I've been trying to figure out how this 'running' thing works since my childhood. Everyone can run, but no one has ever figured out how it actually occurs. We're pretty sure that the legs have something to do with it. We've narrowed it down to the quadricep muscles, and we have done a detailed MRI on them. But so far we have never found any running gene or instructions on how this should work. We are convinced that without legs, running would not happen. Nevertheless, no one has been able to put running under a microscope or analyze it or dissect it. Some say running is simply a delusion. It doesn't really happen. There are physicalists who say that it is simply can simply be attributed to muscular contraction. However, this incredible claim does not stand up to scrutiny. After all, when we run, the lungs and heart also seem to have an important role to play. The arms also seem to be moving significantly. In addition, there seem to be a lot of outside elements which enter into play to make the running experience possible; for example, we need a certain surface to run on; obviously, we need gravity, we need oxygen for the lungs, there's a whole host of external factors, which make running possible. In the sequel to closer to truth, I hope to finally pierce the mystery of what running actually is. We will engage with materialists, idealists, physicalists and of course the mysterians, to once and for all solve this mystery that has plagued me since my youth.
Warren Brown doesn't really explains here how Mind is "generated" through the physical properties of the brain, he "just" explores the basic natural structure of the brain which (still) magically leads to self awareness and consciousness. There has to be a non physical parameter which is not produced by the physicality of the human body that connects the brain with consciousness.
This has been an insoluble riddle for five millennia and counting. No matter what solution anyone proposes, it will leave out something essential and skirt the real problem. Even flat-out idealism or dualism don’t work. Materialism (“physicalism”) doesn’t have a clue. All you get is hand-waving, blue smoke, and mirrors (magic). You suggest a “non physical parameter” but then what? That’s the old mind-body problem. How does the non-physical interact with the physical? People can’t answer that so they default to everything being mind, which is absurd, or everything being body, which is more absurd. No one, after all those thousands of years, even has the slightest idea how to begin, which is when they just believe what they damn well want to and declare victory, or impending victory. Yeah, right.
@@ROForeverMan The One cannot account for the Many. This is an ancient problem. The other in a dream is still really (univocally) other. Therefore you cannot account for the Many, given the One, even by relegating the ontology of alterity to illusion. The essential conundrum persists. Besides, no one outside highly artificial philosophical games (think sophomores shooting BS in a dorm room at 2AM) really believes that everything is mind or we’re brains in vats or whatever.
@@ROForeverMan You didn’t say “we are all humans”; you said, “We are all one and the same ‘I am’”. The first means we are separate individuals sharing an essence. The second means we have exactly the same identity. If we are indeed just identically one “I am”, then you are identically me and you should therefore know my middle name.
Considering that the brain is electrochemical in nature, I think physicalism is undeniable. That we can't reduce properties of our experience back down to the fundamental substrate from which they emerge seems reasonable. How could anyone ever account back to the quarks, neurons and leptons or the firing neurons and ineffable memory patterns to establish the story of thoughts and actions, etc. I love for Robert to explore the idea of a universal consciousness. I believe that we all share in a collective, universal consciousness and that the brain is a filter which limits perceptions so that we receive only that which we need to survive. Absent the filter, I believe we would be overwhelmed with too much information. Evidence of a brain as a filter seems reasonable when considering sincere, personal accounts given by people who've had near death experiences. In giving their accounts, many such near death experiencers report seeing colors they've never seen, sounds they've never heard and conscious awareness of a greater reality than they knew while still alive. The repetition of these patterns from one experiencer to the next is so compelling, I don't fear death.
The brain is a physical Function by made by an intelligence. Anything ... that has clear & obvious processes, purpose, form, properties & DESIGN ... is a Function ... made only by an intelligence ( like Man). Define the Intelligence Category ... using Man. Define the Function Category ... using Functions made by Man. And with these two categories ... we learn that everything in the Universe ( including Man) ... is a Function ...made by an intelligence ( like Man). Man is a physical ( Natural) intelligence with a mind, free will, nature & consciousness ... made by ... an non-physical ( Unnatural) intelligence with a mind, free will, nature & consciousness. The mind of an intelligence ... is unnatural & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit) The Mind of Man is natural ( brain) & unnatural( soul). The body of man is "physical" and will die & decay. The soul of man is non-physical and not subject to the laws of nature. And powerful intelligence ... made Man ... in his likeness ( an intelligence) ... with a body & soul ... and a mind that is body & soul. Sound familiar? Jesus( Son of God) said: "Love God with all your heart, mind & soul" The heart & head ... of Man ... can "love" or "hate" God. This is why Jesus (Son of God) could not have a corrupted Human Body and had to be born of a virgin. All Human Beings will think & do evil ... because we have a corrupted body and our mind is body & soul. Think again about not fearing death. God had a reason for a 6 day creation & the 7th belongs to Him, for saying 1 day is like 1000 years, and for God's Son to return for a 1000 year reign before JUDGEMENT DAY. The has always been a 7 x 1000 year "Salvation" plan. The current jewish year since the fall of Man is ... 5782. 6 x 1000 years Man rules 1 x 1000 years God rules Judgement Day.
@@abelincoln8885 that calculation is actually quite congruent with my own estimations. And By God. I think you could actually be close to being right in that regard of Jesus' (Peace be upon him) reign. Pity we won't be around to see it with our physical eyes. But please guard your children against the ills that our society are in the process of normalizing and rear them with the natural essence that we were created in and for. Soon Islam will be the only clear way to this natural and beautiful system God has designed for us all.
My kind of video. Your cannot scientifically prove love -- we know it is. We cannot find light under a microscope -- we know it is because it allows us to see. Can you take hold of consciousness or does consciousness allow us to grasp things or concepts. Metaphysics is such an important endeavorment that the modern people seem to disregard. It is science. Great video.
Makes sense to me. I still think you have not explained the raw and immediate phenomenal sensation, the existence of experience in the first place, but I think that is down to substrate and is probably a quality of all physical matter to some degree.
@@ROForeverMan I do respect non-duality, but I don't subscribe to it. In my view the physical world, a vibrating field, is real. Qualia is a spatial phenomenon, and it exists everywhere naturally. But it is only in areas where the field vibrations form into self-referential patterns (memory, cognition) that self-awareness can arise. That's my belief at least.
@@ROForeverMan The consistency of the macroscopic world, most of which is outside of my conscious perception most of the time. Objects seem to have their own world paths that do not depend on my perceptions of them. Quantum mechanics raises an objection to this, but even in QM the wave function evolves deterministically, which suggests it is just a "deeper" physical world.
@@ROForeverMan No they aren't. Dreams change readily in response to thought. People sudden'y become other people. Places become other places without warning. That is the opposite of a physical world.
@@ROForeverMan It is possible. I have experienced that feeling on psychedelics. And even in a sober state, feelings of unreality or bizarre synchronicities are common. But it is not the interpretation I have chosen. Partly because I think there are explanations of these things to be found in brain science and philosophy. Partly because idealism always leads to solipsism in my view, and I don't like that outlook.
@@ROForeverMan You haven't given argument or testimony as to why a person should believe this - just assertion that it is so. Perhaps you are making an appeal to gnosis, I'm not sure. But to me that is not compelling.
I believe we have the ability to know the future simply because we have already lived it and for whatever reason we are reliving what we've once already created all over again. We have lived every generation since the beginning of time.
Interesting. Since the earth is a closed system and we are all made of the same matter and energy that’s existed from the beginning, this must be true. Similarly, water shortages are really clean water shortages. The water has no place to go.
@@NzR101-r4k That's a strange question to ask on such an important topic, my suggestion is stop asking people for weed lay off of it and raise your I.Q
@@cantbeserious8843 lol I actually don't smoke. So. It's a legitimate question as far as I'm concerned. You have to be high to believe that you can somehow know the future. IQ doesn't need to be high to know that it's not possible. It's a simple fact of life. No one can nor will anyone be able to know the future. The best we can do is make predictions. If we were in fact able to know the future we would make no mistakes because, as you say, we've been through it before. That suggests that we should then be wiser at living. But we still arent. Not yet at least. You are right about one thing. Each generation since time began has lived through similar trials as we are living through now. And if you count them. It's majorly disappointing that we still have people like you who think we are going to be able to know our futures. Major disappointment.
It's not only putting words inside your mind in study, particular need an actual sample in all functional works by experience so that it gives extra harmonious effort on that aspect of seeing by observation precisely with intactness of insight, the rapport that we give in each kinds interaction produce motivational conversation and inspirational analysation for the color in the beauty of life.
All-important topic on dynamical systems theory, nicely explored and explained. Great insights on emergence and top-down causation. But for me, there is less mystery about top-down (non-reductive) causation. It's that boring old c-word. Culture. Us humans don't realize the extent to which we are products of culture. For all life, the top-down draws the bottom-up into more complex forms of expression. The top-down is the *knowing how to be*. All creatures enter into the world in innocence, and for mammals, mothers provide the first instructions on knowing how to be. For humans, culture is central to our knowing how to be. Culture provides the foundations for so much, from our epistemology and notions of being to our gender roles and sense of self. To my way of thinking, culture is directly analogous to a thought, but at a higher level. Where CS Peirce says "The man is the thought", I extend the exact same rationale to infer that "the culture is the thought." Hence my metaphor that compares the brain as a colony of neurons to a city as a colony of people - both self-organize into their respective functional specializations. And this brings us to the importance of semiotic (biosemiotic) theory in understanding consciousness and culture. Motivation, association (associative learning) and habituation are the properties that characterize thought, relating mind to body. Because bodies wire brains, we can now better understand why human mind-bodies, with vocal chords and hands and large brains, are subject to the complex top-down of human culture.
@@ROForeverMan I found the youtube, got to about half way for now, will watch the rest later. Yes, I agree with your outline of emergence. You mentioned several times in these CTT forums that "the brain does not exist", and you mention it again about 1 minute into your youtube. I'm not sure what you're getting at. ALL experiences relate to meaning, interpreted subjectively. When somebody uses the word "brain" to define what I understand as a colony of neurons, I know what they mean, so of course the brain exists, so I'm good with that. Though I reject the notion of a brain as a computer, to me, THAT does not exist. Everyone's different interpretations intersect at a common point, that lump of grey matter inside the skull atop our shoulders, and we can all agree to call it a brain. Semiotics 1:001, Linguistics 1:001.
@@ROForeverMan "But for the purpose of understanding existence is just a made-up story." Do you support Donald Hoffman's interpretation? If so, then I think you might have one foot in the materialist camp without realizing it. Indeed, I regard his interpretation as a materialist one, despite his vitally important insight that reality is not what our senses tell us it is. Why? This outline introducing the video "The Case Against Reality": "Do we see reality as it is? Cognitive psychologist, Donald Hoffman explains how our perceptions have evolved to become like a computer interface and what real-life implications this has today." Hoffman speaks of this "computer interface" metaphor within the context of natural selection and adaptive traits, and the idea that illusory perceptions persist because they are "adaptive" to survival. I don't accept that at all. The perception of reality cannot be anything other than subjective, and thus illusory, and has nothing to do with adaptive traits. Bodies wire brains, and for that reason the way that we and other agent see the world is contingent on the kinds of experiences intercepted by bodies. It has absolutely zero to do with adaptive traits (though agents that make stupid choices are not favoured for survival - that's choice, nothing to do with "adaptive"). In one of these earlier CTT episodes (before I began commenting on this forum), I recall Robert Kuhn himself agonizing about how to interpret a room, and whether there was a "real" way of interpreting it. There isn't a "real" way to interpret a room. I call a room a room because it has utility to me as a room. A frog in my room, by contrast, does not see a room, and does not know what a room is, because said room has no utility to it. What I see as a straw hat, a caterpillar might see as a bunch of delicious dry grass to access as food. We see things in terms of their utility to us... this applies to every agent. All that we ever have are assumptions, never truths. There is no escaping the subjectivity quagmire, ever. There is no true, "objective" way to see a room or a straw hat. Everything is defined by mind-bodies in the context of their utility. Semiotic theory - the properties of thought; motivation, association and habituation - explains why this is.
Non reductive physicality due to not knowing which butterfly is responsible for the tornado. However on the surface, one can ride the unpredictability of the rapids in different rivers through skill sets. Reducing the chaos to the river on not going in the ocean to be eaten by the shark. Love this take on the complexity of the mind from brain. Makes me hungry just thinking about it. Lol
If the emergent process involves averaging, it would be impossible to work backwards to precisely reverse engineer to the source. For example, if I tell you that 10 is the average of two numbers it is impossible for you to discern what those two numbers are from only knowing the "end result". On top of that as we take it to the reductive limit, we come face to face with the uncertainty principle and the uncollapsed probability amplitude of the "wave function". So we are stymied at both ends of the equation.
@@ROForeverMan Well lets consider the number 6. Before there were minds there were 6-sided cubic crystals. So nature appears to have built in (ontological) characteristics that conform with whole numbers, whether there are minds around or not. So it is you who are confusing your speculations with knowledge: in speculating that because WE can only experience the world through our minds, the world does not exist without our minds. The old mistake of confusing the measured with the measurer.
@@ROForeverMan As I said. Don't confuse your speculations for knowledge. That fact that we have only one tool to "measure" the world means exactly that. It does not justify the leap in logic required to assert that: because we cannot be absolutely sure of anything beyond our perceptions that nothing exists independently of them.
@@ROForeverMan How brief? Can you summarize the main points in a couple of sentences? In the past I've seen a lot of "arguments" that tend to be rooted in semantics. Perhaps this is not the case for your position, and I remain open to being convinced. So again - respectfully and sincerely - what is the essence of your argument?
I love the hand gestures this guy makes. It's like he thinks that if he just says "Patterns!" and puts his hands up like he's casting a spell he'll be able to delude you as thoroughly as he is.
@@TheGrammarOfDesign The term abstract means (from + draw off), which is an exact description of emergence. If emergence is true (and i believe it is) then a fundamental truth about the universe is abstract in nature. In fact the universe may be something like an abstraction machine or engine, pumping out abstract forms that accrete or come together into "concrete" forms (abstract and concrete are relative terms, two sides of the same coin). We as human individuals are abstractions of the activity executed at the systems level of the body, and the systems level is an abstraction of the activity and relationships between the organs, further down organized tissues abstract into organs, and those tissues are abstractions of different cell types interacting, etc.. It's the only real way that the universe can achieve higher forms of complexity.. without emergence we would still be stuck at level one.
I don't disagree, but I wish they'd say more or listen to others with less status than them that could advance the plot while they say the same thing for 30 years
@@TheGrammarOfDesign I agree, and i guess "Planck's principle" applies to philosophy as well as to science, or to anything else it seems. From a historical time scale perspective as opposed to an individual time scale, things are actually moving quite quickly imo. Besides, the mainstream perspective is usually not the leading edge perspective.
@@alexgonzo5508 The fact of some abstraction doesn't preclude its description by language. An abstraction is still the result of some complex formula that can be determined. You can't just hide behind newly applied words like "emergence" and "abstraction." Philosophically and morally, your position is indefensible. You assume there is more than what's there and then support the hegemonic cultural phenomenon that takes, as a fact (without any proof, evidence, or even a logical, coherent explanation without jumping behind some "ineffable whatever"), the existence of free will. But you know, whatever, people in Iran are executed every day, but it's okay because you still get to maintain your delusion. Cool.
The body is a microphone for the mind. A split mind needs a subject to perceive an objectwith which to perceive it. The subject is the body; the object is what the body senses through its sense organs.
Consciousness is exactly the phenomenon that fits this schema: It's a higher level of organization that cannot be explained by the actions of neurons alone.
the more you try to hide behind higher order complexity the worse off you are, since emergent properties of higher orders are much easier to observe than smaller true substrates of emergent properties.
@@ROForeverMan You don't exist. "You" are just an idea in consciousness, therefore "you" also can't be conscious, and must be an NPC in a solipsistic mind. /s
we have, to some extent, been able to isolate causal factors of a particular pattern despite it being a part of a dynamic system. I think we can continue to reduce physical phenomenon as technology increases - it's just a matter of time
That implies that people with severe brain damage to one half would loose self awareness (or in your theory, one of the selves) since the observer in one half of the brain would die .. However you put it or frame it in a theory you will always have a very hard time explaining away the mind and consciousness in a strictly materialistic manner :)
Dynamical Systems Theory, which is apparently broader in scope than the particular question, consciousness. However, an important framework/tool for considering consciousness. Great talk!
When I hear this I wanna think something like Pareto distribution here right now, for the difference between deterministic and top-down causation: that if you change one small element in the network, it has big effects on the supposed top down causation, like Lorentz chaos theory. When you eliminate a bit of water molecules from water, it doesn't really impact the effect it has on its environment in a big way (Newtonian mechanics). The inner dynamics of chaos and turbulence might change, but a small flood is still a small flood. While in the brain it might make you hate your neighbor or love your neighbor, which totally changes the behavior. So less than 20% change in some structure causing more than 80% effect, would be defined as an element of top down causation. Just spitballing here My point is you really need to define some sort of difference in causations, for it to be recognizable. All explanations lead to determinism, like all roads lead to Rome; this is ridiculous, so there is probably something wrong with our explanations. We need better thinking, and for that we need clear definitions of what is free, what is cause: and for that we need to define what is space, and what is time (how it works intrinsically). We need a coherent philosophy of space and time
Of course, balanced != true, so until any evidence is provided to the contrary, we should assume that our actions are determined by the laws of nature. To assume any more would be the result of a logic so slippery that I'd exploit it just to force you to accept that I'm the Messiah and then still tell you that you're wrong. To assume we have free will and then to subject an entire civilization to your baseless claim is an epistemological sin so grave that no person who commits it without repenting will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It's shameful that so many people want to believe magical and mystical explanations for consciousness rather than employ real science. Nowhere is confirmation bias more evident than that of conscious beings attempting to explain consciousness.
The possibility of strong emergence / downward causation should be posed to a mathematician. If it's mathematically possible I then I'd give it greater credence to it being physically possible.
I love Robert Kuhn's channel Closer to Truth. I wonder if some parts of reductionism can be unraveled as a person loses his mental faculty as death approaches? Does it all shut down at once or is there a gradual step by step diminishing of conscience?
To me it doesn’t really matter the physical process that gives us our “mind” but it’s fairly obvious that Consciousness is how the brain sorts out information from the senses. We need some way to sort out all this information coming in and to decipher if something is a danger to us or not. if you took a newborn baby and cut out it’s eyes so it can’t see. You cut out it’s ears so it can’t hear. Cut out it’s nose so it can’t smell. Cut out it’s tongue so it can’t taste. Cuts its nerves so it can’t feel. Then hook it up to machines so it can live. That person will never experience consciousness or any thoughts whatsoever. It won’t have a “mind” Just a puddle of living cells. It has no reference to anything to form thoughts. What is consciousness without any of those references? Nothing. Our thoughts are based on languages we heard. Visions we saw. Smells we smelled. Things we touched. Tastes we tasted. It’s a pretty cool evolutionary thing how the brain forms thoughts out of our senses to keep our species going. It kinda scares me seeing how many people believe in the hocus pocus theories like consciousness is some mystical dimension our brains are antennas to. Or that humans share one common consciousness. Can dogs tap into it too? Or is only the almighty special human brain that can make use of this grand consciousness dimension that permeates the whole universe. 🍆✊✊
He talks about constraints on physical processes, what constraints physical processes in a certain way that they can produce mind and consciousness? These guys are funny.
when we compare a simple lifeform(single cell organisms) to highly intelligent organisms, such as humans, the differences are so vast that make relation of the two forms almost unrelated... in both cases, nucleic acids seem to play an important role in their behavior, on first thought, but epigenetic factors/interactions could also be considered as a stimulus to higher complexity... it seems as such high level complex functionality is, at least partly, influenced by outside factors, as well...
@@ROForeverMan they do seem to have a role in the development of consciousness, though... amd why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over...🙄
@@ROForeverMan according to you, if everything is an idea of your mind then what difference is between one character or the other... :) why is it so important for everyone to think like you, though...
@@ROForeverMan ok then, if the truth is as you claim, can you explain "anything" just by your mind without typing(voice typing included)... if everything is part of mind then you don't need any external accessories to communicate at all, you don't even require your brain to do it, right...
This is just a convoluted attempt to avoid the obvious fact that you are not a brain. However you want to define "mind", there must be a _you_ experiencing all your experiences; and you are not an "emergent property" or a sensation or a pattern or a system, because properties, sensations, and patterns don't have experiences. You must be a concrete object that can interact with your brain, and the rest of your body.
He says consciousness is a physical property. He has it backwards. The material world including our physiologies arise from a preexisting, uncreated, eternal field of pure, absolute consciousness, which in it's self-referral dynamics of knowing itself, creates all that we experience in relative creation. Every relative aspect of reality is just some iteration of consciousness. This is the Vedic model.
Here's a teaser for us. If consciousness is to be understood in terms of complex adaptive systems, colonies of cells and mind-bodies making choices, why don't plants have brains? The reasons why plants don't have brains include the following: 1) They rely on a very distributed form of energy, sunlight, than denies them the energy-intensive excesses that brains require; 2) Their only form of motion is in growing. Watch a speeded up movie of a grape vine growing, and notice how it feels its way along, reaching for things to hang onto, almost like it's intentional; 3) Other kinds of plants that are carnivorous, like the venus fly trap, can afford to be more active, and you can see their choice-making in action. Their access to energy is still limited, though, and so you won't catch any of these guys with brains; 4) Plants are abundant, their only predators are vegetarians. In a thriving ecosystem, their survival is not threatened, they can thus afford to luxuriate in sunlight and soil as their only source of nourishment; 5) Anchored at the root, they stay put, and so their movements are very slow and limited. Because their choices are simple and limited, they do not require dedicated brains to make sense of complex worlds, and they can afford to "distribute" their brain throughout their leaves and roots; 6) In contrast to plants, animals that get up and move around require much more energy, and they require dedicated cells to make sense of worlds that are vastly more complex. That's why animals require dedicated organs, as brains, to cognise their mind-body experiences, and plants do not.
Images and sounds are made from photons and sound vibratory mechanism patterns. One cannot think without images(photons arranged in patterns) and voice sound (vibrations arranged in patterns) And SO anything that is smaller than photons and extremely high frequency vibrations can make MIND and also come consciousness.
Could particles and neurons in physical brain have mathematic characteristics that lead to consciousness? Mathematics from probabilities in quantum fields that after measurement become determined quantities in space associated with particles and neurons?
How does a tiny ant < 2mm long with a brain probably invisible to the human eye expose such evidence of emotional intelligence by displaying 'fear' and 'enthusiasm' and so on? 'Humanity' has yet to grasp the remarkable emotional intelligence of insects. Some flies for example display extraordinary intelligence and group behaviour. A local pigeon waited 3 days for its intrepid companion to be released from the café where I clean tables for a living. Go figure! (edit: BTW AI - aka artificial idiocy - does not even hold a candle to such tiny insects, and let's face it, most likely never will.)
Man defines the "Intelligence" category. This is why Man, not ants, is the only known intelligence in the Universe. Consciousness, free will & nature are simply functions of the Mind of an ENTITY. Animals & Man are PHYSICAL entities ... with PHYSICAL minds( brain) and their own type of free will, nature & conscious of the PHYSICAL environment. But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE .. with a brain so fine tuned that the Mind of Man is more than just the brain. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA ... but can not think & do 1% of what Man can. Natural functions & thermodynamic systems ... prove the "physical" Universe & Life was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence ( like Man). The mind of an intelligence ... is UNNATURAL & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit). And this is all most need to understand Man's origin, form, mind & consciousness. The Mind of Man ... is natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul). Man is body & soul ... just a Genesis told us 3400 years ago. Jesus ( Son of God) told us nearly 2000 years ago the the Mind of Man is body & soul, which is why He could not have a corrupt Human Body. "Love God with all your ... heart, mind, & soul." The body can "love" or "hate" God. Most do not need to know how the brains work They only need to know that the brain is a machine that needs to be healthy and functioning correctly ... to have free will, nature & consciousness And .. that God did make Man on the 6th Day of Creation ... less than 6000 years ago. Time is running out. God had a reason for the 6 day creation & the 7th will be for Him, and saying 1 day is like 1000 years. Jesus the Son of God returns for a 1000 year reign before Judgement Day. And the current Jewish year since the fall of Man is 5782. It's always been a 7 x 1000 years "Salvation" plan. All will reject God when the 7 000 years is up and so God will Judge all who rejected Him.
There is always the macro and the micro. To this regard our experience as humans is not greater or even different than other life forms or elements of the universe. Consciousness may exist in physical form, but only in quantum realms. With this example we might ponder how quantum fields effect larger ones, or if they do at all. While brain and mind might be two different things they may work together to create a whole that might be as hard to separate as blue and red being in purple. Once combined they can no longer be reduced to separate parts. Lot’s to think about here; yes?
the mind is not a "thing". It is simply a word we use to describe the whole package of mental phenomena (thoughts, feelings, awareness, etc.) that is produced by the brain and is located in the brain.
It’s your Black-Body Robert… When you Compress reality, @ a certain threashold, light appears from Nothing, which makes Exclusion Zones and Radiant Light… It’s “MAGNIFICENT”… Glorious… Hydro-Magnetic-Sonoluminescent-INTELLIGENCE/CONSCIOUSNESS… Wet-Ware and it’s “sticky-icky,” just like my weed… Hahaha… Plus, the “Like-Likes-Like Principle,” phase transitioning depending on “Incidental Light”… Big or small, doesn’t matter… You better learn “droplets” and “Bubbles”… Vescicles (4th phase of water, pollack, 2013)… PS: This is first principled Photosynthesis… Quantum Gravitized Plasma/Water… My son told me a long time ago that, “Gravity Falls, Just Like My Water”… I love the “Rainmaker”… We all love you “Father… (-) Masculine Vacuum Energy For Dominion!…! RA!!! 369 So Mote It Is!
Reality exists in this form were experiencing and consciousness is a product of reality just so happen your dealing with the effects of the earth and SUN dynamics
You're correct. I reversed an executive function disorder back in 2012, it was only possible for me to access my mind when I supplemented my endocannabinoid system with fuel my body stopped producing, natrually.
If you don't mind me asking, tell me the roles of the brain and the mind. Can the mind exist without a brain? What is the substrate of the mind if it is not the neural networks of the brain? Do you have a true understanding of a separate mind, or is it just what you believe without ever questioning?
Loon Kuhn thinks there's a threshhold arrangement of lifeless particles properly arranged such that adding one more properly placed particle sets off awareness and consciousness 😆
@@ROForeverMan My post is for all the materialists in the comments. Loon Kuhn plays a character in his videos. He can't state a position because he wants everyone to have a say in his videos no matter how loony their position is. Daniel Dennett is probably the worst of the worst in the materialists clown car
Repeat after me, emergent non-reductive, emergent non-reductive …..now we can discuss what emerges without having to reduce (full understand) it. It strikes me as being like phenomenology in philosophy.
@@ROForeverMan Yours is an interesting presentation. As you observe, mind and reality are in every sense identical. Since the mind cannot transcend itself, there is simply no intelligible way to speak of a truly mind-independent reality. This makes ontology inseparable from epistemology. That inescapable fact is one that science cannot ultimately avoid and will have no choice but to acknowledge and incorporate in any final statement about reality.
made sense to me. The problem is that we are so accustomed to have nice, little answers spelled out for us so we don't have to think very hard about it.
@@rckflmg94 Respectfully, his argument is that consciousness is physical and emergent, but *cannot be reduced to its underlying physical substructure*. This would be the only case in history where a physical entity cannot be explained or reduced to an underlying physical existence. Hair sits on skin which sits on tissue which sits on muscle which sits on skeleton which sits on cells. Sheetrock sits on framing which rests on a foundation that sits on the earth. Etc etc. To say that consciousness is both physical and simultaneously irreducible is a contradiction in terms. It straddles the middle and falls off the fence.
@@cloud1stclass372 I think it's more the case that our brains were not designed to comprehend or fully explain such mysteries. That doesn't mean the mystery is resolved by panpsychism or quantum mechanics. It simply means that its an emergent physical phenomenon that's created by a material brain but we may never know how it works.
"Which part of a bowl 🥣 do you use? The shell, or the part that's empty?" Which of these two things (shell and emptiness) is actually a thing? Is a hole 🕳 a thing or the absence of things? It's hard to identify "things" , "the absence of things", and the "relationships" between things. Is mind a "thing", a "relationship between things (brain and Nature)", or the "absence of things"? Is mind the "absence of brain" that makes the brain like the shell of a bowl 🥣? Is brain the spacetime that allows for mind, or is mind the spacetime that allows for brain?
Just the probabilities due to choice or free will would greatly complicate any model you may assume to be predictable. Even if we could be given the physical information for every existing charge, molecule or structure, conscious freedom to choose anything would greatly change multiple local systems at any moment not to consider every conscious living free will organism that exist are constantly changing their environments. I occasionally wonder if the kid behind the simulation has met his first girlfriend yet. Maybe his simulator gets stolen and sold for parts. It's fun to ponder these things and I'm sure research will provide application worthy data but, the big question about the source, creator or natural events responsible understanding how some things came to be may never be known. Even the creator might have to predict future models based on spontaneous physics unless he has certain unbreakable limits or parameters in place to avoid a run away creation. I like the idea that we are all part of a cosmic consciousness of an unimaginably large scale that just exists and our experiences are how it grows and lives. Parasitic freedom of will where the host feels, experiences and learns through us. lol
Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1.gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, body and intellect 3.Soul.Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.
There are four levels, four basic parts: Body, Emotion, Intellect, Will. That's the four elements Earth, Water, Air and Fire respectively. Will/intent is the part that can't die & continues between incarnations.
How brain makes mind? Nobody knows. Yet, what we know is that the mind is made by the brain activity, which is extremely complex. I don’t think that we as humans will ever be able to figure out how the brain creates the mind. We also know how the brain functions to some detail, but consciousness and mind? Nop.
I don't even know if it's worth the time to address this type of position. These people have caught themselves up in a net of words that they *reaaaally* hope actually mean something... ... but they don't. They have deluded themselves in an attempt to preserve some sense of free will, which they apparently desperately need.
But what more can you expect from someone who works as a researcher at a Theological Seminary? They are delusional enough to believe some baseless theology, so this desperate attempt isn't really so shocking. They will do anything to avoid reality.
We are just programs running on brain neurons instead of logic gates in CPU. Imagine: You are Windows Body is whole computer. Most of You is in CPU as emergent function. From simplicity comes complexity.
My view, with limited understanding, Human being as united dualisme reality. On top level mind as non objective reality and body as objective reality on the bottom level ,human being energi = awarrness/ cognition energi + body mekanisme energi.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: Fear the LORD, and depart from evil. Proverbs 3:5-7 KJV And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:7 KJV
Yeah! Non-reductive properties! How about that! A sand castle is made of sand, but the properties of sand don't describe the castle! There is nothing about the sand that produced the sand castle!
A function is a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outputs ... and has sent purpose, form, design, & properties ( INFORMATION). Anything that has clear & obvious purpose, form, properties &design .. is a Function ... that can only be made by an intelligence( like Man). Everything in the Universe is a Function. Everything in the Universe possesses & needs INFORMATION to exist & to function Everything comes from the mind of an intelligence, which is unnatural & non-physical ( ie spirit & soul). Man is body & soul. The mind of Man .. is body & soul. Te mind of God who made Man in His likeness .... is spirit. Consciousness, free will & nature are simply functions of the MIND of an Entity. The type of Entity determines what type of Mind it has. Sand is simply a physical function and can be used by an intelligence to make a sand castle which is also a Function with set purpose, form, properties & DESIGN. Iron ore is a Function that an intelligence like Man can make simple machines (functions) like a nail, screw, lever. Elemental particles are functions ... that are the building blocks for atoms which are also Functions ... that are building blocks for elements which are functions ... which are the building blocks for .... etc, etc.
@@abelincoln8885 agreed! However a bit off topic. Does the sand produce the sandcastle? Does the brain produce consciousness? According to this genius consciousness emerges from the brain. Like a sand castle emerges from sand?
I think he's got the beginning of an idea and he tries to give it substance but he can't, he gets lost in verbiage and convolution instead ... or maybe it's me lol.
it is more complicated than that, the apes have no chance to comprehend right now, whatever they do, something similar to what is going on in physics, there are many mistakes and lack of good understanding even of the basics, for instance there is no chance for making any real progress in science without finding a solution for both space and time, time us solvable but space, momentum, ..... will take time, they will stay as storytellers for a long time (their current job) + thievery. both relativity and quantum physics are just a wrappers similar to so-called Newtons' laws. there were a good scientists in the past but not any more (more complicated) the only solution right now is waiting for the emergence of a real scientists) that means the emergence of real rational intelligent human entities and for many reasons that is very unlikely, so probably the apes will stay apes forever (happy apes' paradise).
If you understand how a city functions with all its strategic importance as only one person, then, you might have a little understanding of how a brain functions.
except that a city (if analogous to a living organism) is not aware of itself or anything at all. It doesn't have any experiences. It cannot experience anything.
@@rckflmg94 it depends how you think about it. The people, the acting population, that makes a city live and experience, no different d than organisms.
@@owencampbell4947 it's very different. Individual organisms such as humans have thoughts, feelings, and desire. A "city" is just an abstract social construct that we've all agreed upon.
What is this hand-wavy nonsense? Failed to explain how object (brain, matter) generates subejct (conscious awareness; capacity to perceive and experience). Just another "mutation" on physicalism that's not going anywhere (except the trash can) lol.
Nebecanezzar's statute starts at the top then is described downward. So then what gives thinking to the brain? I would say conscience. I believe conscience comes from God, Jesus Christ. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Romans 2:14-16 KJV Yet you can have a conscience that goes against God, Jesus Christ. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1 Timothy 4:1-2 KJV For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:18-32 KJV
still either/or vs both but neither... top-down causation/reverse logic vs bottom-up causation/logic, that reductionism can be studied applied modeled either way more than just what our as if limited to a bottom-up atomistic maximum resolution Planck's constant current level approach might imply... this approach being especially problematic within the consideration of for example my interest in the patterned archetypical Jungian structures of our inner psychology where a more yin/aether/alchemical/top-down approach, an approach starting at the other end of the spectrum, at where reductionism is applied at the foundational differentiated perspective of yin/yang... yin, our relatedness-seeking desire for meaningfulness, which to the degree we can experience meaningfully as a sub-part of ourselves through the modeled lens of being the union/product with yang... yang, our desire to seek empowerment, our enjoyment of being competitive this patterned into our drive/necessity to eat, for us to harvest consume that which life provides... so agree about the need for, to add back, a top-down approach, however, as in might the contrast from both be better than an absolute of either/or...
That is the longest obfuscation of the phrase, "I don't know" I have ever heard. No one yet knows the answer to this question. Describing a thing and saying how a thing works are not the same.
Useless. Here's a good rule of thumb. If you can replace "emergent" with "magical" and nothing about what you are saying changes, then you are not explaining anything at all.
Without responsibility people are self serving and opportunistic. It's just a fact. Don't even try to say that some people need the fear of God to be good because the problem with society is godless self serving opportunistic people.
Doing or refraining from doing to satisfy an apparent God for fear of retribution is also self-serving. The only effectively selfless living that I can conceive at present is the dissolution of separate self, so that one sees all beings and all things as One Being. Even then, technically actions serve this greater Self, but at least not at the expense of other individuals. Believe it or not, the idea of personal responsibility is not actually required. If people can accept inherent Oneness, or _dependent arising,_ then they can live without duty in the name of All -- in pure Love.
@@FalseCogs You went from a projection and plunged into word salad. It's not self serving to serve others. It's work. Many people give up their lives for the sake of others. That's what being useful is. Everything and everybody are not the same. Some people give while others take. To say everything is one is a lie. There is good and bad, right and wrong. There is sweet sour and foul. You can't sugar coat filth.
I've been trying to figure out how this 'running' thing works since my childhood. Everyone can run, but no one has ever figured out how it actually occurs. We're pretty sure that the legs have something to do with it. We've narrowed it down to the quadricep muscles, and we have done a detailed MRI on them. But so far we have never found any running gene or instructions on how this should work.
We are convinced that without legs, running would not happen. Nevertheless, no one has been able to put running under a microscope or analyze it or dissect it. Some say running is simply a delusion. It doesn't really happen. There are physicalists who say that it is simply can simply be attributed to muscular contraction. However, this incredible claim does not stand up to scrutiny. After all, when we run, the lungs and heart also seem to have an important role to play. The arms also seem to be moving significantly.
In addition, there seem to be a lot of outside elements which enter into play to make the running experience possible; for example, we need a certain surface to run on; obviously, we need gravity, we need oxygen for the lungs, there's a whole host of external factors, which make running possible.
In the sequel to closer to truth, I hope to finally pierce the mystery of what running actually is. We will engage with materialists, idealists, physicalists and of course the mysterians, to once and for all solve this mystery that has plagued me since my youth.
This channel blows my mind.
Warren Brown doesn't really explains here how Mind is "generated" through the physical properties of the brain, he "just" explores the basic natural structure of the brain which (still) magically leads to self awareness and consciousness. There has to be a non physical parameter which is not produced by the physicality of the human body that connects the brain with consciousness.
This has been an insoluble riddle for five millennia and counting. No matter what solution anyone proposes, it will leave out something essential and skirt the real problem. Even flat-out idealism or dualism don’t work. Materialism (“physicalism”) doesn’t have a clue. All you get is hand-waving, blue smoke, and mirrors (magic). You suggest a “non physical parameter” but then what? That’s the old mind-body problem. How does the non-physical interact with the physical? People can’t answer that so they default to everything being mind, which is absurd, or everything being body, which is more absurd. No one, after all those thousands of years, even has the slightest idea how to begin, which is when they just believe what they damn well want to and declare victory, or impending victory. Yeah, right.
@@ROForeverMan The One cannot account for the Many. This is an ancient problem. The other in a dream is still really (univocally) other. Therefore you cannot account for the Many, given the One, even by relegating the ontology of alterity to illusion. The essential conundrum persists. Besides, no one outside highly artificial philosophical games (think sophomores shooting BS in a dorm room at 2AM) really believes that everything is mind or we’re brains in vats or whatever.
@@nightspore4850 i think understanding consciousness is the beginning to understanding this problem
@@ROForeverMan Are we really? Then tell me, what’s my middle name?
@@ROForeverMan You didn’t say “we are all humans”; you said, “We are all one and the same ‘I am’”. The first means we are separate individuals sharing an essence. The second means we have exactly the same identity. If we are indeed just identically one “I am”, then you are identically me and you should therefore know my middle name.
Considering that the brain is electrochemical in nature, I think physicalism is undeniable. That we can't reduce properties of our experience back down to the fundamental substrate from which they emerge seems reasonable. How could anyone ever account back to the quarks, neurons and leptons or the firing neurons and ineffable memory patterns to establish the story of thoughts and actions, etc. I love for Robert to explore the idea of a universal consciousness. I believe that we all share in a collective, universal consciousness and that the brain is a filter which limits perceptions so that we receive only that which we need to survive. Absent the filter, I believe we would be overwhelmed with too much information. Evidence of a brain as a filter seems reasonable when considering sincere, personal accounts given by people who've had near death experiences. In giving their accounts, many such near death experiencers report seeing colors they've never seen, sounds they've never heard and conscious awareness of a greater reality than they knew while still alive. The repetition of these patterns from one experiencer to the next is so compelling, I don't fear death.
The brain is a physical Function by made by an intelligence.
Anything ... that has clear & obvious processes, purpose, form, properties & DESIGN ... is a Function ... made only by an intelligence ( like Man).
Define the Intelligence Category ... using Man.
Define the Function Category ... using Functions made by Man.
And with these two categories ... we learn that everything in the Universe ( including Man) ... is a Function ...made by an intelligence ( like Man).
Man is a physical ( Natural) intelligence with a mind, free will, nature & consciousness ... made by ... an non-physical ( Unnatural) intelligence with a mind, free will, nature & consciousness.
The mind of an intelligence ... is unnatural & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit)
The Mind of Man is natural ( brain) & unnatural( soul).
The body of man is "physical" and will die & decay.
The soul of man is non-physical and not subject to the laws of nature.
And powerful intelligence ... made Man ... in his likeness ( an intelligence) ... with a body & soul ... and a mind that is body & soul.
Sound familiar?
Jesus( Son of God) said:
"Love God with all your heart, mind & soul"
The heart & head ... of Man ... can "love" or "hate" God.
This is why Jesus (Son of God) could not have a corrupted Human Body and had to be born of a virgin.
All Human Beings will think & do evil ... because we have a corrupted body and our mind is body & soul.
Think again about not fearing death.
God had a reason for a 6 day creation & the 7th belongs to Him, for saying 1 day is like 1000 years, and for God's Son to return for a 1000 year reign before JUDGEMENT DAY.
The has always been a 7 x 1000 year "Salvation" plan.
The current jewish year since the fall of Man is ... 5782.
6 x 1000 years Man rules
1 x 1000 years God rules
Judgement Day.
I believe the brain is an antenna. The sensitivity of that antenna is the filter.
@@abelincoln8885 that calculation is actually quite congruent with my own estimations. And By God. I think you could actually be close to being right in that regard of Jesus' (Peace be upon him) reign.
Pity we won't be around to see it with our physical eyes. But please guard your children against the ills that our society are in the process of normalizing and rear them with the natural essence that we were created in and for. Soon Islam will be the only clear way to this natural and beautiful system God has designed for us all.
My kind of video.
Your cannot scientifically prove love -- we know it is.
We cannot find light under a microscope -- we know it is because it allows us to see.
Can you take hold of consciousness or does consciousness allow us to grasp things or concepts.
Metaphysics is such an important endeavorment that the modern people seem to disregard. It is science.
Great video.
the feeling of love is produced by the hormone oxytocin, very much proved by science.
Makes sense to me. I still think you have not explained the raw and immediate phenomenal sensation, the existence of experience in the first place, but I think that is down to substrate and is probably a quality of all physical matter to some degree.
@@ROForeverMan I do respect non-duality, but I don't subscribe to it. In my view the physical world, a vibrating field, is real. Qualia is a spatial phenomenon, and it exists everywhere naturally. But it is only in areas where the field vibrations form into self-referential patterns (memory, cognition) that self-awareness can arise. That's my belief at least.
@@ROForeverMan
The consistency of the macroscopic world, most of which is outside of my conscious perception most of the time. Objects seem to have their own world paths that do not depend on my perceptions of them. Quantum mechanics raises an objection to this, but even in QM the wave function evolves deterministically, which suggests it is just a "deeper" physical world.
@@ROForeverMan No they aren't. Dreams change readily in response to thought. People sudden'y become other people. Places become other places without warning. That is the opposite of a physical world.
@@ROForeverMan It is possible. I have experienced that feeling on psychedelics. And even in a sober state, feelings of unreality or bizarre synchronicities are common. But it is not the interpretation I have chosen. Partly because I think there are explanations of these things to be found in brain science and philosophy. Partly because idealism always leads to solipsism in my view, and I don't like that outlook.
@@ROForeverMan You haven't given argument or testimony as to why a person should believe this - just assertion that it is so. Perhaps you are making an appeal to gnosis, I'm not sure. But to me that is not compelling.
I believe we have the ability to know the future simply because we have already lived it and for whatever reason we are reliving what we've once already created all over again. We have lived every generation since the beginning of time.
Interesting. Since the earth is a closed system and we are all made of the same matter and energy that’s existed from the beginning, this must be true. Similarly, water shortages are really clean water shortages. The water has no place to go.
What kind of weed do you smoke?
@@NzR101-r4k That's a strange question to ask on such an important topic, my suggestion is stop asking people for weed lay off of it and raise your I.Q
@@cantbeserious8843 lol I actually don't smoke.
So. It's a legitimate question as far as I'm concerned. You have to be high to believe that you can somehow know the future. IQ doesn't need to be high to know that it's not possible. It's a simple fact of life. No one can nor will anyone be able to know the future. The best we can do is make predictions.
If we were in fact able to know the future we would make no mistakes because, as you say, we've been through it before. That suggests that we should then be wiser at living. But we still arent. Not yet at least. You are right about one thing. Each generation since time began has lived through similar trials as we are living through now. And if you count them. It's majorly disappointing that we still have people like you who think we are going to be able to know our futures. Major disappointment.
Brilliant explanation of consciousness; nearly infinite combinations of perceptions emerging dynamically as consciousness
It's not only putting words inside your mind in study, particular need an actual sample in all functional works by experience so that it gives extra harmonious effort on that aspect of seeing by observation precisely with intactness of insight, the rapport that we give in each kinds interaction produce motivational conversation and inspirational analysation for the color in the beauty of life.
All-important topic on dynamical systems theory, nicely explored and explained. Great insights on emergence and top-down causation. But for me, there is less mystery about top-down (non-reductive) causation. It's that boring old c-word. Culture. Us humans don't realize the extent to which we are products of culture.
For all life, the top-down draws the bottom-up into more complex forms of expression. The top-down is the *knowing how to be*. All creatures enter into the world in innocence, and for mammals, mothers provide the first instructions on knowing how to be. For humans, culture is central to our knowing how to be. Culture provides the foundations for so much, from our epistemology and notions of being to our gender roles and sense of self.
To my way of thinking, culture is directly analogous to a thought, but at a higher level. Where CS Peirce says "The man is the thought", I extend the exact same rationale to infer that "the culture is the thought." Hence my metaphor that compares the brain as a colony of neurons to a city as a colony of people - both self-organize into their respective functional specializations.
And this brings us to the importance of semiotic (biosemiotic) theory in understanding consciousness and culture. Motivation, association (associative learning) and habituation are the properties that characterize thought, relating mind to body. Because bodies wire brains, we can now better understand why human mind-bodies, with vocal chords and hands and large brains, are subject to the complex top-down of human culture.
@@ROForeverMan I found the youtube, got to about half way for now, will watch the rest later. Yes, I agree with your outline of emergence. You mentioned several times in these CTT forums that "the brain does not exist", and you mention it again about 1 minute into your youtube. I'm not sure what you're getting at. ALL experiences relate to meaning, interpreted subjectively. When somebody uses the word "brain" to define what I understand as a colony of neurons, I know what they mean, so of course the brain exists, so I'm good with that. Though I reject the notion of a brain as a computer, to me, THAT does not exist. Everyone's different interpretations intersect at a common point, that lump of grey matter inside the skull atop our shoulders, and we can all agree to call it a brain. Semiotics 1:001, Linguistics 1:001.
@@ROForeverMan "But for the purpose of understanding existence is just a made-up story."
Do you support Donald Hoffman's interpretation? If so, then I think you might have one foot in the materialist camp without realizing it. Indeed, I regard his interpretation as a materialist one, despite his vitally important insight that reality is not what our senses tell us it is. Why? This outline introducing the video "The Case Against Reality":
"Do we see reality as it is? Cognitive psychologist, Donald Hoffman explains how our perceptions have evolved to become like a computer interface and what real-life implications this has today."
Hoffman speaks of this "computer interface" metaphor within the context of natural selection and adaptive traits, and the idea that illusory perceptions persist because they are "adaptive" to survival. I don't accept that at all. The perception of reality cannot be anything other than subjective, and thus illusory, and has nothing to do with adaptive traits. Bodies wire brains, and for that reason the way that we and other agent see the world is contingent on the kinds of experiences intercepted by bodies. It has absolutely zero to do with adaptive traits (though agents that make stupid choices are not favoured for survival - that's choice, nothing to do with "adaptive").
In one of these earlier CTT episodes (before I began commenting on this forum), I recall Robert Kuhn himself agonizing about how to interpret a room, and whether there was a "real" way of interpreting it. There isn't a "real" way to interpret a room. I call a room a room because it has utility to me as a room. A frog in my room, by contrast, does not see a room, and does not know what a room is, because said room has no utility to it. What I see as a straw hat, a caterpillar might see as a bunch of delicious dry grass to access as food. We see things in terms of their utility to us... this applies to every agent.
All that we ever have are assumptions, never truths. There is no escaping the subjectivity quagmire, ever. There is no true, "objective" way to see a room or a straw hat. Everything is defined by mind-bodies in the context of their utility. Semiotic theory - the properties of thought; motivation, association and habituation - explains why this is.
It’s kinda comforting to see someone much smarter than me struggle to explain mutual restraint satisfaction.
Non reductive physicality due to not knowing which butterfly is responsible for the tornado.
However on the surface, one can ride the unpredictability of the rapids in different rivers through skill sets.
Reducing the chaos to the river on not going in the ocean to be eaten by the shark.
Love this take on the complexity of the mind from brain. Makes me hungry just thinking about it. Lol
If the emergent process involves averaging, it would be impossible to work backwards to precisely reverse engineer to the source. For example, if I tell you that 10 is the average of two numbers it is impossible for you to discern what those two numbers are from only knowing the "end result". On top of that as we take it to the reductive limit, we come face to face with the uncertainty principle and the uncollapsed probability amplitude of the "wave function". So we are stymied at both ends of the equation.
@@ROForeverMan Please elaborate. I'm always willing to learn something new.
@@ROForeverMan My my! Then they must have had trouble counting before I was born.
@@ROForeverMan Well lets consider the number 6. Before there were minds there were 6-sided cubic crystals. So nature appears to have built in (ontological) characteristics that conform with whole numbers, whether there are minds around or not. So it is you who are confusing your speculations with knowledge: in speculating that because WE can only experience the world through our minds, the world does not exist without our minds. The old mistake of confusing the measured with the measurer.
@@ROForeverMan As I said. Don't confuse your speculations for knowledge. That fact that we have only one tool to "measure" the world means exactly that. It does not justify the leap in logic required to assert that: because we cannot be absolutely sure of anything beyond our perceptions that nothing exists independently of them.
@@ROForeverMan How brief? Can you summarize the main points in a couple of sentences? In the past I've seen a lot of "arguments" that tend to be rooted in semantics. Perhaps this is not the case for your position, and I remain open to being convinced. So again - respectfully and sincerely - what is the essence of your argument?
I love the hand gestures this guy makes. It's like he thinks that if he just says "Patterns!" and puts his hands up like he's casting a spell he'll be able to delude you as thoroughly as he is.
I know it just seems like a bunch of abstract terms
@@TheGrammarOfDesign The term abstract means (from + draw off), which is an exact description of emergence. If emergence is true (and i believe it is) then a fundamental truth about the universe is abstract in nature. In fact the universe may be something like an abstraction machine or engine, pumping out abstract forms that accrete or come together into "concrete" forms (abstract and concrete are relative terms, two sides of the same coin).
We as human individuals are abstractions of the activity executed at the systems level of the body, and the systems level is an abstraction of the activity and relationships between the organs, further down organized tissues abstract into organs, and those tissues are abstractions of different cell types interacting, etc.. It's the only real way that the universe can achieve higher forms of complexity.. without emergence we would still be stuck at level one.
I don't disagree, but I wish they'd
say more or listen to others with
less status than them that could
advance the plot while they say
the same thing for 30 years
@@TheGrammarOfDesign I agree, and i guess "Planck's principle" applies to philosophy as well as to science, or to anything else it seems. From a historical time scale perspective as opposed to an individual time scale, things are actually moving quite quickly imo. Besides, the mainstream perspective is usually not the leading edge perspective.
@@alexgonzo5508 The fact of some abstraction doesn't preclude its description by language. An abstraction is still the result of some complex formula that can be determined. You can't just hide behind newly applied words like "emergence" and "abstraction." Philosophically and morally, your position is indefensible. You assume there is more than what's there and then support the hegemonic cultural phenomenon that takes, as a fact (without any proof, evidence, or even a logical, coherent explanation without jumping behind some "ineffable whatever"), the existence of free will. But you know, whatever, people in Iran are executed every day, but it's okay because you still get to maintain your delusion. Cool.
The body is a microphone for the mind. A split mind needs a subject to perceive an objectwith which to perceive it. The subject is the body; the object is what the body senses through its sense organs.
Consciousness is exactly the phenomenon that fits this schema: It's a higher level of organization that cannot be explained by the actions of neurons alone.
the more you try to hide behind higher order complexity the worse off you are, since emergent properties of higher orders are much easier to observe than smaller true substrates of emergent properties.
Tell me how neurons firing together creates consciousness.@@backwardthoughts1022
The irony of the brain being so complex is the fact that it cannot understand its own complexity.
mainly because it didn't evolve to try and solve this particular problem.
@@rckflmg94
True, maybe the brain is the wrong tool for this job :)
@@ROForeverMan You don't exist. "You" are just an idea in consciousness, therefore "you" also can't be conscious, and must be an NPC in a solipsistic mind. /s
we have, to some extent, been able to isolate causal factors of a particular pattern despite it being a part of a dynamic system. I think we can continue to reduce physical phenomenon as technology increases - it's just a matter of time
We have two brains. Each observing the other creates an illusion of a self.
Wouldn't that create the illusion of two selves?
That implies that people with severe brain damage to one half would loose self awareness (or in your theory, one of the selves) since the observer in one half of the brain would die .. However you put it or frame it in a theory you will always have a very hard time explaining away the mind and consciousness in a strictly materialistic manner :)
In order for either of those "two brains" to observe each other, they would already need to have an illusion of self.
Dynamical Systems Theory, which is apparently broader in scope than the particular question, consciousness. However, an important framework/tool for considering consciousness. Great talk!
Brain is a concept created by mind. Therefore Impossible to be the inverse, by the law of non contradiction
When I hear this I wanna think something like Pareto distribution here right now, for the difference between deterministic and top-down causation: that if you change one small element in the network, it has big effects on the supposed top down causation, like Lorentz chaos theory. When you eliminate a bit of water molecules from water, it doesn't really impact the effect it has on its environment in a big way (Newtonian mechanics). The inner dynamics of chaos and turbulence might change, but a small flood is still a small flood. While in the brain it might make you hate your neighbor or love your neighbor, which totally changes the behavior. So less than 20% change in some structure causing more than 80% effect, would be defined as an element of top down causation. Just spitballing here
My point is you really need to define some sort of difference in causations, for it to be recognizable. All explanations lead to determinism, like all roads lead to Rome; this is ridiculous, so there is probably something wrong with our explanations. We need better thinking, and for that we need clear definitions of what is free, what is cause: and for that we need to define what is space, and what is time (how it works intrinsically). We need a coherent philosophy of space and time
Sounds like magic
I think this is a balanced position between physicalism and spiritualism.
Of course, balanced != true, so until any evidence is provided to the contrary, we should assume that our actions are determined by the laws of nature. To assume any more would be the result of a logic so slippery that I'd exploit it just to force you to accept that I'm the Messiah and then still tell you that you're wrong. To assume we have free will and then to subject an entire civilization to your baseless claim is an epistemological sin so grave that no person who commits it without repenting will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Haha, where was the "spiritualism" in his explanation???
Sounds like quite a testimony for the power of the evolutionary process that a living being can grow to this extent.
It's shameful that so many people want to believe magical and mystical explanations for consciousness rather than employ real science. Nowhere is confirmation bias more evident than that of conscious beings attempting to explain consciousness.
The possibility of strong emergence / downward causation should be posed to a mathematician. If it's mathematically possible I then I'd give it greater credence to it being physically possible.
I love Robert Kuhn's channel Closer to Truth. I wonder if some parts of reductionism can be unraveled as a person loses his mental faculty as death approaches? Does it all shut down at once or is there a gradual step by step diminishing of conscience?
To me it doesn’t really matter the physical process that gives us our “mind” but it’s fairly obvious that Consciousness is how the brain sorts out information from the senses. We need some way to sort out all this information coming in and to decipher if something is a danger to us or not. if you took a newborn baby and cut out it’s eyes so it can’t see. You cut out it’s ears so it can’t hear. Cut out it’s nose so it can’t smell. Cut out it’s tongue so it can’t taste. Cuts its nerves so it can’t feel. Then hook it up to machines so it can live. That person will never experience consciousness or any thoughts whatsoever. It won’t have a “mind” Just a puddle of living cells. It has no reference to anything to form thoughts. What is consciousness without any of those references? Nothing. Our thoughts are based on languages we heard. Visions we saw. Smells we smelled. Things we touched. Tastes we tasted. It’s a pretty cool evolutionary thing how the brain forms thoughts out of our senses to keep our species going. It kinda scares me seeing how many people believe in the hocus pocus theories like consciousness is some mystical dimension our brains are antennas to. Or that humans share one common consciousness. Can dogs tap into it too? Or is only the almighty special human brain that can make use of this grand consciousness dimension that permeates the whole universe. 🍆✊✊
fat protein and electricity in infinite combination cant sit themselves in such a way that they arise as subjectivity
He talks about constraints on physical processes, what constraints physical processes in a certain way that they can produce mind and consciousness? These guys are funny.
100%
The electric charge constrains physical process.
@@kos-mos1127 Electricity isn’t made of and by matter though.
when we compare a simple lifeform(single cell organisms) to highly intelligent organisms, such as humans, the differences are so vast that make relation of the two forms almost unrelated... in both cases, nucleic acids seem to play an important role in their behavior, on first thought, but epigenetic factors/interactions could also be considered as a stimulus to higher complexity... it seems as such high level complex functionality is, at least partly, influenced by outside factors, as well...
@@ROForeverMan they do seem to have a role in the development of consciousness, though... amd why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over...🙄
@@ROForeverMan according to you, if everything is an idea of your mind then what difference is between one character or the other... :)
why is it so important for everyone to think like you, though...
@@ROForeverMan ok then, if the truth is as you claim, can you explain "anything" just by your mind without typing(voice typing included)... if everything is part of mind then you don't need any external accessories to communicate at all, you don't even require your brain to do it, right...
@@ROForeverMan at some point, one has to walk outside the cave and confront the shadows :) ✌
finally making sense!!
This is just a convoluted attempt to avoid the obvious fact that you are not a brain. However you want to define "mind", there must be a _you_ experiencing all your experiences; and you are not an "emergent property" or a sensation or a pattern or a system, because properties, sensations, and patterns don't have experiences. You must be a concrete object that can interact with your brain, and the rest of your body.
I get the impression that the two of them spent the entire interview talking past each other.
He says consciousness is a physical property. He has it backwards. The material world including our physiologies arise from a preexisting, uncreated, eternal field of pure, absolute consciousness, which in it's self-referral dynamics of knowing itself, creates all that we experience in relative creation. Every relative aspect of reality is just some iteration of consciousness. This is the Vedic model.
@@ROForeverMan th-cam.com/video/pdUwywEbKU0/w-d-xo.html
Might the language and logic capabilities of the human mind be developed from mathematic characteristics of particles and neurons in physical brain?
Here's a teaser for us. If consciousness is to be understood in terms of complex adaptive systems, colonies of cells and mind-bodies making choices, why don't plants have brains? The reasons why plants don't have brains include the following:
1) They rely on a very distributed form of energy, sunlight, than denies them the energy-intensive excesses that brains require;
2) Their only form of motion is in growing. Watch a speeded up movie of a grape vine growing, and notice how it feels its way along, reaching for things to hang onto, almost like it's intentional;
3) Other kinds of plants that are carnivorous, like the venus fly trap, can afford to be more active, and you can see their choice-making in action. Their access to energy is still limited, though, and so you won't catch any of these guys with brains;
4) Plants are abundant, their only predators are vegetarians. In a thriving ecosystem, their survival is not threatened, they can thus afford to luxuriate in sunlight and soil as their only source of nourishment;
5) Anchored at the root, they stay put, and so their movements are very slow and limited. Because their choices are simple and limited, they do not require dedicated brains to make sense of complex worlds, and they can afford to "distribute" their brain throughout their leaves and roots;
6) In contrast to plants, animals that get up and move around require much more energy, and they require dedicated cells to make sense of worlds that are vastly more complex. That's why animals require dedicated organs, as brains, to cognise their mind-body experiences, and plants do not.
Images and sounds are made from photons and sound vibratory mechanism patterns. One cannot think without images(photons arranged in patterns) and voice sound (vibrations arranged in patterns)
And SO anything that is smaller than photons and extremely high frequency vibrations can make MIND and also come consciousness.
lol is a photon already red or does it only turn red when it makes a red image
Could particles and neurons in physical brain have mathematic characteristics that lead to consciousness? Mathematics from probabilities in quantum fields that after measurement become determined quantities in space associated with particles and neurons?
The way neurons are structured into a networks produces conscious which creates bottom up and top down feedback loop.
@@ROForeverMan Hahaha. And neither does the keyboard that people type on to share their goofy claims.
@@ROForeverMan goofy!!!
How does a tiny ant < 2mm long with a brain probably invisible to the human eye expose such evidence of emotional intelligence by displaying 'fear' and 'enthusiasm' and so on? 'Humanity' has yet to grasp the remarkable emotional intelligence of insects. Some flies for example display extraordinary intelligence and group behaviour. A local pigeon waited 3 days for its intrepid companion to be released from the café where I clean tables for a living. Go figure! (edit: BTW AI - aka artificial idiocy - does not even hold a candle to such tiny insects, and let's face it, most likely never will.)
Man defines the "Intelligence" category. This is why Man, not ants, is the only known intelligence in the Universe.
Consciousness, free will & nature are simply functions of the Mind of an ENTITY.
Animals & Man are PHYSICAL entities ... with PHYSICAL minds( brain) and their own type of free will, nature & conscious of the PHYSICAL environment.
But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE .. with a brain so fine tuned that the Mind of Man is more than just the brain. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA ... but can not think & do 1% of what Man can.
Natural functions & thermodynamic systems ... prove the "physical" Universe & Life was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence ( like Man).
The mind of an intelligence ... is UNNATURAL & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit).
And this is all most need to understand Man's origin, form, mind & consciousness.
The Mind of Man ... is natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul).
Man is body & soul ... just a Genesis told us 3400 years ago.
Jesus ( Son of God) told us nearly 2000 years ago the the Mind of Man is body & soul, which is why He could not have a corrupt Human Body.
"Love God with all your ... heart, mind, & soul."
The body can "love" or "hate" God.
Most do not need to know how the brains work They only need to know that the brain is a machine that needs to be healthy and functioning correctly ... to have free will, nature & consciousness
And .. that God did make Man on the 6th Day of Creation ... less than 6000 years ago. Time is running out.
God had a reason for the 6 day creation & the 7th will be for Him, and saying 1 day is like 1000 years. Jesus the Son of God returns for a 1000 year reign before Judgement Day.
And the current Jewish year since the fall of Man is 5782.
It's always been a 7 x 1000 years "Salvation" plan. All will reject God when the 7 000 years is up and so God will Judge all who rejected Him.
There is always the macro and the micro. To this regard our experience as humans is not greater or even different than other life forms or elements of the universe. Consciousness may exist in physical form, but only in quantum realms. With this example we might ponder how quantum fields effect larger ones, or if they do at all. While brain and mind might be two different things they may work together to create a whole that might be as hard to separate as blue and red being in purple. Once combined they can no longer be reduced to separate parts. Lot’s to think about here; yes?
the mind is not a "thing". It is simply a word we use to describe the whole package of mental phenomena (thoughts, feelings, awareness, etc.) that is produced by the brain and is located in the brain.
That hand work feels like he's casting a spell on me
Imo, once there is life, there is some level/ degree of what Brown is talking about here operating in the organism.
It’s your Black-Body Robert… When you Compress reality, @ a certain threashold, light appears from Nothing, which makes Exclusion Zones and Radiant Light… It’s “MAGNIFICENT”… Glorious… Hydro-Magnetic-Sonoluminescent-INTELLIGENCE/CONSCIOUSNESS… Wet-Ware and it’s “sticky-icky,” just like my weed… Hahaha…
Plus, the “Like-Likes-Like Principle,” phase transitioning depending on “Incidental Light”… Big or small, doesn’t matter…
You better learn “droplets” and “Bubbles”… Vescicles (4th phase of water, pollack, 2013)…
PS: This is first principled Photosynthesis… Quantum Gravitized Plasma/Water…
My son told me a long time ago that, “Gravity Falls, Just Like My Water”…
I love the “Rainmaker”…
We all love you “Father… (-) Masculine Vacuum Energy For Dominion!…! RA!!! 369 So Mote It Is!
Did you hear this Sabine? Your precious particle interactions are not the arbiters of reality. The whole controls the parts, not the other way around.
Reality exists in this form were experiencing and consciousness is a product of reality just so happen your dealing with the effects of the earth and SUN dynamics
Brain does not make mind, these are two different entities.
You're correct. I reversed an executive function disorder back in 2012, it was only possible for me to access my mind when I supplemented my endocannabinoid system with fuel my body stopped producing, natrually.
@@907-q7u what do you mean by "access my mind"? How could you function without being able to access it?
Probably true, but no concrete evidence to support.
If you don't mind me asking, tell me the roles of the brain and the mind. Can the mind exist without a brain? What is the substrate of the mind if it is not the neural networks of the brain? Do you have a true understanding of a separate mind, or is it just what you believe without ever questioning?
@@TwistersSK8 that's sumtin you can only understand when you really understand what 'mind' really is about.
Loon Kuhn thinks there's a threshhold arrangement of lifeless particles properly arranged such that adding one more properly placed particle sets off awareness and consciousness 😆
@@ROForeverMan My post is for all the materialists in the comments. Loon Kuhn plays a character in his videos. He can't state a position because he wants everyone to have a say in his videos no matter how loony their position is.
Daniel Dennett is probably the worst of the worst in the materialists clown car
Repeat after me, emergent non-reductive, emergent non-reductive …..now we can discuss what emerges without having to reduce (full understand) it. It strikes me as being like phenomenology in philosophy.
A confused explanation. He says consciousness is not reductive while explaining consciousness as if it were reductive.
@@ROForeverMan Yours is an interesting presentation. As you observe, mind and reality are in every sense identical. Since the mind cannot transcend itself, there is simply no intelligible way to speak of a truly mind-independent reality. This makes ontology inseparable from epistemology. That inescapable fact is one that science cannot ultimately avoid and will have no choice but to acknowledge and incorporate in any final statement about reality.
does brain make mind?
perhaps brain receives mind.
Man, even Stretch Armstrong is powerless to make any of this make sense. Next.
made sense to me. The problem is that we are so accustomed to have nice, little answers spelled out for us so we don't have to think very hard about it.
@@rckflmg94 Respectfully, his argument is that consciousness is physical and emergent, but *cannot be reduced to its underlying physical substructure*. This would be the only case in history where a physical entity cannot be explained or reduced to an underlying physical existence. Hair sits on skin which sits on tissue which sits on muscle which sits on skeleton which sits on cells. Sheetrock sits on framing which rests on a foundation that sits on the earth. Etc etc. To say that consciousness is both physical and simultaneously irreducible is a contradiction in terms. It straddles the middle and falls off the fence.
@@cloud1stclass372 I think it's more the case that our brains were not designed to comprehend or fully explain such mysteries. That doesn't mean the mystery is resolved by panpsychism or quantum mechanics. It simply means that its an emergent physical phenomenon that's created by a material brain but we may never know how it works.
@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired Ha, I like this. It’s like he’s doing Qigong exercises.
always be time and place of a hexagone correct at charge
People adore telling stories and listening to them. Science fiction has its place.
🕊
It’s the other way. Mind makes brain. But hey. None of that really matters
"Which part of a bowl 🥣 do you use? The shell, or the part that's empty?"
Which of these two things (shell and emptiness) is actually a thing? Is a hole 🕳 a thing or the absence of things?
It's hard to identify "things" , "the absence of things", and the "relationships" between things. Is mind a "thing", a "relationship between things (brain and Nature)", or the "absence of things"? Is mind the "absence of brain" that makes the brain like the shell of a bowl 🥣?
Is brain the spacetime that allows for mind, or is mind the spacetime that allows for brain?
Any object can have positive or negative qualities (or lack thereof), but is not reducible to either of them.
@@vauchomarx6733 is emptiness an object?
Just the probabilities due to choice or free will would greatly complicate any model you may assume to be predictable. Even if we could be given the physical information for every existing charge, molecule or structure, conscious freedom to choose anything would greatly change multiple local systems at any moment not to consider every conscious living free will organism that exist are constantly changing their environments.
I occasionally wonder if the kid behind the simulation has met his first girlfriend yet. Maybe his simulator gets stolen and sold for parts. It's fun to ponder these things and I'm sure research will provide application worthy data but, the big question about the source, creator or natural events responsible understanding how some things came to be may never be known. Even the creator might have to predict future models based on spontaneous physics unless he has certain unbreakable limits or parameters in place to avoid a run away creation.
I like the idea that we are all part of a cosmic consciousness of an unimaginably large scale that just exists and our experiences are how it grows and lives. Parasitic freedom of will where the host feels, experiences and learns through us.
lol
Classical physics just doesn't by itself explain the mind and never will. It must include Quantum physics.
Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1.gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, body and intellect 3.Soul.Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.
There are four levels, four basic parts: Body, Emotion, Intellect, Will.
That's the four elements Earth, Water, Air and Fire respectively.
Will/intent is the part that can't die & continues between incarnations.
Ancient religion? Really? Haha
@@rckflmg94 Ancient Chimpanjee really!
The brain doesn't make the mind. The mind gets help from the brain to make a bigger mind. I know sounds like nonsense but it's still not disproven.
How brain makes mind? Nobody knows. Yet, what we know is that the mind is made by the brain activity, which is extremely complex. I don’t think that we as humans will ever be able to figure out how the brain creates the mind. We also know how the brain functions to some detail, but consciousness and mind? Nop.
... if you don't know how it does then you don't know that it does
I don't even know if it's worth the time to address this type of position. These people have caught themselves up in a net of words that they *reaaaally* hope actually mean something...
... but they don't. They have deluded themselves in an attempt to preserve some sense of free will, which they apparently desperately need.
But what more can you expect from someone who works as a researcher at a Theological Seminary? They are delusional enough to believe some baseless theology, so this desperate attempt isn't really so shocking. They will do anything to avoid reality.
We are just programs running on brain neurons instead of logic gates in CPU.
Imagine:
You are Windows
Body is whole computer.
Most of You is in CPU as emergent function.
From simplicity comes complexity.
@@ROForeverMan ideas in consciousness don't exist??? hmm..you thought that through?
Yea, no 🤣 .... not that one shouldn't speculate though.
My view, with limited understanding, Human being as united dualisme reality. On top level mind as non objective reality and body as objective reality on the bottom level ,human being energi = awarrness/ cognition energi + body mekanisme energi.
I wonder in how many of these vids is Robert a little tipsy 🤔
Watchin this ive realised tht when i glaze over its not always because the other person is crazy. its also because im to dumb to understand
or maybe it's all nonsense
the pimps of the dominant apes called me today, they told me: you have no chance in the apes' paradise, it is only for the apes ! lucky apes !
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: Fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Proverbs 3:5-7 KJV
And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:7 KJV
Yeah! Non-reductive properties! How about that!
A sand castle is made of sand, but the properties of sand don't describe the castle! There is nothing about the sand that produced the sand castle!
@@ROForeverMan I will!
@@ROForeverMan can you post a link, I can't find it!
@@ROForeverMan yes, I see! Sand Castles don't emerge from sand! They are a product of intelligent beings!
A function is a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outputs ... and has sent purpose, form, design, & properties ( INFORMATION).
Anything that has clear & obvious purpose, form, properties &design .. is a Function ... that can only be made by an intelligence( like Man).
Everything in the Universe is a Function.
Everything in the Universe possesses & needs INFORMATION to exist & to function
Everything comes from the mind of an intelligence, which is unnatural & non-physical ( ie spirit & soul).
Man is body & soul.
The mind of Man .. is body & soul.
Te mind of God who made Man in His likeness .... is spirit.
Consciousness, free will & nature are simply functions of the MIND of an Entity.
The type of Entity determines what type of Mind it has.
Sand is simply a physical function and can be used by an intelligence to make a sand castle which is also a Function with set purpose, form, properties & DESIGN.
Iron ore is a Function that an intelligence like Man can make simple machines (functions) like a nail, screw, lever.
Elemental particles are functions ... that are the building blocks for atoms which are also Functions ... that are building blocks for elements which are functions ... which are the building blocks for .... etc, etc.
@@abelincoln8885 agreed! However a bit off topic. Does the sand produce the sandcastle? Does the brain produce consciousness? According to this genius consciousness emerges from the brain. Like a sand castle emerges from sand?
Too much mental speculation leads to non-reductive nonsense.
I think he's got the beginning of an idea and he tries to give it substance but he can't, he gets lost in verbiage and convolution instead ... or maybe it's me lol.
Mind makes brain. You should know that. Mind makes directed working mechanisms. The brain is a directed working mechanism. This is elementary.
that makes no sense whatsoever
@@ROForeverMan that's merely an hypothesis. Idealism is a useless, dead end idea.
@@ROForeverMan well I mean it’s obvious you don’t have one.
it is more complicated than that, the apes have no chance to comprehend right now, whatever they do, something similar to what is going on in physics, there are many mistakes and lack of good understanding even of the basics, for instance there is no chance for making any real progress in science without finding a solution for both space and time, time us solvable but space, momentum, ..... will take time, they will stay as storytellers for a long time (their current job) + thievery.
both relativity and quantum physics are just a wrappers similar to so-called Newtons' laws.
there were a good scientists in the past but not any more (more complicated) the only solution right now is waiting for the emergence of a real scientists) that means the emergence of real rational intelligent human entities and for many reasons that is very unlikely, so probably the apes will stay apes forever (happy apes' paradise).
If you understand how a city functions with all its strategic importance as only one person, then, you might have a little understanding of how a brain functions.
except that a city (if analogous to a living organism) is not aware of itself or anything at all.
It doesn't have any experiences. It cannot experience anything.
@@rckflmg94 it depends how you think about it. The people, the acting population, that makes a city live and experience, no different d than organisms.
@@owencampbell4947 it's very different. Individual organisms such as humans have thoughts, feelings, and desire. A "city" is just an abstract social construct that we've all agreed upon.
@@rckflmg94 you need to go beyond your thinking, to understand more how things function. Not every system has to be of biological nature.
@@owencampbell4947 anything with awareness requires a complex system and substrate. Roads and buildings don't cut it.
What is this hand-wavy nonsense? Failed to explain how object (brain, matter) generates subejct (conscious awareness; capacity to perceive and experience). Just another "mutation" on physicalism that's not going anywhere (except the trash can) lol.
Nebecanezzar's statute starts at the top then is described downward. So then what gives thinking to the brain? I would say conscience. I believe conscience comes from God, Jesus Christ.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans 2:14-16 KJV
Yet you can have a conscience that goes against God, Jesus Christ.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:1-2 KJV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:18-32 KJV
still either/or vs both but neither...
top-down causation/reverse logic vs bottom-up causation/logic, that reductionism can be studied applied modeled either way more than just what our as if limited to a bottom-up atomistic maximum resolution Planck's constant current level approach might imply...
this approach being especially problematic within the consideration of for example my interest in the patterned archetypical Jungian structures of our inner psychology where a more yin/aether/alchemical/top-down approach, an approach starting at the other end of the spectrum, at where reductionism is applied at the foundational differentiated perspective of yin/yang...
yin, our relatedness-seeking desire for meaningfulness, which to the degree we can experience meaningfully as a sub-part of ourselves through the modeled lens of being the union/product with yang...
yang, our desire to seek empowerment, our enjoyment of being competitive this patterned into our drive/necessity to eat, for us to harvest consume that which life provides...
so agree about the need for, to add back, a top-down approach, however, as in might the contrast from both be better than an absolute of either/or...
That is the longest obfuscation of the phrase, "I don't know" I have ever heard. No one yet knows the answer to this question. Describing a thing and saying how a thing works are not the same.
👌
@@ROForeverMan No you don’t.
Useless.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If you can replace "emergent" with "magical" and nothing about what you are saying changes, then you are not explaining anything at all.
Getting less and less interesting , u need to ask relevant questions,
If empathy cannot be reducible to cells , or connections of cells, nothing can. This guy is grasping at straws.
You need someone literate to write your video titles. "How brain makes mind?" is not proper English.
The brain does not make mind. The brain is a translation device, an interface. Mind is manifested by the interface and not made by it.
Haha, no.
Donald Hoffman words?
@@jareknowak8712 No idea who that is. My conclusions based on mythology, religion and commonly known facts.
@@rckflmg94 Very constructive comment. Thanks so much!
@@ROForeverMan Well you must spend some time observing a neurosurgeon at work.
flopped
Without responsibility people are self serving and opportunistic. It's just a fact. Don't even try to say that some people need the fear of God to be good because the problem with society is godless self serving opportunistic people.
Doing or refraining from doing to satisfy an apparent God for fear of retribution is also self-serving. The only effectively selfless living that I can conceive at present is the dissolution of separate self, so that one sees all beings and all things as One Being. Even then, technically actions serve this greater Self, but at least not at the expense of other individuals. Believe it or not, the idea of personal responsibility is not actually required. If people can accept inherent Oneness, or _dependent arising,_ then they can live without duty in the name of All -- in pure Love.
@@FalseCogs You went from a projection and plunged into word salad. It's not self serving to serve others. It's work. Many people give up their lives for the sake of others. That's what being useful is. Everything and everybody are not the same. Some people give while others take. To say everything is one is a lie. There is good and bad, right and wrong. There is sweet sour and foul. You can't sugar coat filth.
@@JungleJargon These words speak in pure, unadulterated ego. Not everyone is ready to let go. Take care.
@@FalseCogs Speak for yourself.
@@JungleJargon Speak for yourself indeed. The godless are not the problem.