I am beginning to like this guy. He is more concise in the way he formulates concepts than most philosophers in the channel. Khun should engage him more with related topics.
And the pattern of the simultaneous firing is the product of evolutionary environment interaction, so a history of 'externally determined will' which now locally turns into mental causation of (free?) will
I think mental causation is a problem on both physicalism and dualism. The only worldview that escapes it is idealism since there isn't really any mental causation in idealism. But idealism strikes me as being crazy.
Physicalism strikes me as crazy Eg when I look 👀 at say a sunset 🌅 , according to physicalism the inside of my skull is just beyond the horizon. 🤪 according to physicalism the world of colours and images and sounds taste even feeling of concreteness are all qualities conjured up by neural activity. Therefore according to physicalism the beautiful 🌅 I perceive is all in my skull. According to physicalism there is something beyond my skull that corresponds with my experience of 🌅 , but however according to physicalism the 🌅 in itself is void of qualities such as brightness. According to physicalism a 🌅 can only be exhaustedly described in terms of properties spin charge mass momentum height amplitude temperature long list of numbers. That’s crazy 😜
I tend to avoid the typical knee-jerk reaction of the mind to a given stimulus. This is the way I discover more insight than I would have had I had the typical reaction and just moved on. Because most of our reactions are based on previous learning often from what other people say. We have to investigate everything for ourselves rather than rely on the repetition of others, swallowing it hook line and sinker.
Great discussion! Amounts without time do not exist--again an 'Einsteinian turn'. Some argumentation, though, suffers from metaphysical world-type fallacy. But it is all quite persuasive, engaging, and trodden with a genuine aim to be precise in language and reasoning.
If his argument can be formulated as: Neuronal activity does not trigger linear causation necessarily but it allows for a disturbance of that linear causation to be ready or potentially deviate from its original input. I can state it as let x belong to N, where N is the set of natural numbers and x belongs to the values that are divisible by 2 only. But, the brain allows for a series of x's such that it has the potential to be divisible by 3 as well, and so on. I think I can come to a point where such series of mental states or neuronal activity cannot follow that logic always without falling into a contradiction.
I think it only becomes a problem, when you cut an equation in half and only focus on one side, assuming that is where it begins, when in fact, it is one phenomenon happening at once.
Although we take it for granted, it's pretty amazing how our thoughts, which are non-material, routinely affect changes in matter, which are obviously physical. Consciousness is so mysterious.
That is a baseless assertion. I'm not saying it's false, but there are myriad interpretations in which that's not true at all, such as e.g. standard epiphenomenalism.
@@outisnemo8443 It's obvious, dude. You ever hear of Pavlov's dogs? Bell rings, dog has a thought about food, dogs begins to salivate, matter is affected by thought. There are thousand of other examples. You ever been daydreaming about a past sexual encounter and then realize your ding dong is beginning to tingle and stiffen? A mere thought can affect matter in so many different ways like this. It is indeed mind-boggling. What's the mechanism whereby an immaterial thing like a thought can transfer its "energy" into the material world and literally cause matter to respond. Kuhn is always harping about a mechanism for free will. But what's the mechanism for this phenomenon? Or what is the mechanism that enables gravity to have it's affects on space-time and matter? You plop a big chunk of matter in space and the space-time surrounding it curves. How/why does that happen? What's the mechanism? There are so many "miraculous" things like this that we just accept without acknowledging how truly mysterious they are.
@@_Bigzie_: No, it's not "obvious" at all. Everything you just said is just the same thing OP said. I already pointed out that this is wrong. Under standard epiphenomenalism, your thoughts aren't affecting anything at all, they are just reflecting the state of your brain. In that interpretation it's the brain that for some reason or other would be activating the same circuits as during a previous sexual encounter and then subsequently trigger circuits to release arousal hormones, all of which would epiphenomenally appear to you precisely as the thought of a previous sexual encounter followed by the experience of sexual arousal. Am I asserting that epiphenomenalism is true? Far from it, it's not the interpretation I favor at all. Is it fully possible? Absolutely. The line of reasoning you provided has been brought up for centuries, and has always been addressed with precisely what I just said. It's an incredibly naive formulation of what's called "interactionism" which is roughly as naive as naive realism is. So no, it's not a given at all that thought can affect matter.
@@Jackson_Plop: That's not how Occam's razor works. Also, it's the opposite of "obvious"; it's an extremely naive interpretation with very little basis in the actual experiential facts.
@Jerry Polverino you believe in science. as do i. there is no arbiter of truth, which is not an irrational claim. i'm not a moron or some religious nut lol.
He seems to be saying that his theory about different patterns of input to neurons causing them to have a potential to fire in the future is not a reductionist solution to the mind-body 'problem'. But I am not so sure. Isn't he just proposing a different mechanism (unproven?) for how physical events in the brain cause mental processes (the mind or consciousness)? Ingenious, beautiful maybe but I don't see how it solves the problem. Quality of experiences - the feel of things- can never adequately be explained by the way neurons fire (except in the most trivial sense). Perhaps the 'problem' is better described as the 'quantity/quality conundrum'.
There are two ontological entities involved; a pure, conscious personality transcendental to the brain but connected to it, and the (material) brain itself which, unlike the former entity, is by nature unconscious and insentient. It is through association with the sentient pure personality that the brain is set forth into motion, conveying sense data for conscious perception (qualia arises here) and receiving motor commands for moving (voluntary) muscles et al. Really, is this so difficult to infer and understand?
Good to hear that mind and body functionality are considered indelibly connected when trying to define consciousness. This approach is the physiologic discipline and doesn't require philosophy or religion.
Science cannot escape philosophy or religion. Most people misunderstand this fact because they confuse science with the scientific method. They are not the same.
@@javiej well no. Many of the sciences arose thanks to the Church. The study of earthquakes itself is called a Jesuit Science. So it did emerge from a religious background. Science also emerges by escaping atheism.
Dr. Tse almost has it - but not quite. True - patterns are key. But a more apt description of brain function is as a comparator (like and / or gates) than a coincidence detector. The brain detects, stores, and generates patterns. That’s how we recognize things. The fundamental reason why people have difficulty with the mind/brain problem is they do not comprehend that everything is pattern - atoms, wave functions, the smell of cinnamon, the memory of your mother’s face. We can ONLY think in terms of duality - comparison. Therefore everything is relative. There is no absolute anything. Get over it. Whether you bang your head against a wall or an idea it’s the same thing - it’s just a different pattern.
Conscious awareness is not reducible to neuronal activity. Even physical reality is irreducible at its very core. As a matter of fact proteins cannot form without DNA and DNA cannot form without proteins.
I generally am able to follow these interviews but this one was filled with so much jargon that the layman (me) couldn’t follow the reasoning. Sorry to go against most other comments but too technical for me to follow.
If the enormity of the entire universe As an experience can fit inside our narrow neural neurological pathways then that means the universe is either a neurological projection, or we are missing 99 per cent of it
We don't experience the enormity of the universe. We can perceive that the universe exists and is enormous, but it's not as though all the information of the universe is in our heads. We experience nearly nothing of the universe.
@@andrewforbes1433 Generally speaking, a neurological case for the mind would have to assume a matching structured nonrandom environment of the universe.. I don’t think neurologically, the brain was designed to comprehend randomness -but the mind assuming it is separate from the brain -can
It's strange that they can identify the beliefs that are causing all the problems, reductionism and determinism, but it never occurs to them that maybe those beliefs are not valid, and the problem doesn't even exist.
Competition is among humans the thriving force of evolutioning to a better conscious being. To observe humans contradictory positions, are natural mechanisms, that generates optimisation to higher awareness of consciousness. Every thought, every concept, every development, every conversation, is only possible through consciousness, and it's a human property. We cannot have proper answers as long as consciousness hasn't reached its optimation. And maybe it will never be, if our planet experiences a new catastrophic period. If we stop pumping oil and instead go for green energy, its obvious that more catastrophes will come, volcano's will erupt, storms will double, and earthquakes will be a constant. We have been saving our planet and have stabilized its position by pumping oil and reducing pressure danger from its core, that once lead to a burning surface of earth that killed all existence through an outburst of oil on the surface of the planet. This happened millions of years ago and can repeat again. Our human naivity at present time is causing many problems.
Interesting. But I don't get the circular causation argument. For the physicalist, every state of mind causes the next. No circularity. For the dualist a nonphysical mind acts on the physical brain that acts accordingly. No circularity either. What's the problem?
@@The-Wide-Angle: There are many dualist interpretations where the causation goes both ways. Those interpretations are broadly categorized as interactionism. Simply asserting that it doesn't happen doesn't mean that it doesn't.
There's this event where you are inspired by a "beautiful scenery" or a "beautiful story" which is totally unrelated to the mind and yet your mind interprets meaning out of it where others are unimpressed by that and are impressed by other things. We are deeply moved by things that others don't even think twice about. Conversely, others are moved by things that don't impress you. That tells me that the mind is totally unrelated to the physical world or universe.
*"That tells me that the mind is totally unrelated to the physical world or universe."* ... Differences in opinion do not support that the mind is totally unrelated to the physical world or universe. All it means is that data produced in the physical world can be evaluated in many diverse ways. Even in this comment thread you will find people who agree with Mr. Tse and others who vehemently disagree. That doesn't mean their comments are totally unrelated to the information Mr. Tse is presenting. It could just as easily be that Existence is collecting all of our subjective judgments and compiling a "spectrum of value" regarding everything that exists.
@@timm6175 *"You draw universally absolutist conclusions from anecdotes about different interests among humans?"* ... No, "I" draw universally absolutist conclusions based on how "I" evaluate existence. Others render their own conclusions. Existence takes ALL of the conclusions we generate, assembles them into a "spectrum of conclusions" just like politicians, legislators, and marketing agencies do with focus groups. Existence then uses this information to further evolve.
this guy is a stud, but i don't get how neurons resetting other neurons to activate from a given stimulus helps solve the problem of causation, we already know that neurons fire from stimulus, it still doesn't explain subjective conscious experience ie the hard problem, which contains the free will causition problem.
Motion of objects in an electric or gravitational field,and electrical impulses traveling from neuron to neuron are not the same thing as motion of living beings. Our consciousness of matter tells us nothing about our consciousness of intentions. The "mental causation" he addresses is not mental it is material: the material of the brain. It is a conflation to suggest that brain mechanics is equal to mind. Our inferring ability may have correlates in the brain, but don't confuse intention and desire -will, with causation. Intention is not causation. The two have different existential sources. Causation has matter as it's source, intention has being as its source. As an animal in an evolutionary struggle for survival being is intensely concerned about itself. It is perrennialy reviewing its strategies for survival, not just acting habitually according to its changing, material circumstances. In this struggle causation emerges as our consciousness, familiarity, of matter becomes advanced. Given leisure, time to think, our consciousness of ourselves, our ability and inability, emerges as intention.
A simple scientific approach to resolving philosophical mind-body questions, that also points to a mechanism of how we learn. The difference between the approaches of the philosopher and the scientist is that while both may speculate, both may use logic and reason, only one of them actively seeks to verify and falsify through acquiring new evidence.
Mind is another sense perception organ, the one that catalogs the perceptions of all the other perception organs into a whole. The mind requires or is dependent upon life, consciousness and intellect to function optimally -- making choices, resolving issues. Where does Rationality, Reason, Right action, divinity, austerity come from -- the Spirit. Also known as intuition, a great guiding spirit. Freewill is potiential -- like an acorn seed is not actually a tree or produces lumber but has the potential to be. We too, with Spirit, intellect and a disciplined mind, have an agency to decide and make choices; accompanied by Reason, intent, purpose, meaning, wisdom the dynamics of casuality are acknowledge and the future is alreqdy being cultivated. Like applying soil, water and sun light for the acorn. We too can plant seeds of knowledge and cultivate, learning the dynamics of our actions. Success is not a given or is promised, failure is, the disciplined mind sways not because of. What then is this Will, and what allows for it to be Free so to decide and make the choices, to continue on despite adversity, rather than being a victim of Failure and giving up. What is this that says no, what is this potiential that's prevalent, or this voice? It is freewill. Im quite certain God is the ultimate Will and the root of all creativity( is a divine thing). God being beyond limit and is Will is both actual and potiential. Whereas humans have the freewill in potiential; in the macrcosm, or God, the potiential is Actual because God is without limit. Human freewill cannot be actual or it would be fixed; potiential is a very good thing here. I'm still learning and growing and my perspective changes over time. Will is what drives me, curiosity of the vastness, or mystery inspires me. How am I to argue determinism. How am I to say we have no Freewill. How can I argue that the mind and body is a problem while neglecting the Spirit, intuition and Intellect. The sense world has an effect on the mind, or the mind comes from the sense world(however not the consciousness or life, people perhaps mistake mind for consciousness) and it oscillates like a pendulum swing, however, receiving the Spirit, changes the dynamics of the mind-body problem. Now it becomes perhaps a mind-body-Spirit problem. Matter, Soul, intelligible. Soul is mediator between matter and intelligible. Mind and body left the most important aspect out. I'm denoting that Intellect, Reason, Divinity, Discernment or Knowing right action, is an Intelligible or Spiritual aspect has an effect regarding the mind-body problem. Mind is in Consciousness, however the software is from the sense perceived world. Cannot say the mind, having it's form from the sense objects, is what created Intellect or Reason or Right action, and this qualities or essence have an effect on the mind, however not from the preceieved objects. Freewill is of the Intellect -- not the mind or body.
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."
He seems to totally ignore the impact of our values and instincts. From "Is free will a scientific problem?" (The Conversation): "... After all, nothing in the story suggests we are coerced or compelled to act: rather, we act as we see fit on the basis of our own values. That might be enough for free will, as many philosophers believe. But the irony here is clear: Tse’s account gives us free will only if the problem he aims to solve does not exist."
Nothing in neuroscience, physics, or philosophy shows free will to be an illusion. The fact that we act *in light of* our values and instincts does not mean that we don't do so voluntarily.
@@legron121 The only time I can do anything other than what I'm going to do is when I force myself to. Oh, wait a minute, I was determined to do that too :-)
@@legron121 we live in a deterministic universe. The fact that you recognize or feel to make a "free" choice is an illusion. Your biology, past experiences, and current environmental factors will determine what you do.
The perception of sight is an event in consciousness. And so is, therefore, seeing an out of control automobile jump the curb and careen in your direction -- resulting in the physical action of you jumping out of the way. The whole point -- the whole reason Natural Selection resulted in us evolving to have consciousness was because it enhanced our physical survival and helped us to flourish in our physical environment. Like how, to give another example, coming up with a plan _in our minds_ on how to best hunt that water buffalo over there _also results in material actions in a material environment._ It just seems to me we're trying to make this all a bit more mysterious than it has to be. It's neat and wonderful and interesting and all that, but why so mysterious? Especially if you think of it -- as we should -- from an evolutionary perspective?
@@terryboland3816 C'mon, Terry. A living organism without sight or touch wouldn't even be able to find its way through a forest or jungle (certainly not without bumping into trees). Moreover, without sense-perception, it wouldn't notice a predator approaching it. Likewise, if it felt no sensations (especially pain) it wouldn't notice any damage to it (which is why humans who cannot feel pain often die young). That "subjective experience" is advantageous for a biological organism is both trivial and obvious, and I don't know why people think it's not.
@@legron121 No, you're confused between perception and subjective experience. It's easy to imagine creatures reacting to damaging stimuli by moving away without having the subjective experience - the qualia - of pain. So evolutionary advantage is not a sufficient explanation for why we have subjective experience.
@@terryboland3816 I'm not. A perception (e.g. seeing, hearing, tasting) is _a_ "subjective experience"; but so is having a sensation (like a pain or an itch). Indeed, there is no difference between "having a pain" and having a "subjective experience of pain"; the latter just adds more verbiage to the description. I can't help thinking it obvious that being susceptible to pain is advantageous for survival. Imagine there was a creature physically identical to you but without any sensation. If you stabbed it with a knife, would it even notice? How? It would feel nothing. To say that it just 'reacts' completely misses the point, which is: How can we make sense of its reacting thus without its feeling any pain?
@@legron121 No. We can easily program robots to react to light stimuli - they can 'perceive' whether a light is on or not. Hoever that certainly doesn't mean they have the subjective experience that we would have - of 'what it's like' to see something. So, again, what evolutionary advantage does this subjective experience confer that mere perception and reaction does not?
Indeed the neurones electrochemical dynamics is too complicated to be a simple coincidence of evolution. Entropy will not give a chance to create such as a super systematic molecular machine. Modern understanding of biology and genetics lead us to a strong conclusion is human and his mind and whole bio 🧬 is work of civilization of level III or IV.
Yes, this represents a very feeble truth, albeit just around 1% of the real process. Good comment of Peter Tze. 👍 He's already suspecting that something's fishy in Denmark. 🙂
A more confusing explanation! A stimulant - a recipient and then firing. What about when there's no stimulant? What about crying after remembering a childhood memory without any stimulant??? It's never been the way Tse describes it.
Generally, you have both internal and external sensory stimuli, which directly may trigger a web of reactions; and then you have emotions, which derive from continuous assessment of current circumstances, and may trigger thoughts and memories, which may further evoke reactions. The unconscious mind is constantly processing information, and when something important is found, may trigger emotions and thoughts.
@@dot73 If your question is what started the chain of events, I have no answer other than saying existence itself, or God, "caused" the chain into happening. If your question is about the immediate, or proximal, cause, I would say that internal mental events trigger when either a certain threshold is crossed, or when a chain of processing reaches some materially significant point or conclusion.
Particles, particles, particles. They remind me of the snake that’s trying to bit it’s tail. Consciousness is an illusion, everything is an illusion, therefore everything is consciousness.
(4:20) *PT: **_"Neurons are not responding to the amount of input; they're responding to the pattern in their input."_* ... And these patterns are born out of "information" that has evolved out of pure chaos. A single pattern that forms within an arena of chaos increases the amount of available information beyond what an arena of total chaos would normally produce. *Example:* Instead of having _"an arena of chaos"_ you now have _"an arena of chaos along with one pattern."_ Patterns are information, and information is the fundamental structure of Existence. After 13.8 billion years of evolution, information has become sentient and self-aware. Your brain represents an evolution of information to where information can now process its own information (self-awareness). All of you militant reductionists out there who keep looking for something "physical" to serve as the core structure of Existence need to go one step further into the nondimensional realm of "information." After all, the Information used to construct a quark must first exist before the quark can exist. Your brain (which is comprised of "information") is compelling you to recognize this pattern.
@@Tzimiskes3506 *"They just cannot come to the conclusion that the mind exists or it would collapse their view."* ... With the mind and brain both being comprised of "information," their argument doesn't necessarily _collapse_ as much as it needs to be _modified._ Instead of materialists searching for a fundamental substance, they need to regress just a little bit further to the nondimensional realm of "information." Everything is information at its core. Materialists are unwilling to consider options such as this because any movement of the "believability arrow" back toward God must be avoided at all costs. I am not a believer, but I also don't let ideological dogmas affect my reasoning skills.
@@Tzimiskes3506 *"It says there are 3 comments but when i click, none of it is there."* ... Yes, TH-cam is censoring our "information" and at an alarming rate. This censorship will continue until some other platform rises up and challenges TH-cam's dominance.
Hmm? You don’t dream then!? A classic dualism, while your making surviving body functions .....millions of them.....your “cell” body structures renew completely every few days or weeks or years dependant on the duality requirement.! Yep it would appear something is completely independent!? But what? Regards on your Journey!
Sorry, but you still haven't solved the problem. You're just repeating the problem and pretending that it's NOT a problem when it IS a recognized problem in science and philosophy. Physicalism cannot explain how consciousness arises from unconscious matter on the first place, therefore, physicalism lacks explanatory power and is unnecessary. Dualism, while still being highly implausible, still is more promising that physicalism. For example, dualism can make sense of Psi-supporting data, physicalism simply cannot. Physicalists posits that physical reality has standalone existence outside of perception, which is something that has never been demonstrated empirically, therefore, physicalism is implausible and unnecesary.
Suppose a necessary and sufficient condition^ for something implies the identifier "matrix coordinate system" row,colum, or spatio,temporal, event sequence, ES = ST1,1 ST1,2, where subscript a,b is an ordered - a,b ≠ b,a - pair of non-negative real numbers^^ and from this, uncountably infinite events between any two events is assumed, by God as the counterparty in a flawless 'hedge' against some portal for instance. * This is a necessary condition for that if that cannot without this ; this is a sufficient condition for that if the existence of this is enough to guarantee the existence of that. ** A complex number has general form, z = a + b.i, where a and b are real numbers - including rational numbers that can be written in x/y form, where x is a whole number - 0, 1, 2, ... - , y is a natural number - 1, 2, 3, ... - and "/" means divided by, like 1/1 = 1 = 1.0, as well as irrational numbers that can't be written as a ratio, like pi = 3.14 approximated to two decimal places - , "." is multiplied by and "i" is the imaginary number written, i = √-1, for √-1 pronounced "square root of negative one", geometrically meaning it is the length of the side of a square with area equal to negative one ; the complex conjugate of z = a + b.i is z' = a - b.i.
I'm sorry, but no. Physicalists still cannot answer how something conscious arises from something which is unconscious, it's a something from nothing problem. Dualism and materialism are both highly implausible views, but at least dualism has something more to offer than physicalism. Dualism, for example, can make sense of the empirical data supporting the existence of Psi, while physicalism can't. So in fact, the mind-body problem is more of a problem for physicalists than it is for dualists, so, good luck with that! ;)
@@sammybastidas4304 When scientists cannot currently fully explain something, the answer is not "magic". Minds are ALWAYS associated with brains. And when those brains are damaged so is the associated mind ... and in predictable ways. It's almost as if mind and body are two presentations of the same thing ... eh?
@@canwelook: You have zero way of knowing that minds are always associated with brains. The only empirical example you have of this is your own mind, but you cannot even prove that you actually have a brain at all, no matter how much imagining you use. However, even assuming that you do have a brain for the sake of argument, you can only infer that other humans are conscious too, since you don't have direct experience of their consciousness. This is based entirely on their similarity to you. Then you might move on to other animals with similar brains, like other great apes and cetaceans, and infer that they're most likely conscious too. Then you might move on to animals less similar to you, like cats and dogs, and infer that they probably have some form of consciousness as well, albeit most likely noticeably different from yours. Then you might move on to less similar animals, like arthropods, and infer that they seem to have the same basic neural loops that seem to be associated with consciousness, and thus that they too have some rudimentary form of consciousness, albeit most likely very different from your own. At this point you might start to ponder: "how far does this go?" You start thinking about organisms like plants, which don't have the same neural mechanisms as all the animals you considered to be conscious, but note that they do have many of the same types of electrochemical signaling that is used in the brain. Perhaps that is sufficient for consciousness of some strange sort that is hardly imaginable? You realize that you never actually knew what precisely about your own brain it is that gives rise to consciousness in your model, and that it could be some relatively simple mechanisms that exist even in simpler forms of matter. You begin to ponder whether or not even rocks might have some extremely elementary form of consciousness by virtue of the vibrations in the quantum field that makes up its atoms and molecules. In fact, at this point you consider panpsychism quite seriously, and that perhaps that very field itself is what must ultimately be conscious. Then you start thinking about it in the other direction: a large group of humans living together in a city, intimately connected through electronic means, is that group itself conscious? What is its group mind like? The same would be true for larger organizational groups too, like nations, or even humanity as a whole. This leads you to the Gaia hypothesis, that the entirety of Earth itself, through its global electric circuit and all the life it harbors, is conscious, and possesses a planetary mind. You think about Sol too, and how the intense electromagnetic fields there could give rise to strange electromagnetic lifeforms, Solaris popping briefly into your mind as a gentle reminder that you're not the first one to consider this. As you go further and further up, you start to consider that the entirety of the cosmos as a whole might itself be conscious, a universal mind so immense in its scope that the human mind can barely comprehend its scale, let alone its operation.
@@outisnemo8443 Just to let you know I read your essay on minds and brains. Unfortunately it has now disappeared. But I did get enjoy your belief that everything has a mind, rocks included. I suppose you could assert that energy itself, including each photon, has a mind. All you need is the evidence to back that up.
X-Files Humans vs. Alien Vampires For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)...is like giant a**holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). And for a rich man (greed) to enter the kingdom of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony)... is like trying to drive a camel through the eye of a needle. The hostile alien vampires (greed) hate humans (love). And humans aren't very fond of the evangelical monsters either. Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet. Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are far worse than stupid. The loveless, lifeless parasites are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now. Question. Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"? Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires and zombies. Lead into gold Tears into roses Weapons into ploughshares Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant a**hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate). Also, Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be". Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien monsters and their ignorance (hate).
The mind-body problem is created by the irrational insistence on trying to describe reality quantitatively. When it's understood qualitatively, the bodies reduce to mind. The body is an idea, a symbol of meaning.
While this is true for bodies as we know them inside of mind, all that points out is that naive realism is obviously false. However, there is still evidence to suggest some underlying and imperceptible noumenal realm might exist, and that the phenomenal mind is interacting with it somehow. That being said, idealism is certainly also a possibility, and that the mind is all there is.
Man; philosophers need to play with computers some more. There's no existential crisis running an "if" statement or anything else mechanistic or computational in your brain. Cyclical dependencies happen all the time in both abstract math/computing and physically based modeling, no need to feel like you need to eliminate them lol. Reality is commonly modeled with a state and an evolution operator; no need to stuff it all in one step when both are robust enough to model reality.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
I am beginning to like this guy. He is more concise in the way he formulates concepts than most philosophers in the channel. Khun should engage him more with related topics.
Seconded.
Thirded
Quattro’d
I plead the fifthed
He really pulls different areas together well.
Peter Tse has a high quality mind, i always listen carefully when he speaks.
Peter Tse always paints a picture that you can clearly see and analyse.
How does this even scratch the surface of the quantity / quality quandary ? From the shoes of mainstream anyway.
Love Peter Tse making so much sense all the time
I appreciate how hard he works, mentally.
And the pattern of the simultaneous firing is the product of evolutionary environment interaction, so a history of 'externally determined will' which now locally turns into mental causation of (free?) will
I think mental causation is a problem on both physicalism and dualism. The only worldview that escapes it is idealism since there isn't really any mental causation in idealism. But idealism strikes me as being crazy.
Physicalism strikes me as crazy Eg when I look 👀 at say a sunset 🌅 , according to physicalism the inside of my skull is just beyond the horizon. 🤪 according to physicalism the world of colours and images and sounds taste even feeling of concreteness are all qualities conjured up by neural activity. Therefore according to physicalism the beautiful 🌅 I perceive is all in my skull. According to physicalism there is something beyond my skull that corresponds with my experience of 🌅 , but however according to physicalism the 🌅 in itself is void of qualities such as brightness. According to physicalism a 🌅 can only be exhaustedly described in terms of properties spin charge mass momentum height amplitude temperature long list of numbers. That’s crazy 😜
@@mrbwatson8081 💩
I tend to avoid the typical knee-jerk reaction of the mind to a given stimulus. This is the way I discover more insight than I would have had I had the typical reaction and just moved on. Because most of our reactions are based on previous learning often from what other people say. We have to investigate everything for ourselves rather than rely on the repetition of others, swallowing it hook line and sinker.
indeed
Mind is the in principle invisible, because uncatchable, you can only be it, like freedom, you can not see it!
Great discussion! Amounts without time do not exist--again an 'Einsteinian turn'. Some argumentation, though, suffers from metaphysical world-type fallacy. But it is all quite persuasive, engaging, and trodden with a genuine aim to be precise in language and reasoning.
If his argument can be formulated as: Neuronal activity does not trigger linear causation necessarily but it allows for a disturbance of that linear causation to be ready or potentially deviate from its original input. I can state it as let x belong to N, where N is the set of natural numbers and x belongs to the values that are divisible by 2 only. But, the brain allows for a series of x's such that it has the potential to be divisible by 3 as well, and so on. I think I can come to a point where such series of mental states or neuronal activity cannot follow that logic always without falling into a contradiction.
i applied to this guy's lab several years ago. didn't expect to see him here.
The greatest mystery of all:
If you get Robert a black turtleneck for his birthday, will he be excited or disappointed? 🤔
Best comment on Closer to Truth replies ever. No contest 😂🤣😂
I think it only becomes a problem, when you cut an equation in half and only focus on one side, assuming that is where it begins, when in fact, it is one phenomenon happening at once.
Hes really good at explaining
Do mental events need mathematics? Might physical particles in neurons have mathematics that can be used for mental events?
Although we take it for granted, it's pretty amazing how our thoughts, which are non-material, routinely affect changes in matter, which are obviously physical. Consciousness is so mysterious.
That is a baseless assertion. I'm not saying it's false, but there are myriad interpretations in which that's not true at all, such as e.g. standard epiphenomenalism.
@@outisnemo8443 It's obvious, dude. You ever hear of Pavlov's dogs? Bell rings, dog has a thought about food, dogs begins to salivate, matter is affected by thought. There are thousand of other examples. You ever been daydreaming about a past sexual encounter and then realize your ding dong is beginning to tingle and stiffen? A mere thought can affect matter in so many different ways like this. It is indeed mind-boggling. What's the mechanism whereby an immaterial thing like a thought can transfer its "energy" into the material world and literally cause matter to respond.
Kuhn is always harping about a mechanism for free will. But what's the mechanism for this phenomenon? Or what is the mechanism that enables gravity to have it's affects on space-time and matter? You plop a big chunk of matter in space and the space-time surrounding it curves. How/why does that happen? What's the mechanism? There are so many "miraculous" things like this that we just accept without acknowledging how truly mysterious they are.
@@_Bigzie_:
No, it's not "obvious" at all. Everything you just said is just the same thing OP said. I already pointed out that this is wrong. Under standard epiphenomenalism, your thoughts aren't affecting anything at all, they are just reflecting the state of your brain. In that interpretation it's the brain that for some reason or other would be activating the same circuits as during a previous sexual encounter and then subsequently trigger circuits to release arousal hormones, all of which would epiphenomenally appear to you precisely as the thought of a previous sexual encounter followed by the experience of sexual arousal.
Am I asserting that epiphenomenalism is true? Far from it, it's not the interpretation I favor at all. Is it fully possible? Absolutely. The line of reasoning you provided has been brought up for centuries, and has always been addressed with precisely what I just said. It's an incredibly naive formulation of what's called "interactionism" which is roughly as naive as naive realism is.
So no, it's not a given at all that thought can affect matter.
@@outisnemo8443 It is obvious. Occam's razor.
@@Jackson_Plop:
That's not how Occam's razor works. Also, it's the opposite of "obvious"; it's an extremely naive interpretation with very little basis in the actual experiential facts.
As always with discussions of the mind-body problem, this doesn't actually solve the fundamental issue and gets us nowhere. Very disappointing...
@Jerry Polverino other way around
@Jerry Polverino yes, but i don't believe in scientism
@Jerry Polverino least relatable? everyone has different beliefs you mean? you do realize scientism is a belief right?
@Jerry Polverino you believe in science. as do i. there is no arbiter of truth, which is not an irrational claim. i'm not a moron or some religious nut lol.
I found Peters explanation quite grasping and unconvincing. Nonetheless an interesting video.
yeah i'm not buying this.
He seems to be saying that his theory about different patterns of input to neurons causing them to have a potential to fire in the future is not a reductionist solution to the mind-body 'problem'. But I am not so sure. Isn't he just proposing a different mechanism (unproven?) for how physical events in the brain cause mental processes (the mind or consciousness)? Ingenious, beautiful maybe but I don't see how it solves the problem. Quality of experiences - the feel of things- can never adequately be explained by the way neurons fire (except in the most trivial sense). Perhaps the 'problem' is better described as the 'quantity/quality conundrum'.
You're correct Dave - it doesn't solve the problem at all!
Having several out-of-body experiences myself I like the radio receiver analogy for the brain the best! I'm just sayin'!
There are two ontological entities involved; a pure, conscious personality transcendental to the brain but connected to it, and the (material) brain itself which, unlike the former entity, is by nature unconscious and insentient. It is through association with the sentient pure personality that the brain is set forth into motion, conveying sense data for conscious perception (qualia arises here) and receiving motor commands for moving (voluntary) muscles et al.
Really, is this so difficult to infer and understand?
Good to hear that mind and body functionality are considered indelibly connected when trying to define consciousness. This approach is the physiologic discipline and doesn't require philosophy or religion.
but we are still in the easy problems of consciousness...
Science cannot escape philosophy or religion.
Most people misunderstand this fact because they confuse science with the scientific method.
They are not the same.
@@dongshengdi773 Science emerges by escaping religion
@@javiej LOL.
Read literally any book about the history of science. The Catholic Church essentially created modern science LMAO.
@@javiej well no. Many of the sciences arose thanks to the Church. The study of earthquakes itself is called a Jesuit Science.
So it did emerge from a religious background.
Science also emerges by escaping atheism.
Dr. Tse almost has it - but not quite. True - patterns are key. But a more apt description of brain function is as a comparator (like and / or gates) than a coincidence detector. The brain detects, stores, and generates patterns. That’s how we recognize things. The fundamental reason why people have difficulty with the mind/brain problem is they do not comprehend that everything is pattern - atoms, wave functions, the smell of cinnamon, the memory of your mother’s face. We can ONLY think in terms of duality - comparison. Therefore everything is relative. There is no absolute anything. Get over it. Whether you bang your head against a wall or an idea it’s the same thing - it’s just a different pattern.
Conscious awareness is not reducible to neuronal activity. Even physical reality is irreducible at its very core. As a matter of fact proteins cannot form without DNA and DNA cannot form without proteins.
I generally am able to follow these interviews but this one was filled with so much jargon that the layman (me) couldn’t follow the reasoning. Sorry to go against most other comments but too technical for me to follow.
Does anybody know the paper that state this: "neurons not only trigger each other to fire, they reset each other's criteria for firing"?
In a human being, what comes first, Mind or Body? I have no consciousness memory of choosing this body, or mind, for that matter, no pun intended.
This is great 🔥🔥
Love this channel!
What is meant by neural code?
a physical objects, with a given set of properties, has already been subjected to at least a transformative process...
Very interesting. ✔️👍
If the enormity of the entire universe As an experience can fit inside our narrow
neural neurological pathways then that means the universe is either a neurological projection, or we are missing 99 per cent of it
We don't experience the enormity of the universe. We can perceive that the universe exists and is enormous, but it's not as though all the information of the universe is in our heads. We experience nearly nothing of the universe.
@@andrewforbes1433 Generally speaking, a neurological case for the mind would have to assume a matching structured nonrandom environment of the universe.. I don’t think neurologically, the brain was designed to comprehend randomness -but the mind assuming it is separate from the brain -can
It's strange that they can identify the beliefs that are causing all the problems, reductionism and determinism, but it never occurs to them that maybe those beliefs are not valid, and the problem doesn't even exist.
Can quantum probabilities be used for causation?
Where sam Harris
Would not energy be able to cause physical activity in neuron?
Energy patterns from quantum wave function / probabilities?
Competition is among humans the thriving force of evolutioning to a better conscious being.
To observe humans contradictory positions, are natural mechanisms, that generates optimisation to higher awareness of consciousness.
Every thought, every concept, every development, every conversation, is only possible through consciousness, and it's a human property.
We cannot have proper answers as long as consciousness hasn't reached its optimation. And maybe it will never be, if our planet experiences a new catastrophic period. If we stop pumping oil and instead go for green energy, its obvious that more catastrophes will come, volcano's will erupt, storms will double, and earthquakes will be a constant.
We have been saving our planet and have stabilized its position by pumping oil and reducing pressure danger from its core, that once lead to a burning surface of earth that killed all existence through an outburst of oil on the surface of the planet.
This happened millions of years ago and can repeat again.
Our human naivity at present time is causing many problems.
What is the determinism in weather patterns and three-body problem?
Interesting. But I don't get the circular causation argument. For the physicalist, every state of mind causes the next. No circularity. For the dualist a nonphysical mind acts on the physical brain that acts accordingly. No circularity either. What's the problem?
Not necessarily true at all. Epiphenomenalism is a dualist interpretation where the material causes the mental without the reverse being true.
@@outisnemo8443 That's why I say that there is no circularity.
@@The-Wide-Angle:
There are many dualist interpretations where the causation goes both ways. Those interpretations are broadly categorized as interactionism. Simply asserting that it doesn't happen doesn't mean that it doesn't.
Are patterns detected by coincidence in neurons temporal?
WOW! Bravo!
I guess I'm getting a pulley.
Perhaps there is not a problem; perhaps it is simply all about companionship...
im sure these type of criteria ' gates' can be built in silicon neural nets - do computers have minds and do they feel pain?
There's this event where you are inspired by a "beautiful scenery" or a "beautiful story" which is totally unrelated to the mind and yet your mind interprets meaning out of it where others are unimpressed by that and are impressed by other things. We are deeply moved by things that others don't even think twice about. Conversely, others are moved by things that don't impress you. That tells me that the mind is totally unrelated to the physical world or universe.
*"That tells me that the mind is totally unrelated to the physical world or universe."*
... Differences in opinion do not support that the mind is totally unrelated to the physical world or universe. All it means is that data produced in the physical world can be evaluated in many diverse ways. Even in this comment thread you will find people who agree with Mr. Tse and others who vehemently disagree. That doesn't mean their comments are totally unrelated to the information Mr. Tse is presenting.
It could just as easily be that Existence is collecting all of our subjective judgments and compiling a "spectrum of value" regarding everything that exists.
You draw universally absolutist conclusions from anecdotes about different interests among humans?
@@timm6175 *"You draw universally absolutist conclusions from anecdotes about different interests among humans?"*
... No, "I" draw universally absolutist conclusions based on how "I" evaluate existence. Others render their own conclusions. Existence takes ALL of the conclusions we generate, assembles them into a "spectrum of conclusions" just like politicians, legislators, and marketing agencies do with focus groups. Existence then uses this information to further evolve.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC It seems to me like you contracted yourself. The mind is totally unrelated to the facts and evidence.
@@timm6175 It's called "egocentric bias".
By looking at tree with complex geometrical shapes, this helps stimulate neurones
What are criteria to make neuron fire?
High enough voltage.
this guy is a stud, but i don't get how neurons resetting other neurons to activate from a given stimulus helps solve the problem of causation, we already know that neurons fire from stimulus, it still doesn't explain subjective conscious experience ie the hard problem, which contains the free will causition problem.
Motion of objects in an electric or gravitational field,and electrical impulses traveling from neuron to neuron are not the same thing as motion of living beings.
Our consciousness of matter tells us nothing about our consciousness of intentions. The "mental causation" he addresses is not mental it is material: the material of the brain. It is a conflation to suggest that brain mechanics is equal to mind.
Our inferring ability may have correlates in the brain, but don't confuse intention and desire -will, with causation. Intention is not causation. The two have different existential sources. Causation has matter as it's source, intention has being as its source.
As an animal in an evolutionary struggle for survival being is intensely concerned about itself. It is perrennialy reviewing its strategies for survival, not just acting habitually according to its changing, material circumstances.
In this struggle causation emerges as our consciousness, familiarity, of matter becomes advanced. Given leisure, time to think, our consciousness of ourselves, our ability and inability, emerges as intention.
A simple scientific approach to resolving philosophical mind-body questions, that also points to a mechanism of how we learn.
The difference between the approaches of the philosopher and the scientist is that while both may speculate, both may use logic and reason, only one of them actively seeks to verify and falsify through acquiring new evidence.
Mind is another sense perception organ, the one that catalogs the perceptions of all the other perception organs into a whole.
The mind requires or is dependent upon life, consciousness and intellect to function optimally -- making choices, resolving issues.
Where does Rationality, Reason, Right action, divinity, austerity come from -- the Spirit. Also known as intuition, a great guiding spirit.
Freewill is potiential -- like an acorn seed is not actually a tree or produces lumber but has the potential to be.
We too, with Spirit, intellect and a disciplined mind, have an agency to decide and make choices; accompanied by Reason, intent, purpose, meaning, wisdom the dynamics of casuality are acknowledge and the future is alreqdy being cultivated. Like applying soil, water and sun light for the acorn. We too can plant seeds of knowledge and cultivate, learning the dynamics of our actions. Success is not a given or is promised, failure is, the disciplined mind sways not because of. What then is this Will, and what allows for it to be Free so to decide and make the choices, to continue on despite adversity, rather than being a victim of Failure and giving up. What is this that says no, what is this potiential that's prevalent, or this voice? It is freewill.
Im quite certain God is the ultimate Will and the root of all creativity( is a divine thing). God being beyond limit and is Will is both actual and potiential. Whereas humans have the freewill in potiential; in the macrcosm, or God, the potiential is Actual because God is without limit. Human freewill cannot be actual or it would be fixed; potiential is a very good thing here.
I'm still learning and growing and my perspective changes over time. Will is what drives me, curiosity of the vastness, or mystery inspires me.
How am I to argue determinism. How am I to say we have no Freewill. How can I argue that the mind and body is a problem while neglecting the Spirit, intuition and Intellect. The sense world has an effect on the mind, or the mind comes from the sense world(however not the consciousness or life, people perhaps mistake mind for consciousness) and it oscillates like a pendulum swing, however, receiving the Spirit, changes the dynamics of the mind-body problem. Now it becomes perhaps a mind-body-Spirit problem.
Matter, Soul, intelligible. Soul is mediator between matter and intelligible. Mind and body left the most important aspect out.
I'm denoting that Intellect, Reason, Divinity, Discernment or Knowing right action, is an Intelligible or Spiritual aspect has an effect regarding the mind-body problem.
Mind is in Consciousness, however the software is from the sense perceived world. Cannot say the mind, having it's form from the sense objects, is what created Intellect or Reason or Right action, and this qualities or essence have an effect on the mind, however not from the preceieved objects.
Freewill is of the Intellect -- not the mind or body.
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."
He seems to totally ignore the impact of our values and instincts.
From "Is free will a scientific problem?" (The Conversation):
"... After all, nothing in the story suggests we are coerced or compelled to act: rather, we act as we see fit on the basis of our own values.
That might be enough for free will, as many philosophers believe. But the irony here is clear: Tse’s account gives us free will only if the problem he aims to solve does not exist."
Free will is an illusion
@@dustinellerbe4125 Agreed.
Nothing in neuroscience, physics, or philosophy shows free will to be an illusion. The fact that we act *in light of* our values and instincts does not mean that we don't do so voluntarily.
@@legron121 The only time I can do anything other than what I'm going to do is when I force myself to. Oh, wait a minute, I was determined to do that too :-)
@@legron121 we live in a deterministic universe. The fact that you recognize or feel to make a "free" choice is an illusion. Your biology, past experiences, and current environmental factors will determine what you do.
The perception of sight is an event in consciousness. And so is, therefore, seeing an out of control automobile jump the curb and careen in your direction -- resulting in the physical action of you jumping out of the way. The whole point -- the whole reason Natural Selection resulted in us evolving to have consciousness was because it enhanced our physical survival and helped us to flourish in our physical environment. Like how, to give another example, coming up with a plan _in our minds_ on how to best hunt that water buffalo over there _also results in material actions in a material environment._ It just seems to me we're trying to make this all a bit more mysterious than it has to be. It's neat and wonderful and interesting and all that, but why so mysterious? Especially if you think of it -- as we should -- from an evolutionary perspective?
Being able to plan ahead certainly has advantages in surviving. But what survival advantages does subjective experience in itself confer?
@@terryboland3816
C'mon, Terry. A living organism without sight or touch wouldn't even be able to find its way through a forest or jungle (certainly not without bumping into trees). Moreover, without sense-perception, it wouldn't notice a predator approaching it. Likewise, if it felt no sensations (especially pain) it wouldn't notice any damage to it (which is why humans who cannot feel pain often die young). That "subjective experience" is advantageous for a biological organism is both trivial and obvious, and I don't know why people think it's not.
@@legron121 No, you're confused between perception and subjective experience. It's easy to imagine creatures reacting to damaging stimuli by moving away without having the subjective experience - the qualia - of pain. So evolutionary advantage is not a sufficient explanation for why we have subjective experience.
@@terryboland3816
I'm not. A perception (e.g. seeing, hearing, tasting) is _a_ "subjective experience"; but so is having a sensation (like a pain or an itch). Indeed, there is no difference between "having a pain" and having a "subjective experience of pain"; the latter just adds more verbiage to the description.
I can't help thinking it obvious that being susceptible to pain is advantageous for survival. Imagine there was a creature physically identical to you but without any sensation. If you stabbed it with a knife, would it even notice? How? It would feel nothing. To say that it just 'reacts' completely misses the point, which is: How can we make sense of its reacting thus without its feeling any pain?
@@legron121 No. We can easily program robots to react to light stimuli - they can 'perceive' whether a light is on or not. Hoever that certainly doesn't mean they have the subjective experience that we would have - of 'what it's like' to see something. So, again, what evolutionary advantage does this subjective experience confer that mere perception and reaction does not?
Indeed the neurones electrochemical dynamics is too complicated to be a simple coincidence of evolution.
Entropy will not give a chance to create such as a super systematic molecular machine.
Modern understanding of biology and genetics lead us to a strong conclusion is human and his mind and whole bio 🧬 is work of civilization of level III or IV.
Yes, this represents a very feeble truth, albeit just around 1% of the real process.
Good comment of Peter Tze. 👍
He's already suspecting that something's fishy in Denmark. 🙂
First
Lamuiel Head / Here's the present: 💩
A more confusing explanation!
A stimulant - a recipient and then firing.
What about when there's no stimulant? What about crying after remembering a childhood memory without any stimulant???
It's never been the way Tse describes it.
The memory is the stimulus dumdum
@@ishikawa1338 And what ignites the stimulus?
Generally, you have both internal and external sensory stimuli, which directly may trigger a web of reactions; and then you have emotions, which derive from continuous assessment of current circumstances, and may trigger thoughts and memories, which may further evoke reactions. The unconscious mind is constantly processing information, and when something important is found, may trigger emotions and thoughts.
@@FalseCogs what ignites the internal stimuli first hand?
@@dot73 If your question is what started the chain of events, I have no answer other than saying existence itself, or God, "caused" the chain into happening. If your question is about the immediate, or proximal, cause, I would say that internal mental events trigger when either a certain threshold is crossed, or when a chain of processing reaches some materially significant point or conclusion.
Particles, particles, particles. They remind me of the snake that’s trying to bit it’s tail. Consciousness is an illusion, everything is an illusion, therefore everything is consciousness.
(4:20) *PT: **_"Neurons are not responding to the amount of input; they're responding to the pattern in their input."_* ... And these patterns are born out of "information" that has evolved out of pure chaos. A single pattern that forms within an arena of chaos increases the amount of available information beyond what an arena of total chaos would normally produce. *Example:* Instead of having _"an arena of chaos"_ you now have _"an arena of chaos along with one pattern."_
Patterns are information, and information is the fundamental structure of Existence. After 13.8 billion years of evolution, information has become sentient and self-aware. Your brain represents an evolution of information to where information can now process its own information (self-awareness).
All of you militant reductionists out there who keep looking for something "physical" to serve as the core structure of Existence need to go one step further into the nondimensional realm of "information." After all, the Information used to construct a quark must first exist before the quark can exist.
Your brain (which is comprised of "information") is compelling you to recognize this pattern.
Materialists need something to grasp onto. They just cannot come to the conclusion that the mind exists or it would collapse their view.
@@Tzimiskes3506 *"They just cannot come to the conclusion that the mind exists or it would collapse their view."*
... With the mind and brain both being comprised of "information," their argument doesn't necessarily _collapse_ as much as it needs to be _modified._ Instead of materialists searching for a fundamental substance, they need to regress just a little bit further to the nondimensional realm of "information." Everything is information at its core.
Materialists are unwilling to consider options such as this because any movement of the "believability arrow" back toward God must be avoided at all costs. I am not a believer, but I also don't let ideological dogmas affect my reasoning skills.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC for some reason youtube keeps erasing comments. It says there are 3 comments but when i click, none of it is there.
@@Tzimiskes3506 *"It says there are 3 comments but when i click, none of it is there."*
... Yes, TH-cam is censoring our "information" and at an alarming rate. This censorship will continue until some other platform rises up and challenges TH-cam's dominance.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Ironically, even my reply to you on why so many comments are being censored has been censored.
These isn't a problem.
The human brain is a wonderful organ.
Dualism is unnecessary.
Hmm? You don’t dream then!? A classic dualism, while your making surviving body functions .....millions of them.....your “cell” body structures renew completely every few days or weeks or years dependant on the duality requirement.! Yep it would appear something is completely independent!? But what? Regards on your Journey!
Sorry, but you still haven't solved the problem. You're just repeating the problem and pretending that it's NOT a problem when it IS a recognized problem in science and philosophy.
Physicalism cannot explain how consciousness arises from unconscious matter on the first place, therefore, physicalism lacks explanatory power and is unnecessary.
Dualism, while still being highly implausible, still is more promising that physicalism. For example, dualism can make sense of Psi-supporting data, physicalism simply cannot.
Physicalists posits that physical reality has standalone existence outside of perception, which is something that has never been demonstrated empirically, therefore, physicalism is implausible and unnecesary.
Suppose a necessary and sufficient condition^ for something implies the identifier "matrix coordinate system" row,colum, or spatio,temporal, event sequence, ES = ST1,1 ST1,2, where subscript a,b is an ordered - a,b ≠ b,a - pair of non-negative real numbers^^ and from this, uncountably infinite events between any two events is assumed, by God as the counterparty in a flawless 'hedge' against some portal for instance.
* This is a necessary condition for that if that cannot without this ; this is a sufficient condition for that if the existence of this is enough to guarantee the existence of that.
** A complex number has general form, z = a + b.i, where a and b are real numbers - including rational numbers that can be written in x/y form, where x is a whole number - 0, 1, 2, ... - , y is a natural number - 1, 2, 3, ... - and "/" means divided by, like 1/1 = 1 = 1.0, as well as irrational numbers that can't be written as a ratio, like pi = 3.14 approximated to two decimal places - , "." is multiplied by and "i" is the imaginary number written, i = √-1, for √-1 pronounced "square root of negative one", geometrically meaning it is the length of the side of a square with area equal to negative one ; the complex conjugate of z = a + b.i is z' = a - b.i.
The mind body problem, is a problem for dualists. Good luck with that:)
Descartes has a lot to answer for
I'm sorry, but no. Physicalists still cannot answer how something conscious arises from something which is unconscious, it's a something from nothing problem. Dualism and materialism are both highly implausible views, but at least dualism has something more to offer than physicalism. Dualism, for example, can make sense of the empirical data supporting the existence of Psi, while physicalism can't. So in fact, the mind-body problem is more of a problem for physicalists than it is for dualists, so, good luck with that! ;)
@@sammybastidas4304 When scientists cannot currently fully explain something, the answer is not "magic".
Minds are ALWAYS associated with brains. And when those brains are damaged so is the associated mind ... and in predictable ways. It's almost as if mind and body are two presentations of the same thing ... eh?
@@canwelook:
You have zero way of knowing that minds are always associated with brains. The only empirical example you have of this is your own mind, but you cannot even prove that you actually have a brain at all, no matter how much imagining you use.
However, even assuming that you do have a brain for the sake of argument, you can only infer that other humans are conscious too, since you don't have direct experience of their consciousness. This is based entirely on their similarity to you. Then you might move on to other animals with similar brains, like other great apes and cetaceans, and infer that they're most likely conscious too. Then you might move on to animals less similar to you, like cats and dogs, and infer that they probably have some form of consciousness as well, albeit most likely noticeably different from yours. Then you might move on to less similar animals, like arthropods, and infer that they seem to have the same basic neural loops that seem to be associated with consciousness, and thus that they too have some rudimentary form of consciousness, albeit most likely very different from your own.
At this point you might start to ponder: "how far does this go?"
You start thinking about organisms like plants, which don't have the same neural mechanisms as all the animals you considered to be conscious, but note that they do have many of the same types of electrochemical signaling that is used in the brain. Perhaps that is sufficient for consciousness of some strange sort that is hardly imaginable? You realize that you never actually knew what precisely about your own brain it is that gives rise to consciousness in your model, and that it could be some relatively simple mechanisms that exist even in simpler forms of matter. You begin to ponder whether or not even rocks might have some extremely elementary form of consciousness by virtue of the vibrations in the quantum field that makes up its atoms and molecules. In fact, at this point you consider panpsychism quite seriously, and that perhaps that very field itself is what must ultimately be conscious.
Then you start thinking about it in the other direction: a large group of humans living together in a city, intimately connected through electronic means, is that group itself conscious? What is its group mind like? The same would be true for larger organizational groups too, like nations, or even humanity as a whole. This leads you to the Gaia hypothesis, that the entirety of Earth itself, through its global electric circuit and all the life it harbors, is conscious, and possesses a planetary mind. You think about Sol too, and how the intense electromagnetic fields there could give rise to strange electromagnetic lifeforms, Solaris popping briefly into your mind as a gentle reminder that you're not the first one to consider this. As you go further and further up, you start to consider that the entirety of the cosmos as a whole might itself be conscious, a universal mind so immense in its scope that the human mind can barely comprehend its scale, let alone its operation.
@@outisnemo8443 Just to let you know I read your essay on minds and brains. Unfortunately it has now disappeared. But I did get enjoy your belief that everything has a mind, rocks included. I suppose you could assert that energy itself, including each photon, has a mind. All you need is the evidence to back that up.
X-Files
Humans vs. Alien Vampires
For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)...is like giant a**holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
And for a rich man (greed) to enter the kingdom of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony)... is like trying to drive a camel through the eye of a needle.
The hostile alien vampires (greed) hate humans (love). And humans aren't very fond of the evangelical monsters either.
Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are far worse than stupid.
The loveless, lifeless parasites are ignorant (dead).
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
Question. Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"?
Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires and zombies.
Lead into gold
Tears into roses
Weapons into ploughshares
Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant a**hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate).
Also, Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be".
Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien monsters and their ignorance (hate).
The mind-body problem is created by the irrational insistence on trying to describe reality quantitatively. When it's understood qualitatively, the bodies reduce to mind. The body is an idea, a symbol of meaning.
While this is true for bodies as we know them inside of mind, all that points out is that naive realism is obviously false.
However, there is still evidence to suggest some underlying and imperceptible noumenal realm might exist, and that the phenomenal mind is interacting with it somehow. That being said, idealism is certainly also a possibility, and that the mind is all there is.
Man; philosophers need to play with computers some more. There's no existential crisis running an "if" statement or anything else mechanistic or computational in your brain. Cyclical dependencies happen all the time in both abstract math/computing and physically based modeling, no need to feel like you need to eliminate them lol. Reality is commonly modeled with a state and an evolution operator; no need to stuff it all in one step when both are robust enough to model reality.
Wow neuroscientists are getting somewhere !