Self-evidently, we can be described as "naturally autonomous entities". Our persistence fundamentally depends on us having the capacity to detect our situation. Essentially, a detection event can be regarded as a change of physical state triggered by a specific contact. Naturally occurring detection mechanisms appear to be rather exclusive to living entities. From the inside, the situational detection events that occur within our physiology are subjective experiences, rather than accessible objective occurrences. From the outside, the VERY SAME events are accessible objective occurrences, rather than subjective experiences. In contrast with all other physical events observed in nature, these uniquely dichotomous detection events seem to be an ontological anomaly. Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label our own subjective experiences for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly make them seem as though as they are ontologically different to the objective detection events occurring within our own physiology. In other words, to us, the detection events seem "physical", and the experiences seem "non-physical". Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains profoundly unsuccessful in observing the mechanism(s) responsible for (what they assume is) an objective detection event giving rise to a subjective experience, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness". Empirically, all there is to find are these naturally autonomous entities, with uniquely dichotomous situational detection events occurring within them. Other than the simple fact that we ARE such entities, there is no reason why it feels like anything for us to be alive. This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".
Always odd to hear a scientist talking abouts dsm constructs like 'autism' or 'asd' as if they are objective or measurable. The dsm lacks scientific validity and reliability. Its is a product of culture and industry and is causing significant harm. Even chair of dsm 4 Allen Frances is on record apologising for the mess of massive over diagnosis we see today that he helped create.
We were made to live forever.. it's written on our hearts.. that's why; we don't want to die! Our planer is here forever and the lucky awoken from death will live forever so how is this video correct
“Controlled hallucination” is such a misguided and self-contradictory way to describe what is, basically, an argument for indirect realism. (If ALL perception is a hallucination, the concept of “hallucination” loses any meaning.)
Mathew, your voice!! And of course love Anil
Hello 💞,
Thank you very much for wonderful TALK and sharing IT 🎉🤗🎉
Self-evidently, we can be described as "naturally autonomous entities".
Our persistence fundamentally depends on us having the capacity to detect our situation.
Essentially, a detection event can be regarded as a change of physical state triggered by a specific contact. Naturally occurring detection mechanisms appear to be rather exclusive to living entities.
From the inside, the situational detection events that occur within our physiology are subjective experiences, rather than accessible objective occurrences.
From the outside, the VERY SAME events are accessible objective occurrences, rather than subjective experiences.
In contrast with all other physical events observed in nature, these uniquely dichotomous detection events seem to be an ontological anomaly.
Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label our own subjective experiences for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly make them seem as though as they are ontologically different to the objective detection events occurring within our own physiology.
In other words, to us, the detection events seem "physical", and the experiences seem "non-physical".
Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains profoundly unsuccessful in observing the mechanism(s) responsible for (what they assume is) an objective detection event giving rise to a subjective experience, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness".
Empirically, all there is to find are these naturally autonomous entities, with uniquely dichotomous situational detection events occurring within them.
Other than the simple fact that we ARE such entities, there is no reason why it feels like anything for us to be alive.
This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".
Always odd to hear a scientist talking abouts dsm constructs like 'autism' or 'asd' as if they are objective or measurable. The dsm lacks scientific validity and reliability. Its is a product of culture and industry and is causing significant harm. Even chair of dsm 4 Allen Frances is on record apologising for the mess of massive over diagnosis we see today that he helped create.
Always blue and black for me. Never anything else, ever.
For some people it switches over depending on the lighting - for example in this image: www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
For dreams come from a business but many
didn't know that voldemort was a neuroscientist
Mathew you look like you should be the blue beast in X men
I'll choose to take this as a compliment of the highest order
@@MatthewGeletahahahaha yeah youll look like the actor 😂🫶🏽
We were made to live forever.. it's written on our hearts.. that's why; we don't want to die! Our planer is here forever and the lucky awoken from death will live forever so how is this video correct
“Controlled hallucination” is such a misguided and self-contradictory way to describe what is, basically, an argument for indirect realism. (If ALL perception is a hallucination, the concept of “hallucination” loses any meaning.)