create Life - a living organism.
Life is Not inherent in atoms. Therefore, atoms are Not the source of Life and Consciousness. The Limitations of Materialism.
rocking those J1's
Come forth! Unseen nor seen
Beautiful will say, LORD hesitation! For have not known thee? So deep in sleep! So deep in sleep in front of thee!
If they had a real engineer like me in this discussion....
Goff was such a poor representative of Consciousness-first world view. B. Kastrup or R. Sheldrake would be much better to challenge Anil
Survival mechanisms and the vehicle dictates the construct of necessity of that group of genetic data, of That which is All things.
Neuronal development of consciousness:
Sensation-feeling-emotion- thought- idea-black/white- quantinamical thought/ tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Just a thought.
Why is it that the Brain feels no pain when the rest of the body does? J.
What was this event?
I wonder if Consciousness is a sort of “biological Electromagnetic radiation”, obeying the inverse square law as it dissipates between sources. Our Brains seem to be the sources, factored by our nervous systems, and their is a hierarchy of Consciousness from human beings throughout the entire animal kingdom. We loosely define Consciousness as self awareness, sentience or an awakened state, but it remains ineffable beyond that. Consciousness is essential to explain things like Love, Panpsychism, telepathy, telekinesis and it creates a beautiful web of connectivity between living beings on Earth and hopefully throughout the Universe.
Neo-triune brain theory? Add that with the Newtonian physics( we are carbon based..) and the quantinamical ( the dynamics of the quantum) nature of consciousness in relation to All.
I hate the idea of “consciousness”-that’s what I learn watching videos like this. It feels like a fuzzy idea that’s not very useful. There must be better explanations of what’s happening.
I''m fine with physicalism blended with idealism, why would you want to put all your eggs in one basket? Not ok with interactionism though, dual aspect monism does not deny the agency of the physical, it just gives another approach to agency. Therefore two perfectly valid solutions to one problem.
This is not a function of temporal lobe activity!
Dancing in the dark until you fully understand this:
th-cam.com/video/JL1oDuvQR08/w-d-xo.html&si=AKn7ThYAWUv2YOVE
Impossible the woman shared feet resting upon shared "i" Am beautiful will say, resting upon our LORD footstool.
It’s amazing to me why scientists can’t understand why more lay people don’t like or are uninterested in science. I know this is prolly a conference for scientists, but how would any normal person understand one thing these people are talking about? I’ve been trying to read and listen to podcasts about neuroscience for 7-8 years and still only get about 20% of what these guys r saying. I luv Ian because he seems to be a little more physical based maybe? Idk what I even mean by that. I’ve listened to hours of the guy on the left and right and still have no idea what they think. This is obviously a me problem, but holy shit this is complex. And something that is worse than this is physics that’s a real shit show. I’m not trying to be negative I do luv these talks and convos. It’s just So frustrating that I’m so ignorant.
Agreed. To my mind it is the new clerisy and completely indigestible. I feel like a dog watching telly. Vervaeke is the worst in this regard, obscure and privileged knowledge that we can never parse, but still I stumble along, not sure for how much longer.
@@rossmcleod7983 I’m right there with u. I left religion after 35 years because it left me wanting. Science has left me wanting also. No passion, no energy, just fumbled up words that the common person can’t understand.
@@mclaytv there’s just no way to get a handle on it, but then they must be struggling too. I came here after experiencing a truly anomalous event and science appears to hold that kind of data in contempt too, which is equally discouraging. So it goes….
My own as ye see! Shared Feet having sincere conversations. Remember the word "CAN'T"! Can be "CAN" TOGETHER!
To bring clarity, coherence, adequacy....unto all scattered noises comes out from many who am I shared mouths!
If consciousness is a property of life, it must be created. There was a time when there was no life on earth consequently no consciousness. Later life formed and consciousness as well. Then the question is : what unconscious element or structure can give rise to consciousness?
I picture life and consciousness as whirlpools, and quantum fields and matter as the water. Maybe a better question is what is it about the water that allows whirlpools to arise? Its maybe a small leap to assume that life can come from matter if it hasnt been 100% proven, but I think that's probably the case.
Unconscious elements, but not unconscious structure - it is the proper structure of the unconscious that creates the conscious. Conscious things predict their futures, and use knowledge of the past to make choices which affect their predicted futures. This requires the ability to store and retrieve information, as well as the ability to affect their predicted futures - to interact with the world.
An appropriately selected box of lego pieces is not fundamentally a car, but can be configured to be one. Similarly, unconscious elements do not fundamentally need to be conscious to be able to be structured in a way that creates consciousness.
The woman who sitteth upon all HIS WATERS! Who is that?
Consciousness is fundamental:
th-cam.com/video/iT0vO1ZVYcc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=EjeKNu8f_1bB2Jv7
Nah.
Great discussion! Someone please take that pen away from John! 😆
He tortured it 😂
16/10/2024
The more I listen to these, the more I figure and find out that these people have big cases of OCD and silent narcissism.
Who said consciousness is complicated, or do you even know what consciousness is?
The only matter to take seriously is that you people writing books and shows are functioning by demons, a bad frequencies that your sorts of people give bad vibrations to others
If anyone believes and likes these explanations, thus, they are an educated, unintelligent, but smart Alec.
"Einstein's general theory is all fiction ©".
Art & Metaphysic
😏
Consciousness is having 4 kovid jabs and 3 follow up boosters 😮
omg 🤣🤣🤣
HIS shared "i" Am #'s will say, where letters came from?
Consciousness..eat…sleep..reproduce 😂😂😂😂 I don’t know why they give too much importance to consciousness
#'s will say, who is that Zero "0" nor a letter "O"?
Woman who sitteth upon all HIS WATERS murmuring! Looking at a little White Stone with HIM! Looking at the little LIGHT have revealed?
I wanted to listen to this for sleep and this dude clicking the pen was so fckn annoying dude :D
😆
I’m a fan of John and I have to agree. He’s clearly annoyed &/or frustrated by someone, probably Goff, who - in my opinion- is easy to be annoyed by…
🤣🤣🤣
If we handicap and limit bots to an eltrodynamical code of measure with messy fluidlike dynamics that can only share our visual frame of reference deaf dumb and blind of the thermodynamical decay & gravity all around us .program it to manipulate and take advantage of miss aligned measure then it will be indistinguishable from the human condition.
Why would anyone want to do this ?
Hype behind calling something its not stems from
Granting soul agency to computation while human biology is mechanical and geology plus astronomy Is created/ simulated in it's image.
Next iteration ocums razor scientific standard 1890s library building museum fetishes for singularity left us in judge book by its cover era we all grew up In.
Now spacetime & evolution is ready to be reduced by those standards that ignored those warnings lol
Artificial intellectual beast of burden robot horsepower utility cpu serfdom is ideal for maintaining on par human intelligence accessing any and all frame of reference knowledge we possess or find valuable. Simulating away nature fine-tuned atoms to form and shape to elevate the human species as we know it much better goals. .
Ones pointing smaller not larger to Dysonspheres lol
Get to moon & mars a thousand years down the road who knows but I doubt messy colonialism will be the way forward for such generations .
You all calls us gravity/⚫️/energy...we not care we every where at once...✔️🤣
Yet! Lord thy Beautiful shared "i" Am started to speak! Who are Ye?
Perfect statement. 22:00 mins you can get physics out of consciousness.
What he's saying doesn't get physics out of consciousness - either way, physics is there. The question is does physics require consciousness and I see literally no argument whatsoever for that.
But a man!
You need a computer scientist to tell you how a brain stores information and then it is obvious how this information is made conscious.
otherwise good luck.
Keep watch! Is like an "ART"! Shared "i" Am "a" said, an ARTIST LORD!,
Creation come here in front and remind! Lord from thy Mouth!
Lord the WOMAN SITTETH UPON ALL THY WATERS Accuses Thee day and night!,
Yet, who is that little "a"? With HIM!
Why even say,"Who"? Nevertheless concerning a voice?
Save u the trouble...
What is = Consciousness
Advaita Vedantin thought unraveled the mystery thousand of years ago.
Nonduality
That's really not good enough. It's interesting but I need more. Consciousness needs more explanation than "what is."
@someonenotnoone u familiar with Nondualism? Check it out sometime, if you're curious, because saying "Consciousness is" what is makes perfect sense in that context.
@@monkkeygawd How does it make sense? What does it explain? How can I use it?