I had to have a general anaesthetic recently. It helped me overcome fear of death. The absoluteness of the experience, the lack of pain or effort all helped me think "This is as close to dead as I can get without being really dead and I'm OK with it".
“If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not.” -Epicurus Death truly is nothing to worry about. Fortunately, when we die, there is no one to experience non-being.
@@kaushikkam2596 sure, but it was about as close to death as you can get, so it helped me better imagine what actual death would be like. I realised it would be fine.
Do you not notice that there has to be a residual awareness for you to recognize that there was an experience characterized by "lack of pain or effort"?
@@jdove1977Hoffman's hypothesis is clearly very relatable to what Seth is speaking now. Both are actually describing the different aspects of the same truth.
"a discussion between Donald Hoffman and Anil Seth, would be super interesting" I doubt it. Their fundamental axioms are different. Donald Hoffman is a mystic whereas Anil Seth is not.
A very good interview . I had read reviews of Seth’s book that are quite misleading and even the description of the book on Skype is very misleading, letting the reader think that Seth denies that there is such a thing as reality. He sets the matter straight so I’ll buy and read the book.
Thank you Michael Shermer. Anil Seth: I addressed you and Sam Harris around the time of your first podcast, several years ago, in a video on my channel-wherein I posited (something I’m sure other thinkers have probably said) - which was that our consciousness is the result of the amalgam and integration of our integrated sensory network data collected from our sensory stimulus detection; then I posited that I think that Sentience is an emergent and necessary aspect of mobile living things. Today I was moved by your and Michael Schirmers discussion of the red dot test and before you came to the particular conclusion you made about utility, I was taken aback by my own realization of that-thus, that it is silly to impose on other creatures tests specific to our conscious utility-or which they don’t have the actual or experiential conditioning, need or utility otherwise necessary or specific to our conscious perceptive landscape. So for example, macaques they don’t need to see their reflection in a mirror; there’s probably a scant few times they see it in a pond or a river - and so before you said-it and then when you said it-I saw that as basic, and I agree that there is, for example, olfactory self-recognition, there is likely sonaric self-recognition, and it’s per the species whether it matters or not and so comparing it to human landscape re-creation in our mind for our Qualia is silly. But mostly I came in here to say this I’m very glad to hear you say that we shouldn’t be trying to create conscious machines;about two years ago I made a meme for Instagram and Facebook - I may have put it on my website, I don’t remember - which said that I’m anti-anthropomorphic AI. Not more than ethical situations I’ve envisioned - contingency situations, that would be quite dangerous on say, distant outposts, or in piloting vehicles-for example, where crew would need to save themselves and they would have moments of confusion about whether or not to save a machine - and then of course there’s the issue that you mentioned which has been talked about and Sam Harris has talked about - for a long time - and that is, if this other man-made species were to suffer-for a long time we wouldn’t even know it. I actually doubt the ethical sanity of the people who want to do this. There are enough people on the earth and we have enough trouble trying to ascertain what their intelligence and ethical level is, there are sentient creatures we abuse-so we don’t need to create a race of machines - which I don’t even think is possible - that is conscious. Finally, I had the thought which you expressed, and that is that it is the living experience of a conscious mind that is necessary for sentience, and I agree with you it’s not separate from the substrate; it’s like saying that the magnetic arrangement of the particles on the cassette tape are the same as the cassette tape; once the cassette tape is lost all you have is particles.
Civilization is our extremely complex ecological niche. Cultural evolution has made us conscious so we may thrive in it. How very simple are the ecological niches of other organisms in comparison. Physical evolution gave them instincts entirely sufficient for them to thrive. There is simply no need for them to be conscious. So they aren't. Which is why I have no qualms about eating them. Pets, on the other hand, may have their minds adjusted by their proximity to us. Probably why we bury them uneaten.
Wow! Anil is such a sharp and inquisitive cookie! Definitely worth the time spent watching. He doesn’t dismiss functionalism as impossible, but he’s skeptical. Mind uploads? What exactly would we be uploading? He dismisses the Simulation Argument as useless. They don’t talk about it, but he’d likely have a similar view of the Many Worlds Hypothesis. By the way, I have a public library hold on a digital ebook copy of Anil’s new book, Being You.
May the 4th be with you. That just might be the nerdiest joke I've ever heard.😁I don't know why this podcast isn't more popular. I would rather hear Michael Shermer's thoughts about things than Joe Rogan's, honestly.
Self-evidently, we are nothing more than highly coordinated, goal-driven organisms. From the inside, the integral processing at the centre of our physiology is subjectively present, even though it remains objectively inaccessible. From the outside, only the objective aspect of this integral processing is present/accessible, with the subjective aspect being completely absent. In contrast with all other physical processes observed in nature, this uniquely dichotomous integral processing seems to be an ontological anomaly. Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label it for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly reify its subjective aspect (often labelled "subjectivity", "consciousness", "awareness", "cognition", "sentience", "mind", etc) into seeming as though it is, in fact, ontologically different from (and caused by) its objective aspect. Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains unsuccessful in observing the mechanism(s) responsible for this causation, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness". Empirically, all there is to find is the highly coordinated, goal-driven organism, along with its uniquely dichotomous integral processing, and all that it physically entails. Other than the simple fact that we ARE such organisms, there is no reason why it feels like anything for us to be alive. Being naturally occurring entities, there is no reason why such organisms emerge in the universe. This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".
This Is wonderful ... thank you both. I wonder who is the author of the "Moonie image" images. Is that Arthur Shapiro? I can't find the source of this image :(
“Why are those who are notoriously undisciplined and unmoral also most contemptuous of religion and morality? They are trying to solace their own unhappy lives by pulling the happy down to their own abysmal depths.” ― Fulton J. Sheen
I can think of too many examples contrary to this quote from Sheen. Also... so many examples of unmoral behaviour by those in positions of 'high religious status'. Sheen, whomever he/she is, may well be incorrect!
@@kieranaland4724 “ Criticism of others is thus an oblique form of self-commendation. We think we make the picture hang straight on our wall by telling our neighbors that all his pictures are crooked. ” - Fulton J. Sheen Give me an example?
G'day from down-under @Luke Sandison. I'm not going to bother writing a list when I can refer you to one- Download and read the final report of the Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. You can easily find it online. Plenty of names in it for you ...plenty of churches too. Sheen makes a mistake- Religion and morality should not be conflated.
@@kieranaland4724 The mistake is believing that shame and guilty mean little and you can live your life without consequence. We are all flawed by nature...The problem is thinking that original Sin is a fallacy and means nothing.
Your Sufferings in life whoever you are and whatever sufferings you are going through are mine. That is the true charitable message of Christ. Bless you whatever afflicts you. 🙏
Anesthesia is caused by blocking communication between different brain regional networks. -> We can build consciousness by communicating different type of neural networks.
A beautiful rational antidote to Shermer's Traditional Conservatism v Enlightenment Liberalism podcast I watched immediately before it in which the former knocked itself out with the Old Testament in round one
“Never forget that there are only two philosophies to rule your life: the one of the cross, which starts with the fast and ends with the feast. The other of Satan, which starts with the feast and ends with the headache.” ― Fulton J. Sheen, Seven Words of Jesus and Mary: Lessons from Cana and Calvary
Flawless interview, no comments on that, got ''Being You' and I'm planning on reading it soon. Do you record with squadcast?(not affiliated) The quality of the audio and that of the video are great!
Perhaps the simplest way to explain this phenomenon we call "Consciousness" is to use the analogy of the Internet/WiFi to better understand it. Let's start with the question of..Where does the Internet exist ??.. The answer would be that It's all around us, in an all pervasive, everpresent electromagnetic field of information that exists irrespective of whether our phones are turned off or on. To say that the Internet/WiFi has gone when we switch our mobile phones off would be patently absurd and ridiculous. Similarly, Consciousness does not go away in deep sleep or under anesthesia. It persists and exists permanently even when the brain is switched off as is the case in deep sleep and or under anesthesia. What hapoens in deep sleep/anasthesia is that brain 🧠 ceases to register activity. However, all other vital functions and activities like breathing, blood flow, digestion, heart pumping etc etc continue despite the brain/mind being unaware of all such activity taking place.. That is NOT to say that the body is not conscious of It's need to continue working to support itself. Therefore, Consciousness does NOT cease to exist, neither does it go away as professor Anil Seth states early on. Where would consciousness/Internet go ??.. Consciousness IS the all pervasive, ever-present connective field that exists, irrespective of whether one knows, understands or accepts it or not. It might very well be the GUTE .. the Grand Unifying Theory of Everything, the First Cause, the Prima Materia, the Umbilical Cord that connects Everything...All Existence. The ancient rishis & yogis of India contemplated this mystery we call Consciousness thousands of years ago and arrived with startling accuracy and articulated their understanding of it in the most clear, concise and vivid language imaginable. Today, probably the best proponent of this ancient Indic tradition is none other than the brilliant Swami Sarvapriyananda, spiritual head of the Vedanta Societ NY. You would do well Mr Shermer to have him on as a guest and shoot any and all questions Consciousness related at him. Satisfaction almost certainly guaranteed. 👊🏼 ✌🏼☝🏼❤️👉🏼😇
Terence, I know you mean well, but you’re trolling - using this podcast as a platform for your own idiosyncratic views. If other viewers are anything like me, they’re a lot more interested in Anil’s views than in yours.
@@stanh24 You've no clue what I mean, don't presume to know that I mean well. Also, stop reading others comments and then commenting your paltry two bit sentences of utter patheticism. You're the troll mate, make no mistake. Just get on with listening to Anil Seth's idiosyncratic views quietly, then, form your own silly idiosyncrasies and also, please do stop pontificating and trolling. Get a real life.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575That's not an opinion, its "my theory" to add to the 20 other theories of consciousness that were mentioned. Sadly, you don't even have two well articulated sentences to your credit, let alone a theory. I suggest you degausse the atmospheric pressure build up in your cranial/sphincter cavity .. it might help with your constipated, little mind syndrome. Daddy T.👊🏼👉🏼😎
" Does Watson know that it beat the great Ken Jennings in Jeopardy!? " - does Shermer have any other questions that might indicate he has advanced his understanding at all?
The point of asking questions is not to display understanding. It's to prompt the guest to reveal their thinking on the matter. I have been listening to Shermer for a long time and he does seem to fall back on the same anecdotes and question which could be dull, if it wasn't for his guests giving different insights.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny fantastic point. there is only ever one reason to ask a question, and those questions never indicate Shermer's ability to understand the idea.
@@ZalexMusic Did you enjoy the interview? I've listened to a variety of thinkers in these topics. I like Anil Seth's approach, it seems more grounded to me.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny I enjoyed the interview because I enjoy seeing Kastrup take Shermer to school over and over again, like Graham Hancock did to Shermer on their Rogan debate. Arrogant materialists are just plain sad.
@@ZalexMusic interesting, I tend to avoid labels as I think they can bias our thinking, although I lean toward materialist explanations. Do you really find Shermer to be arrogant? Perhaps it's materialists in general?
At 3:20 into the podcast, Michael and Anil introduce the book “Theories Of Consciousness” and then say there are “20 theories” about consciousness listed in the book. It is my hope that someday the meaning of the word “theory” is never a synonym of the word “hypothesis”. A scientific theory is the exact opposite of a hypothesis, and it drives me crazy trying to explain this to people who say to me “evolution is just a theory”. These definitional changes are very unlikely to occur in the near future, but if they ever do, it will only happen after scientists and anybody working in a scientific field, stop using the word theory and say hypothesis instead. Michael and Anil kept saying hypothesis over and over and I cringed every time I heard it. I’m disappointed with title of this book and with the publishers who I believe missed an opportunity here. They had a slow ball coming in right over the plate, and they bunted to try and get science to first, instead of swinging away at the easy pitch, which has a much greater likelihood of reaching third. Sadly, more people will read the title of this book, than those who will actually read the book. I fear this will subliminally confirm to them once again, that evolution is just a theory. I submit this with no disrespect to Michael and the podcast, both of which I love. I’ve made this simple change to my vocabulary because it’s one of many steps we should all take to help our fellow apes reach a better understanding of science. And by doing so, reach a better understanding of what is most likely true and what is most likely not true, in the universe with which we find ourselves in. I hope you will consider such changes for future conversations within your own life.
Thanks again Michael for your wonderful channel...can you try to bring to your show Richard Lang, to discuss Douglas Harding "The headless way" (science of the first person) Thanks 💓🍃
14:40: but human said in the brain-stem and surrounding area to the center. whatever the apes do, they have no chance to defy human, so the only thing they can do is thievery as patching technique and blunt theft as they already did (stealing human thoughts and polluting them badly). exactly like apes: the way they steal from human then hide what they have stolen using apes' ornamentation "apes' style" and the way they deal with human later as if he does not exist (exactly like real apes' behavior)!.
The guy here is just grasping at straws, he does but conjecture. Consciousness has become an obsession of late, and every discussion I hear seems to be just a form of mind candy. Yes he talks about science and talks about the brain, and you can be fascinated by such theorizing and creating hypotheses, and getting into some technical detailing but there is no resolution. Again, what we have here is ultimately mind candy chasing an horizon. It's all phenomenology without saying anything with ontological certainty. Defining or knowing what consciousness is through science and technology will always remain a asymptotic fantasy.
P1: A person born blind does not dream of images from our world. P2: I can only have knowledge of what I can experience with my senses. P3: A person born blind does not dream of images from our world because they have no prior visual experience to reference. C: If our lives were a simulation/dream, we would first need to acquire experience of this world.
even after they committed their theft crimes, they do not understand because the thieves are not the source of the thoughts. by the way all I have wrote before is correct even after billions of years whatever the apes do and if human future generations survived as rational intelligent entities they will be able know the past for sure "let the apes bounce now as much as they can, its their paradise". the thieves think that being a thieves is enough to understand, there are more important things, let the thief apes figure them out ! thoughts have source, thinking process, reasons, .... only the owner of the thoughts can know, the thieves have chance. but that question still needs an answer: how did the apes lost all the main human characteristics !
1:40:00 the ape talks about so called personal identity ! it could change or ..... but it is not the self itself, it is just representation of the self, generated by self concept ! the apes are real dilemma!
In the very last minute, Anil is actually factually incorrect about the nature of (non-existent) free will, which Sam Harris elaborates and explains very well. We lack even an experience of free will.
Do you know why he is so worried about the self?! It’s a response to what I wrote, many did the same (some are in denial state and some others are….) Try to think, what his main purpose?! It’s the self, why ? It is a response to something, he imitated what I wrote.
Not only does Anil Seth not contribute anything new, but he is far behind real researchers, those of whom aren't trying to sell books to those with only high school educations. He presents nothing whatsoever that is close to new, that he has made no significant contributions. If you want the state of the art, look to the world renowned MIT.
Are your comments based on a detailed check of his actual publication list and impact score? Which particular MIT researcher has moved the science of consciousness forward? (I don't mean connectionism or Robotics.) Interested to follow-up on those.
The key to consciousness is to first have a brain, and then to be awake, and only for that narrow definition of consciousness as so much thinking takes place entirely unconsciously, even some perception we have is unconscious (or some call subconscious).
@@PetraKann I definitely realize that. My comment was directed toward Home Wall. Any sentence that starts with, "the key to consciousness is..." can be immediately disregarded.
Greetings all, I have a progressive theory of consciousness, that is available on my channel, under Notes For Navigators. I explains the co-evolution of consciousness along with complexity, and it incorporates all the conceptual steps and theories nessasary to make everything fit together in a unified theory. The episodes build on each other, guiding you through: the ledger of the universe, windows of perception, free will, will power, free will power, etc. All of it is practical, and actionable, which is the whole point, in my opinion, of philosophy. I would love some feedback, civil of course, to know what others think about it. Anyway, thanks for the video, keep up the good work.
33:30 the ape here talks about human: they have read all my comments, he talks about how self concept generates consciousness type one ! the apes want to defy human ! there is something I never said before, because basically I do not believe in the gods of the apes, but remember this: comparing human mind to the apes little minds is like comparing the apes to god, this is the only language the sick apes can understand. sick irrational apes want to defy human being ! I am struggling with the apes only for the sake of future generations nothing more, I am not interested in arguing bunch of sick irrational apes at all.
Do you want more hints? Take a look at susan blackmore in the same period of time (they have the exact goal) what is happened?! some are in denial state and some others have stolen and polluted all I have written and worked on erasing human traces too in cooperation with that TH-cam channel.
Consciousness - overblown concept, residual from religion. Everyone who's had a cat or dog know they are self conscious just as we are. They just don't talk about it. We also have subjective experiences and interactions with perceived others in our dreams. Unless someone captures as many images of consciousness as the US military has of UFOs that defy known laws of physics, there might be good reason for skepticism here.
@@NSOcarth every cat and dog owner has seen them have nightmares or talk (bark) in their sleep. Dreaming and being a character in your own sleep exhibits consciousness (self) despite silly notions that self consciousness isn't expressed in sleep. Too many bad ideas to untangle when talking about this topic. Philosophers need to catch up with neuroscience, or we just drop the philosophy part for science period.
Michael: you pint your finger in almost every episode. Viewers would appreciate it if you didn’t. There is something annoying about someone seeming to be pointing at others, and it makes you seem very defensive, smug, judgmental, and secretly combative or bitter. It is ugly.
Initially, I was interested because I read the book and the author is interesting to listen to indeed but I quit... Can you have at least one - only one - conversation with only one guest without pushing ahead that Chopra character and his pathetic phrases????? It's as if Chopra invented the consciousness and you have to - just have to - mention his name every time you talk about anything remotely associated with it. It starts to sound ridiculous. If I were one of your guests, serious authors and scientists, I'd kind of feel disrespected.
My comments on his perorations elsewhere on TH-cam: The muddles of a neuromaterialist theory of consciousness! "We take ourselves for granted., but we shouldn't." If we were not really here, it is meaningless to say that we shouldn't take ourselves for granted. "How things seem is not the way they are." Hasty generalization! It seems to me that you are speaking English and that's also the way it is. And who is talking about "how your brain invents your self"? (silly mock quotes around self!) "Your" brain or "You"? "The self is a collection of perceptions." Rehashed Buddhist metaphysical nonsense! To make this claim, there needs to be a self that is aware of ITS perceptions. The self as hallucination? Nonsense upon stilts! Hallucination or illusion occurs only for a self. So, the self cannot itself be a hallucination or illusion. Stop the runaway Brain fetishism!
Fuck the views. Its great value for those of us who actually enjoy the episodes. Hence, not a waste at all. Get rid of this stupid idea that anything not gone viral or mainstream is not as much worth. It’s maybe even opposite to that, it makes it even more precious.
I know you. I am a fan! I am great duo for what you do. Can’t ya up the professionalism (cinematic) of your channel. Get the wires out of your ears! Rehearse the promo narrative - just once! Stop Leaning in like you are staining to see. Come on man - It’s just jerky and schlocky Your message is just too damn important.
I had to have a general anaesthetic recently. It helped me overcome fear of death. The absoluteness of the experience, the lack of pain or effort all helped me think "This is as close to dead as I can get without being really dead and I'm OK with it".
“If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not.” -Epicurus
Death truly is nothing to worry about. Fortunately, when we die, there is no one to experience non-being.
@@Rheologist Exactly
@@lamalama9717 You are not really dead when you have a general anesthetic. The Brian is still active.
@@kaushikkam2596 sure, but it was about as close to death as you can get, so it helped me better imagine what actual death would be like. I realised it would be fine.
Do you not notice that there has to be a residual awareness for you to recognize that there was an experience characterized by "lack of pain or effort"?
Anil Seth is one of my favorite thinkers on this topic. Good to see this today!
Great discussion. A debate between Anil Seth and Bernardo Kastrup would be really interesting!
Someone should arange a discussion between Donald Hoffman and Anil Seth, would be super interesting to listen to.
i prefer Bernardo Kastrup than Hoffman but yes ...
I prefer Hoffman to Kastrup
Kaastrup is a big baloon filled with metaphysical smoke which he tries to present as science @@francesco5581
@@jdove1977Hoffman's hypothesis is clearly very relatable to what Seth is speaking now. Both are actually describing the different aspects of the same truth.
"a discussion between Donald Hoffman and Anil Seth, would be super interesting"
I doubt it.
Their fundamental axioms are different.
Donald Hoffman is a mystic whereas Anil Seth is not.
A very good interview . I had read reviews of Seth’s book that are quite misleading and even the description of the book on Skype is very misleading, letting the reader think that Seth denies that there is such a thing as reality. He sets the matter straight so I’ll buy and read the book.
So in resume that gentleman know that someday someone will know... very impressive.
Thank you Michael Shermer.
Anil Seth: I addressed you and Sam Harris around the time of your first podcast, several years ago, in a video on my channel-wherein I posited (something I’m sure other thinkers have probably said) - which was that our consciousness is the result of the amalgam and integration of our integrated sensory network data collected from our sensory stimulus detection; then I posited that I think that Sentience is an emergent and necessary aspect of mobile living things.
Today I was moved by your and Michael Schirmers discussion of the red dot test and before you came to the particular conclusion you made about utility, I was taken aback by my own realization of that-thus, that it is silly to impose on other creatures tests specific to our conscious utility-or which they don’t have the actual or experiential conditioning, need or utility otherwise necessary or specific to our conscious perceptive landscape. So for example, macaques they don’t need to see their reflection in a mirror; there’s probably a scant few times they see it in a pond or a river - and so before you said-it and then when you said it-I saw that as basic, and I agree that there is, for example, olfactory self-recognition, there is likely sonaric self-recognition, and it’s per the species whether it matters or not and so comparing it to human landscape re-creation in our mind for our Qualia is silly.
But mostly I came in here to say this I’m very glad to hear you say that we shouldn’t be trying to create conscious machines;about two years ago I made a meme for Instagram and Facebook - I may have put it on my website, I don’t remember - which said that I’m anti-anthropomorphic AI. Not more than ethical situations I’ve envisioned - contingency situations, that would be quite dangerous on say, distant outposts, or in piloting vehicles-for example, where crew would need to save themselves and they would have moments of confusion about whether or not to save a machine - and then of course there’s the issue that you mentioned which has been talked about and Sam Harris has talked about - for a long time - and that is, if this other man-made species were to suffer-for a long time we wouldn’t even know it.
I actually doubt the ethical sanity of the people who want to do this. There are enough people on the earth and we have enough trouble trying to ascertain what their intelligence and ethical level is, there are sentient creatures we abuse-so we don’t need to create a race of machines - which I don’t even think is possible - that is conscious.
Finally, I had the thought which you expressed, and that is that it is the living experience of a conscious mind that is necessary for sentience, and I agree with you it’s not separate from the substrate; it’s like saying that the magnetic arrangement of the particles on the cassette tape are the same as the cassette tape; once the cassette tape is lost all you have is particles.
Civilization is our extremely complex ecological niche.
Cultural evolution has made us conscious so we may thrive in it.
How very simple are the ecological niches of other organisms in comparison.
Physical evolution gave them instincts entirely sufficient for them to thrive.
There is simply no need for them to be conscious.
So they aren't.
Which is why I have no qualms about eating them.
Pets, on the other hand, may have their minds adjusted by their proximity to us.
Probably why we bury them uneaten.
Awesome! I requested him a couple of times. Thanks very much for that.
Taking the opportunity, I'll make another suggestion: *Robert Sapolsky* 👍
You have some absolute gems on your channel! Well done you :)
Awesome. I literally just saw his TED talk and his podcast with Sam Harris
Wow!
Anil is such a sharp and inquisitive cookie!
Definitely worth the time spent watching.
He doesn’t dismiss functionalism as impossible, but he’s skeptical. Mind uploads? What exactly would we be uploading?
He dismisses the Simulation Argument as useless. They don’t talk about it, but he’d likely have a similar view of the Many Worlds Hypothesis.
By the way, I have a public library hold on a digital ebook copy of Anil’s new book, Being You.
Thank you both. Fantastic conversation.
May the 4th be with you. That just might be the nerdiest joke I've ever heard.😁I don't know why this podcast isn't more popular. I would rather hear Michael Shermer's thoughts about things than Joe Rogan's, honestly.
Even where I disagree with Dr. Nail, he remains such an honourable and enriching man + mind, always… absolutely amazing pod episode! Thanks…
Self-evidently, we are nothing more than highly coordinated, goal-driven organisms.
From the inside, the integral processing at the centre of our physiology is subjectively present, even though it remains objectively inaccessible.
From the outside, only the objective aspect of this integral processing is present/accessible, with the subjective aspect being completely absent.
In contrast with all other physical processes observed in nature, this uniquely dichotomous integral processing seems to be an ontological anomaly.
Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label it for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly reify its subjective aspect (often labelled "subjectivity", "consciousness", "awareness", "cognition", "sentience", "mind", etc) into seeming as though it is, in fact, ontologically different from (and caused by) its objective aspect.
Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains unsuccessful in observing the mechanism(s) responsible for this causation, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness".
Empirically, all there is to find is the highly coordinated, goal-driven organism, along with its uniquely dichotomous integral processing, and all that it physically entails.
Other than the simple fact that we ARE such organisms, there is no reason why it feels like anything for us to be alive.
Being naturally occurring entities, there is no reason why such organisms emerge in the universe.
This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".
This Is wonderful ... thank you both. I wonder who is the author of the "Moonie image" images. Is that Arthur Shapiro? I can't find the source of this image :(
THIS IS WONDERFUL NEWS. So many New Therories. THANK YOU!!!
Consciousness is a tough nut to crack. Thanks for the video.
“Why are those who are notoriously undisciplined and unmoral also most contemptuous of religion and morality? They are trying to solace their own unhappy lives by pulling the happy down to their own abysmal depths.”
― Fulton J. Sheen
I can think of too many examples contrary to this quote from Sheen. Also... so many examples of unmoral behaviour by those in positions of 'high religious status'. Sheen, whomever he/she is, may well be incorrect!
@@kieranaland4724 “ Criticism of others is thus an oblique form of self-commendation. We think we make the picture hang straight on our wall by telling our neighbors that all his pictures are crooked. ” - Fulton J. Sheen
Give me an example?
G'day from down-under @Luke Sandison. I'm not going to bother writing a list when I can refer you to one-
Download and read the final report of the Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. You can easily find it online. Plenty of names in it for you ...plenty of churches too. Sheen makes a mistake- Religion and morality should not be conflated.
@@kieranaland4724 The mistake is believing that shame and guilty mean little and you can live your life without consequence. We are all flawed by nature...The problem is thinking that original Sin is a fallacy and means nothing.
Your Sufferings in life whoever you are and whatever sufferings you are going through are mine. That is the true charitable message of Christ. Bless you whatever afflicts you. 🙏
Your confused, it isn't, "I think, therefore I am", but I am, therefore I think. You have De Cart before the horse
Anesthesia is caused by blocking communication between different brain regional networks. -> We can build consciousness by communicating different type of neural networks.
A beautiful rational antidote to
Shermer's Traditional Conservatism v Enlightenment Liberalism podcast I watched immediately before it in which the former knocked itself out with the Old Testament in round one
“Never forget that there are only two philosophies to rule your life: the one of the cross, which starts with the fast and ends with the feast. The other of Satan, which starts with the feast and ends with the headache.”
― Fulton J. Sheen, Seven Words of Jesus and Mary: Lessons from Cana and Calvary
Flawless interview, no comments on that, got ''Being You' and I'm planning on reading it soon.
Do you record with squadcast?(not affiliated) The quality of the audio and that of the video are great!
At 1:07:20 he lays out what Dawkins called his theory of consciousness as "constantly updated simulation".
Another suggestion Russell Stuart: AI: Human compatible and the problem of control.
Two major scientsts and thinker. Anil make you think more pragmatic and come down to earth.
@@NSOcarth Do not talk about earth, you should go to the sky, your heaven.
No audio?
It works here, could you please try reloading the page?
@@skepticmagazine Works now 👍
Perhaps the simplest way to explain this phenomenon we call "Consciousness" is to use the analogy of the Internet/WiFi to better understand it. Let's start with the question of..Where does the Internet exist ??..
The answer would be that It's all around us, in an all pervasive, everpresent electromagnetic field of information that exists irrespective of whether our phones are turned off or on.
To say that the Internet/WiFi has gone when we switch our mobile phones off would be patently absurd and ridiculous.
Similarly, Consciousness does not go away in deep sleep or under anesthesia.
It persists and exists permanently even when the brain is switched off as is the case in deep sleep and or under anesthesia.
What hapoens in deep sleep/anasthesia is that brain 🧠 ceases to register activity.
However, all other vital functions and activities like breathing, blood flow, digestion, heart pumping etc etc continue despite the brain/mind being unaware of all such activity taking place..
That is NOT to say that the body is not conscious of It's need to continue working to support itself. Therefore, Consciousness does NOT cease to exist, neither does it go away as professor Anil Seth states early on.
Where would consciousness/Internet go ??..
Consciousness IS the all pervasive, ever-present connective field that exists, irrespective of whether one knows, understands or accepts it or not.
It might very well be the GUTE .. the Grand Unifying Theory of Everything, the First Cause, the Prima Materia, the Umbilical Cord that connects Everything...All Existence.
The ancient rishis & yogis of India contemplated this mystery we call Consciousness thousands of years ago and arrived with startling accuracy and articulated their understanding of it in the most clear, concise and vivid language imaginable.
Today, probably the best proponent of this ancient Indic tradition is none other than the brilliant Swami Sarvapriyananda, spiritual head of the Vedanta Societ NY.
You would do well Mr Shermer to have him on as a guest and shoot any and all questions Consciousness related at him.
Satisfaction almost certainly guaranteed. 👊🏼
✌🏼☝🏼❤️👉🏼😇
Terence, I know you mean well, but you’re trolling - using this podcast as a platform for your own idiosyncratic views.
If other viewers are anything like me, they’re a lot more interested in Anil’s views than in yours.
@@stanh24 You've no clue what I mean, don't presume to know that I mean well.
Also, stop reading others comments and then commenting your paltry two bit sentences of utter patheticism.
You're the troll mate, make no mistake. Just get on with listening to
Anil Seth's idiosyncratic views quietly, then, form your own silly idiosyncrasies and also, please do stop pontificating and trolling.
Get a real life.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575That's not an opinion, its "my theory" to add to the 20 other theories of consciousness that were mentioned.
Sadly, you don't even have two well articulated sentences to your credit, let alone a theory.
I suggest you degausse the atmospheric pressure build up in your cranial/sphincter cavity .. it might help with your constipated, little mind syndrome.
Daddy T.👊🏼👉🏼😎
True, "our side" (naturalists) suffers from emergence of the gaps.
" Does Watson know that it beat the great Ken Jennings in Jeopardy!? " - does Shermer have any other questions that might indicate he has advanced his understanding at all?
The point of asking questions is not to display understanding. It's to prompt the guest to reveal their thinking on the matter. I have been listening to Shermer for a long time and he does seem to fall back on the same anecdotes and question which could be dull, if it wasn't for his guests giving different insights.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny fantastic point. there is only ever one reason to ask a question, and those questions never indicate Shermer's ability to understand the idea.
@@ZalexMusic Did you enjoy the interview?
I've listened to a variety of thinkers in these topics. I like Anil Seth's approach, it seems more grounded to me.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny I enjoyed the interview because I enjoy seeing Kastrup take Shermer to school over and over again, like Graham Hancock did to Shermer on their Rogan debate. Arrogant materialists are just plain sad.
@@ZalexMusic interesting, I tend to avoid labels as I think they can bias our thinking, although I lean toward materialist explanations. Do you really find Shermer to be arrogant? Perhaps it's materialists in general?
No audio
It works here, could you please try reloading the page?
OH, Happy Day . Enjoy it!!
At 3:20 into the podcast, Michael and Anil introduce the book “Theories Of Consciousness” and then say there are “20 theories” about consciousness listed in the book.
It is my hope that someday the meaning of the word “theory” is never a synonym of the word “hypothesis”. A scientific theory is the exact opposite of a hypothesis, and it drives me crazy trying to explain this to people who say to me “evolution is just a theory”.
These definitional changes are very unlikely to occur in the near future, but if they ever do, it will only happen after scientists and anybody working in a scientific field, stop using the word theory and say hypothesis instead. Michael and Anil kept saying hypothesis over and over and I cringed every time I heard it.
I’m disappointed with title of this book and with the publishers who I believe missed an opportunity here. They had a slow ball coming in right over the plate, and they bunted to try and get science to first, instead of swinging away at the easy pitch, which has a much greater likelihood of reaching third.
Sadly, more people will read the title of this book, than those who will actually read the book. I fear this will subliminally confirm to them once again, that evolution is just a theory.
I submit this with no disrespect to Michael and the podcast, both of which I love. I’ve made this simple change to my vocabulary because it’s one of many steps we should all take to help our fellow apes reach a better understanding of science. And by doing so, reach a better understanding of what is most likely true and what is most likely not true, in the universe with which we find ourselves in. I hope you will consider such changes for future conversations within your own life.
this Is wonderful
Thanks again Michael for your wonderful channel...can you try to bring to your show Richard Lang, to discuss Douglas Harding "The headless way" (science of the first person) Thanks 💓🍃
14:40: but human said in the brain-stem and surrounding area to the center.
whatever the apes do, they have no chance to defy human, so the only thing they can do is thievery as patching technique and blunt theft as they already did (stealing human thoughts and polluting them badly).
exactly like apes: the way they steal from human then hide what they have stolen using apes' ornamentation "apes' style" and the way they deal with human later as if he does not exist (exactly like real apes' behavior)!.
The guy here is just grasping at straws, he does but conjecture. Consciousness has become an obsession of late, and every discussion I hear seems to be just a form of mind candy. Yes he talks about science and talks about the brain, and you can be fascinated by such theorizing and creating hypotheses, and getting into some technical detailing but there is no resolution. Again, what we have here is ultimately mind candy chasing an horizon. It's all phenomenology without saying anything with ontological certainty. Defining or knowing what consciousness is through science and technology will always remain a asymptotic fantasy.
even because science and technology are tools of consciousness :)
In my opinion the only way of accounting for consciousness is some form of idealism, and not trying to get consciousness from dead matter.
P1: A person born blind does not dream of images from our world. P2: I can only have knowledge of what I can experience with my senses. P3: A person born blind does not dream of images from our world because they have no prior visual experience to reference. C: If our lives were a simulation/dream, we would first need to acquire experience of this world.
even after they committed their theft crimes, they do not understand because the thieves are not the source of the thoughts.
by the way all I have wrote before is correct even after billions of years whatever the apes do and if human future generations survived as rational intelligent entities they will be able know the past for sure "let the apes bounce now as much as they can, its their paradise".
the thieves think that being a thieves is enough to understand, there are more important things, let the thief apes figure them out !
thoughts have source, thinking process, reasons, .... only the owner of the thoughts can know, the thieves have chance.
but that question still needs an answer: how did the apes lost all the main human characteristics !
YES!!!! U r the man!!
Probably your best....at least you've learnt how to listen and learn now! ;)
If observation is fundamental, I'm deciding to be immortal. Wish me the best!
Not quite what "observation being fundamental" is implying.
Nobody said *your* observation is fundamental
22:00 yeah only the mystery of the apes will always stay there, whatever human did to turn the apes into humans ! "the impossible mission".
Hearing Anil makes me thirsty for knowledge about consciousness.
2:03:37 PMSL! 😆
Don't worry Shermer, I'm on your level with Star Trek but, Anil... Clearly, is not.
1:40:00 the ape talks about so called personal identity ! it could change or ..... but it is not the self itself, it is just representation of the self, generated by self concept !
the apes are real dilemma!
In the very last minute, Anil is actually factually incorrect about the nature of (non-existent) free will, which Sam Harris elaborates and explains very well. We lack even an experience of free will.
Do you know why he is so worried about the self?! It’s a response to what I wrote, many did the same (some are in denial state and some others are….)
Try to think, what his main purpose?! It’s the self, why ? It is a response to something, he imitated what I wrote.
33:30 apes make fun of human !
Not only does Anil Seth not contribute anything new, but he is far behind real researchers, those of whom aren't trying to sell books to those with only high school educations. He presents nothing whatsoever that is close to new, that he has made no significant contributions. If you want the state of the art, look to the world renowned MIT.
Are your comments based on a detailed check of his actual publication list and impact score? Which particular MIT researcher has moved the science of consciousness forward? (I don't mean connectionism or Robotics.) Interested to follow-up on those.
The key to consciousness is to first have a brain, and then to be awake, and only for that narrow definition of consciousness as so much thinking takes place entirely unconsciously, even some perception we have is unconscious (or some call subconscious).
Not if you believe in panpsychism
Not even close to right.
@@S.G.Wallner You do realise that the hard problem of consciousness hasnt been cracked yet?
@@PetraKann I definitely realize that. My comment was directed toward Home Wall. Any sentence that starts with, "the key to consciousness is..." can be immediately disregarded.
Greetings all, I have a progressive theory of consciousness, that is available on my channel, under Notes For Navigators. I explains the co-evolution of consciousness along with complexity, and it incorporates all the conceptual steps and theories nessasary to make everything fit together in a unified theory. The episodes build on each other, guiding you through: the ledger of the universe, windows of perception, free will, will power, free will power, etc. All of it is practical, and actionable, which is the whole point, in my opinion, of philosophy. I would love some feedback, civil of course, to know what others think about it. Anyway, thanks for the video, keep up the good work.
33:30 the ape here talks about human: they have read all my comments, he talks about how self concept generates consciousness type one !
the apes want to defy human !
there is something I never said before, because basically I do not believe in the gods of the apes, but remember this: comparing human mind to the apes little minds is like comparing the apes to god, this is the only language the sick apes can understand.
sick irrational apes want to defy human being !
I am struggling with the apes only for the sake of future generations nothing more, I am not interested in arguing bunch of sick irrational apes at all.
He is an irrational
To understand consciousness you have to feel it.not rationalize it.
Do you want more hints? Take a look at susan blackmore in the same period of time (they have the exact goal)
what is happened?! some are in denial state and some others have stolen and polluted all I have written and worked on erasing human traces too in cooperation with that TH-cam channel.
🙏😌♥️❤️
❤️👍❤️
Consciousness - overblown concept, residual from religion. Everyone who's had a cat or dog know they are self conscious just as we are. They just don't talk about it. We also have subjective experiences and interactions with perceived others in our dreams. Unless someone captures as many images of consciousness as the US military has of UFOs that defy known laws of physics, there might be good reason for skepticism here.
@@NSOcarth every cat and dog owner has seen them have nightmares or talk (bark) in their sleep. Dreaming and being a character in your own sleep exhibits consciousness (self) despite silly notions that self consciousness isn't expressed in sleep. Too many bad ideas to untangle when talking about this topic. Philosophers need to catch up with neuroscience, or we just drop the philosophy part for science period.
Michael: you pint your finger in almost every episode. Viewers would appreciate it if you didn’t. There is something annoying about someone seeming to be pointing at others, and it makes you seem very defensive, smug, judgmental, and secretly combative or bitter. It is ugly.
Initially, I was interested because I read the book and the author is interesting to listen to indeed but I quit... Can you have at least one - only one - conversation with only one guest without pushing ahead that Chopra character and his pathetic phrases????? It's as if Chopra invented the consciousness and you have to - just have to - mention his name every time you talk about anything remotely associated with it. It starts to sound ridiculous. If I were one of your guests, serious authors and scientists, I'd kind of feel disrespected.
Anil Seth looks like Voldemort.
Apes build conscious machines is a real joke.
real apes "not humans".
My comments on his perorations elsewhere on TH-cam:
The muddles of a neuromaterialist theory of consciousness!
"We take ourselves for granted., but we shouldn't."
If we were not really here, it is meaningless to say that we shouldn't take ourselves for granted.
"How things seem is not the way they are."
Hasty generalization! It seems to me that you are speaking English and that's also the way it is.
And who is talking about "how your brain invents your self"? (silly mock quotes around self!) "Your" brain or "You"?
"The self is a collection of perceptions."
Rehashed Buddhist metaphysical nonsense! To make this claim, there needs to be a self that is aware of ITS perceptions.
The self as hallucination? Nonsense upon stilts! Hallucination or illusion occurs only for a self. So, the self cannot itself be a hallucination or illusion.
Stop the runaway Brain fetishism!
Michael's podcast is such a waste. He doesn't get views. You can tell by the weird ads he does for nothing brands.
Fuck the views. Its great value for those of us who actually enjoy the episodes. Hence, not a waste at all. Get rid of this stupid idea that anything not gone viral or mainstream is not as much worth. It’s maybe even opposite to that, it makes it even more precious.
I can not keep watching anymore, terrible nonsense of the apes !
I know you. I am a fan! I am great duo for what you do. Can’t ya up the professionalism (cinematic) of your channel. Get the wires out of your ears! Rehearse the promo narrative - just once! Stop
Leaning in like you are staining to see.
Come on man -
It’s just jerky and schlocky
Your message is just too damn important.