[Please note that this reflective comment below here is by-and-large about the communicating knowledge from (social) learning perspective rather than its specific subject.] It was a struggle for me to watch this content not least because of the lecturer presenting it reminded me of my maths teacher from Year 4; even the most thorough knowledge, refined skills, academic attainments, genuine interest in and passion for one's specific subject go out of the window if connecting with the audience is scarce or nil. NB. Pseudo-dialogue (i.e. parallell monloguing with own self instead of attending to the audience's questions in real dialogues) and switching to passive-agressive communication - as a response to a question instead of trying to explain differently, offering follow up via email contact afterwards, etc. - can only do what anything that is pseudo or showing signs of passive-agressiveness can do: disconnecting, disengaging and disabling. Starting every second sentence with the phrase "You know" is not only irrational (i.e. the question was asked because the person who posed it DID NOT know the answer to it) but as (in this context inappropriate) discharge of discomfort/frustration , makes me remembering very little of the subject of the content other than an example when a person is doing a job for the wrong reason. Personally, I believe that there is no such thing of a brilliant expert happens to be not so good at sharing their knowledge. Relating and connecting are both specific skills - with clearly defineable competence levels one can attain - and have nothing to do with one's excellence in physics, maths, etc. but ought to be well-developed and kept in good stead to enable articulating that whatever one has to say in an engaging way that is conducive to learning.
This is excellent. Obviously discussing consciousness is profoundly difficult because it cannot be treated as an object, which our thought and language does, and it is a precondition of the discussion itself!
Lecture 1 and three quarters of lecture 2 were interesting and informative. The last quarter of lecture 2 was straight out of a Deepak Chopra book..... If Science accepts this woowoo, then there is no point for science to ever pursue anything again, because the answer to everything is simply "Conciousness"......
Well, the first of his lectures was more fruitful for me. The specific argumentation and breaking down of this idea of "the Conciousness" didn't do a lot of me, since a lot of objections arise in my mind. And I do have difficulties to just believe that all the vedas go along with all the knowledge for different reasons. Anyway, still was interesting.
He says all our equations break down at the moment of the big bang (because of infinities) but describes the solution using a triplet of infinities. Sorry, Dr. Nader, you haven't achieved Einstein status with this one. Einstein started from first principles: the constant speed of light, and acceleration & gravity are indistinguishable. What's the first principle in this theory? Consciousness is infinite? We observe the opposite. Our consciousness is very finite, confined to our wakeful experience. We can't even verify that another being is conscious... But we *are* the universe observing itself though, so I appreciate the attempt to make a theory out of that.
It is a disservice to teach that conciousness is primary. It is akin to a heliocentric viewpoint of our universe, which we know not to be true. When he says conciousness, he means potential.
It seems to me that by using the word 'observe' and not using the word 'register' he creates a circulariity because observation is an act of consciousness. However, likewise using the word 'register' would presuppose a "mechanical" lack of consciousness. In short I don't think he proves (or can prove) his point regardless of the mathematics or notation he employs.
I followed the first talk he gave and thought it was pretty insightful however, this second lecture sounds more like something Deepak Chopra would say.
I'm at that point in my life where I am trying to explore important questions and the first lecture in this series really helped me - regarding meditation by Dr. John Hagelin. I'm from India and there are many cults over here and being an atheist and sort of a rationalist I try to steer away from cults. I was also very interested in TM until a few days back when I saw people "flying" or "levitating" by doing weird jumps from one end of the room to the another and it freaked me out. I'm going to stick to exploring how the brain functions as part of my AI and neural networks course but I'm going to get away from "secret" mantras and levitations which you supposedly get by paying thousands of dollars. Thanks, but no thanks.
This is ontological mathematics. This is on point and exactly what reality made if. Existence is fundamentally mind. Each of us is a monad as libeniz discovered
@@Littleprinceleon According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, it is in part, "to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment". You are welcome, unless you're not done because you've anticipated my answer and are chomping at the bit to toss out your rebuttal so all can rejoice in your abundance of wit. The floor's yours ...
I got some very good insights from this and will watch this a few times to get a grip on the information. Right now it appears as if his explanation is similar to previous philosophical designations such as LOGOS. The concept of LOGOS fits right in to this.
Menno Wiedijk LOGOS does not explain the details, certainly. How it works for me is that it is a description adapted to describe Christ and in it I see my relationship to the rest of the universe. This description does not have flesh and blood, the Christ described is pure intelligence or consciousness / data. This Christ is not homeless and hungry he is cosmic and universal, transcendent and immanent at the same time. Yes this is a leap of faith. But I find it fits quite well with the emerging theories concerning consciousness and physics. It reflects reality to a large extent. Is it right? I don't know, I keep trying to see what more there is to see. I may be going to hell in a bucket but I sure am enjoying the ride. I don't think it is necessary or even possible to be completely right. If one is going in the right direction that's a big deal in itself.
Menno Wiedijk I worked with a guy who told me it was the fear of hell that kept him from doing certain things. He was always vague about what exactly he had in mind. I narrowed it down to adultery, or murder or both murder and adultery.
hermenutic I don't think the reason people are or are not killing is in their religion but in their personal moral standards. Those standards arise from their social surroundings in the present and past and from their common sense, unless they are mentally sick.
Why do I get the feeling that at the heart of whatever the hell it is they are going to propose (lot of dancing going on) is that WE ARE SPECIAL. If he would just levitate himself, we could get there a lot quicker.
Dr Nader patterns of consciousness do not only find forms of expressions in sound but in colours as well becuse of the identical underlying nature of frequencies.
If something that is hypothetical or "conceptual" becomes nothing then the saying "Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing" so there is no compression and no temperature or pressure increase.
Beats me. I was wondering the same myself. Not sure why woo woo is on the syllabus. These "Big ideas" are merely wild conjecture and unfounded speculation. They should be presented cautiously as such and with less enthusiasm. Subjective experience should be treated with maker scepticism unless there empirical evidence to support it.
how these academics manage to separate physicality from consciousness is just laughable, All evidence points to physical causation but that just doesn't "feel" right i suppose.
@@aerosoapbreeze264 For the followers, everything is a physical causation. They can’t see things otherwise. For the leaders, good things start from their mind.
Please argue.... My Logical Theory by defying the Logic: Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics is essentially a Law of Material Relativity, and Consciousness exists, therefore without explanation of either, an assumption of Consciousness, no matter the process, is that it cannot exist without Material, no matter its Relativity. There is the 🥚, and then the 🐔 so to speak. So a Neutral Monistic approach is the most rational. Spirituality (or transcendence) is byproduct of Consciousness, and doesn't have the same context In relation to the Unified Fields as a Material, (the omnipresence of energy) so the correlation of these Unified Fields are only dependent, not the same source specifically. To me, it appears intuitive, but it's actually counterintuitive because each possesses the same properties, albeit in disparate contexts, or simply a shared Universal Law It's almost the same, but totally different. Universal Laws appear to negate Chaos Theory, according to this lecture. Am missing something?
It is impossible to connect spiritual consciousness which is quantum in nature to the body which is both physical and quantum without fully understanding quantum physics. For example, a spinal injury of the neck makes one a quadriplegic. How then do the organs in the detached body continue to function? It is because they are using quantum communication. DNA is quantum. Quantum particles move faster than light. Until we can understand the quantum nature of things, anything put forth is merely conjecture.
He might be right that a paradigm shift is needed to explain consciousness. But... What is his paradigm exactly? Does his paradigm explain why the atomns in my brain cause the pain I feel when I hit my thumb with a hammer? Please explain.
@@mikarpman thinkers with the actual intellectual background to seriously tackle the hard epistemological and metaphysical problems underpinning the study of consciousness. This dude is just a neuroscientist with a spiritual guru
Until you suggested we divide the brain into 4 parts (ignoring the spine) that they could correlate with the Veda or Vedic literature mythos of India. That these texts somehow represent the function of the thalamus. I did think you were making a legitimate attempt to rationalize consciousness. 1:20:00 (5 chapters of Nyaya blah blah, vs The Thalamus: th-cam.com/video/L8SezbBHWJI/w-d-xo.html
There is no answer to the 'quality' problem. Why don't the observer sees the EM wave and/or its frequency but colour? What distinquishes 'good' from 'bad'? Is there a thing 'all possible cases', ie a compolete set of everything? Otherwise, how can universal consciousness (UC) be everything?
This “theory” is too much and too little at the same time. Too much because it starts before the big bang and claims to explain everything - however, it explains everything by the simplest of methods: all possible universes exist, just pick the one you like. Reminds me of Borges and the infinite library. Too little because there is nothing “actionable”, all possible explanations exist but there is no recipe for finding the right one. Again, the Borges story. Too bad, I had hopes for this ...
People are 4 groups 1. Christains who refuse anything to do with science 2. Non christains who refuse anything to do with the bible 3. Then ignorent athiest who call this teacher from Harvard ignorent because they think his lecture could prove a God exist And the intelligent open minded individual who learns staight facts and constantly changes their belief.
Open minded means a willingness to consider a proposition as being possibly true but it does not mean to accept it as being true without sufficient evidence to ground that belief.
Mmmm...I think its more like two groups: (1) People who think that the 7.5 Billion People cleanly fit in one of four categories as enumerated and (2) Everybody else who doesn't give a crap what you think.
27:00 how does he go from "there is nothing else but consciousness" to "therefore, consciousness is infinite"? Seems like an invalid claim to me. I is possible that "everything there is" could be finite. Note that it suffices that the mere (even counterfactual) possibility of a finite universe or finite "everything there is" is sufficient to invalidate his claim on logical grounds.
i sorry Dr Nader my understanding is that when you are entangled with the unified field you don't follow the rules but rather transmit them because your consciousness has become universal and enlightened.Your subjective neural correlate has become self-referential.
@32:00 so I have proposed these laws that prove that...;'you have dreamt that these laws prove something', how do you, or I, prove that that to a whole pile of non-existent entities we have dreamt up?
This is good. We need it as a specie to help in the way we look at life and all this evil by man against his fellow man. We are but a pattern of consciousness evolving to be in the initial consciousness from whence We all ruptured from. I love this. It helps in my better understanding of Physics of God by Joseph Selby. This starts from before the Big Bang. It goes before in the beginning from the first chapter of Genesis. I want to live the rest of my life studying this. How do I do that?
Very nice talk from the Eastern perspective. When confronted at the end by questions originating from Western Philosophy and Science, he's your typical ontological mess full of errors. Has none of the Western ideas in a proper perspective.
TM is nothing but a scientific way of resting your mind from thoughts while you are conscious. This does have some physiological changes. But in no way you can extend it and say you have experienced the all-pervading consciousness. Also, the unnecessary conclusion that we are Consciousness.
How does the multi-verse theory avoid the violent collisions between universes, if they are all of 3 dimensional space? If they are not colliding because they each have a different number of spatial dimensions, then they would each be so different then there would not be copies of individuals. So the multi-verse explains nothing.
Axioms everywhere axioms with no empirical proof is not a problem but here their is so much axioms that theire is not event a place for logic exept on falacious links.
His view that consciousness is infinite and that it existed before the big bang made me want to stop watching. I kept watching to see what other bull he was stating. Pseudoscience .
Old, erroneous thinking. (like 'time is an illusion' 1:01:43) (it is not, it is a tool). He also does not realize that consciousness, like life, can be defined correctly from many perspectives, so trying to nail it down in one sentence or from only one perspective is foolish (Physics - atoms; Chemistry - molecules; Biology - cells; Mechanics - machines; Computer Science - programming; Emergence - collections of cells, force of will; Chaos - probability; Poetry - metaphor and simile; etc. etc. etc.).
***** There's a lot of exciting stuff happening now in the field of neuroscience. I'm really into that. I think a lot of people have a deep felt intuition that there's more to consciousness than just electrical impulses in the brain. The mind over matter debate should have been put to rest a long time ago. Maybe I'm not thinking this through very clearly, but isn't the will to move your hand mind over matter, or the fact that entire cities have been constructed from ideas in the mind? If that's not mind over matter, I don't know what is.
***** A Plant changes its physiology by itself but i don't think a plant is conscious. A self learning system could give rise to consciousness and that consciousness could help him to learn. That's the evolutionary benefit.
he does not even address the issue of choice.... We could be merely automatons in his "theory" ... or maybe somehow all the decisions are part of an instant universe... What does it even mean "to observe" according to his number one axiom? This whole lecture seems to be about a poorly founded speculation. Most of the Indian philosophies contradict each other even in the most basic terms... Maybe they are coherent in themselves and can give inspiration for the objective science but I highly doubt that this famous Unified "Mindfield" reachable through meditation has much to do with physical reality... More so with our "psyche" (and nobody questions the power of psyche on soma) but unfortunately all of the connections of sacred texts to neuroscience were skipped in great hurry in this lecture ... but from the slides presented I don't think it has to do much with science either.
Floyd Fp Deepak Chopra learned from the same guy,. but left to found his own organization. This guy stuck around and became the head of the original organization that Chopra left.
Talk and talk, everybody can talk, but the imnportatnt thing is evidence, physical reality is essential, counciousness is a so tiny bit of human body and brain, there are a milion tons of evidence. Mr Nader Qader Chader you, go and try to find a job
When the universal consciousness (UC) is said to expand to all possible states, is such an action intelligent? An intelligent man would decide the best course of action to meet his purpose in a circumstance. Why did UC act like an idiot? Why anyone would think that downgrading consciousness (including those consciousnesses who claim that) to an idiotic level can explain reality?
if everything and anything are possible, then we do not have an explanation.
[Please note that this reflective comment below here is by-and-large about the communicating knowledge from (social) learning perspective rather than its specific subject.]
It was a struggle for me to watch this content not least because of the lecturer presenting it reminded me of my maths teacher from Year 4; even the most thorough knowledge, refined skills, academic attainments, genuine interest in and passion for one's specific subject go out of the window if connecting with the audience is scarce or nil.
NB. Pseudo-dialogue (i.e. parallell monloguing with own self instead of attending to the audience's questions in real dialogues) and switching to passive-agressive communication - as a response to a question instead of trying to explain differently, offering follow up via email contact afterwards, etc. - can only do what anything that is pseudo or showing signs of passive-agressiveness can do: disconnecting, disengaging and disabling.
Starting every second sentence with the phrase "You know" is not only irrational (i.e. the question was asked because the person who posed it DID NOT know the answer to it) but as (in this context inappropriate) discharge of discomfort/frustration , makes me remembering very little of the subject of the content other than an example when a person is doing a job for the wrong reason. Personally, I believe that there is no such thing of a brilliant expert happens to be not so good at sharing their knowledge. Relating and connecting are both specific skills - with clearly defineable competence levels one can attain - and have nothing to do with one's excellence in physics, maths, etc. but ought to be well-developed and kept in good stead to enable articulating that whatever one has to say in an engaging way that is conducive to learning.
This is a fun idea. I don't think it is the correct idea but its fun to think about.
*****
Sure. Whatever you say. :)
*****
You are adorable.
This is excellent. Obviously discussing consciousness is profoundly difficult because it cannot be treated as an object, which our thought and language does, and it is a precondition of the discussion itself!
What does it mean "to observe" ?
What does it mean to observe?
Lecture 1 and three quarters of lecture 2 were interesting and informative.
The last quarter of lecture 2 was straight out of a Deepak Chopra book.....
If Science accepts this woowoo, then there is no point for science to ever pursue anything again, because the answer to everything is simply "Conciousness"......
Well, the first of his lectures was more fruitful for me. The specific argumentation and breaking down of this idea of "the Conciousness" didn't do a lot of me, since a lot of objections arise in my mind.
And I do have difficulties to just believe that all the vedas go along with all the knowledge for different reasons. Anyway, still was interesting.
What were the "objections" that arose in your mind, I wonder? :)
He says all our equations break down at the moment of the big bang (because of infinities) but describes the solution using a triplet of infinities. Sorry, Dr. Nader, you haven't achieved Einstein status with this one.
Einstein started from first principles: the constant speed of light, and acceleration & gravity are indistinguishable. What's the first principle in this theory? Consciousness is infinite? We observe the opposite. Our consciousness is very finite, confined to our wakeful experience. We can't even verify that another being is conscious...
But we *are* the universe observing itself though, so I appreciate the attempt to make a theory out of that.
It is a disservice to teach that conciousness is primary. It is akin to a heliocentric viewpoint of our universe, which we know not to be true.
When he says conciousness, he means potential.
It seems to me that by using the word 'observe' and not using the word 'register' he creates a circulariity because observation is an act of consciousness. However, likewise using the word 'register' would presuppose a "mechanical" lack of consciousness. In short I don't think he proves (or can prove) his point regardless of the mathematics or notation he employs.
Please post the Unified field chart for physiology, if someone has it. It’s hard to read it from this video.
I followed the first talk he gave and thought it was pretty insightful however, this second lecture sounds more like something Deepak Chopra would say.
I'm at that point in my life where I am trying to explore important questions and the first lecture in this series really helped me - regarding meditation by Dr. John Hagelin. I'm from India and there are many cults over here and being an atheist and sort of a rationalist I try to steer away from cults. I was also very interested in TM until a few days back when I saw people "flying" or "levitating" by doing weird jumps from one end of the room to the another and it freaked me out. I'm going to stick to exploring how the brain functions as part of my AI and neural networks course but I'm going to get away from "secret" mantras and levitations which you supposedly get by paying thousands of dollars. Thanks, but no thanks.
I agree with your comment.
Im interested how to do were to do ?
This is ontological mathematics. This is on point and exactly what reality made if. Existence is fundamentally mind. Each of us is a monad as libeniz discovered
This was excellent, from infinite and zero standpoints. I am conscious, as is everything else.
What does it mean "to observe"?
@@Littleprinceleon According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, it is in part, "to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment". You are welcome, unless you're not done because you've anticipated my answer and are chomping at the bit to toss out your rebuttal so all can rejoice in your abundance of wit. The floor's yours ...
clever wordplays are so passe
Exodus 3:14 Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה)
I AM what I AM
I AM what I WILL BE
I WILL BE what I AM
I WILL BE what I WILL BE
I got some very good insights from this and will watch this a few times to get a grip on the information. Right now it appears as if his explanation is similar to previous philosophical designations such as LOGOS. The concept of LOGOS fits right in to this.
+hermenutic Its LOGOS but Logos doesn't explain anything.
Menno Wiedijk LOGOS does not explain the details, certainly. How it works for me is that it is a description adapted to describe Christ and in it I see my relationship to the rest of the universe.
This description does not have flesh and blood, the Christ described is pure intelligence or consciousness / data. This Christ is not homeless and hungry he is cosmic and universal, transcendent and immanent at the same time.
Yes this is a leap of faith. But I find it fits quite well with the emerging theories concerning consciousness and physics. It reflects reality to a large extent. Is it right? I don't know, I keep trying to see what more there is to see. I may be going to hell in a bucket but I sure am enjoying the ride. I don't think it is necessary or even possible to be completely right. If one is going in the right direction that's a big deal in itself.
Respect! I don't think youre going to hell (I think there is no hell ; )
Menno Wiedijk I worked with a guy who told me it was the fear of hell that kept him from doing certain things. He was always vague about what exactly he had in mind. I narrowed it down to adultery, or murder or both murder and adultery.
hermenutic
I don't think the reason people are or are not killing is in their religion but in their personal moral standards. Those standards arise from their social surroundings in the present and past and from their common sense, unless they are mentally sick.
Why do I get the feeling that at the heart of whatever the hell it is they are going to propose (lot of dancing going on) is that WE ARE SPECIAL.
If he would just levitate himself, we could get there a lot quicker.
Dr Nader patterns of consciousness do not only find forms of expressions in sound but in colours as well becuse of the identical underlying nature of frequencies.
If something that is hypothetical or "conceptual" becomes nothing then the saying "Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing" so there is no compression and no temperature or pressure increase.
Stanford now has a Deepak Chopra department? What is this video doing here?
Beats me. I was wondering the same myself.
Not sure why woo woo is on the syllabus. These "Big ideas" are merely wild conjecture and unfounded speculation. They should be presented cautiously as such and with less enthusiasm. Subjective experience should be treated with maker scepticism unless there empirical evidence to support it.
how these academics manage to separate physicality from consciousness is just laughable, All evidence points to physical causation but that just doesn't "feel" right i suppose.
@@aerosoapbreeze264 For the followers, everything is a physical causation. They can’t see things otherwise.
For the leaders, good things start from their mind.
Please argue....
My Logical Theory by defying the Logic:
Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics is essentially a Law of Material Relativity, and Consciousness exists, therefore without explanation of either, an assumption of Consciousness, no matter the process, is that it cannot exist without Material, no matter its Relativity.
There is the 🥚, and then the 🐔 so to speak.
So a Neutral Monistic approach is the most rational.
Spirituality (or transcendence) is byproduct of Consciousness, and doesn't have the same context In relation to the Unified Fields as a Material, (the omnipresence of energy) so the correlation of these Unified Fields are only dependent, not the same source specifically.
To me, it appears intuitive, but it's actually counterintuitive because each possesses the same properties, albeit in disparate contexts, or simply a shared Universal Law
It's almost the same, but totally different.
Universal Laws appear to negate Chaos Theory, according to this lecture.
Am missing something?
What's the difference between consciousness and 'possibility' in this theory?
No difference.
it is not a theory, it is a wild hypothesis without any evidence.
Knowledgeable discussion but when it comes to explaining the mechanisms of consciousness he is another Deepak Chopra featherduster.
It is impossible to connect spiritual consciousness which is quantum in nature to the body which is both physical and quantum without fully understanding quantum physics. For example, a spinal injury of the neck makes one a quadriplegic. How then do the organs in the detached body continue to function? It is because they are using quantum communication. DNA is quantum. Quantum particles move faster than light. Until we can understand the quantum nature of things, anything put forth is merely conjecture.
He might be right that a paradigm shift is needed to explain consciousness. But... What is his paradigm exactly? Does his paradigm explain why the atomns in my brain cause the pain I feel when I hit my thumb with a hammer? Please explain.
Consciousness since it is wave collapsing we can say it exists by creating separateness
Advaita Vedanta science jam session!
You can always flag shucksters by imprecise language. So many statements he says are not only inexact but wrong.
There is no such thing as "gravity".
It's a theory, not a physical reality.
Didn't find his approuch enlightening or helpful in any meaningful way... You will make much better use of your time reading proper philosophers
Please define "proper philosophers"
@@mikarpman thinkers with the actual intellectual background to seriously tackle the hard epistemological and metaphysical problems underpinning the study of consciousness. This dude is just a neuroscientist with a spiritual guru
Until you suggested we divide the brain into 4 parts (ignoring the spine) that they could correlate with the Veda or Vedic literature mythos of India. That these texts somehow represent the function of the thalamus. I did think you were making a legitimate attempt to rationalize consciousness. 1:20:00 (5 chapters of Nyaya blah blah, vs The Thalamus: th-cam.com/video/L8SezbBHWJI/w-d-xo.html
There is no answer to the 'quality' problem. Why don't the observer sees the EM wave and/or its frequency but colour? What distinquishes 'good' from 'bad'?
Is there a thing 'all possible cases', ie a compolete set of everything? Otherwise, how can universal consciousness (UC) be everything?
A physicist with sensthesia might, just like a programmer might see the world as a matrix if rgb values..
If UC is the universe, the universe has everything, so UC is everything.
This “theory” is too much and too little at the same time. Too much because it starts before the big bang and claims to explain everything - however, it explains everything by the simplest of methods: all possible universes exist, just pick the one you like. Reminds me of Borges and the infinite library. Too little because there is nothing “actionable”, all possible explanations exist but there is no recipe for finding the right one. Again, the Borges story. Too bad, I had hopes for this ...
1:03:00, your explanation of time is no better than mine, and I don't have one...
"Patterns of experience" is a step towards greater sophistication.
So you are explaining why Einstein, Plank and Bohr were wrong, brilliant, .....sorry, did I miss the explanation????
People are 4 groups
1. Christains who refuse anything to do with science
2. Non christains who refuse anything to do with the bible
3. Then ignorent athiest who call this teacher from Harvard ignorent because they think his lecture could prove a God exist
And the intelligent open minded individual who learns staight facts and constantly changes their belief.
Open minded means a willingness to consider a proposition as being possibly true but it does not mean to accept it as being true without sufficient evidence to ground that belief.
Mmmm...I think its more like two groups: (1) People who think that the 7.5 Billion People cleanly fit in one of four categories as enumerated and (2) Everybody else who doesn't give a crap what you think.
this is just fun to listen to
45:30, then 'observerhood' does not exist if you are the only observer!, you merely then only observe that which you believe to be real
What does it mean "to observe"?
27:00 how does he go from "there is nothing else but consciousness" to "therefore, consciousness is infinite"? Seems like an invalid claim to me. I is possible that "everything there is" could be finite. Note that it suffices that the mere (even counterfactual) possibility of a finite universe or finite "everything there is" is sufficient to invalidate his claim on logical grounds.
The myopic should resist drawing long bows.
+Ralph Latham He still could hit the target.
i sorry Dr Nader my understanding is that when you are entangled with the unified field you don't follow the rules but rather transmit them because your consciousness has become universal and enlightened.Your subjective neural correlate has become self-referential.
@32:00 so I have proposed these laws that prove that...;'you have dreamt that these laws prove something', how do you, or I, prove that that to a whole pile of non-existent entities we have dreamt up?
thumbs up
This is good. We need it as a specie to help in the way we look at life and all this evil by man against his fellow man. We are but a pattern of consciousness evolving to be in the initial consciousness from whence We all ruptured from. I love this. It helps in my better understanding of Physics of God by Joseph Selby. This starts from before the Big Bang. It goes before in the beginning from the first chapter of Genesis.
I want to live the rest of my life studying this. How do I do that?
Very nice talk from the Eastern perspective. When confronted at the end by questions originating from Western Philosophy and Science, he's your typical ontological mess full of errors. Has none of the Western ideas in a proper perspective.
Damn, hate to say it, but did go to pseudoscience, the 'to see if the assumption could make sense @ 32:30
TM is nothing but a scientific way of resting your mind from thoughts while you are conscious. This does have some physiological changes. But in no way you can extend it and say you have experienced the all-pervading consciousness. Also, the unnecessary conclusion that we are Consciousness.
I am not a Creationist fool, I am a great believer in finding new rules, this fool is making fools of those he is trying to speak for...
How does the multi-verse theory avoid the violent collisions between universes, if they are all of 3 dimensional space? If they are not colliding because they each have a different number of spatial dimensions, then they would each be so different then there would not be copies of individuals. So the multi-verse explains nothing.
1:22:22
The assumption of this theory looks like a new kind of religion which combines the discovery of sciences.
C(Og, Or, Od) => Christianity(Father, Son, Holly Spirit)
Harvard you Must be joking!
Axioms everywhere axioms with no empirical proof is not a problem but here their is so much axioms that theire is not event a place for logic exept on falacious links.
I thought this was a lecture based on science but was instead a lecture on a pseudoscience theory about Consciousness.
His view that consciousness is infinite and that it existed before the big bang made me want to stop watching. I kept watching to see what other bull he was stating. Pseudoscience .
How did he get the invite to speak???????
I'm flabbergasted about his putting values on infinity and then reducing it to zero.
Old, erroneous thinking. (like 'time is an illusion' 1:01:43) (it is not, it is a tool). He also does not realize that consciousness, like life, can be defined correctly from many perspectives, so trying to nail it down in one sentence or from only one perspective is foolish (Physics - atoms; Chemistry - molecules; Biology - cells; Mechanics - machines; Computer Science - programming; Emergence - collections of cells, force of will; Chaos - probability; Poetry - metaphor and simile; etc. etc. etc.).
pseudoscience.
No, just ideas ahead of their time. He's on the right track, but science needs to play a little game of catch-up.
*****
There's a lot of exciting stuff happening now in the field of neuroscience. I'm really into that. I think a lot of people have a deep felt intuition that there's more to consciousness than just electrical impulses in the brain. The mind over matter debate should have been put to rest a long time ago. Maybe I'm not thinking this through very clearly, but isn't the will to move your hand mind over matter, or the fact that entire cities have been constructed from ideas in the mind? If that's not mind over matter, I don't know what is.
+deltrontheory consciousness changing neuro-physiological processes? why not the other way around?
*****
A Plant changes its physiology by itself but i don't think a plant is conscious. A self learning system could give rise to consciousness and that consciousness could help him to learn. That's the evolutionary benefit.
if anything is pseudoscience, its the neuronal complexity=consciousness bullshit that so many neuroscientists go apeshit over.
he does not even address the issue of choice.... We could be merely automatons in his "theory" ... or maybe somehow all the decisions are part of an instant universe... What does it even mean "to observe" according to his number one axiom? This whole lecture seems to be about a poorly founded speculation. Most of the Indian philosophies contradict each other even in the most basic terms... Maybe they are coherent in themselves and can give inspiration for the objective science but I highly doubt that this famous Unified "Mindfield" reachable through meditation has much to do with physical reality... More so with our "psyche" (and nobody questions the power of psyche on soma) but unfortunately all of the connections of sacred texts to neuroscience were skipped in great hurry in this lecture ... but from the slides presented I don't think it has to do much with science either.
Woo.
www.wisdomofchopra.com/
We're on the Woo-Woo Train now!
Floyd Fp Deepak Chopra learned from the same guy,. but left to found his own organization. This guy stuck around and became the head of the original organization that Chopra left.
deltrontheory. You must be a Cartesian. That dualist philosophy is deader than fried chicken.
Talk and talk, everybody can talk, but the imnportatnt thing is evidence, physical reality is essential, counciousness is a so tiny bit of human body and brain, there are a milion tons of evidence.
Mr Nader Qader Chader you, go and try to find a job
this is even more pseudoscience than crackpottery !!
The rude semicircle unpredictably rejoice because gliding legally appear down a wasteful patio. helpful, light acrylic
When the universal consciousness (UC) is said to expand to all possible states, is such an action intelligent? An intelligent man would decide the best course of action to meet his purpose in a circumstance. Why did UC act like an idiot? Why anyone would think that downgrading consciousness (including those consciousnesses who claim that) to an idiotic level can explain reality?