Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism? | Episode 1609 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Donate to Closer To Truth and help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Does anything exist beyond the physical world? If yes, could consciousness undermine materialism? If no, could consciousness confirm materialism? It’s the big test. Featuring interviews with Ned Block, Rodney Brooks, Marilyn Schlitz, William A. Dembski, and Eric Schwitzgebel.
Season 16, Episode 9 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Materialism #Consciousness
Idealism is closer to truth; read Kastrup, Hoffman, Sprigge, Robinson etc.
🤦♂️🤦♂️😂😂😂😂
physicalism is closer to reality, you don't have to read anyone, just cut a slice of your brain out and see what happens.
@@HarryNicNicholas Ofcourse if you cut your brain you’ll have an entirely different experience than you have now. Idealism doesn’t even deny this so I don’t understand how you can even correlate it with idealism.
@@HarryNicNicholas I love when people like you say something that reveals you have no idea what idealism is. Attacking a position when you have no idea what it actually entails, it also actually reveals you know very little (in a philosophical sense) about what physicalism entails. Because the only way to know that is to have a firm grasp of the alternate positions and what they entail in contrast. Truly amazing to embarrass yourself like that in public.
I've read the first 3 but never ventured in Robinson's work. Anything to recommend?
Just read some NDE's, matter is not that important. As Edgar Cayce said: "Mind is the builder, matter is the result"...
@@xenomyr Our mind is the same as God's mind: eternal, indestructible, always creating. Time is an illusion created by the mind as well, until it is no longer needed.
@@RichardvanBemmelen yes. Also check I AM THAT of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Advaita vedanta. Nisargadatta spoke about consciousness only
I am an atheist, who belives that we dident exist before we WERE born, and we dident exists after we die! Though i May be wrong!
@@ChristianDall-p2j I don't understand the notion that what predated birth is the same as what is post physical death cause if you just look at matters/energy more so I should say, it doesn't get annialiated, it simply changes form. Though I do agree that life is full of cycles but even a cycle is an indication of infinity and not finite results.
Excellent. After many years of thinking and reading on the topic, I have been forced to conclude that only some form of idealism is fully coherent and free of in-principle insoluble problems.
Can you recommend a book which you think is really good on the subject?
@@Andrew-jj6er Biocentrism
@@mathew4181 thank you for the suggestion, I will check it out.
@@Andrew-jj6er I highly recommend that you begin with Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism Course, a summary of which is available in a 7-part series of videos, here: th-cam.com/video/hDbCTxm6_Ps/w-d-xo.html. But if you really want to dive in in this, you can read Kastrup's doctorate thesis on Analytic Idealism, available on PDF format here (and many other online sources, both behind or free of academic pay-walls): repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/203090/203090pub.pdf
@@Andrew-jj6er why materialism is baloney bernardo kastrup
My favorite show on you tube. Strikes to the deepest questions out there.
The physicist Lee Smolin's (and others') work has lead me to think that maybe space isn't fundamental to nature, as Eric Schwitzgebel outlines as one possibility
Yes, consciousness does indeed defeat materialism. Reductive materialism fails to overcome the hard problem of consciousness and non-reductive materialism fails to overcome the exclusion problem. The only way to preserve the existence, irreducibility, and causal efficacy of consciousness while avoiding these problems is idealism.
what is the exclusion problem?
@@blbphn "Traditionally conceived, the exclusion problem is faced by non-reductive materialist views which hold that mental causes are distinct from physical causes. Many think that if materialism is true, then every physical effect must have a sufficient physical cause; but in that case the purportedly distinct mental causes can appear to be "excluded" as genuine causes because the physical causes "already" do all the "causal work"."
Source: philpapers.org/browse/the-exclusion-problem
@@edwardtutman196 Consciousness is irreducible so it's contradictory to hold reality as purely material while also believing that consciousness is real. If we want a monism of matter and mind, yet mind is irreducible, then our only option is to leave materialism in favor of idealism.
@@edwardtutman196, because substance dualism is a logical impossibility.
@@MonisticIdealism, which type of idealism do you hold to? I still haven't made my mind, although I'd opt for subjective idealism or some sort of Leibnizian panpsychism.
"Does consciousness DEFEAT materialism?" This will depend on how one defines consciousness, and whether "DEFEAT" corresponds with one's quest to reconcile matter with Consciousness.
*_Brain does not create Mind_* Here are the reasons
1:] Abstract thought such as mathematics, ethics and those that deal with personality, don't have any localized centers in the brain like motor functions. The science of phrenology was invented to try to explain this, but it has since been discredited
2:] Various experiments has been done in which it has been shown that separating the brain's hemisphere results in effect that are so slight that they can only discerned by nobel-prize winning scientists.If the brain is purely material, the effects would clearly be stronger
*Roger Wolcott Sperry*
3:] The materialist scientist that operated on the brain while epilepsy patients were awake recorded results that showed although he could trigger memories or muscle movements, he could not change their consciousness, intellect, or sense of self. Since these aspects could not be affected, he believed they were immaterial . Furthermore, he noted a lack of "intellectual seizures" since, as seizures trigger various random muscle responses in the brain, they should also be able to trigger to random mental responses like thoughts of math or politics, as well.
*Wilder Graves Penfield*
th-cam.com/video/sLIiCDyd8oQ/w-d-xo.html
4:] Various studies have shown that people in vegetative state, who are all by clinical standards mentally inactive, have brain reactions to various questions with specifity that implies they understood them, as they do react to gibberish the same way, and there reactions cannot be discerned from those of non vegetative people.
*Adrian Owen*
th-cam.com/video/Qx_OXBDOZtk/w-d-xo.html
5:] This discusses Libet's study of the mental response and argues that since it also proves that there is a "free won't" wherein the response can exist but he vetoed by the mind, that free will must exist, which refutes materialism.
*Benjamin Libet*
*Evidence for materialism*
```Michael Egnor```
th-cam.com/video/BqHrpBPdtSI/w-d-xo.html
@@mathew4181 Thank you for your response. The entire manifest universe -- expressed into duality from a Singular Unified Field of Infinite Awareness and Possibility -- is simultaneously both of and within Itself. Should One have a notion look for his/her Self, this Self who is sought is the One who is looking. We are all facets of Unity in duality.
@@mathew4181 Thanks man. I lean Materialist. I want to be wrong, but I doubt it. However, I want to always challenge my thinking and understand other POVs, so this helps a lot.
Consciousness does defeat materialism in the current understanding. It's just how much you'd expand the definition of materialism except that when you define it as anything that might be discovered, you might at some point already include consciousness.
@joeclark1621 Note. Just as a word is a reduction and a framing of a thought, so too is the body and all matter a reduction and a framing of consciousness. In a similar fashion, trees are comprised of biologically ionised sunlight and 10% mineral. When wood is burned, frozen sunlight is liberated and reunited with its source. This principle of transmutation is similar to the descent and weaving of Spirit into a physical form, transition, and eventual release. Beyond time/space, birth and death are simultaneous events.
Consciousness is fundamental. Matter arises out of consciousness.
How?
@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 hierarchically consciousness is certainly higher than matter. It's not difficult to understand that. Matter is the lowest rung of the ladder. Then comes sensations, emotions and intelligence or logic in that order. Finally it's consciousness the pinnacle of existence. More than treating it as an epiphenomenon this theory fits the bill.
So hell exists?
@@logans.butler285 probably, in one's imagination.
@@kumar7359 I can't follow your argument
I really can't fathom the idea that consciousness is an illusion.But I'm more surprised about how some others can.
Illusion requires a conscious entity that is being fooled by the illusion, so consciousness can't be both an illusion and a witness to an illusion. Daniel Dennett is a halfwit
Even if it is it would not explain anything.
Are you real?
I see Marilyn Schlitz and Eric Schwitzgebel as more open minded and broader views on the main theme o consciousness. If we keep focusing on material points of view alone w''ll never get any closer to any truth... Mario Jorge P dos Santos
Excellent episode!
Robert Lawrence Kuhn should be given the Nobel Prize for asking all the wrong questions.
Bingo! He's childish. His naivety is astounding.
Jeez, you haven't interviewed Bernardo Kastrup yet ? imo such a modern monistic idealism is thE superb alt.
Indeed, Kastrup developed a very interesting couple of arguments against materialism.
I agree
Did he have a city, near Copenhagen, named after him?
@@zolnsalt No, but he is like a living city of idealistic knowledge. th-cam.com/video/HaziRLpJ20g/w-d-xo.html
@@AislanBezerra thanks for the link!!...I just watched the first minute and already like it!!:)
Without really taking a stance, I don't see the problem with consciousness being material. Animals have evolved brains that help them survive and navigate the world. Having a subjective experience is a useful trait to differentiate your self from the rest of the world. It makes sense that brains evolved this ability to experience the world. There's no need for consciousness to be a part of the fabric of reality for it to arise.
Every feeling and thought we experience is a sensation of one sort or another. There is an ineffable aspect to all sensation. It is the most basic and consistent part of our existence, for though the contents of consciousness change, the playing field of those contents is continuous. Yet it seems we give very little appreciation to it, at times almost forgetting its existence.
Consciousness is Primary reality. It is the basic substance and ground of existence. All else emerges from that. Very easily proven.
Here’s a thought experiment:
Can a sufficiently complex artificial network imagine something “unreal“ and it not be an algorithmic error or fallacy?
Would an advanced AI ask “Is this all that I am?“, “Do I have a soul?“
Would it have a sense of self and question the nature of it?
I love the nature and architecture in CTT. It's the prettiest show out there.
Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
Instead of posing this as an “either/or” situation, I suggest that we think of the essence of life...
(i.e., the substrate of consciousness)
...and the essence of matter...
(i.e., the informationally-based [quantum] substance from which the fabric of matter is formed)
...as being two complementary aspects of the same fundamental thing.
In other words (and metaphorically speaking), just as the “particle/wave” duality of an electron is referencing two complementary aspects of the same singular entity, likewise, the same applies to the disparate appearing duality of matter and consciousness.
The ultimate point is that it is the process of consciousness and matter - working together in tandem - that makes the manifestation of what we call “reality” possible.
_______
Consciousness can only be a label for a specific biological phenomenon. The contingency displayed by the phenomenon to a specific biological structure (brain) can never justify any attempt to address the ontology of reality.
"Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?" is a nonsensical fallacious question...and nothing more.!
@@nickolasgaspar9660
You say that - “Consciousness can only be a label for a specific biological phenomenon.”
No, consciousness is a label for the “strongly emergent” phenomenon that arises from a highly specific arrangement of non-conscious parts and particles that comprise what we call a brain.
_______
@@TheUltimateSeeds "No, consciousness is a label for the “strongly emergent” phenomenon that arises from a highly specific arrangement of non-conscious parts and particles that comprise what we call a brain."
-Right......the brain....A biological organ(last time I checked). So its a phenomenon observable only at a biological scale.
Where exactly is our disagreement sir?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 - "Where exactly is our disagreement sir?"
I'm not real sure. Please elaborate on the disagreement you had with my initial post.
_______
@@TheUltimateSeeds I didn't disagree with your IP. My post was complementary
Been watching your programs / interviews among other related materials on YT; materials that provide the up until now world view about consciousness and in general the soul / life and so on. It surprises me that despite centuries of human existence, scientific progress and millenia of existence we are still no closer to truth. The fact that the quest for truth keeps humans on their toes itself tells something about how important the quest is. We almost seem hardwired in our dna to continue the search / this quest. Why don’t we give up? Why don’t we just enjoy consciousness while we are aware of it. But no - that’s not how humans are designed: if that were to be true steam engine wouldn’t have been discovered; we wouldn’t have been where we find ourselves today.
This exploration is mind boggling.
For my own self - I’ve pondered about this consciousness question myself. And the experience of dream sleep messes it all up. What kind of consciousness is at play while we are dreaming in sleep? What kind of consciousness is at play during dreamless sleep? In fact are we even conscious during deep dreamless sleep? And then having lost consciousness - how does consciousness get “restored” when we wake up from the dreamless sleep and what ensures “continuity of subjective experience” after waking up?
I realise that there are many questions and no answers. Life meanwhile continues to hurtle forward at unimaginable velocity.
The “point” is lost in the din of time. Who knows?
Check swami sarvapriyananda on TH-cam. Advaita vedanta should be able to give you all the answers. Check him out, so many lecture on Upanishads and reality.
Have you approached the right people for an answer? Why not examine what the Buddhists, the Taoists, the yogis of India have to say? They have have explored the mind for at 7 000 years and have some interesting comments - although perhaps not the type of answers people usually want - but there are answers.
"Intellectual" leader of "intelligent" design.
Actually that was wrong. The leader in Idiot Designer is Dr Behe, biochemist. One of the few that is religious. Both are paid by the Discovery Institute. Funny how even Dembski, a mathematician did not support him. Dembski has the delusion that he proved that evolution requires and intelligent designer with some math he made up. NO mathematician, in that field math, has supported his claim that he can paint the target over the data AFTER seeing the data. He is very deceptive when discussing his math, as he NEVER tested it against actual evolutionary data, or anything real for that matter.
Now the interesting thing is, IF he was to test he math, he would get his expected answer. Why?
Because it does is prove that evolution is not random. Which it is not because natural selection is not random.
He does seem to be intelligent but his religion, and the fact that only the Discovery Institute is willing to employ him, has damaged his ability to use reason.
I suspect that its the Discovery Institute that is stopping him from testing his math. He once said that the Earth is old and they convinced him to repudiate his fully correct claim.
Did I mention that they are his employer?
Ethelred Hardrede
"intelligent" design was born one month after creationism was banned in public schools. The first "intelligent" design book was a creationism book with creationism replaced with intelligent design. This was proven in a court of law when the ID people were forced to hand over documents. During this forced hand over the ID people stupidly handed over the Wedge document, a document that outlaid their plan to use ID to push the christian religion into the science classroom as if were proven fact, with the ultimate goal of making the US a christian theocracy. During the trail every claim that the ID people could being forward had already been disproved years before hand. And after the trail, which they lost badly, they make a video using the very same claims that were disproven during the trail.
There is no intelligent behind the intelligent design movement.
@@darrylelam256
"There is no intelligent behind the intelligent design movement."
Sure there is, they were intelligent enough to try hide where Of Pandas and People came from.
Hey just because they have some intelligence that does not mean the evidence supports them.
Ethelred Hardrede
Need to prove materialism exists before you ask such questions.
Consciousness and materialism are not at war. They are one in the same thing at their foundation, Pure Spirit.
@Language and Programming ChannelI never read hegel. what experiences have you had that prompted your remark?
No they are not. Consciousness is just a name tag we use to label a specific physical phenomenon (mind properties).
Materialism is an indefensible claim about the ontology of reality.
The term "Spirit" is a hypothetical concept that isn't verified by our observations.
Good summary by RLKs at the end... and forward thinking by Eric Schwitzgebel exploring the question that if Materialism is false, what are the possible alternatives? However, IMO neuroscience CANNOT concede that consciousness is not emergent from a physical substrate such as brains. It’s part of the foundational assumption of Science, so there will always be the promissory “with more research....”. So, maybe, as Marilyn Schlitz says, such metaphysical questions are not a battle, but will always be open to diverse interpretations.
Drooling over that last fellow's rock collection. :D
I think its museum collection rather than personal.
I rock,,, therefore I'm stoned
@@mohs7234
Wow man, like totally, fer sure, meaningful relevant and right on.
Writing long strings of that sort of stuff can cause brain damage.
Same here!
The problem with this debate about materialism vs. non-materialism is that only materialism is well-defined, while nobody knows what non-materialism is. There is no precise definition of soul, God, angels, spirits, and so on. So, it's a debate between materialism and 'I don't know what it is' kind of thing.
This debate amounts to science vs. magic. Which isn't much of a debate. Because people, who believe in magic, don't even attempt to explain the mechanism of how it works. They just say that it works, and you are supposed to take their word for it.
The problem with magical thinking, that's based on belief, is that it leads to non-falsifiable answers which seemingly put the matter to rest and discourage any further questions and curiosity. It's an inferior way of thinking about things that you don't fully understand. Because this kind of thinking stops progress in ideas and understanding. It leads you to intellectual dead ends, without any way out, rather than to some kind of progress in knowledge and understanding.
Despite theism being an idealism not all idealism posits the supernatural.
@@bobs182 If you read fairy tales that involve some kind of magic, then you will find that the story-teller never explains how the magic in the story works. The story-teller always says that this or that happened as a result of magic and goes on with the rest of the story, as if magic requires no explanation.
I don't see how idealism is different from magical beliefs. Because idealists also don't even attempt to explain how ideas exist independently of matter. You are essentially told to believe it, without any explanation of how it works.
So, it doesn't matter if you call it supernatural or not. What matters is whether you have some explanation of how it works, or whether you expect people to believe in it, without any explanation.
Lack of explanation of how it works is what makes the idea untestable and unfalsifiable. It's a red flag that tells you these ideas are faith-based, rather than rational.
@@mikedziuba8617 Not all idealism posits that minds can exist independent of brains or that the supernatural exists. Physicalism involves both an external reality as well as a mental concept of the world of our outer senses. Supernaturalism is magic because it involves ideas about the world that are not true. To know anything it must exist in our brains with the mind being an awareness of what we know/think. As you sit typing into the computer, the "image" you have from the light entering your eyes exists inside your head yet your brain/mind makes it seem the image is outside you as everything you know about the outside world is a construct of your brain as well as externally existing. To ignore the world of what and how our brains/minds can know is missing half of knowledge. The concepts we form about the world of our outer senses do not describe the world of our mind which means we need a new paradigm or we will continue using parallel concepts of mind and matter.
"The problem with this debate about materialism vs. non-materialism is that only materialism is well-defined, while nobody knows what non-materialism is. " -- Sure they do. It's everything else. The universe existed before people started arguing about these words. You're free to define "materialism" as whatever you like, and draw whatever boundaries work for you around it. But you don't then get to challenge someone else to define what's outside the boundary you've drawn, since they have no particular need to create a definition for "everything".
"This debate amounts to science vs. magic. Which isn't much of a debate. Because people, who believe in magic, don't even attempt to explain the mechanism of how it works. They just say that it works, and you are supposed to take their word for it.
" -- In the beginning, everything was "magic" and we slowly pushed back the boundaries by gaining understanding. If we could explain scientifically how "magic" worked, it wouldn't be magic any more, it would be a part of science. Maybe in a hundred years we will be able to explain telepathy, or intuition, or consciousness.
Most humans are prepared to accept the existence of things which they "feel" exist, without being able to explain them. This seems entirely rational to me, since we have to live in the world, even if we can't understand it.
@@bobs182 when you project mind properties in nature non contigent to material structures....that is by definition a supernatural claim. It would be nice to hear an example of an idealistic posit that doesn't do that.
thoughout the history of theoretical physics there have been great minds on both sides of the materialists vs non materialists debate. Brain Green, Einstein, and Hawking on the materialists side vs Max Plank, David Bohm, and Heisenberg on the non materialists side.
i think that "pluralism lady" was kinda brushing off the issue and mixing tolerance and kindness with what should be true or our model for truth. Yes, truth is changing in society. Yes, we can all have our own truths and be happy with it, but the purpose of "the battle" is to create one truth that can unify people through logical comprehension (whatever that might mean) and provide opportunities for intelligent actions and meet expectations and predictions in all ends of the framework. that's my philsophy of science. thanks for coming to my ted-talk
We all dream every day where we manufacture a physical reality out of consciousness. And Waking state experiences are same as that of Dream state.
So Consciousness is fundamental and materials are just manifestations in it due to the effect of mind.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
@@TheSeverian ,Not just pretty, it's a fact based on our own first hand experience.
Suppose you see a tiger in a cage, and after some time it turns into a cat.
So what is real??
Tiger or a cat??
Our experience of reality switches just like that from waking state to dream state.
Suppose you see the tiger for one hour and cat for one minute.
Would you say that tiger is real bcz its span is longer compared to cat's!!!!
You have a problem though..everyday and night we also dream or think stuff. Those impressions don't share the external limitations and empirical regularities displayed by the physical reality.
So your bucket term can not make any useful distinctions between physical impressions , mental impressions and your general dream reality thing. It sounds more like a make believe than a useful concept.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 ,No matter what differences you make out of dream and waking states,you always experience these two states equally i.e.,you dont know whether it is real or fake until that experience ended. That means waking state is also a collection of mental expressions.
Therefore the experience is same.
If we validate everything that we experience as "real", we must accept that dream is also real as long as it lasts.
Since there are two realities we experience daily, both of them can't be true bcz truth is one.
@@achyuthcn2555 Its not on us to Make out differences. THe facts are simple.
There are our Cataleptic Impressions on which we direct our conscious attention. Our conscious attention informs us that during the "wake state" we experience external limitation and empirical regularities.
i.e During the wake state, if we not avoid a speeding car that would have an impact on our well being. This is because external limitations define the relations between things that exist according to our Cataleptic Impressions.
During the dream or thinkin state, a car speeding towards us has zero impact on our well being since mental impressions don't display external limitations or empirical regularities.
" i.e.,you dont know whether it is real or fake until that experience ended. "
-No that is factually wrong. I can tell when I am dreaming or thinking and I can distinguish those mental states when I am acting. But even in my early years when I couldn't tell the differences between a vivid dream and an awake state, the external limitations WERE OBVIOUSLY ABSENT from the conscequenses of a event.
i.e I used to dream me falling over a building and I didn't suffer what I have suffered when falling from a tree or a the strairs.
That is not a good excuse for your idea.
"That means waking state is also a collection of mental expressions."
-No the Cataleptic (mental) impressions of the the awake state are affected from external limitations.
this means that whatever we aware of it is because of its existence.
After all in order to be aware of anything SOMETHING must exist.
Existence is primary, our cataleptic impressions register what exist an our conscious state can reflect on them.
"If we validate everything that we experience as "real", we must accept that dream is also real as long as it lasts."
No that is not also ontological wrong, it is also unpractical.
i,e what if I owed you a lot of money and I avoided paying you by saying "I payed you back in my last dream".
LIsten its ok to have an ideology but make sure that you respect it in your daily life...if not you are dishonest to your self first.
I get it that many people have an existential and epistemic anxiety due to the fact that our biological existence comes with an expiration date....but that is not an excuse to ignore logic and facts of reality.
Happy to hear the atheistic variation of Berkeleyian idealism get a plug here. He deserves to be more widely read: he’s a beautifully clear writer and his radically empiricist argument really doesn’t hinge on the God part
Consciousness exposes the insufficiency of materialism
Perhaps all material hosts properties we cannot recognize from the outside because we are locked inside the experience of our own material.
not really. brain surgery exposes the limits of - whatever the other thing is. try thinking with no brain, it's tricky.
No, consciousness does not defeat materialism. Consciousness arises from material substance, the brain.
Nowhere in this show did the proposition arise with the materialists that consciousness is created by physical processes in our brains.
@@mkor7 Well, not to be glib, but now you know.
Whenever someone says 'in principle', they don't know, they just speculate... Speculation is part of the scientific method though...
'In principle' basically means 'assuming a certain structure, x, knowledge of something, k, is not possible'.
In a way, the speculation is in the validity of the assumed epistemological structure, x.
"Speculation is part of the scientific method though."
-lol no. ironically, scientific speculations are based on specific principles! lol(those of Methodological Naturalism).
@@nickolasgaspar9660
"cientific speculations are based on specific principles! "
Yeah, going on evidence. The rest of that sentence is BS.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv scientific hypothesis are based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism....period.
Your whining is ignorant, bovine manure and product of your bad education...deal with it.
@@nickolasgaspar9660
" scientific hypothesis are based on"
Evidence and reason and testing PERIOD.
"Your whining is ignorant, bovine manure and product of your bad education...deal with it."
Self description, you have been dealt with. Get a real education.
Ethelred Hardrede
Currently I see that none of these people have any idea about consciousness and if you want to know about what it is watch my recent videos on my youtube channel, the ones that I talk. I always mention about the most important things people should know, and you will not regret. As a hint, consciousness about forming connections, but not just in brain. Everything is conscious, and I gave a quantitative definition that fits the observations. Before watching my other videos, please have a look at this very important animation: th-cam.com/video/ELjgTs7BFC4/w-d-xo.html
Wow, I didn't know those latest videos so well-produced. Time to catch up!
Unfortunately ...the content remains in the pseudo philosophical side.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 What do you consider to be real philosophy? Give me an example.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 You can draw the standards of a philosophical inquire/ concept from its etymology and the method defined by Aristotle.
So philosophy is the method by which we enable our selves to produce wise claims about our world.
This is supported by the word it self. "Philo -sophia =Love of wisdom''.
Now in order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be supported/based on true facts(knowledge).
This is what Aristotle outline by defining the six important steps of any philosophical inquiry.
1. Epistemology
2. Physica (physics/ Natural Philosophy /modern science)
3. Metaphysics
4. Aesthetics
5.Ethics
6.Politics.
So the second step, that of science, is an important one in order for our metaphysics to be informed by our latest epistemic foundings.
By skipping any of the first two steps , we render our inquiry pseudo philosophical.
This practice allows premises with unknown truth value in our arguments resulting to fallacious conclusions or unsound arguments at best.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 was my comment helpful?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Yes it was. This is an interesting way to define what philosophy is all about, but a lot of people would reject this dependence of philosophical inquiry upon modern science and argue instead that the exact opposite is true, ie that it is science that is a branch of and in constant need for philosophy.
How about this: What "defeats" materialism is the lived moment. Mind you, it isn't defeated. But extended, lived experience feels transcendant. The lived moment of the organism is the space of its conscious events. It is also the space of everything. In this understanding, freewill names the moment to moment shifting of subjective, experiential modalities over a subconscious undergirding of processing systems.
*_Brain does not create Mind_* Here are the reasons
1:] Abstract thought such as mathematics, ethics and those that deal with personality, don't have any localized centers in the brain like motor functions. The science of phrenology was invented to try to explain this, but it has since been discredited
2:] Various experiments has been done in which it has been shown that separating the brain's hemisphere results in effect that are so slight that they can only discerned by nobel-prize winning scientists.If the brain is purely material, the effects would clearly be stronger
*Roger Wolcott Sperry*
3:] The materialist scientist that operated on the brain while epilepsy patients were awake recorded results that showed although he could trigger memories or muscle movements, he could not change their consciousness, intellect, or sense of self. Since these aspects could not be affected, he believed they were immaterial . Furthermore, he noted a lack of "intellectual seizures" since, as seizures trigger various random muscle responses in the brain, they should also be able to trigger to random mental responses like thoughts of math or politics, as well.
*Wilder Graves Penfield*
th-cam.com/video/sLIiCDyd8oQ/w-d-xo.html
4:] Various studies have shown that people in vegetative state, who are all by clinical standards mentally inactive, have brain reactions to various questions with specifity that implies they understood them, as they do react to gibberish the same way, and there reactions cannot be discerned from those of non vegetative people.
*Adrian Owen*
th-cam.com/video/Qx_OXBDOZtk/w-d-xo.html
5:] This discusses Libet's study of the mental response and argues that since it also proves that there is a "free won't" wherein the response can exist but he vetoed by the mind, that free will must exist, which refutes materialism.
*Benjamin Libet*
*Evidence for materialism*
```Michael Egnor```
th-cam.com/video/BqHrpBPdtSI/w-d-xo.html
ID molecular motors as proof of ID has been debunked long ago
History tells us that we could not have this conversation when humanity began. All we know has been accumulated.We have given ourselves too much significance. Life is the purpose.
People need to feel significant...This is why all those ideas are designed to support their death denying ideologies.
People have to get rid of their squishy biology which comes with an expiration date. Facts about their nature are not good for their existential anxiety.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 What is meant by too much significance is just humanity placing our significance above any thing else. As history tells us creation does not recognize anything to be any more significant than another. Great thought!!!!
@@patricklaw9951 Sure those are observer relative evaluations. We mesh our narratives and place us as the stars .
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Some believe, it gives them solace. I am a seeker, therefor I have an open mind.
@@patricklaw9951 open mindness means to reserve belief until objective and sufficient evidence are supportive of a specific claim.
Out of all of the videos in the "Closer to Truth" series devoted to the mind, materialism, religion, and philosophy, this one asks the central question of "Does consciousness defeat materialism?"
Science addresses testable claims and has a structured verification/justification process to minimize errors. Up to this point, science points to the high probability of mind/consciousness being a product of the material brain. Unfortunately, all the claims from philosophers, noetic scientists, intelligent design proponents, and others interested in finding non-material causes for consciousness have failed to present falsifiable evidence for such. If they claim that science is not the correct tool for addressing the claim, what is and how would you justify it? Until humanity comes up with a way to evaluate the non-material claim that can be verified, we are left with the probability found by science mentioned above. Anything else is an argument from ignorance.
@Language and Programming Channel , scientists produce scientific findings that are verified/justified by peers. Here are 15 blog posts supporting materialism's position on consciousness. You don't have to read/watch all of them to get the picture. If you disagree, we will have to agree to disagree. I can't add anything to what I am asking you to read/view. understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/search/label/Consciousness
@Language and Programming Channel I agree! That is because science principles are in conflict with Materialistic absolute claims.
Science has only proven that conscious states are product of brain function. This biological phenomenon has nothing to do or say about the the pseudo philosophical worldviews of materialism or idealism.
You are promoting a strawman that science has nothing to do with
@@86645ut all stupid blogposts and articles written by jobless skeptics. Not a single peer reviewed scientific article in there
@@ronnysingh4509 , "There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See." ~Ancient Proverb. One word says it all: replication.
@@ronnysingh4509 if you like peer reviewed scientific publications on the causal role of the brain try the following databank.
neurosciencenews.com/?s=how+the+brain+consciousness
Personally, I like Douglas Hofstadter's recursive theory of consciousness (self-reference as a method for creating animated things from inanimate matter)
So you feel you've already theoughlylearned and outwitted and rejected Bernardo Kastrup, Swami Sarvapriyananda, and all other proponents of Idealism.
I'd love to hear your arguments.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Haha no I'm just expressing my humble opinion. I don't deal with this subject systematically and, for the sake that my time is very limited, I pay little attention to theories like this because I've always perceived them as being too exotic. Nevertheless, I would be very grateful if somebody could expalin to me, why would anyone even consider idealism seriously?
@@kacperlepper5746
I spent 47 years trapped in the nonsense of materialism. Unfortunately, I can't sum up and package the avalanche of evidence for Idealism in a bite sized morsel that would satisfy you, and as you stated, you're not interested enough to look into it, so ... 🤷♂️
I'm interested in people who can refute Idealism, but that's not going to be you given that you know nothing substantial about it
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Mhm okay
@@kacperlepper5746it is the idea that at base level everything is experiential. And it’s taken serioulsy….well, because everything is experiential, as far as we can tell. We are precluded from knowing anything else, so why postulate anything else?
That’s the idealist line of thinking.
Materialists, however, not only postulate that there is something else - they go on to propose that it, even though unknowable, is primary to and the source of our only ontological known. And they persists in assuming this even in the face of stark incogruities such as The hard problem of consciousness.
Idealism does not propose or assume anything, it just goes with what is undeniably so. And lo and behold- parsimony, a self-evident ontological underpinning, no hard problem. Yet it continues to be perceived as the more ”wacky” proposition.
Yes. As a staunch atheist and skeptic, I have to admit that it does. Either we're all "souls", or we're all expressions/manifestations of some kind of "cosmic mind".
I'm pretty damn sure it's one or the other. Even if there were no good arguments for this position (and there are), I'd still believe this simply because I have subjective, first-person, conscious experiences. That's enough evidence for me.
Sorry, but you can't derive subjectivity from physics. There's no equation for the experienced redness of red, or the feeling of pain, or any other experience. Trying to derive experiences from the matter/fields/energy of physics is clearly a category error. Absolutely futile.
At the _very least,_ you have to believe in something like panpsychism, although it doesn't work for me.
Thanks. This vídeo is excellent and gives an idea on the state of the debate that is going on consciousness versus materialism.
For those who want to go beyond, here are some points that are unquestionable:
1- Consciousness is an immaterial process and reality.
2- Computer software is immaterial. Both consciousness and software are written by Minds *.
3- DNA is a immaterial code that contains the plan to build the body brain machine.
4- All of this (the last 3) is information.
5- Information is immaterial and only Minds ( of any realm) can deal with information.
6- Information and Minds evolve in complexity. Matter does not evolve. Matter in fact "degrades", ( 3th law of thermodynamics) and is the worst enemy of order and Information. And nobody even knows what matter really is: the wave function colapses at a certain point and that means that QM hit the wall many decades ago.
7 -Therefore matter is only the substrate in this given reality where we emerged as conscious but virtual ( lifed time) beings.
Just these 7 points are enough to defeat materialism.
*: Consciousness is an auto-developed process that uses the Body-brain machine to emerge. This body brain, contains the basic routines linked to survival and printed in the genes ( as all the rest) that latter will ground the emotions and feelings. The free will is the capability that is behind the identity that an any auto conscious Agent ( person) builds, subject to its mental inate capabilities given by the brain ( reasoning and logig) and the environment where he is raised ( culture, education, etc). All the Consciousness "software" develops and evolves through learning and free will.
Questions?
"Cus if there is anything materialism can't explain then materialism by its self definition is destroyed. "
That is wrong.
Materialism doesn't claim to give you all the answers, especially right away. Materialism only claims is it can do better then other approaches. Neither dualism or idealism win by default, they only win if they can do better. It's not enough to talk, they need create more accurate and precise predictions to win.
I think most people's issues is their advsarial approach to the mind/body problem. Most individuals claim to be a mind in a body, which the case is that if they didnt have a body then they wouldnt have the mind. Theres a particular bias when it comes to how we have a "me vs. It" mentality in regards to our body. Understandably so, since our body seems to be the problem. Its our bodies that seemingly fail us first when death is knocking at our door. "My existence is in danger because my body fails me." I'm sure an alzheimer's patient would attribute their failing health to their mind if they could. So its the bias of the mentally sound who say that materialism is the enemy. It is not. Theyre a coexistence. You wouldn't have a mind without a body and vice versa. Therefore material and spirit are one in the same.
Unfortunately most people have put all of their chips in materialism because of our modern education and the emphasis on owning material things. Its no wonder that the world seems so screwed up some times.
I agree, material and spirit being one and the same is sensible. I don't really care so much what that one thing is called: matter, mind, spirit or the Big One. But I would further than saying they coexist. I would say they are identical, there's no "co" or "they" about, it is what exists.
It's interesting, this strange urge to split "it" into "they". Even the best of us often do it. It's a strange habit, that consumes the minds of many of the inteligencia. Did you notice? I just did it, split "minds" from "intelligencia" when actually they are the same thing. Why can't we resist the sin of dualism?
: ) ha ha
@@postplays they do not coexist. Our forensic logic shows that there is the "physical" type of Cataleptic Impressions and the "mental" impressions which appear to be contingent to the existence and function of the former (based on Strong Correlations).
We can not really saying anything about what lies beyond our Cataleptic Impressions or what are the nature of those two types. What we can say though is that we are limited within them and any belief beyond our observations is Irrational.
Materialism and Idealism are indefensible and irractional worldviews.
Is the door our consciousness and our ability and necessity to perceive before materialism can be detected?
We live in a "virtual reality" in consciousness.😴😊
tell that to your head when it hits the closed door you tried to walk through....lol
@@nickolasgaspar9660 So because neuronic activity receiving and transmitting classical information to the BRAIN (Not mind) from matter and energy around it means that this reality is real? What happens when paralyzation occurs? The sensory organs are no longer viable. What would you do then ? Say because you can see around you that what around you is real and what is embedded within the subconscious is not? Mathematics is what comprises everything around us yet can you see it?
We know the universe is essentially a holographic projection of the electromagnetic spectrum.. For example.. We can see stars that should be blocked by the sun.. But the electromagnetic radiation emitting from the star bends light and space around it.. Creating a linear perspective of stars that lie behind it.
Duality between the mind and brain and separating of materialism and immaterial can be encapsulated in thinking of quantum mechanics.. Specifically quantum mind theory.. Where it is a fact calcium ions in the brain attempting to cross to the synaptic vesicle cannot perform this motion classically.. As in the transference of information is not linear in this case thus why classical mechanics in neurology cannot explain it.
However.. Considering consciousness as quantum entangled to the brain.. We see that the calcium ion now can be explained in its motion due to the nature of quantum nonlocality..
The fact that you can CLOSE your eyes.. Imagine galaxy m87.. And with a few pictures could begin at a starting line equal to light.. Say GO.. And say you're racing to a planet you just saw a picture of.. The imagination will repaint the total volume of that spatial area.. And then the 3dimensional structure that sits atop of it LONG before light ever even leaves the solar system.
This not only proves the legitimacy of duality between mind and brain or immaterial and material physics but also proves the universe is holographic.. Both the subconscious relationships with quantum systems and the observation of light as well as its role in quantum electrodynamics.
The fact that RESOLUTION.. Is used to explain what the eyes see.. That means the physical world down to it's most precise observations are no different than this video on your screen you know that right?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Quantum mechanics is the exact reason we are able to even watch this video right now.. Tell me there Mr neuronic activity.. Can you SEE a subatomic particle like a photon? No. You can see the wave component a lot of them with harmonic wave function frequencies produce. But you cannot see the individual photon that was calculated for up to every last particle so that information could be transmitted through color lengths and projected on a screen.
Quantum mechanics is pure imagination of motion and mathematics.. And makes up everything that is around you.
It is incredibly ignorant at this point in science to assume that materialism is the base of physics when we know from the event of universal creation that the immaterial aspect of physics clearly came first.. Time.. Then energy.. Then space. THEN material.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 With the discovery and observable proof of quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling.. If he could consciously change the wave function of the electromagnetic field that is his body along space.. Match it with a specific wave function of a volume of space on the other side of the door.. He could then occupy two spaces at once.
What does materialism have to say about that? Please. I'd like to hear.
@@vinniehuish3987 Mathematics is compromising everything? Lol dude! Are seeing magical agencies everywhere? Math are just a quantification symbols based language made up by humans to describe relations, differences and analogies between observable elements and their properties of our world
What convinced you to project agency properties to a description human tool mate. Do you have any evidence for your existential claim?
Great channel and show. Material is clearly a major component of our universe and this existence, but the idea that it is the root explanation for consciousness is so basic and naive, I can't ever be satisfied with reductionist materialism.
Also are we forgetting that we don't understand 95% of the energy of the universe? Therefore our knowledge of "materialism" is harrowingly incomplete.
That is not a problem of materialism. Materialism has other more serious problems...like any ISM out here. They are all epistemically useless.
@@nickolasgaspar9660
"like any ISM out here. "
Not a problem, its imaginary. Proved in a court case. Well proved to legal standards.
Really there was a court case in the US.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I don't get your point. what is imaginary and what's NOT a problem?
@@nickolasgaspar9660
"I don't get your point. what is imaginary a"
".like any ISM out here"
nd what's NOT a problem?
See the middle quote.
Are trying to evade what you wrote? Your johnny come lately internet god is imaginary. Proven in US court case at that.
No one has ever disproved any of the gods that employ me.
Ethelred Hardrede
High Norse Priest of Quetzalcoatl
Keeper of the Cadbury Mini Eggs
Ghost Writer for Zeus
Official Communicant of the GIOA
And Defender Against the IPU
Ask me about donating your still beating heart to make sure the Sun keeps rising.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv maybe you are writing in the wrong thread....I can't find any connection between the things said in here and your statements.
"Like the entomologist in search of colorful butterflies, my attention has chased in the gardens of the grey matter cells with delicate and elegant shapes, the mysterious butterflies of the soul, whose beating of wings may one day reveal to us the secrets of the mind."
- Santiago Ramon y Cajal
sadly butterrflies wings are actually colourless.
This man is just hunting for metaphysical world lolx. You ain’t getting it in real world.
What is the "real" world??
Says who?
The brain DOES explain consciousness. Sorry to break it to you
@@TheGreatAlan75 sorry to break it you, but the brain DOESN'T explain consciousness yet. Lots of theories / beliefs but as yet no proof for how the observer / experience emerges. Theres a big prize still waiting for that one.
Though we can label things physical, material, conscious, ephemeral, non-material, idealist....The entire debate is about brain psychology. Words matter and in school we have the Physics Department and the Physical Education Department which deals with our bodies and muscles or how we utilize our sensorimotor systems. We can also say that physical mental principals also start in our sensorimotor parts of our brains. Advanced thinking moves these principals into higher thoughts or Ideas by utilizing other areas of the brain. Namely our visual system which dominates so many parts of our New(neo)Cortex also dominates so much of our language. Verbs themselves are actually visual based on observed movements etc.
"I hope that materialism is false"
Well I hope that I'll be living on mars in the next two years and I want throwing magic fire balls around. Well guess what no amount of hoping is going to make that true.
Here is a person that doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and is just hoping that magic is real despite having no evidence for any kind of supernatural forces.
Scientists know that the material world we see is just an emergent construct formed from quantum fields. As such to believe that materialism will answer any question properly is a false assumption. It only gives a general rule and the deeper you go the more it breaks down.
Any chemist knows that whenever you run perfectly controlled chemical reactions that there will always be batches that fail completely. They don't fail due to failures in following protocols or imprecise equipment but because molecules and especially atoms are not uniform in how they react but are subject to their quantum particles. The exact same problem exists with the brain in relationship to consciousness. The brain and its measurable neurons is not sufficient in itself to explain consciousness.
@@iain5615 So you not understanding the science is magical proof against materialism?
@@darrylelam256 materialism is only an emergent construct to the fundamental reality. If you want to stick with materialism to support whatever view you hold about life the so be it. I prefer to keep up with science and allow my view to change as we learn more and more. I was a materialist until about 12 years ago when I started to study science in more detail and realised that science was beginning to show that the materialist view was a sham. Science gives no evidence on a multiple arena of questions. Are we a product of chemical evolution (abiogenesis)? Chemists state no. Are we are product of panspermia? Astronomers state no. Are we a simulation? Only particle physicists really support this. Are we a product of intelligent alien intervention? Scientists when their pet theories are denounced by other scientists agree that this is a possibility in order to avoid the possibility of divine intervention! Yet there is no evidence of divine intervention either. All positions are based on belief and not actual science so I look at all theories and what evidence there actually is. On areas such as origins of life, the universe, consciousness, etc. there is in reality no evidence just metaphysical hypotheses - within consciousness the neurological evidence does not provide proof of determinism. The best one can achieve is evidence based on the actual evidence.
@@iain5615
"The brain and its measurable neurons is not sufficient in itself to explain consciousness."
Fact free claim in denial of the evidence. The evidence is brain injuries and drugs.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Pardon? Drugs work based on our knowledge of the brain and years of testing to obtain empirical evidence and understanding how it affects the majority of patients. Drugs have provided no real insight into consciousness itself. Please study!! No neurologist believes that consciousness is the same as neurological brain activity. Even the few who completely believe in determinism do not believe this.
The idea that there is only materialism doesn't sit well with me. It means that we are just really really sophisticated robots with no free will and everything is determined. We are just deluding our selves when we think we are acting on free well. However, deep inside I KNOW that I am a conscious being with free well...
"The idea that there is only materialism doesn't sit well with me."
-That might mean that we want to think of our self as something more significant than our world. Maybe its a way to deal with knowing that our biology comes with an expiration date.
btw the statement "there is only materialism" is an indefensible statement and the reason why I don't accept materialism.
-"It means that we are just really really sophisticated robots with no free will and everything is determined. "
-No that is not a necessary conclusion of materialistic principles...that sounds more like a strawman.
-"However, deep inside I KNOW that I am a conscious being with free well..."
-what you "feel" or think you know has nothing to do with what really is.
You have will, and its not free by any mean. You can train your will to become more "free" but it will always be a slave to your biology and your environment. i.e. You accept a magical worldview and reject materialism because of the inability of your will to be free from your existential and epistemic anxieties you have as a biological thinking organism.
Consciousness is entirely electrical and chemical.
That's a religious belief...
Materialism is just a perception or conception within consciousness, material inert chemicals don't know that they exist nor their function and can therefore not know anything about relationships. It is consciousness that defines " physical " the statement " I am this body " translates too " I am aware of this body " consciousness only is knowledge.
"Materialism is just a perception or conception within consciousness"
-Yes we use the feedback of our conscious attention to our environment and organism to construct different worldviews.
"-material inert chemicals don't know that they exist nor their function and can therefore not know anything about relationships."
-Yes this is the basic principles and argument against SUPERNATURALISM. Mind properties are contingent to complex physical structures(brains). They do not emerge in nature at a fundamental level, like less complex properties (like liquidity, rigidity, glossiness, wetness) also don't emerge at the fundamental level of matter.
"It is consciousness that defines " physical " the statement " I am this body " translates too " I am aware of this body " consciousness only is knowledge."
-No you are confusing cosnciousness with reasoning, an other mind property. Our conscious states provide the ability to reflect on facts of the world and on our thoughts but through reasoning we can come up with those concepts.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Hmmm, no one sees consciousness so it being produced from anything is more or less belief.Secondly, the brain doesn't tell us that it produces consciousness matter doesn't tell you anything at all. All of our perceptions and conceptions are just interpretations within consciousness. I don't think i'm confusing consciousness with reasoning because it's by consciousness that I know that I'm reasoning.
@@williamburts5495 "no one sees consciousness so it being produced from anything is more or less belief."
-you don't see digestion or life or mitosis or conductivity or photosynthesis...does that mean that they are more or less a belief? of course not.
You are a materialist at core ...you are arguing that we can not see a "thing" named consciousness. Physical properties are not things.
In all phenomena we are only able to see the results of a process.
".Secondly, the brain doesn't tell us that it produces consciousness matter doesn't tell you anything at all."
-can you clarify , I don't get your point? The brain doesn't produces "conscious mater" like the rock doesn't produces conductive matter. Those are just emergent properties of the physical structure it self.!
"All of our perceptions and conceptions are just interpretations within consciousness"
-Well my conscious states are limited within my cataleptic impressions. That doesn't change the fact that I can compare my subjective perception by comparing it to other peoples subjective perceptions.
What we can not do is go around our cataleptic impressions.
This is what our conscious states have to work with.
" I don't think i'm confusing consciousness with reasoning because it's by consciousness that I know that I'm reasoning."
-Sure conscious states allow us to reason, but we have individuals (either mentally impaired or suffering an injury) who they are unable to reason even if they are conscious. We need to distinguish all mind properties.
Consciousness is the third most important mind property in Cognitive science.
First is Awakeness(you need to be awake in order to have conscious experience) and you need to be unconsciously self aware in order to realize that those experiences refer to your existence....then we can utilize our ability to sustain conscious states.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I'm not saying that consciousness doesn't exist, we just don't see it with our senses therefore it is ineffable so we can't see it being produced from anything. " sure conscious states allow us to reason" right, i agree, reasoning is a mental activity but I don't have to reason if I exist or not, i'm just conscious of my existence.
@@williamburts5495 We see it like you can see hardness and liquidity in a rock or a pond! You and I can see the implications consciousness has on an individual by observing his conscious reactions. We can even read the content of conscious thoughts by reading a brain scan!
Again we might not be able to see the causal mechanism of rigidity or metabolism or mitosis or consciousness...but we observe the end result and impact on the physical structure responsible for its emergence. There are ways to investigate their causal mechanisms of any phenomenon but we need technical apparatus .!
Not sure how something that arises out of materialism can defeat materialism, but with the emergence of life out of non living matter, I do think matter escaped cause and effect determinism (to varying degrees). If cause and effect determinism was ever even a real thing to begin with.
The ideology of Materialism which dominated the motivations of the scientific method actualized the technologies we are currently using to even have this conversation on TH-cam. The ideology of Idealism…well…that just dominated the motivations of philosophical arguments surrounding the use of those technologies. Idealism and materialism are on two sides of a deeper, yet to be discovered and distinguished, linguistic/cognitive reality.
Matter is coagulated energy. Wave and particle at the same time. Basically, we don't know what matter is. Rational materialism seems to be a grand illusion from the 19th century.
GEORGI TCHKHAIDZE
Well said, sir. This is why I can’t get behind materialism.
We know what matter is. Matter is a specific state of energy. Fields of matter can be measured and they have different aspects....so this woo woo claim of being waves and particles at the same time is unfounded. It is an observer relative concept.
Materialism has nothing to do with what matter is but with the absolute statement "nothing except matter exists". The fact is matter exists....but we don't know whether the supernatural exists.
Materialism's absolute statement is indefensible...and so does the idealistic claims
Nickolas Gaspar
Hello, and thank you for your response. I disagree with your conclusions, however.
•Idealism is not trying to prove that the supernatural exists. Idealism states that consciousness is fundamental to reality and that matter is derivative. Consciousness, after all, is the only thing that can be proven without a doubt.
•Wave/Particle Duality has been at the heart of quantum physics since 1925. Please refer to the work of Alain Aspect, Zeilinger, Haisch, the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (1982), and the Non-Local Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (2012) for a short list.
•To define matter as “that which can be measured” is a vague, and ultimately, unacceptable answer. You can not use math, an immaterial concept, to define matter.
@@tombombadil9529. I think we have reached the hysterical turning point. We will see the scientific revolution and paradigm shift in the next 10-15 years...
Ψ
Hi there Ψ (👈 is this the astrological symbol for Neptune?), and welcome to the debate.
Your question as to whether a computer could be considered, by definition, a conscious entity suffers from a logical fallacy; begging the question. It assumes that materialism is true. I can not give you that. You must first prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a physical reality that exists independently of our perception. Only then would I consider the possibility that consciousness could emerge from inanimate material.
If you want to defeat another idea, are you really seeking truth? Isn’t that confirmation bias?
I am not in favor of materialism, but seeking truth is ultimate goal regardless of our prejudices.
Correct! I am a Methodological Naturalist (the only ism that avoids metaphysical presumptions) and I reject both materialism and Idealism for their unfalsifiable and irrational nature.
because dualism is illogical
Another great vid. I give him credit to giving time to the ID guy, who was less derpa derp than I expected. I'm not totally closed to ID per se, but there's no evidence for it other than the cognitive dissonance evolution causes some.
well i think materialism may be so wrong that it is distorting our perspective on everything, think about how many theories would immediately have to be rethought if we found that materialism was incorrect. i think it woyuld be foolish to ignore all the consciousness exploration that was carried out by previous civilizations
The implications of consciousness being non-material are exciting. It will have an impact across the spectrum of human thoughts.
Please do an episode on the simulation hypothesis !
He has. The topic is in several episodes on what is reality, what exists, and why is the universe breathtaking.
Are conciousness and materialism have separate independent base and collapsing each other in interaction, or conciousness depend on materialism to be exist or materialism depend on conciousness to be exist.
Assuming "material is real" is a poor assumption. When we make wrong assumptions in science, we get into lot more logical conclusions that are guaranteed to be wrong
Consciousness depends on materialism - it can't carry its own existence.
Materialism includes all the unexplained, invisible, intangible and undetectable like electromagnetic force, gravity, dark energy and mater, and everything else we don't even know exists, but is still existing in the substrate of our universe
Does thinking like that make you feel special. That your not just a bag of bacteria like every other creature on this rock. That you live on a speck of dust caught in the winds of an expanding universe. That mankind will just disappear one day and no one will even care or notice we are gone. Is this what motivates you ? The hope that all this isn't for nothing. Which does seems to be the case.
Well technically that is not materialism. Materialism is the indefensible position of "nothing but the natural exists".
What you described is our scientific picture of our world. Supernaturalists claim(an other indefensible claim) that non natural things can exist in the substrate of our universe"
Material phenomenon are definitely tangible, and detectable otherwise scientists couldn’t observe and study them, the only way dark matter was discovered is because it’s effects are indeed tangible and detectable even if it’s invisible.
@@thomasridley8675 One of the best arguments against materialism is how it so often leads to amoral nihilism like your post exhibits.
There are very good scientific arguments against materialism Donald Hoffman’s work comes to mind on this topic. If he’s correct being a materialist is akin to being Mario and believing the program you run, jump, and bust blocks in is a true representation of reality. Computer models of evolution he’s run are very indicative of the idea that he is indeed correct.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Your conflating physicalist with materialism, the claim of materialism is that only material objects exist fundamentally.
Another problem with your definition is that it actually doesn’t take the actual views of many holding an adverse view actually believe by building a straw man of them. Ask an ancient pagan, or modern Buddhist or Hindu, or even Christian person are God,or angels, or demons, or ghosts natural and they’d say they’re definitely a part of the universal natural order but of a higher or lower nature than the material realm depending on the entity enquirer about. An example for reference, ask a Buddhist what naturally happens at the death of an immoral person and they’d tell you the natural progression of phenomenon would most likely dictate a rebirth in a lower realm as a demon, ghost, animal, or hell denizen. Some of these rebirth possibilities are of a different nature than being born as an an animal or a human, but to the Buddhist they are by no means supernatural to them.
The fact that we can go into the psychedelia an interface with the consciousness shows something. There’s a creative independent intelligence in there. Who is that? . It could be ourselves , but we’re not controlling the Psychedelia directly. We are witnessing it in and mostly being healed by it in the proper set and setting. The experiences are direct and for people the basis for mystical experiences, that religion may have come from
Consciousness is source all nature created matters and materialism is essential ingredient of consciousness provided human materialism helps to sustain consciously created universe.
Ok, I'm not a scientist or philosopher so I simply don't understand the problem with acknowledging that the immaterial is integral to existence. When I think, something material is happening within the physical system that is me, but the thought itself has no material being. Awareness is as integral to existence as concrete. To me, physical space and time exist together and I don't see it as a stretch to roll consciousness into the mix. Consciousness is universal and my physical system has a limited ability to perceive and experience that aspect of being.
In a reality where mathematical infinity exists, I think that the material is simply one emergent dimention of existence. Our physical senses are intrinsic to the dimension they interact with, but we cannot define consciousness using the physical paradigm that it seems to intuitively transcend, including available language which emerged progressively with the need to describe novel concepts. Consciousness, however, is intuitively immensely more vast than what language can describe.
No one has ever experienced matter without consciousness, and never will. Right?
Matter IS consciousness. There is only consciousness.
I believe in the 7th explanation.
lol your reasoning is a mesh! Conscious states are how we are aware of matter structures.
The practice of science by definition excludes the observer that alone tells you science can only be at most 50% true. Where does science take place…? Where are ideas models theories hypothesises taking place..? Where does the understanding of science happen..? This tells me science is very limited in its scope in understanding reality.
Science, effectively within a materialistic framework, tends to map and model the more static form of the world, yet is less able to define or articulate the *dynamic* qualitative interactions of those same patterns. If every pattern has a static form and dynamic qualitative interactions, then much of panpsychism and problems of consciousness fall in line. Consciousness is the dynamic qualitative aspect of the definable static form of the brain. 'Will materialism explain consciousness?' is a malformed question, equivalent to asking if what is dynamic can be made static.
Many fields of scientific study are dedicated to understanding dynamic interactivity of patterns and forms, though I'm not entirely sure what qualities you mean by "qualitative." Emotional? Meaningful? Experiential? Maybe even qualia-related? (Tho I'd spell it qualiative or call it qualiful) :)
The brain is most certainly not static and the mind is all the processes happening there. Consciousness is the experience that happens when distilling our senses, emotions, self-awareness, social, intellectual, communicative, and language processes going on into scenes/narratives/show-and-tell. For this to work, there has to be an experiential "what it is like to be" me. So we evolved to have and be that very thing.
@@TheSeverian Dynamics are simulated mathematically in certain systems, the 'variations' in reality are not 'decided' in the same way. There's an aspect of interactions that is not mechanical, and for a number of reasons, I call this a dynamic/qualitative event.
I would say 'qualia' are the dynamic aspect of our static biological patterns interacting with inorganic and other biological static value patterns, although I assume this is a layer of consciousness we share with many animals. What makes humans different is much bigger problem.
@@TheSeverian When I say the brain is the static aspect, I'm not talking in an absolute sense, it has to do with a metaphysical view of things. It's no different to calling the brain 'matter' and the mind 'conscious', I'm only generalising the principle. The measurable material of the brain is the static counterpart to the dynamic quality of consciousness.
Your point is ignorant.
Science and materialism are two different things!
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism, which is in conflict with the materialistic claim,
Sot that is a straw man.
" Consciousness is the dynamic qualitative aspect of the definable static form of the brain. "
that is a great example on have flashy words put in a sentence can explain nothing.
"'Will materialism explain consciousness?' is a malformed question"
-NO its not just a malformed question...its a wrong question. Materialism is a metaphysical worldview. It doesn't have a method to explain physical phenomena and it only offers a claim "nothing exists except matter". Consciouness can only be and is explained by science....that means Methodological Naturalism..
We need to distinguish these basic ideas before making vague claims about dynamic qualitative interactions and static forms...etc
@@nickolasgaspar9660 OK, so materialism isn't technically a method, thanks for pointing that out. So the use of the term 'quale' is not a flashy word that explains nothing? "Consciouness [...] is explained by science"? Perhaps you alone can fill us in.
The gap between unconscious objects ( brain ) and consciousness cannot be bridged by objective observation due to consciousness being ineffable thus all theories of consciousness being manifested from matter will just always be unsubstantiated scientific materialist beliefs.
I'm not convinced that #6 is really non-materialistic ("some kind of non-material component that somehow combines with the brain.") It's non-materialistic with regards to the material that scientists have discovered, but, if it was really true, and if it had an interaction with the material of this world, then physicists would start teasing at it, and trying to figure out, "Well, what world does this different substance live in? What is it's nature? How does IT make IT's decisions?" And then we would find that "ethereal psychology" or "ethereal substances," have a measured impact, it's own structure and dynamics, and wha-lah -- you've just got a new kind of material. Like: We have matter, but we also have space-time -- yet they are both part of "materialism." So this new dynamic would just be a new kind of material. Whereas I bet #7 is NOT materialist, (theory #7: "the world is a dream," or "consciousness creates the world,") because it is not based on any kind of interacting substance. It's just a sheer creative power, and materiality of any kind is an imagination/emmanation/construction/creation of it. Then again, if there is a psychology to the universal soul, then we have a materialism again. The question in a way is, "What's material?"
Material is everything we have ever examined in this world. We have matter which produces physical structures and those structures are able to produce properties.
These emergent properties, from liquidity, wetness, rigidity to digestion, mitosis, consciousness etc can only be produced by complex physical structures , while at the fundamental level (particles) of matter we can only observe kinetic qualities.
So the supernatural view in general, claims, that complex properties can be non contingent to complex physical structures.
This isn't what we constantly observe in nature. Properties like digestion, consciousness, mitosis, photosynthesis NEED biology to manifest in the world.
Nickolas Gaspar - I think you are missing my point. I am saying: Suppose that there were a substance that exists that is not detected by science today, and it has some kind of interaction with substances that scientists DO understand today. Then, I argue, it would not be long before scientists deciphered the nature of these interactions, and these previously not understood substances, and we would end up with a new category of understood substances. Which is to say: It would all be “material,” all over again. To use your supernatural example- if there WERE a “supernatural” world of demons and elves or what have you, and if scientists in labs were able to study them, and different dimensions or whatever, then they would work out the science of them, and now we would no longer call them “super-natural,” but rather, simply “natural.” And thus they would be understood to be “material.” So applying this to consciousness, and possibility #6 is no longer a “non-materialist” explanation, rather, it is a materialist explanation at base.
@@LionKimbro Well I get your point, but if your hypotheses was right, then Science would be forced to adopt the principles of Methodological Supernaturalism, and abandon the current ones of Methodological Naturalism.
We call supernatural those claims that assume complex properties can arise from non complex physical structures. So if supernaturalism was true that means we should be able to observe properties like consciousness, reason, intelligence, delusion, volition etc non contingent to physical processes and structures.
That would be the end of materialism.
Now They same would be true (almost the same) if we could find substances in nature beyond the molecular scale that could displayed the same complex properties.
The current epistemology suggests that NO substances outside the molecular scale can exist.
I can understand the possibility of discovering a substance with a completely different ontology and accept this new ontology as part of the material world....but if this substance demonstrated mind properties then Supernaturalism would be real.
So topic only addresses the case of the supernatural co existing with the natural. It doesn't address the claim of the supernatural existing beyond the physical world(a mind is responsible for the material facade we observe).
That is an epistemically useless pseudo philosophical speculation that we can not test or after our lives.
Nickolas Gaspar Honestly, no. If there were fairies and unicorns in the world, it would not be methodolical supernaturalism to study them; it would be methodological naturalism exactly.
Nickolas Gaspar - We do not call “supernatural” that which assumes that complex properties can arise from non complex physical structures - that is the assumption of materialism itself! More specifically, it describes the atomic hypothesis exactly: Everything complex is made of simplest elements, that are called “atoms,” the fundamental building blocks. That’s the very basis of naturalism, of materialism.
7. is the "closest to truth", it's the argument I (a consciousness) can be most certain about - cogito ergo sum.
Integral Perspective, the four quadrants of knowing.
What you see is people getting impatient with the progress of materialistic science in answering their questions for them so they give up and buy into the easy self affirmative low hanging fruit of Idealism.
Excellent treatment. My position? I'm in the non-physical Option 1 camp - i.e. some non-material not-yet-identified component that combines with the physical brain. I find it a more compelling idea that matter is 'crystallised consciousness' (like ice is crystallised water vapour) rather than consciousness is an 'emergent' property of the brain - that's woo woo. Phil
How in the world is emergence more woo-wooey than the idea that matter is "crystallized consciousness"?
While crystallized consciousness is a really cool and interesting idea (similar to my wishful favorites, anomolous and Russellian monism), and could probably be the basis of a great fantasy/SF story, it's 100% unscientific and 100% without evidence, and thus an exemplary bit of woo.
"My position? I'm in the non-physical "
-So you prefer irrationality instead of evidence based metaphysics!
I would go with an option 8. A form of idealism based on the existence of qualia rather than consciousness. Qualia is the given experience. But we don't know if the qualia is produced by what we call consciousness, or if that is simply how the illusion (for want of a better word) seems. And we do not know if there is a material world that corresponds to the experienced qualia, or if that is how the illusion seems. We have developed a story about a self and a self being consciousness and a story about a material world based solely on observations of qualia. It is surely qualia that we can be most sure of. And the hard problem (if not impossible problem) is determining what the reality is on the other side of qualia, if there is anything at all!
Metaphysics........
In order to aware of anything....something must exists.
Idealism stops right there by using Logic 101.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Hi. Yes, my thinking is that the only sure bet is the existence of qualia. Can you go into more detail about what you said in your last sentence about logic?
@@RogerBays well first of all "qualia" doesn't exist. It is a fancy word made up by philosophers to avoid using the term "conscious states". So conscious states DO NOT Exist.
They are emergent properties that are enabled by our brain states. Conscious states is our ability to shift our conscious attention to environmental and organic stimuli , fueling our cataleptic impression and emotions.
What we know for sure is that our catalytic impressions are real, we are also sure that we are capable to reflect consciously on them.
So existence is primary since in order for our cataleptic impressions to be present, something must exist so our senses can interact with it.
The idealistic claim that "consciousness is fundamental" is logically impossible.
In order to be able to be aware of anything....something must exist in the first place.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 What experiments would you do to prove your hypotheses?
@@RogerBays what is my hypothesis Roger???? Can you define it because I read my comments and I don't really see one!
Humanity defined what death is. As far as creation is concerned there is no such thing as death, just a transformation of energy.
what is "creation"?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I could tell you my thoughts on creation and you would have a choice to believe me or disbelieve. Either way it gets you no closer to the truth.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Humanity has a great fundamental, we have the ability to recognize what we don't know as we don't know. Great questions by the way!!!!!!
@@patricklaw9951 what is exactly your claim, because those vague generalizations doesn't really convey any meaning or concept
Conciousness needs matters in which soul resides. Which is more important? Conciousness or materials? I think both matter.
can you show me where the soul resides please? and what does a soul do, and more importantly, how does it do it?
@@HarryNicNicholas 10 years ago I proved it. I am working now. You should wait...
@@HarryNicNicholas Sorry, I finished my daily routine now. The soul resides inside and outside us The soul relates us to our origin. The soul does it according to the providence.
A person who deserves to be interviewed is the inventor of the microchip and the touch screen , the italian physicist Federico Faggin who os spending decades of his life investigating the problem of consciousness as a scientist who takes a philosophic approach to the problem taking in account quantum mechanics. . For me one of the leading authorities in the field who differenciates totally AI and consciuousness .
AI will never obtain human consciousness 😂
Consiousness and materialism go hand in hand they cannot be divided, death is the division.
Robert Kuhn asks what is Kant's transcendent idealism. Oh wow, that says a lot...says he has not read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason". All those interested in Closer to the Truth channel must read that book...it's a difficult read and I am going to begin my third read of it in a couple years after I retire cuz I still don't understand it all...but...
The best shortcut to understanding Kant's claim about the mind (still not as good as reading the book itself) comes from an essay by F. Nietzsche "On Truth and Lie in an Extra Moral Sense."
oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Nietzsche/Truth_and_Lie_in_an_Extra-Moral_Sense.htm
A really important part of that essay comes mid way through when he begins to discuss metaphor.
Basically Kant and Nietzsche are saying that our mental picture of the world, including science, is so deeply fabricated by the mind that we are hopelessly tainted even to the point of thinking that pursuit of truth (science) is a value worth pursuing. Kant was less misanthropic than Nietzsche but did make the claim that reasoning in general and scientific reasoning in particular can go in no direction but to assume ever smaller particles and causal relations between them exist and weave all that into a story which will come to an end when the faculty of reason, limited as it is, as it must be, can't make sense of what happens next.
Actually, related to all that was F. Nietzsche's poo-pooing of the theory of evolution on the grounds that it wasn't a very good story.
Why should one go back to old ideas about brain states when modern philosophers has way more science to work with ??? Try John Searles's work on the topic.
@Nickolas Kant's ideas about brain states are still relevant. For instance self-driving cars are totally Kantian in the way they attempt to see what's in front of them. In "Critique of Pure Reason" if you look at the 12 categories of judgement you will see that any perception or thought you can possible have is configured by, typically, several categories overlapping, much like Venn diagrams, in which the area of category overlap fully describes what you're intuiting or thinking. Neuroscience still has not idea how all that overlapping works.
@@rh001YT "Kant's ideas about brain states are still relevant"
Why? was he a brain scientists?
-"For instance self-driving cars are totally Kantian in the way they attempt to see what's in front of them."
- No self driving cars are not even close to how a brain works.
-" In "Critique of Pure Reason" if you look at the 12 categories of judgement you will see that any perception or thought you can possible have is configured by, typically, several categories overlapping, much like Venn diagrams, in which the area of category overlap fully describes what you're intuiting or thinking."
- I think you will need to take a course on Cognitive science. We know far more than you or Kant can imagine.
@Nickolas " You've put this in quotes, suggesting you are quoting me, "Kant's ideas about brain states are still relevant". I don't recall writing that, but anyway his explanation of how reasoning works via use of built in concept templates, which would be higher level functioning, is still totally relevant and neuroscience is still grappling like an infant to explain how those concept templates work. Kant probably was the first congnitive scientist.
Self driving cars and other machine AI like advanced robots attempt to create a Kantian mind space in the machine that interprets data from it's sensors to evaluate like a human or at least like a beast of burden.
If you would familiarize yourself with Kant's 12 categories of judgement you will find you agree....no perception or thought you can have is not covered by them except aesthetics and ethics/morality. To explain those Kant wrote "Critiquie of the Power of Judgement" and "Critique of Practical Reason". Kant noted that he did not cover emotions and hoped scholars in the future would undertake that as he was a bit worn out after those three Critiques.
@@rh001YT "You've put this in quotes, suggesting you are quoting me, "Kant's ideas about brain states are still relevant". I don't recall writing that,"
- I can print screen your previous post mate.....
-" I don't recall writing that, but anyway his explanation of how reasoning works via use of built in concept templates, which would be higher level functioning, is still totally relevant and neuroscience is still grappling like an infant to explain how those concept templates work."
-Lets assume that this is true! That only shows that brain function is a complex mechanism. That doesn't prove transcendent idealism!
But it isn't true. We know that chemical inputs are responsible for the non "blank slate" of our brains and concepts are theories that are introduced by our symbolic language. Your types of concepts vs mine is the evidence of the role of the introduced theory by our peers. Everything has an empirical based, from the metabolic molecules used as fuel to the mental input that we receive in our cultures.
"Self driving cars and other machine AI like advanced robots attempt to create a Kantian mind space in the machine that interprets data from it's sensors to evaluate like a human or at least like a beast of burden. "
-No they don't. Mind in humans work on emotions in relation to the information projected in our Cataleptic impressions. We reason our emotions in to feelings and meaning. Car and ID don't have emotions or don't address meaning of feelings.
Kant did not have our current epistemology to understand what is a mind and how mind states arise.
"If you would familiarize yourself with Kant's 12 categories of judgement you will find you agree....no perception or thought you can have is not covered by them except aesthetics and ethics/morality"
-why should I do that. Why should I waste my time on philosophical speculations, no matter how "similar" they might sound to some questions in neuroscience?
When I can take a Mooc on cognitive science and have a far more updated and scientifically correct picture about the mind???
Just a thought.......why?
I have enrolled in more than 10 courses and I have never heard Kant's 12 categories being fundamental in our scientific approach on the theory of mind.
"To explain those Kant wrote "Critiquie of the Power of Judgement" and "Critique of Practical Reason". Kant noted that he did not cover emotions and hoped scholars in the future would undertake that as he was a bit worn out after those three Critiques."
-I prefer Mark Solmes (South African founder of Neuropsychoanalysis) work on the mind and his work on the mechanisms of dreams.
He has an amazing mooc on future learn (what is a mind) that contains tons of modern, up to date evidence and frameworks on the subject.
Materialism is a dead end: literally. What may not be a dead end is consciousness. But this is a weird phenomenon. Who needs science fiction when life and consciousness are the best 'science fiction' plot ever? The trouble with it though, is that we are trapped in that very plot and must act, think, suffer and die in it and because of it. Consciousness is as much a trap as the body is; they are prison and guardian jailer. But we need them both because they give us the means to be and the ability to function as human beings. The author of the plot is unknowabe. Between the material aspects of life and the ethereality of consciousness, we have to make peace.
Thirteen
Accept disgrace willingly.
Accept misfortune as the human condition.
What do you mean by "Accept disgrace willingly"?
Accept being unimportant.
Do not be concerned with loss or gain.
This is called "accepting disgrace willingly."
What do you mean by "Accept misfortune as the human condition"?
Misfortune comes from having a body.
Without a body, how could there be misfortune?
Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.
Lao Tzu
It does. We all know that our speech is formed based on logic (Whether the words we speak makes sense or not). This defeats materialism, because if the chemical reactions in our brain determines what we speak, our words would be incoherent simply because the laws of nature doesn't care whether our words make sense or not. The idea of "Logic" can't even be reduced to chemical reactions to explain it materialistically.
It doesn't.
"We all know that our speech is formed based on logic "
-that is not true for everyone.......
"(Whether the words we speak makes sense or not)"
-well your claims make no sense here, so my point about has some merit.
" This defeats materialism, because if the chemical reactions in our brain determines what we speak, our words would be incoherent simply because the laws of nature doesn't care whether our words make sense or not. "
-No it doesn't. First of all we know that if we introduce specific chemicals in your brain we don't only change your thinking and the content of your thought(alcohol, drugs...to much sugar)we can even manipulate your behavior.
Metabolic molecules are labeled that way for a specific reason....because our brain functions on the metabolic reaction of those chemicals.
Its better to take an academic course on Cognitive science and understand the field...than post ignorant "theological" claims in your attempt to create an echo chamber for your death denying ideologies.
For me, the truth is, somehow, in between 6 and 7 and closer to both; and the all-knower knows best.
Robert, OK just simplistically, how about dark materialism? What is that? Haha, got ya’ 🤣
No.
"I resist the metaphor of military battle..."
Nice counterattack.
Consciousness is in the body and is outside the body, but the matter convince as is nothing after this life, is the reason to many an believers everywhere. In this life and the next one stay in the light.
I think, therefore I am. If SkyNet ever comes about on its own, that will clearly be the end-all of this discussion. If not, then consciousness is something unique to advanced species and hopefully everlasting.
my question is, if consciousness comes from the chemistry of the brain only, then why can't we figure out if animals have consciousness? we can be pretty sure about a few but can't we just find the differences between non conscious(to our knowledge) animals to figure out something at least?
That will never work because the best science can ever do is show brain activity is correlated to consciousness, not causative of it.
Idealism is most close to truth, as it's been experienced directly by hundreds of thousands or millions of people
Materialists won't touch that experiment with a 10' pole because even when thinking of the experiment it quickly becomes obvious that at some point between the spectrum of animal brains there's a binary line of consciousness that isn't dependent on any function or structure of the brains
Consciousness is primary - without it, there would be nothing to talk about.
Here's a way of thinking about this. Let us assume monism. There is only one substance. Then matter and the thing inside your head, smells, pains, love, qualia etc are all manifestations of the same substance. Space time are included in that substance. So everything is a manifestation of this substance. End of discussion.
Yup, so long as you're assuming them mental in nature. As there is NO way to bridge that gap of quantities like mass, charge & spin, to qualities, even in principle, at least currently under physical realism/materialism anyway. & there are imo "valid" alts which have the same or even more explanatory power & with a fewer number of even more reasonable inferences. Though few are even aware of them. Bernardo Kastrup "alters" for instance.
@@realcygnus I find it unnecessary to assume them of mental nature just as I assume it different from material nature. Because what we know from experience is mental and material stuff, so this primordial substance need not be either of those, but by finding commonalities between matter and mind we might get a glimpse of that substance.
Let's not assume monism. You should start your philosophy by using facts and let them guide you to the most reasonable assumption about the ontology of reality.
Assuming what you want to prove is disprove is pseudo philosophy.
Materialism can’t really be eliminated in a material world. I believe that a higher consciousness can drastically reduce the preoccupation with materialism but not relinquish it altogether. Bcuz for that, there would be no more physical body or living on earth. One would have transcended to angel level and live in the etheric realm up above. Up there with the stars and gods who move about in spirit form only. Which most are not ready for. Including myself.
What does it mean to beyond the physical? What is non physical? There can be more than two reasons.
anything non physical is non existant, by definition. god is outside space and outside time, and immaterial = doesn't exist.
I can tell you now yes there's more then materlalllisim I died twice and I still existed that world or dimension was even realer than this one no need to be afraid of death it's just a transformation into some other reality that was absolutely incredible and wonderful that I experienced, enjoy this life you have to the fullest it's what your creator wants for you to do!!🙏🙏❤❤❤
The human body is the material and the consciousness(every cell have consciousness )at the same time. Material is something that can be sensed by consciousness. This kind of discussion is becoming heat because it is increasing discoveries that come from various studies such as physics, universe and biology that consciousness is playing fundamental role.
Nothing in physics support the idea of the fundamental role of a mind property like consciousness.
To be more precise physics have nothing to say about the ontology of a mind property.
I unite when others divide. I see consciousness as being materialism. It is a unique quality of material world. The waves are not the ocean but the ocean is the waves. Waves are consciousness in this metaphor. I already awakened to knowing I am the ocean. It was a gift given to me by some very special friends that exist here with us in this reality.
" I see consciousness as being materialism."
-that statement makes no sense. Consciousness is a emergent physical phenomena. Materialism is an indefensible metaphysical claim. how can equate two different descriptive labels?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 consciousness is photons. Photons are material
@@nickolasgaspar9660 consciousness is electrons not photons. There could be photons involved. We know the brain is electric.
@@TheWayofFairness consciousness is a flash light? I didn't get the memo! Who had the idea and won the Nobel prize?
Consciousness is a state produced by a process (electro-chemical processes connecting the ARAsystem with the rest important areas of the brain).
Consciousness is not a thing.
I think at a particular point in between, the difference between existence and non existent is blurred.
Thought itself if physical meaning everything we are was and is accumulated. A transformation of energy.
Sure, metabolic molecules feeding a physical structure(biological brain) which reacts to environmental and organic stimuli. There is nothing more physical than that process.
I think the whole lot is made up by the mind,other than thoughts ,there's nothing.The problem with the world is that there is no world.
@@hermansohier7643 In order for your mind to be aware of anything.... something must exist.
Idealistic views are self refuting and epistemically useless. The fact that we have zero epistemic inputs in science of idealistic frameworks show how useless idealistic principles are in their ability to describe meaningfully the world.