Only Dr. Sheldrake seems to have an extended mind and intelligence, the rest has intelligence confined only in their academic- conditioned minds. Dr. Sheldrake is an artistic scientist, very free, creative yet grounded. That's a good breeding ground for new developments.
Dissapointed by this interviewer/host who clearly just couldn't stand Ruperts ideas, he was caricaturing his view and interrupting him in the middle of the sentence. Ending was worst - he stopped Rupert in the mid sentence again and thanked everyone for such a good conversation... He CLEARLY didn't let him finish the though that I was interested hearing. What an INCREDIBLE amateur.....
Nitin Bhasin then he must provide data then it will evolve. Open minded means you can be proven wrong or right. But before there’s enough data, nobody knows. Follow the facts and not a bias view
I so like the views of Rupert Sheldrake. Especially when one starts to appreciate this place where we live. We are in a 'sea' of 'tuned energy' is the best phrase I can think of currently?
Thank you James Ladyman for your adolescent facial acrobatics, sarcasm and defensive behavior. You may consider alternate approaches when debating about big boy topics.
His arguments around citing Satan in response to what Rupert said were so obviously irrelevant to what Rupert had actually proposed. Yet he thought he was being so clever. Often the case with committed materialists I have noticed.
James Ladyman is making the discussion meaningless, it seems to me he's trying to look smart. Or hide science in the ivory tower where he wants to impress us he dwells. He ruined some of the very genuine discussion for the public at least. I've made this comment probably about half way through. Don't think I'll watch anymore. I watch this because I'm a human being like him, a member of the public. If he excludes people from science they have every reason to exclude him from teaching them anything. It's just natural. I had to give up listening to three amazing people because he's such a fool.
I think the way they spoke over Sheldrake's ideas did such a good job in illustrating the point about dogma, that it became more clear than if he would've been allowed to explain it himself.
I dont entirely agree with rupert but I find his theories fascinating and take them seriously. But still, in this debate I was rooting for rupert and not george ellis, even though I'm a physicist myself.
I'm a materialist but...psilocybin mushrooms and psychedelic should be mandatory for all these professors and doctors. You can't even imagine until you go there yourself.
3:10 I don't think Physics gave us an answer as to why tables and rocks, electrons and protons and physical things exist, Physics told us how those things behave under certain conditions and upto a level but physics says nothing about why those particles exist or what they are.
I would argue that Tables and Chairs would no longer be Tables and Chairs unless there are Conscious beings around to recognise them as such. As far as the Universe is concerned they are just a collection of atoms with a certain amount of Mass and Energy. I also think its debatable as to weather the would even physically exist if there are no Conscious beings around to collapse the super-positions of said Tables and Chairs.
How easily and misleadingly Thomasson and Ladyman skated over what stubbornly seems to be the impossibilty of anything like consciousness (or even perception) appearing somehow out of dead, inert, matter (as they would see it). As well as skating over the fact that using the word 'emergent' as an explanation as to why minds emerge from complex arrangements of molecules is actually no explanation at all. Again a false claim on certainty or tractability in relation to answering the question. 'Emergence' just covers over the fact that you have no idea how this could even begin to happen in principle. So no Thomasson you do not even have the beginnings of a ground-up theoretical account of reality. And no I don't agree that that approach is the best use of my science dollars. You guys are actually just being dogmatic and hiding it (or not clever enough to realise the holes in what your claiming). At least Ellis is able to hold a partially open mind. I smell something beginning with 'B'.
"I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it. Zero is the eternally existing nothing-ness that contains within it the potentiality of everything." Kenneth Meadows "Everything is nothing." David A. Chalmers So, your whole reality is created by the process of consideration. Your personal power is only limited by your ability to consider. In a similar way, the state of the world is created by everyone's ability to consider. "FATE can be an acronym for "from all thoughts everywhere". In other words, the consciousness of the earth." Neale Donald Walsch The reality that we observe on an impersonal level is being created by the collective consciousness and the belief systems of everybody. We create our reality not only on an individual level but also on a macro scale. "External reality is the sum total of all the considerations made by everybody." David A. Chalmers "If you would swim on the bosom of the ocean of Truth, you must reduce yourself to Zero." Mahatma Gandhi
Interesting.....zero maybe isn't a number then is it,you can't have a number of nothings or nothingness,this is my view...zero is akin to white,numbers are akin to colours and black is akin to infinity and nothingness/everything.....or a black hole which in my view is the very thing that produces all particles of pure condensed potentiality...thus light (white being the particle that enables the observation and colours being any number of physical things we can that has reached its potential and has been observed! Bit of a ramble there,hope it made sense to you
Did you cut off sheldrakes final comments?? Wtf?? Watching materialistic scientists who believe consciousness is just residual illusion of neuropsychiatric mechanisms debate Sheldrake is pathetic.
I'm Buddhist and from that perspective the question is a false dicotomy. Between something and nothing there is no distance or gulf. Something and nothing are linguistic terms of consciousness in the manner of the north and south poles of a magnet or the Earth. The idea that the question can be answered in the context of physics is false because physics presupposes materialistic objectivity and the question is about awareness not about particles. I find the terms of this discussion very unsatisfactory because they don't understand that this is a psychological question not a physics question. I blame Aristotle for writing two volumes, one called physics and the other metaphysics and confusing everyone since into thinking the two realms are separable. Sheldrake approaches the basic issue but he mostly fails because he stays mostly within the frame of objectivity presumed.
This talk reminds me of Volume 3 of the Lam Rim by Lama Je Tsongkhapa, in which the argument of dependent arising is proposed, along with the argument that nothing exists on its own, but only by dependent arising...Therefore, things exist, but they also do not exist of their own volition...Everything that exists is through dependent arising...Nothing exists intrinsically...
I'll take what Rupert SPIRA has to say on this which is that Consciousness is all there is, a pre-existing "qualityless" phenomenon and is stated by Rupert Sheldrake around 22:00.
Many people are now way ahead of these guys, it’s still nice that they’re continuing the attempts to communicate what insight they may have had. There are many now arising that have been way ahead of these wonderful people, they just don’t sit on stages collecting fees, and some things are not yet so easy to verbalize or communicate, even to the better or more enlightened audiences.
If it is impossible to get rid of the quantum vacuum, with things popping in and out of existence, there can't be nothing when "popping out" either. Because then a potential (which is something itself) must exist to create that which is "popping in".
The discussion is no where near to the question what is consciousness . Simple question is I ask ..how do you know I am there . You say because I am seeing you . I ask ..how do you know you are seeing me . You say , because I am conscious . I ask how do you know you are conscious . You say ..because I am alive . So life energy and consciousness are inseparable . All things exist because of. Life energy and consciousness .... consciousness is background and basis of whole existence of matter , energy . Forces ,time and space .all living beings are conscious . Dead are not conscious . Consciousness departs with life energy . They are like light and brightness . Consciousness is the glow of life energy . This whole universe is filled with energy and consciousness . It is all pervading , in and out .
"He claims it is." As do many scientists, who also claim to be devout atheists, as well, that science has proved the non existence of an intelligent creator. In Sheldrakes opinion, science has not only done nothing of the kind, it is ever more implying that a intelligent creator is essential to the apparent existence of something from nothing. That consciousness is primary, and everything else is secondary. This idea, of course is not new, and it makes things, almost infinitely easier to explain. With consciousness being primary, material explanations are no longer necessary with regards to existence, and the great questions related to it. Science sould best restrict itself to the invention and refinement of technologies, which had a practical use in improving the lot of mankind, and leave the philosophy to those more qualified in the subject. Like for example, your average cleaning lady, or refuse collector. As a general rule, any scientists who claims that science proves anything, never mind the existence of some kind of creator god, is an egotistical, narcissistic, over inflated fool, on a mission from hell, who has never invented, discovered, or said, a single useful thing, in his entire life, and most likely never will.
Would tables and chairs still exist if consciousness would cease to exist? Of course not! What do we mean by tables and chairs? Either we mean sense perceptions (the direct experience of a table or chair through touch, vision, etc.), or we mean thoughts (the idea of tables and chairs in our minds). Neither sense perceptions nor thoughts can exist without consciousness. The notion of material objects existing outside consciousness is a belief sanctioned by a long cultural tradition in the West but ultimately inconsistent with reality. Even Rupert Sheldrake, who I admire greatly, doesn't seem to realize this simple truth.
The materialist who says that a chair would continue to exist after consciousness had disappeared is very deceptive. This is not true if we mean the absence of ALL consciousness, for then what is there to EXPERIENCE the chair, as a chair? If there is no consciousness to experience the chair, it could only remain as a 'chair', with all the meaning and function we ascribe to a chair, if it had it's OWN consciousness of itself as a chair. But if ALL consciousness is absent, it cannot have it's own self-consciousness of being a chair, and so cannot exist as a chair, as there is no other consciousness to give it that identity or existence, to acknowledge it's being. In what way can something be said to exist if there is no-one and nothing that can experience it as existing? By what is it known to BE, if not even by itself? Quantum physics concurs with this, having been forced to acknowledge that the observer and the act of observation affect what is observed, and to that degree then the consciousness of the observer is the creator, or perhaps more accurately 'producer', of what is observed. Apparently that point was missed by the panel, which is a shame because it asserts the primacy of consciousness over matter and refutes materialism completely. P.S. There is no such thing as nothing! Prove me wrong!
Suggestion, rephrase the question to "Why existence instead of non-existence ?" in these types of debates. Instead of "Why is there something instead of nothing ?" and getting a debate about what a "thing" is or isn't, trying to avoid the core of the issue. So , why existence, and why existence prior to the Big Bang ? Imo, the most rational answer is "because it is a must, the opposite is impossible". Otherwise complete non-existence (no energy, no potentials, no laws etc) must have transformed into existence. Which should be regarded as impossible, even in a pure metaphysical sense (outside of physics). Or, if you think that is possible (because our brains can not understand such logic), then, why didn't such a transformation occur prior to when it actually did ?What caused it to wait ? And that "what" is not non-existence, it must be some form of a potential (analogy, a cloud forms a potential for a lightning, which then happens).
But thats the beautiful Buddhist question if a tree falls in the woods .... it doesnt matter what exists if there is no consciousness to experience it so everything is irrelevant without to observe it. It might as well not exist if no one can experience it.
Scientists, like most other human beings, are given to tribalism and dogmatism however much they might not recognize that fact (see, e.g., the 3 materialists on the panel). That Rupert Sheldrake, who definitely challenges the scientific mainstream, was invited to sit on this panel with 3 pretty hard core mainstreamers is, however, a positive step. But I would have preferred a much more in-depth, free-wheeling and, yes, adversarial discussion as I believe too much which supports Rupert's more controversial positions was left unsaid. And, next time, invite Bernardo Kastrup!
I guess they haven’t heard any lectures by James Tour. Also Chistof Koch thinks (and I agree) that paramecium are a little bit consciousness. They have 0 neurons. Consciousness came first.
When there is a point (in space) which would represent nothing/ nothing would obstruct it from being equal to itself on another place, which on its turn would create the difference in place. Hence absolute symmetry is impossible, because it creates its own asymmetry from symmetry.
Space is not nothing because it contains a place. Hence, because it is not nothing, it contains a hierachy which leads to particles in relation to space; its body; and its underlying laws.
Why is there a universe and why does it produce life? Starting from life, let us return to the universe. Life is a QC (quantum computing) function. Our senses, our brain and all our cells act in unison to repair/regenerate 50-70 billion damaged cells daily at 99.99 % efficiency and at lightning speed, besides protein production and many other functions, like simulating consciousness, intelligence, meme etc. However, we still do not know how QC self-error correct its function, nor do we know the algorithm of a QC function. But we know that a SINGLE probability wave function, governs everything and every process in the universe (Copenhagen interpretation of QM), implying how and why the universe is able to self-organize, self-simulate the infinite dimensional universal QC function, fine tuning (FT) the parameter space, so we can survive in a violent universe and evolve, eliminating randomness and chance ( a ten mile rock can hit us today and exterminate all life, but FT allows us to evolve until the next new and improved species take over), like we replaced the dinosaurs. We may never know how a QC works, because then we will be able to make life, implying divine purpose. Man and god are entangled. God made man in his image.
Just say to yourself what the great 17th century philosopher , scientist and mathematician Descartes said (with one addition ) " I think therefore I am " confused and get a headache .
Conciousness, might be the human form of problem solving, of which all parts of nature are fully concerned with, the flower, the animal, and the clouds are uniquely trying to solve problems nothing more, maybe it has to do with the "Will to Power"
Conscìousness is that entity or something which gives us the ability to make choices or gives us free will. This is what we use. However its nature and source is a difficult question?? Why do we have free will and intent? Why do we have death? What about our accountability?
I assume there are no comments because no one likes to think philosophy has anything to say unless it’s the terrible philosophy of those who reject it. Our common experience is that of agent cause being before any effect that contains information that gives direction to go, that gives description of what to do, and that sets limits, all of which aren’t necessary by the pure existence of physical things.
As much as I love exploring talks on the placeholder term 'consciousness', it is disheartening to listen to the ad hominem attacks made by Rupert Sheldrake towards Lawrence Krauss. At the very least and for those who do explore this talk, George Ellis and Amie Thomasson are adding some interesting thoughts and concerns to the enlightening discussions on consciousness. Thank you for sharing this talk. 🌻
Why did you just single out Rupert? The moderator himself said Lawrence is a popularizer who made a lot of money claiming he knows how something came from nothing and it's not a serious book; that it's intellectually shallow. The moderator tried to somewhat defend Lawrence claiming that book isn't meant to be taken seriously. Rupert disagreed and said he presents it as a serious book of science, and George agreed with Rupert! Amy never at any point chimed in to disagree with any of those claims against Lawrence. All that being said, calling them ad hominem attacks has a pretty strong negative connotation. They seem to just be fair observations regarding his book. There is a very short time limit and not being able to explain some of your observations on a deeper level is expected to happen.
Something needs to find something in order for something to be aware. If so, then the question arises: if we are real then how do we become aware of other real things. What is the connecting something that creates a differential in order to distinguish things from nothing? #EndGlobalApartheid
Our little bobble of existence can be described as a quantaverse , inside a multiverse, which is part of a megaverse. With neutral space between us and the next megaverse. Space in it's purest form, Which is totally void of any form of energy whatsoever. And because the UNIVERSE has always been in existence, the next megaverse will be rather far indeed✴
The theory of what there is...Ontology = existence. A use-value can be anything says that it is not the thing itself that makes it useful; its the position of the thing in a labor-process that counts. The labor involved in setting up the killing of a young black man in his own neighborhood does not take away the value of the gun as a use-value to society; it only suggests the gun is used in an activity of a criminal nature. Be it a negative activity of a single perpetrator, actions taken are still a labor process in which the gun is a instrument in this activity. If the activity were of a positive nature such as arming a defenseless population from an army of invaders the value of the gun is the same and its reason for existence never leaves the realm of being a use-value as a realization of an idea, i.e., the concept of security. But we can not say the same thing for other things that exist, such as money, or rent, profit, interest, wages, prices, these are ideas, economic concepts, that are real and exist. The use-value of each of these economic categories can exists only within the framework of that system, is relative to a very specific social system. The economic categories disappear along with the social system indicating that coats and cloths will still be made but not in the economic forms mentioned. Coatmaking would be what it is, useful labor and not assume the role of one of the categories mentioned. Use-value is real for the present historical arrangement of these categories but they not transhistorical, therefore, losing their use-value and cease to exist to time. Time is non-existent in Space as is sound and motion but time does exist in two forms on Earth to capture motion and weight. Motion and weight are common elements on earth that cannot be seen but exists in degrees of visibility to invisibility and must take various forms to become a material reality. For time in the abstract to become time in the concrete, human consciousness has to concieve of a clock to measure motion and for weight to be a material reality a scale must be conceived and produced to capture an object's relationship to the earth. If we want to measure a more homely item, such as, the old car is not worth the four tires on the car, a concept of value is common to the car and the tires through the amount of money it would take to buy tires retail. If not for this comparative relationship the objects enter into, value would not exist. But value does exist only when it is a use-value for something or someone else and does not exists as a value for itself.
I think the impossible nature of nothing is the fundamental definition of reality, by being the antithesis of reality. There is everything. There is some AV for you there.
"...any good philosopher starts by defining her terms'??? So all philosophers are female in her gender-biased view. Very clear? You must be joking, that was the biggest load of nothing spouted by a so-called philosopher in the history of mankind - sorry, humankind! Ah, so now we're starting to get somewhere with 'the uncertainty principle'. It's so 'uncertain' that we describe it as 'a highly dynamic structure' which is 'very complicated'. In neither case, do we know why the laws of physics exist... He smiles at her and she nods to him in agreement. All theory - no substance at all. "But I now I want to complicate the picture more..." Oh so now we theorize that 'ideas exist' (more speculation) and that motor cars wouldn't exist without algorithms and yet we had cars for many years before their design was subsequently improved by algorithms... Sheldrake was at least prepared to mention the theological element and accepts the radical atheistic views discussed to this point. Conservative? Hardly! Now Sheldrake mentions the book of Genesis and Creation which is making Thomasson very uncomfortable and looks away from him in a somewhat disapproving manner... Ah, now we;re getting somewhere closer to the truth: "the debate is essentially a theological debate that's been reframed in these modern physical terms." So the grounds are between 'conscious' and 'unconscious' . "It's a matter of faith either way, I suppose."Then you have "free-floating ideas" and, "take that away and we're left with the lack of an explanation for minds of any kind - including those of physicists - which we call 'the hard problem'." (she gives Sheldrake an embarrassed grin and shakes her head in disapproval) Now Chair, Ladyman, moves to distance theological discussion from 'modern physics' and accuses Sheldrake of mentioning the theological topic, only because he wants to sell books on the subject!! Interestingly, Ellis admits there is confusion between the boundaries between physics and metaphysics. So now, desperately-seeking attention, smiley-smiley grinning, wavy arms, Thomasson, wants us to hear a couple of really bad answers to the question (that she's patently unable to answer herself) and concludes by saying "we have 'hopes' of getting an answer from physics" She "totally agrees" with George because he clearly has the same inconclusive 'theories' - a meaningless response which did not address the subject - Pathetic!! She spouts at a rate that any high-pressure salesman, sorry, salesperson, would envy... You're quite right George, nothing you say about physics makes ANY sense!! (Chair Ladyman looking progressively despondent) Right again George, the universe just is and there's nothing further to say - but you fail completely to address why... Ah, now you're getting close George, "it was meant to be there, some purpose, some reason for its existence which takes you out of physics into metaphysics which is a perfectly logical explanation." Correct Rupert, "if it were just a matter of arguing philosophically, that would be the end of the matter. and we wouldn't be able to get anywhere" (Ladyman looking ever more worried). Ah, so now Ladyman (don't you just love that name) is showing his true colours and begins his attack on Rupert's views. Yes, you should shut up - your atheistic, or now luciferian-sounding views are becoming clear! Ladyman now panicky and looks to fellow atheist and evolutionist, Thomasson for help... Just listen to her rant on about how she embraces every great thinker - and to think some of our kids are actually being taught by nwo (disorder) globalist idiots like her!! "it's fine to ask questions about conscious but...." Yes George, we're already (very) clear who's side you're on and it's clear that this debate is 3 against one!! You just keep repeating, going on and on about your tables and chairs and avoid the real truth of the matter - Creation!! That's right George, they're all 'theories' and (most importantly) there's no way of testing these theories!! Ok, Ladyman, we're clear on your position, you're very uncomfortable that Rupert's views actually have a conclusion and that yours don't - end of the line for all evolutionist scientists, nasa, the Copernican heliocentric theory - it all has to change as it will... Ladyman now resorting to pathetic argument "got drunk last night and really saw the nature of reality" how childish and unprofessional...Thomasson jumps in to attempt to further ridicule Rupert's views - seems more focused on trying to convince the audience of her own views rather than debating directly with Rupert... She actually stated that Rupert's view is 'false' without attempting to say why... Your jokes (clear ridicule) were not lost on the irony of your closing statement Mr. Ladyman. So there we have it - 3 against one and the most balanced and convincing discussion was from... Rupert. Scientism - an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as ‘scientific’. Also includes the concept of a scientific ego - i.e., that only science has the right to describe the world around us. The fanatical ego-centricity of scientism takes on many aspects of religious fundamentalism.
Western thinker made a big mistake by mislabeling conscience as consciousness. Again I checked the dictionary meaning of consciousness that to wrongly comprehended the real meaning of the word. Consciousness is not the subject of discussion, nor experienced by five senses. As we know, 4 stages of our existence, waking, sleeping, dreaming, ( these three stages every once experience) whoever the fourth stage is called 'turiya' ( there is no word in English language, 'turiya' simple means fourth stage. ) When human rises his awareness to the fourth stage he/she will be fully conscious. Unfortunately, currently we use word conscious very wrongly to mean somebody is being aware of himself/herself.
Conciousness can only be experienced by the individual. It can't be shared, because words and mathematics are based on space-time (past-present-future). Each individual is a universe by it's own. If time could be stopped, each individual would stop recieving all information from outside his brain. Individual universes is the same as one universe. We are all the same conciousness divided as individuals by space-time. There is no logical scientific explanation for why each of us are living this conscious experience at this time rather than before our birth or after our death. So only the space-time physical individual body dies. We are all of us the same conscience divided as individuals by a space time universe.
If you ask an AI designer why his product did THIS rather tan THAT, and it is truly intelligent, I bet he wouldn't be able to say with any certainty. It will be an equivalence to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
'A priori' nature of mathematics, implies the divine mind who invented algorithm, so we have a car, a laptop, or a QC etc., why reality of physical world is mathematical in structure. It is not surprising that media controlled writers like Laurence Krauss, who thinks we are here because of some accident or luck finds prominence. The media pays writers like Sean Carroll. Dan Dennett, Krauss etc., to preach atheism. Dennett even have an organization the pays people who embrace atheism (business as usual). How low have we become, what intellectual masterbation Judaism/Christianity indulge in?
Finally. Rupert Sheldrake brings a voice that has been deeply missed in panel discussions like this. Well done !
Only Dr. Sheldrake seems to have an extended mind and intelligence, the rest has intelligence confined only in their academic- conditioned minds. Dr. Sheldrake is an artistic scientist, very free, creative yet grounded. That's a good breeding ground for new developments.
Dissapointed by this interviewer/host who clearly just couldn't stand Ruperts ideas, he was caricaturing his view and interrupting him in the middle of the sentence. Ending was worst - he stopped Rupert in the mid sentence again and thanked everyone for such a good conversation... He CLEARLY didn't let him finish the though that I was interested hearing. What an INCREDIBLE amateur.....
Rupert. I’d prefer to listen to you in debates with people who understand your ideas.
Having a disdain for one of your guests is something really unsettling to view
Underrated comment!
Rupert makes some very important points. Scientific community needs to think seriously about prejudice and overreach.
Nitin Bhasin then he must provide data then it will evolve. Open minded means you can be proven wrong or right. But before there’s enough data, nobody knows. Follow the facts and not a bias view
I so like the views of Rupert Sheldrake. Especially when one starts to appreciate this place where we live. We are in a 'sea' of 'tuned energy' is the best phrase I can think of currently?
Thank you James Ladyman for your adolescent facial acrobatics, sarcasm and defensive behavior. You may consider alternate approaches when debating about big boy topics.
His arguments around citing Satan in response to what Rupert said were so obviously irrelevant to what Rupert had actually proposed. Yet he thought he was being so clever. Often the case with committed materialists I have noticed.
The Moderator is a bore and content in his own conceit, a poor showing.
James Ladyman is making the discussion meaningless, it seems to me he's trying to look smart. Or hide science in the ivory tower where he wants to impress us he dwells. He ruined some of the very genuine discussion for the public at least. I've made this comment probably about half way through. Don't think I'll watch anymore. I watch this because I'm a human being like him, a member of the public. If he excludes people from science they have every reason to exclude him from teaching them anything. It's just natural. I had to give up listening to three amazing people because he's such a fool.
Rupert making much more sense than the rest here
Rupert Sheldrake is a damn legend.
The debate "moderator" has a clear prejudice towards Rupert. CONSCIOUSNESS
Why is it that Rupert Sheldrake is always the only one in these debates who directly addresses the topic instead of talking in circles?
I think the way they spoke over Sheldrake's ideas did such a good job in illustrating the point about dogma, that it became more clear than if he would've been allowed to explain it himself.
Rupert the only really bright light here.
I dont entirely agree with rupert but I find his theories fascinating and take them seriously.
But still, in this debate I was rooting for rupert and not george ellis, even though I'm a physicist myself.
I love that everyone agrees that Lawrence Krauss is an unimaginatively plebian who has a good vocabulary and is just trying to sell books
I'm a materialist but...psilocybin mushrooms and psychedelic should be mandatory for all these professors and doctors. You can't even imagine until you go there yourself.
Pity Krauss wasn't there. Krauss debating Sheldrake would drive Krauss mad.
George Mariolis haha so true. LK and his arrogance comes to mind every time I listen to Sheldrake.
George Ellis is a personal hero of mine. And I enjoy listening to Sheldrake as well.
Robert Thiesen this is a bias view and the opposite of an open mind. You have already found the answer.
3:10 I don't think Physics gave us an answer as to why tables and rocks, electrons and protons and physical things exist, Physics told us how those things behave under certain conditions and upto a level but physics says nothing about why those particles exist or what they are.
Thank you Rupert, we are grateful for your presence in the science world.
I Favor Rupert Sheldrake...
I would argue that Tables and Chairs would no longer be Tables and Chairs unless there are Conscious beings around to recognise them as such. As far as the Universe is concerned they are just a collection of atoms with a certain amount of Mass and Energy.
I also think its debatable as to weather the would even physically exist if there are no Conscious beings around to collapse the super-positions of said Tables and Chairs.
How easily and misleadingly Thomasson and Ladyman skated over what stubbornly seems to be the impossibilty of anything like consciousness (or even perception) appearing somehow out of dead, inert, matter (as they would see it). As well as skating over the fact that using the word 'emergent' as an explanation as to why minds emerge from complex arrangements of molecules is actually no explanation at all. Again a false claim on certainty or tractability in relation to answering the question. 'Emergence' just covers over the fact that you have no idea how this could even begin to happen in principle. So no Thomasson you do not even have the beginnings of a ground-up theoretical account of reality. And no I don't agree that that approach is the best use of my science dollars. You guys are actually just being dogmatic and hiding it (or not clever enough to realise the holes in what your claiming). At least Ellis is able to hold a partially open mind. I smell something beginning with 'B'.
Wow, did the moderator chop Rupert's comment down like a guy with an axe, or what?! Disrespect. ugly.
talking about consciousness with people who haven't explored different forms of consciousness
"I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful
of all numbers and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Zero is the eternally existing nothing-ness that contains within it the potentiality of everything."
Kenneth Meadows
"Everything is nothing."
David A. Chalmers
So, your whole reality is created by the process of consideration. Your personal power
is only limited by your ability to consider. In a similar way, the state of the world is
created by everyone's ability to consider.
"FATE can be an acronym for
"from all thoughts everywhere".
In other words, the consciousness of the earth."
Neale Donald Walsch
The reality that we observe on an impersonal level is being created by the collective
consciousness and the belief systems of everybody. We create our reality not only on
an individual level but also on a macro scale.
"External reality is the sum total of all the considerations made by everybody."
David A. Chalmers
"If you would swim on the bosom of the ocean of Truth, you must reduce yourself to Zero."
Mahatma Gandhi
Interesting.....zero maybe isn't a number then is it,you can't have a number of nothings or nothingness,this is my view...zero is akin to white,numbers are akin to colours and black is akin to infinity and nothingness/everything.....or a black hole which in my view is the very thing that produces all particles of pure condensed potentiality...thus light (white being the particle that enables the observation and colours being any number of physical things we can that has reached its potential and has been observed!
Bit of a ramble there,hope it made sense to you
Did you cut off sheldrakes final comments?? Wtf?? Watching materialistic scientists who believe consciousness is just residual illusion of neuropsychiatric mechanisms debate Sheldrake is pathetic.
I have had few heroes - Rupert is one- thanks to the uploader
I'm Buddhist and from that perspective the question is a false dicotomy. Between something and nothing there is no distance or gulf. Something and nothing are linguistic terms of consciousness in the manner of the north and south poles of a magnet or the Earth. The idea that the question can be answered in the context of physics is false because physics presupposes materialistic objectivity and the question is about awareness not about particles. I find the terms of this discussion very unsatisfactory because they don't understand that this is a psychological question not a physics question. I blame Aristotle for writing two volumes, one called physics and the other metaphysics and confusing everyone since into thinking the two realms are separable. Sheldrake approaches the basic issue but he mostly fails because he stays mostly within the frame of objectivity presumed.
This talk reminds me of Volume 3 of the Lam Rim by Lama Je Tsongkhapa, in which the argument of dependent arising is proposed, along with the argument that nothing exists on its own, but only by dependent arising...Therefore, things exist, but they also do not exist of their own volition...Everything that exists is through dependent arising...Nothing exists intrinsically...
Amie offered nothing to this discussion. Waste of space.
I'll take what Rupert SPIRA has to say on this which is that Consciousness is all there is, a pre-existing "qualityless" phenomenon and is stated by Rupert Sheldrake around 22:00.
I can only understand how sheldrake explains everything ...
Sheldrake must get tired of being attacked.
Many people are now way ahead of these guys, it’s still nice that they’re continuing the attempts to communicate what insight they may have had. There are many now arising that have been way ahead of these wonderful people, they just don’t sit on stages collecting fees, and some things are not yet so easy to verbalize or communicate, even to the better or more enlightened audiences.
The lady philosopher and the bald guy : why all these new questions, we have our old routine, we have all the answers, stop this woo already.
Thank you that was wonderful. It was really good to hear such a wide gamut of views and people hearing each other out.
What caused those tiny rings to pierce the host's ears? Can that be explained by applying the laws of quantum physics?
If it is impossible to get rid of the quantum vacuum, with things popping in and out of existence, there can't be nothing when "popping out" either. Because then a potential (which is something itself) must exist to create that which is "popping in".
The discussion is no where near to the question what is consciousness . Simple question is I ask ..how do you know I am there . You say because I am seeing you . I ask ..how do you know you are seeing me . You say , because I am conscious . I ask how do you know you are conscious . You say ..because I am alive .
So life energy and consciousness are inseparable . All things exist because of. Life energy and consciousness .... consciousness is background and basis of whole existence of matter , energy . Forces ,time and space .all living beings are conscious . Dead are not conscious . Consciousness departs with life energy . They are like light and brightness . Consciousness is the glow of life energy . This whole universe is filled with energy and consciousness . It is all pervading , in and out .
Sheldrake speaks well, Amie Thomasson seems to say nothing
From the scientific perspective, the mystical question is how do you go about it? How do you attain the quantum & SPACETIME CONSCIOUSNESS?
"He claims it is." As do many scientists, who also claim to be devout atheists, as well, that science has proved the non existence of an intelligent creator. In Sheldrakes opinion, science has not only done nothing of the kind, it is ever more implying that a intelligent creator is essential to the apparent existence of something from nothing. That consciousness is primary, and everything else is secondary. This idea, of course is not new, and it makes things, almost infinitely easier to explain. With consciousness being primary, material explanations are no longer necessary with regards to existence, and the great questions related to it. Science sould best restrict itself to the invention and refinement of technologies, which had a practical use in improving the lot of mankind, and leave the philosophy to those more qualified in the subject. Like for example, your average cleaning lady, or refuse collector. As a general rule, any scientists who claims that science proves anything, never mind the existence of some kind of creator god, is an egotistical, narcissistic, over inflated fool, on a mission from hell, who has never invented, discovered, or said, a single useful thing, in his entire life, and most likely never will.
Great discussion. Worst moderator ever-but at least he recognized it.
Would tables and chairs still exist if consciousness would cease to exist? Of course not! What do we mean by tables and chairs? Either we mean sense perceptions (the direct experience of a table or chair through touch, vision, etc.), or we mean thoughts (the idea of tables and chairs in our minds). Neither sense perceptions nor thoughts can exist without consciousness. The notion of material objects existing outside consciousness is a belief sanctioned by a long cultural tradition in the West but ultimately inconsistent with reality. Even Rupert Sheldrake, who I admire greatly, doesn't seem to realize this simple truth.
The materialist who says that a chair would continue to exist after consciousness had disappeared is very deceptive. This is not true if we mean the absence of ALL consciousness, for then what is there to EXPERIENCE the chair, as a chair? If there is no consciousness to experience the chair, it could only remain as a 'chair', with all the meaning and function we ascribe to a chair, if it had it's OWN consciousness of itself as a chair. But if ALL consciousness is absent, it cannot have it's own self-consciousness of being a chair, and so cannot exist as a chair, as there is no other consciousness to give it that identity or existence, to acknowledge it's being. In what way can something be said to exist if there is no-one and nothing that can experience it as existing? By what is it known to BE, if not even by itself?
Quantum physics concurs with this, having been forced to acknowledge that the observer and the act of observation affect what is observed, and to that degree then the consciousness of the observer is the creator, or perhaps more accurately 'producer', of what is observed.
Apparently that point was missed by the panel, which is a shame because it asserts the primacy of consciousness over matter and refutes materialism completely.
P.S. There is no such thing as nothing! Prove me wrong!
When Amie Thomasson talks, it sounds like gibberish to me. Laurence krauss = Lawrence crass.
Suggestion, rephrase the question to "Why existence instead of non-existence ?" in these types of debates.
Instead of "Why is there something instead of nothing ?" and getting a debate about what a "thing" is or isn't, trying to avoid the core of the issue. So , why existence, and why existence prior to the Big Bang ? Imo, the most rational answer is "because it is a must, the opposite is impossible".
Otherwise complete non-existence (no energy, no potentials, no laws etc) must have transformed into existence. Which should be regarded as impossible, even in a pure metaphysical sense (outside of physics). Or, if you think that is possible (because our brains can not understand such logic), then, why didn't such a transformation occur prior to when it actually did ?What caused it to wait ? And that "what" is not non-existence, it must be some form of a potential (analogy, a cloud forms a potential for a lightning, which then happens).
But thats the beautiful Buddhist question if a tree falls in the woods .... it doesnt matter what exists if there is no consciousness to experience it so everything is irrelevant without to observe it. It might as well not exist if no one can experience it.
Scientists, like most other human beings, are given to tribalism and dogmatism however much they might not recognize that fact (see, e.g., the 3 materialists on the panel). That Rupert Sheldrake, who definitely challenges the scientific mainstream, was invited to sit on this panel with 3 pretty hard core mainstreamers is, however, a positive step. But I would have preferred a much more in-depth, free-wheeling and, yes, adversarial discussion as I believe too much which supports Rupert's more controversial positions was left unsaid. And, next time, invite Bernardo Kastrup!
Are we equipped to know everything?that is the question.
No, we can't even appreciate a dog's sensory world.
I guess they haven’t heard any lectures by James Tour. Also Chistof Koch thinks (and I agree) that paramecium are a little bit consciousness. They have 0 neurons. Consciousness came first.
Bless Rupert Sheldrake for sitting with these dogmatic knuckleheads. He has the patience of a 100 year old tortoise!
When there is a point (in space) which would represent nothing/ nothing would obstruct it from being equal to itself on another place, which on its turn would create the difference in place. Hence absolute symmetry is impossible, because it creates its own asymmetry from symmetry.
Unconscious people can not explain consciousness
Space is not nothing because it contains a place. Hence, because it is not nothing, it contains a hierachy which leads to particles in relation to space; its body; and its underlying laws.
Thrilling!
Understanding is _in_ consciousness. What does understanding consciousness even mean?
I respectfully suggest that one's understanding of "consciousness" would be improved by spelling the word correctly.
this debate is meaningless without Daniel Dennett
Why is there a universe and why does it produce life? Starting from life, let us return to the universe.
Life is a QC (quantum computing) function. Our senses, our brain and all our cells act in unison to repair/regenerate 50-70 billion damaged cells daily at 99.99 % efficiency and at lightning speed, besides protein production and many other functions, like simulating consciousness, intelligence, meme etc.
However, we still do not know how QC self-error correct its function, nor do we know the algorithm of a QC function. But we know that a SINGLE probability wave function, governs everything and every process in the universe (Copenhagen interpretation of QM), implying how and why the universe is able to self-organize, self-simulate the infinite dimensional universal QC function, fine tuning (FT) the parameter space, so we can survive in a violent universe and evolve, eliminating randomness and chance ( a ten mile rock can hit us today and exterminate all life, but FT allows us to evolve until the next new and improved species take over), like we replaced the dinosaurs.
We may never know how a QC works, because then we will be able to make life, implying divine purpose. Man and god are entangled. God made man in his image.
Just say to yourself what the great 17th century philosopher , scientist and mathematician Descartes said (with one addition ) " I think therefore I am " confused and get a headache .
Would of been great to get Donald Hoffman in on this...
It would have been nice to have Krauss present, or someone else who could represent reductive physics. Kind of a "nothing" discussion without that.
Conciousness, might be the human form of problem solving, of which all parts of nature are fully concerned with, the flower, the animal, and the clouds are uniquely trying to solve problems nothing more, maybe it has to do with the "Will to Power"
Thank you!
This debate was interesting, it would have been even better if the moderator was not present though. Pitty and emotional performance.
Conscìousness is that entity or something which gives us the ability to make choices or gives us free will. This is what we use. However its nature and source is a difficult question?? Why do we have free will and intent? Why do we have death? What about our accountability?
I assume there are no comments because no one likes to think philosophy has anything to say unless it’s the terrible philosophy of those who reject it. Our common experience is that of agent cause being before any effect that contains information that gives direction to go, that gives description of what to do, and that sets limits, all of which aren’t necessary by the pure existence of physical things.
Seems edited down. Was it?
Oom George, jy is my hero!
Das Koos jys 'n doos en oom george se gat vok julle aldrie
As much as I love exploring talks on the placeholder term 'consciousness', it is disheartening to listen to the ad hominem attacks made by Rupert Sheldrake towards Lawrence Krauss.
At the very least and for those who do explore this talk, George Ellis and Amie Thomasson are adding some interesting thoughts and concerns to the enlightening discussions on consciousness. Thank you for sharing this talk. 🌻
Lawrence Krauss has dished out far worse to people who didn't deserve it, so I'm not worried about it.
Why did you just single out Rupert? The moderator himself said Lawrence is a popularizer who made a lot of money claiming he knows how something came from nothing and it's not a serious book; that it's intellectually shallow. The moderator tried to somewhat defend Lawrence claiming that book isn't meant to be taken seriously. Rupert disagreed and said he presents it as a serious book of science, and George agreed with Rupert! Amy never at any point chimed in to disagree with any of those claims against Lawrence.
All that being said, calling them ad hominem attacks has a pretty strong negative connotation. They seem to just be fair observations regarding his book. There is a very short time limit and not being able to explain some of your observations on a deeper level is expected to happen.
Getting off drugs or alcohol can also be "life changing"...........so what does that say about psychedelics???
Something needs to find something in order for something to be aware. If so, then the question arises: if we are real then how do we become aware of other real things. What is the connecting something that creates a differential in order to distinguish things from nothing?
#EndGlobalApartheid
Our little bobble of existence can be described as a quantaverse , inside a multiverse, which is part of a megaverse.
With neutral space between us and the next megaverse.
Space in it's purest form,
Which is totally void of any form of energy whatsoever.
And because the UNIVERSE has always been in existence, the next megaverse will be rather far indeed✴
Osiran rebel Johnston this is the opposite of science, I guess your are joking. I certainly hope so
The theory of what there is...Ontology = existence.
A use-value can be anything says that it is not the thing itself that makes it useful; its the position of the thing in a labor-process that counts.
The labor involved in setting up the killing of a young black man in his own neighborhood does not take away the value of the gun as a use-value to society; it only suggests the gun is used in an activity of a criminal nature. Be it a negative activity of a single perpetrator, actions taken are still a labor process in which the gun is a instrument in this activity. If the activity were of a positive nature such as arming a defenseless population from an army of invaders the value of the gun is the same and its reason for existence never leaves the realm of being a use-value as a realization of an idea, i.e., the concept of security. But we can not say the same thing for other things that exist, such as money, or rent, profit, interest, wages, prices, these are ideas, economic concepts, that are real and exist. The use-value of each of these economic categories can exists only within the framework of that system, is relative to a very specific social system. The economic categories disappear along with the social system indicating that coats and cloths will still be made but not in the economic forms mentioned. Coatmaking would be what it is, useful labor and not assume the role of one of the categories mentioned. Use-value is real for the present historical arrangement of these categories but they not transhistorical, therefore, losing their use-value and cease to exist to time. Time is non-existent in Space as is sound and motion but time does exist in two forms on Earth to capture motion and weight. Motion and weight are common elements on earth that cannot be seen but exists in degrees of visibility to invisibility and must take various forms to become a material reality. For time in the abstract to become time in the concrete, human consciousness has to concieve of a clock to measure motion and for weight to be a material reality a scale must be conceived and produced to capture an object's relationship to the earth.
If we want to measure a more homely item, such as, the old car is not worth the four tires on the car, a concept of value is common to the car and the tires through the amount of money it would take to buy tires retail. If not for this comparative relationship the objects enter into, value would not exist. But value does exist only when it is a use-value for something or someone else and does not exists as a value for itself.
From the Advaita Vedanta perspective, why ask Why? 😊 See Non-DUALism by Swami Sarvapriyananda.
I think the impossible nature of nothing is the fundamental definition of reality, by being the antithesis of reality. There is everything. There is some AV for you there.
"...any good philosopher starts by defining her terms'??? So all philosophers are female in her gender-biased view. Very clear? You must be joking, that was the biggest load of nothing spouted by a so-called philosopher in the history of mankind - sorry, humankind! Ah, so now we're starting to get somewhere with 'the uncertainty principle'. It's so 'uncertain' that we describe it as 'a highly dynamic structure' which is 'very complicated'. In neither case, do we know why the laws of physics exist... He smiles at her and she nods to him in agreement. All theory - no substance at all. "But I now I want to complicate the picture more..." Oh so now we theorize that 'ideas exist' (more speculation) and that motor cars wouldn't exist without algorithms and yet we had cars for many years before their design was subsequently improved by algorithms... Sheldrake was at least prepared to mention the theological element and accepts the radical atheistic views discussed to this point. Conservative? Hardly! Now Sheldrake mentions the book of Genesis and Creation which is making Thomasson very uncomfortable and looks away from him in a somewhat disapproving manner... Ah, now we;re getting somewhere closer to the truth: "the debate is essentially a theological debate that's been reframed in these modern physical terms." So the grounds are between 'conscious' and 'unconscious' . "It's a matter of faith either way, I suppose."Then you have "free-floating ideas" and, "take that away and we're left with the lack of an explanation for minds of any kind - including those of physicists - which we call 'the hard problem'." (she gives Sheldrake an embarrassed grin and shakes her head in disapproval) Now Chair, Ladyman, moves to distance theological discussion from 'modern physics' and accuses Sheldrake of mentioning the theological topic, only because he wants to sell books on the subject!! Interestingly, Ellis admits there is confusion between the boundaries between physics and metaphysics. So now, desperately-seeking attention, smiley-smiley grinning, wavy arms, Thomasson, wants us to hear a couple of really bad answers to the question (that she's patently unable to answer herself) and concludes by saying "we have 'hopes' of getting an answer from physics" She "totally agrees" with George because he clearly has the same inconclusive 'theories' - a meaningless response which did not address the subject - Pathetic!! She spouts at a rate that any high-pressure salesman, sorry, salesperson, would envy... You're quite right George, nothing you say about physics makes ANY sense!! (Chair Ladyman looking progressively despondent) Right again George, the universe just is and there's nothing further to say - but you fail completely to address why... Ah, now you're getting close George, "it was meant to be there, some purpose, some reason for its existence which takes you out of physics into metaphysics which is a perfectly logical explanation." Correct Rupert, "if it were just a matter of arguing philosophically, that would be the end of the matter. and we wouldn't be able to get anywhere" (Ladyman looking ever more worried). Ah, so now Ladyman (don't you just love that name) is showing his true colours and begins his attack on Rupert's views. Yes, you should shut up - your atheistic, or now luciferian-sounding views are becoming clear! Ladyman now panicky and looks to fellow atheist and evolutionist, Thomasson for help... Just listen to her rant on about how she embraces every great thinker - and to think some of our kids are actually being taught by nwo (disorder) globalist idiots like her!! "it's fine to ask questions about conscious but...." Yes George, we're already (very) clear who's side you're on and it's clear that this debate is 3 against one!! You just keep repeating, going on and on about your tables and chairs and avoid the real truth of the matter - Creation!! That's right George, they're all 'theories' and (most importantly) there's no way of testing these theories!! Ok, Ladyman, we're clear on your position, you're very uncomfortable that Rupert's views actually have a conclusion and that yours don't - end of the line for all evolutionist scientists, nasa, the Copernican heliocentric theory - it all has to change as it will... Ladyman now resorting to pathetic argument "got drunk last night and really saw the nature of reality" how childish and unprofessional...Thomasson jumps in to attempt to further ridicule Rupert's views - seems more focused on trying to convince the audience of her own views rather than debating directly with Rupert... She actually stated that Rupert's view is 'false' without attempting to say why... Your jokes (clear ridicule) were not lost on the irony of your closing statement Mr. Ladyman. So there we have it - 3 against one and the most balanced and convincing discussion was from... Rupert.
Scientism - an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as ‘scientific’. Also includes the concept of a scientific ego - i.e., that only science has the right to describe the world around us. The fanatical ego-centricity of scientism takes on many aspects of religious fundamentalism.
Interesting discussion, thanks.
It's spelled consciousness, not conciousness.
To be conscience is to be alive, to be asleep is a form of death.
You've got it the wrong way round mate.
I can't help but notice a simple fact.... Don't bring kids to a Supersayashin fight!!!!!!!
There's no nothing. Even nothing is dark energy.
Western thinker made a big mistake by mislabeling conscience as consciousness. Again I checked the dictionary meaning of consciousness that to wrongly comprehended the real meaning of the word.
Consciousness is not the subject of discussion, nor experienced by five senses. As we know, 4 stages of our existence, waking, sleeping, dreaming, ( these three stages every once experience) whoever the fourth stage is called 'turiya' ( there is no word in English language, 'turiya' simple means fourth stage. )
When human rises his awareness to the fourth stage he/she will be fully conscious.
Unfortunately, currently we use word conscious very wrongly to mean somebody is being aware of himself/herself.
Get to the truth God is real just admit it, no God no life, no thought nothingness xo
It's problem solving nothing more. Rocks have it.
Conciousness can only be experienced by the individual. It can't be shared, because words and mathematics are based on space-time (past-present-future). Each individual is a universe by it's own. If time could be stopped, each individual would stop recieving all information from outside his brain. Individual universes is the same as one universe. We are all the same conciousness divided as individuals by space-time. There is no logical scientific explanation for why each of us are living this conscious experience at this time rather than before our birth or after our death. So only the space-time physical individual body dies. We are all of us the same conscience divided as individuals by a space time universe.
Conciousness only leads to ruin like a continous loop.I blame Eve.
If you ask an AI designer why his product did THIS rather tan THAT, and it is truly intelligent, I bet he wouldn't be able to say with any certainty. It will be an equivalence to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
What existed before the Big Bang ? answer : virginity
No comments?
'A priori' nature of mathematics, implies the divine mind who invented algorithm, so we have a car, a laptop, or a QC etc., why reality of physical world is mathematical in structure.
It is not surprising that media controlled writers like Laurence Krauss, who thinks we are here because of some accident or luck finds prominence. The media pays writers like Sean Carroll. Dan Dennett, Krauss etc., to preach atheism. Dennett even have an organization the pays people who embrace atheism (business as usual). How low have we become, what intellectual masterbation Judaism/Christianity indulge in?
Did cgjung ever communicate on reincarnation?
Funding and effort in science, business as usual... and we are not allowed to discuss it so I WOULD LIKE TO END IT HERE LOL
Does anyone else besides me think Rupert Sheldrake looks like Yoda?
Hmm, not enough white, beige shirts to go with the white, beige backgrounds.
Does an insane man knows he is insane?the answer is no.
Don't cats have conciousness?