Patrick Haggard - Free Will: Key to Consciousness?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Watch more videos on free will and consciousness: closertotruth....
Why might free will be a key to understanding consciousness? What is it about the problems of free will such that addressing these problems can elucidate the deep structure or underpinnings of the mind? The key is how free will works in a wholly physical, material world? Or perhaps it doesn’t work?
Support the show with a tax-deductible donation to Closer To Truth of any amount: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Patrick Haggard is a neuroscientist and current Deputy Director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, where he is a professor in the department of Psychology.
Register for a free CTT membership with perks like event discounts and early access to interviews at www.closertotr...
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
he’s wearing the dark red sweater today instead of the johnny cash all black orthodox rig - thats practically cutting loose 🎉
Many of these interviews are like interviews with politicians. We often don't get an answer!!
"Genius is memory". Ford Maddox Ford. So is consciousness. Memory is the well, and consciousness is the bucket that hauls the water. Free will is dropping the bucket to alleviate your thirst and that, if necessary, of others. Not everyone can do this; creativity is key. This makes freedom both a necessity and a conclusion of thinking. Creative persons act from memory and not impulses. Genius is the highest sort of memory and freedom.
Quran says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/All-Loving/self-sufficient Infinite perfection)…
Memory is not at all like a fixed set of things we pull things up from, like a well. Memory is a constantly evolving and imperfect thing, and consciousness is not nearly so centralized as to be characterized by a singular action like hauling up a bucket. Consciousness is diffuse and multifarious, and memory is reconstruction.
@@Bringadingus I concur completely. My metaphor is meant to establish the fact of culling bits and pieces from memory, not qualifying the state of memories. One may draw from a well without the water being static.
Science has determined that we live in a determinist universe. Therefore, everything can be predicted according to all laws of physics.
But we have free will, therefore God exists.
Dennis Prager: Freedom is dependent upon a God who wants us to be Free .
Freedom is dependent on Free Will.
If we have no freedom, then we would behave According to the laws of physics, because of freedom to choose our actions, then our actions are not entirely based on physical laws of the universe.
Science has not determined that we live in a deterministic universe. We used to think that, but haven't for about a hundred years since general relativity and quantum mechanics
Freewill doesn’t exist. You’re commenting on a station dedicated to searching for faith because the host cannot make himself believe in God no matter how hard he tries. Then you’re going to say people are free to believe in God? lol. 😅
Giving someone a first kiss is definitely a deliberate concious action, but I'm not sure receiving one is, even if it results in an awakening.
We think of things happening like a chain or a linear series one event after another but that way of conceiving of reality leads us to fruitless ends. Everything happens in parallel at the same time in a network of interactions so complex we can't grasp it. And that's part of the reason why we keep asking these same questions over and over and never finding satisfactory answers.
He should be talking about experiments on learning not just doing or choosing. How people learn, where in the brain that learning is indicated, should be studied. Different types of learning. Motor skills such as pronouncing unfamiliar words, as well as skills of understanding such as recognizing lies or deceit.
@@kallianpublico7517 Those areas are being studied by other researchers. He’s not the only neuroscientist in the world. They should study every aspect of neurology.
@@simonhibbs887 If there were interesting results do you think he would be aware of them? I imagine experimental setup is more difficult than we can imagine. Results tell us less than neuroscientists would like. Otherwise there would be citations.
@@kallianpublico7517Citations for what? He’s talking about his own actual primary research. The sort of research that is what gets cited. If you’re asking for references to his published research, he has over 600 publications listed on Researchgate, many of them freely available for download.
148th viewer ;) I gotta comment on that.
an agent having a measure of free will would want to consciously experience its actions (in contrast to causation ) to know what it is doing is a necessary requirement for voluntary or free will action?
Some memories are different from those which help us make up our biography. They are specific and seem to be chosen or selected by fate or destiny in order to remind us that who we are is a process we cannot direct ourselves. Rather, we are witness to the process, like a spectator watching a film.
I’ld like very much to see a conversation with Federico Faggin
so, consciousness has a lock which requires a key to open?!? clearly you have a very poor conception of consciousness. rather you seem to be referring to awareness or some other aspect of human experience. consciousness is unborn and underlies the quantum field from which the material universe arises. nagarjuna said it best: "Due to sameness of selflessness of all phenomena, One’s mind is primordially unborn; It is in the nature of emptiness."
Same goes in Advait vedanta
Never born never dies ,isn't confined to a body
They are referring to the Ego. But conscious experience is an action, it's not passive. It's something that we do, but it's not what we are. We look inside our bodies and our brains and we are amazed and overwhelmed and it's ourselves that huge thing that we don't understand at all and we believe that all we are is this ..consciousness
@@konstantinos777 awareness not consciousness.
@@vedanshtripathi4655 yes
@@geeknee551 they say that consciousness is awareness of being aware of being aware.. otherwise we would be unaware of being aware and we would be aware of being aware of something different than that that we would be aware of if we were aware of being unaware
This video is only free will denialism.
And other videos are 'only' theological statements. We should take them all on their merits.
@simonhibbs887 Free will denialism is not a merit. It is an evil.
The same deck of playing cards can be arranged into any of 8 followed by 67 zero ways. Therefore, all possible sequences are, theoretically, known and possible. However, how each of us chooses to arrange the deck is discoverable.
Meanwhile, a tarot deck has 78 cards.creating even more permutations.
Why doesn’t the channel look at cases where conscious experience has remained fully during times of clinical death? If there are accounts where temporal events were recalled by a person during clinical death, then consciousness could be considered to reside , to some extent, separately to the brain. Is this not valid?
Disregard and suspend ALL proven physics in order to believe antidotal hearsay? Sounds like a solid idea.
could be that causation (free will?) in back of brain both sends neuronal signal to body for physical action, and backward causes conscious experience to prefrontal cortex in front of brain to have awareness of physical action?
Since your brain is a physical object, everything that it does is also physical, including thoughts, feelings and perceptions, so since everything is physical, there's no problem with these physical functions we call mental affecting other physical things. Isn't that a lot simpler than positing a separate category for mental phenomenon?
Every time a decision is made through consciousness and mind the body experiences stress when new cells are replacing old cells every second of a minute this is because of a constant working mechanism that triggers infrared body heat through cell development similar to how a projector reflects light through the film to print or reflect an image, this is the same way new cells are developed before they break away from old cells that are constantly reflecting infrared body heat with little time to heal after departure.
This is the real reason why body temperature is so important.
Your mind depends on every individual cell inside your body every second of a minute and every hour of a day for your survival and awareness.
However those cells will be regenerated regardless of your decisions and whether or not they were conscious
Physical material stuffs do not have thoughts and feelings. The source of thoughts and feelings, the inner subjectivity, still presents a conundrum. Where does the inner experience come from?
You have expressed the conundrum that has confused Philosophers since the beginning of time. My view is that just because an idea doesn't make sense to our simian brain, it doesn't mean that it isn't so. We have one example of an object that has thoughts and feelings, and that object is made entirely of physical material, so even if it makes no sense at all, we are obliged to accept reality as it is, not how we think it should be. Physical material stuff does indeed have thoughts and feelings, but only if that stuff is configured into a living human being.
@@caricue You just said "but only if that stuff is configured into a living human being." You could even make it broader by saying "a living organism." That expression, "living human being" or organism is the rubicon.
@@peweegangloku6428 We could make it broader still. It’s just that we only currently have evidence that it occurs in living organisms, but then, we don’t even have a rigorous definition of life.
@@peweegangloku6428 I don't get your point. You don't have to cross any Rubicon in order to accept what you see, do you? I agreed that it made no sense whatsoever that matter could have experience, but that credulity is no excuse for denial.
Right. Well, scientifically speaking, it boils down to light, magnetism, vibration(aether). We are beings of light. In the ancient days, they called this spirit. Modulated spirit is matter, or in modern terms, high energized light becomes hydrogen, compound hydrogen are atoms. Persons today deny the "supernatural" and what this is is Light.
Materialists believe a modulation is all there is. This is like saying ice is all there is while ignoring water.
If one accepts the block-time theory, then there can be no free-will. Only the illusion of free-will. Because we can only predict the future and not know with certainty, until it becomes the experienced present, even the illusion of free-will is as good as free-will. If self-consciousness is an illusion, then we could be only imaginings in God’s infinite mind. Perhaps God experiences every possibility through the imagining of our lives? I’ll take another toke now…
Why would Humans have to imagine, for your god to experience what it already knows? Isn't that why you call it god?
Yeah, that's the "wasn't me" point of view, it's always someone else's fault when something bad happens
Everyone is in solitary confinement of the universe. Prisoners forever, conscious or not.
We wouldn't be here if we didn't want to be here
@@konstantinos777 Why did we want to be here? Can we choose what we want? No.
@@Void-Dreaming You mean you don't know they way out?
@@Void-Dreaming Well then if you don't know what it is to know and if you know that you can be deceived, how do you know that we are forever prisoners in time?
OK, I see your point, but we both wanted to be in the comments of this video, so here we are, we could stop and click away any time.. but didn't want. And I don't even remember that I didn't want.
Being born isn't a choice, but if it were, a choice, it's not something we remember.. That is what I meant by that..
I don’t understand why everyone always argues that “choice” is why free will exists…maybe someone can help explain to me what experience is without choice or if consciousness can exist without choice? If it can’t, then choice is no argument for free will, because we have no choice but to choose.
They confuse choice with desire along with many other things
I think they talk about choice because it is the simplest manifestation of free will. I would say that you generate behaviors that you predict will bring you desired outcomes, but this is kind of hard to argue against.
@@caricue I agree that choice is the simplest manifestation of free will, but by that I mean it is a superficial account.
The issue is that our desires can, and do at times, contradict our well-being. If free will did exist, I’d think this issue would not occur. Why “choose” things that are contrary to our health and overall well-being?
Murphy’s Law asserts that which can happen, will happen, and what can and does happen is always finite, not infinite. Choice is always limited, outcomes are always limited- causality is limited. Why we choose what we choose is determined by our nature and our nurture.
I would like to be a proponent of free will, but can’t find a good argument to make in its defense.
@@YinYangPanda You don't have to defend what is obvious and easily observed. Our actions and choices are based on what we know and our prediction of the outcome of our choices. The only place in the whole universe where knowledge and intention exists is in a brain, so where else could our choices originate? Mindless and random natural forces obviously don't control our rational actions and choices.
The only free will you have is over your own thoughts. You have autonomy but others can take that away from you.
no. not your thoughts and attitudes. no one can take that
@@TJ-kk5zf that is exactly what I said.
There is only one choice you need to make throughout your life and you'll be fine: "Don't be an asshole"
(sums up all the 10 or whatever commandments too, LOL)
@@konstantinos777 no that is your opinion.
@@itzhexen0 it's kind of a joke, but go ahead don't mind me
The QUANTUM LOGIC * SUPERPOSITION Uni°Verse:
2 Peter 3:8 New Century Version
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: To the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day.
my view on this is there are two parts. simple awareness and self awareness. A system that has no self awareness will mot be capable to explain self awareness but neither simple awareness because it can’t reflect on itself. It might be the case with current AI models, they could be aware but not self aware. then self awareness should require a loop in the neural network, that is capable of deep thinking. it takes it’s own thoughts and feed them back as input. GPT’s kimd of do this but the final answer is not fed back. the intermittent activation(only when you ask something) is not a problem as the AI would perceive everything as a continuous experience because it would not experience time between interrogations.
Large Language Models, well, to be tautological for a moment, model language. That's all they do. That's important to consider, and it's why they're not even simply aware in many important respects. They're not designed to model states in the world, or their own state. The only state external tot themselves they can access is the past history of the current conversation. They don't even know what they know. If you ask it if it can answer some types of question an LLM will often confidently telly you it can't, but then if you do ask it the question it will give you a correct answer. Or a made up answer. They can't tell the difference. That's because all they do is predict the next token in a stream of text from an associative array of text tokens. The LLM is that associative array of text tokens. That array doesn't encode in some parts what other parts associate, there's no real cross referencing like that. There's no central command centre that organises everything and can inspect the knowledge in the network. It doesn't have a model of it's own behaviour or state, because it's not introspective in that way.
They fake the appearance of some sort of overall awareness by training the LLMs to respond to certain questions along those lines in certain ways, but it's smoke and mirrors, and very easy to expose as a sham if you understand how it works.
I'd very much prefer to have Artificial Intelligence rather than Artificial Ego
@@simonhibbs887 The tricks they have used to make LLM's respond so well is super impressive, but of course, they don't actually know anything. My theory about this is that there has to be someone "in there" to do the knowing. In biologicals the self is a physical property of the physical process of life, so while you can simulate all you want, an actual entity must be alive in order for there to be a someone "in there".
@@caricue I’m not a fan of tacking consciousness or life on the side of definitions so that they don’t apply to non conscious or non living things. It seems arbitrary, and it means we’d need to dream up new words for the same concepts that apply to them.
I have no problem saying that a computer knows how to execute a function, or retrieve a fact from a database, or how to drive a car. It knows how to do those things, just as I know how to calculate an expression, look up a word in a book, or drive a car. What an LLM or any computer doesn’t know is what a car is, or what a computer is in the way that we do, even though it can answer those questions. It’s like a person who doesn’t speak English but can look up answers to those questions and type out the answer without understanding any of it. It doesn’t have a conceptual model of those things and can’t reason about them as we can. So modern computers are very, very different from us in some ways, and like us in other ways, and it’s not always obvious what those ways are. It gets very technical.
As for the entity having to be alive to have someone in there, define life in this context, and what it is about it that makes you think that.
@@simonhibbs887 I tried for a long time to wrap my head around what it means to be alive and to know things. I was always struck by the idea of a Philosophical Zombie, and everyone I heard talking about this concluded that there would be no way to tell if someone didn't have an internal, experiential self. I accepted this, as any good Substance Dualist would, until I finally concluded that the experiential self had to be something real and solid, not some mental apparition, so the only candidate for a physical self was the living tissue of the brain. As far as I can tell, living tissue is the only thing in our heads that would fit the bill. If I accept this, then all of the mental functions are in service of the self, so a Philosophical Zombie would not be able to function, and is certainly impossible. Even a single living cell is an entity and can have experiences and know stuff, even if non-consciously and instinctual. This is why I conclude that AGI needs a self in order to really know and behave, otherwise it is just a mechanism, no matter how cleverly it is programmed. I obviously don't know HOW any of this works, but this is what I see and those are the implications of this observation. Thanks for asking. Peace.
Physics is the mire which holograms must trudge. Thoughts are material and like everything that exists, our will is bound by physics.
So well put! ♥
I'd like to disagree with you, but that's not how it works, is it?😏
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 thank you!!
@@anarchords1905 you can disagree, but it’s not up to you otherwise to disagree or agree.
@@dr_shrinker Agreed. Everything, from my ancestral DNA through to the sound of that gull that's screeching outside my window, has made sure of it. It's VERY difficult to accept for me, but that's the conclusion I've been forced to make. I just got Robert Supolski's Determined, to try to help me navigate the implications of this change of mind. I'm 56, and therefore too old for this level of existential shock.🙂
4:00 Okay, but you had no say in how you became the sort of person that has the internal needs and wants you're responding to nor any hand in how you became the sort of person that responds to those internal needs and wants the way you do...
Therefore.
You can't choose what planet you live on either, so what? You get to control your movements and behaviors, and we call that free will. I'm not sure what to call the thing you are arguing against, maybe omnipotence?
@@caricue The thing you're calling free will is programmatic, genes, epigenetics and experience determine both the internal desires and how someone responds to them. Given this it isn't at all clear what control even means here. There's no magic in there that let's them do otherwise. Even people that seemingly resist whatever desires they have don't via magic, that resistance stems from the same programmatic source their desires do. Whether or not they break their diet today will come down to genes, epigenetics, far back past experiences and experiences from just a few days to hours before they gave in or didn't. Nowhere in there is magic stuff of the will that let's them choose one way or the other.
The whole thing is farcical.
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 None of those things you listed are forces, so what exactly is the mechanism that these things use to control your behavior? And since none of the things you mentioned have a brain or know anything, how exactly do they happen to choose the exact thing that you need them to choose at the moment in order for you to get what you want? Your view seems to need a lot more magic than my view that we are physical objects moving through the world with knowledge and intention. No magic required.
@@caricue Those are strange questions, the mechanisms are epigenetics, neuroplasticity, hormones, etc. That's how biology works and I'm not sure what is meant by "none of those are forces" , like electromagnetism? What does that matter? A brain isn't needed to make molecules and planets move, that response makes it appear as if we are talking from vastly different levels of understanding about how brains, biology and the universe works...
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 It seems like you believe that there is only bottom up causation, so you disregard what happens at the highest levels of brain function as epiphenomenon. If you believe this then everything you are saying makes perfect sense. I don't think that this is how the universe works, but having talked to many determinists over the years I understand that there is nothing that will shake your faith in this common human intuition about causality. It's good that this whole discussion is totally academic and has no real world consequences since you will continue to live your life as if you have free will regardless of your stated position. Peace.
It's amazing to me how Haggard avoids discussing thoughts, which are central to the question of free will. His focus on _action_ (instead of thought) is like looking for one's missing keys only under the lamppost because that's where it's easiest to see. More to the point is the question of which of the following holds true: (1) thoughts are driven by conscious volition, or (2) thoughts are determined by the brain and our subjective first-person conscious experience of our thoughts is only an emergent or epiphenomenal byproduct. In Haggard's neuro lab they're set up to study actions, which are much easier to observe than thoughts, but less interesting for the study of "free will."
Thoughts would be like the beings of Intellect, right. Whether they're transferred from sense objects into the mind, or the intellect fasions these predicates to sense objects is another thing...For if we have any such potentiality in free will likely intellect is principle, but I can't recall ever hearing a CTT interview ever mention the intellect.
You missed option 3. Brain is the product of thoughts.
It's because he's a compatiblist. To him freedom is found in volition not choice. He cares about the wanting not the deliberating.
>dr_shrinker : Yes, my comment omits option 3, which is Idealism. Also options 4 & 5, Panpsychism & the Simulation. And the two variants of Epiphenomenal Dualism.
>CJNooberson : Wanting is often produced by thinking.
This discussion (liked many other videos of your channel) is very interesting! I am neither a philosopher nor a neuroscientist but just a physicist and a nature lover and observer. I think that there might be another approach to answer the questions of consciousness, mind, etc. We as humans are the result of an evolution that started at very primitive species like single-celled organism and algae, and this evolution continued for eons to higher and higher creatures. Self-organization, curiosity, self-knowledge, childlike playing, memory, planning for the future, control of the effects of previous actions, etc. are capabilities which in the case of humans have reached a very high stage of development but in fact are already present in many other creatures like slime molds, salamanders, fawns, crows, and trees. Trees do not have a brain but they have information on their present state, the react to any harm and to the weather, they self-organize their growth, they check if their reactions were successful and sufficient, they have a memory and an inner clock, the prepare the daily start of photosynthesis before sunrise, they generate plumules in autumn for the next spring, etc. The brain of animals (including humans) is an adaption to the need of animals for faster and faster hunting and fleeing in a more and more aggressive environment. In contrast, plants never had the need to react that fast because they can generate their food from air and sunlight. Therefore, they never centralized their capabilities in a central brain but they nevertheless have a lot of remarkable capabilities. Their and our capabilities have a common origin.
Instead of asking what we are and how our brain, "free" will, and consciousness works, shouldn´t we think more about where we come from? All our mental and intellectual capabilities are a further development of capabilities which were already present at our predecessors even though at a much lower stage of development.
I agree, the basic processes of nature are systematic, repeatable, and composable into ever more sophisticated forms. It's why technology is possible, as well as biology.
I love you're comment on trees, but a note of caution. The trees alive now are not the trees that existed hundreds of millions of years ago. Their evolution hasn't stood still since then. They've been evolving alongside us all that time as well, so while I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'd be very surprised if they haven't become significantly more sophisticated in various ways since then.
I suppose if someone absolutely knew that there was no free will, they would be able to predict what everyone would do until the end of time, and know what time would be the end of time. I suppose that person would probably be the richest person in the world. So, we could look for that person to ask what was going to happen next. I have to side with Yogi Berra that predictions are hard to make, particularly about the future. So, I don't think that anyone knows for sure that there is no free will. If there is free will, it is one of the few things that is free anymore.
Knowing a system is deterministic doesn’t mean you know what state it will be in arbitrarily into the future. You still need to calculate that future state.
But anyway, hardly anyone believes in strict mechanistic determinism, it’s more like ‘determined by the laws of physics’, whatever those prove to be. If those include some randomisation, as seems likely, that means future states aren’t entirely predictable even in theory.
@@simonhibbs887 interesting. How can you be certain that a system is deterministic without being able to predict future states? And, if we think free will is random, is a random number generator generating the randomness? And, if that's true is it really random? My head hurts.
@@brookvalley907 Determinism depends on causality, or particle interactions. Knowledge of future states depends on knowledge of present states. As of yet, we cannot precisely define the present state or initial condition, from which the future states can be determined. It's a lack of fidelity and computational power on our end. Perhaps in the near future, we'll be able to more accurately predict future states.
@@brookvalley907 If we can analyse any subset of a system and determine that these always act as described by physics, we can reasonably infer that the system as a whole acts as described by physics.
We have statistical methods for analysing distributions to determine if they are random or if there’s any underlying pattern, and have staggeringly vast data sets to work with. Many, many billions of outcomes in some cases. Possibly trillions by now for some experiments.
@@simonhibbs887 I know. I'm a marketing researcher (BS Psych, MBA Marketing). I use statistics (multivariant) to predict consumer behavior. I would have better luck herding cats.
The realization that you "do not have free will" is the key to reality.
How so?
@@Quinn2112 Causality is reality.
Everything is causation. Cause and effect.
A person's decision making isn't separate from reality.
A person's decision making is part of the causation that makes up our reality.
But accepting that you do'nt have free will, you will start to see the world for how it is, and IMO that leads to a true enlightenment.
Radically changed my life.
@@aren8798 I think you need to be a little more careful when stating your claims. For example, it is of course not the case that "causality is reality" nor that "everything is causation".
It is true that a person's decision making is part of reality and, unless you're an epiphenomenalist, that mental states such as decisions have causal influence.
Now, I don't expect you to argue for the claim that we don't have free will in a youtube comment, but you've given no reason to think we don't nor, if it was true, that that fact is the key to reality.
Full of words and not a lot of logic. Just like an answer from a chat GPT. Listening to Paul Davies makes much more sense.
We don't actually have free will, as in possession of it, but the potentiality of - for man can choose to better his life, and that's the potentiality of free will. Ultimately, this has everything to do with the faculty in intellect.
Another factor is the conscience that everybody overlooks. There is a subtle voice in some people's conscious acting as a guiding factor. This aligning one with the divine law, incurring less negative karma, therefore not as restrained.
The frontal lobe also is the centre of Ajna chakra of the chakra energy system of the body. The meaning of the word 'Ajna' is 'command '. The Ajna chakra is located exactly at the middle of the two eye brows.
Imagine this: everything you are, who you think you are, and how you are, for most people, is from outside influences, and people often accept this condition as who they are in themselves. It is sad. We are all influenced and influential.
In mysticism, mountains represent consciousness, and there are very few who have the courage and will to reach this summit. In fact, many sit back at base camp on top of well establish facts in the comfort of their pj's while they denigrate and mock those who are ascending this grand and most arduous and even perilous mountain.
Example: one guy recently said to me indirectly that what I talk about is "religious belief" and he thinks it's not all bad, but than he goes on to proclaim to me that he is a physicalist and that's just the way he thinks ALL OF THIS works. Physicality isn't a model, explication, or exposition, nor is it deity, but a simple observation and description of a conditioned experience. For metaphysics isn't based on any kind of belief like his, but on nature and science itself, and utilizing intellect and reason to interpret such science in proper. Science doesn't make claims nor has a dogma, but for atheists/nihilists, because they have no direction nor self realization, they cleave to science while unwittingly superimposing their irrational dogma beliefs upon science, while purporting to be men of science in which they are not.
OK, but we have to accept that people are people and they make mistakes and change their mind all the time.. so not all scientists are the same such as not all spiritualists are the same and, in general, it's not very wise to ..generalize
Although this technical / physiological / neurological synopsis of consciousness surprisingly leans more to the presence of "mind," I still question these attempts at explaining consciousness through basic biological/physical processes. It never really gives us the entire picture, ... _and we all know it!_
It's like trying to explain the overall impact of David Gilmour's "Comfortably Numb" guitar solo as *_"the repeated striking of a series of highly tensed metal cables that produce vibrations of certain wavelengths that are electronically amplified through analog speakers which thusly results in the emission of high-decibel sound waves."_*
... Yah, there's a LOT more going on than just that!
Well sure, because the above isn’t an exhaustive account of everything happening in the world at a rock concert. You didn’t even mention human physiology at all, let alone in comprehensive, down to the molecule detail.
@@simonhibbs887 *"Well sure, because the above isn’t an exhaustive account of everything happening in the world at a rock concert."*
... I didn't write about a rock concert. I wrote specifically about his guitar solo. The rock concert is the *recipient* of his guitar solo and a totally different topic.
*"You didn’t even mention human physiology at all, let alone in comprehensive, down to the molecule detail."*
... What I wrote was a technical / scientific breakdown of Gilmour's guitar solo which is clearly analogous to how neuroscientists commonly evaluate the entire spectrum of consciousness in terms of "biological brain function." Neither breakdown adequately explains the goings-on behind consciousness or the guitar solo; therefore, it's an appropriate analogy.
You are grossly wrong. Consciousness is absolutely connected to the body. In fact they are not two different entities. They are one. Consciousness is the subtle part and the body is gross. What we call a physical body is the gross form of the energy body exhibited by consciousness.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 *"You are grossly wrong. Consciousness is absolutely connected to the body."*
... That is not my argument. In fact, I have consistently posited that consciousness and brain are interconnected / interdependent.
My argument is that the biological processes that facilitate consciousness do not (cannot) fully define nor describe the phenomenon called "consciousness" just like the behind-the-scenes electronics involved in Gilmour's guitar solo do not (cannot) explain the entire phenomenon of Gilmour's guitar solo.
*"What we call a physical body is the gross form of the energy body exhibited by consciousness."*
... I don't know what that means. Please restate your argument using less abstraction / poetry.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You talked about the impact of the guitar solo, presumably its impact on people not on stage furniture. Its impact has to take full account of human physiology, including neurology, and I think also psycho-social factors.