Will we ever be able to provide data explaining consciousness? What do you think? To watch the full debate visit iai.tv/video/the-new-science-of-consciousness?TH-cam&+comment
It's a young science and it's too early to predict whether we'll ever know these answers for certain. I expect the best tools for experimenting on consciousness will involve stimulating various subsets of neurons of conscious humans to try to correlate particular neural activity to particular mental experiences, but those experiments will presumably be constrained by ethical concerns. Kastrup's argument about decreased brain activity correlating with increased mental activity seems nonsensical for two reasons: (1) there's no accepted way to measure the amount of ”mental activity,” and (2) some of the decreases of brain activity may have been in parts of the brain that ordinarily suppress the abnormal kinds of mental activity that Kastrup claimed ”increased.”
I am actually optimistic that (one day) consciousness will be explained and will be persuasive to people who are currently on all sides of the argument. What kinds of data that explanation will involve, I am not sure. But I think traditional science/engineering/maths methods will get us there. No magic is needed. Just some conceptual leaps, and lots of clever engineering. The ultimate test will be creating something that is consciousness.
Consciousness is a calculator that receives information, absorbs information, and output information within 3 moments. And that process is mentioned in Buddhism in detail.
Consciousness -- not to be confused with self-consciousness, ie how we react to our own behaviour -- is simply awareness, the 5 senses & their interactions, sth we share with many other creatures. So there's nothing needing explaining here beyond the reasons why some ppl insist on creating problems & mysteries where there are none - and that's a problem for sociologists, psychologists & psychiatrists.
It is hilarious that Bernardo is pretending that the relational quantum mechanics proves his viewpoint, when relational quantum mechanics is a physicalist interpretation that views _physical reality_ (not "minds") as dependent upon reference frame at all times, so physical things do not exist independent of something physical they are interacting with used as a frame of reference (again, not "minds"). What is closer to Bernardo's view of Zeilinger's "informational interpretation," which does indeed speak of "knowledge" of the "observer" and not of physical _things._ Zeilinger, along with several other authors, even wrote in one paper that they think quantum mechanics shows there is no "reality independent of the observer." That is closer to Bernardo's view than Rovelli's view that there _is_ an objective physical reality independent of the reserve, but that reality is relational (as a property of physical reality).
Patricia Churchland completely misrepresents Bernardo's view from the start. Badly. I was embarrassed for her while I had to listen to that...whatever that is. And Carlo Rovelli, as much as I enjoy him, again, he does not understand this philosophy at all. Very disappointing. Again, Kastrup is the only one here that has any idea how this works.
Who is Patricia? She comes across as a screeching politician with no idea what she's talking about - trying to use physics to show a meta-physics is such a blatant misunderstanding of why it is even called meta-physics in the first place. Experiments can point here, but not prove. Having no practical effect is basically the same as a student in maths class going "but when am I gonna need trigonometry in real life??!!".
It is hilarious that Bernardo is pretending that the relational quantum mechanics proves his viewpoint, when relational quantum mechanics is a physicalist interpretation that views _physical reality_ (not "minds") as dependent upon reference frame at all times, so physical things do not exist independent of something physical they are interacting with used as a frame of reference (again, not "minds"). What is closer to Bernardo's view of Zeilinger's "informational interpretation," which does indeed speak of "knowledge" of the "observer" and not of physical _things._ Zeilinger, along with several other authors, even wrote in one paper that they think quantum mechanics shows there is no "reality independent of the observer." That is closer to Bernardo's view than Rovelli's view that there _is_ an objective physical reality independent of the observer, but that reality is relational (as a property of physical reality). It is Bernardo who does not have a basic understanding of philosophy. A lot of PhD philosophers fall into this camp. There is a complete obsession in academia with ancient philosophers from the 1700s and prior, with very little interaction with later philosophy that developed to actually address these questions. Rovelli comes from a background with heavy influence from Wittgensteinian philosophy, Bognadov's empriomonism, and Engels' dialectical materialism, something which you and I both know neither you nor Kastrup has never even scratched the surface of before. The fact you still think there is even a mind-body problem in the 21st century just shows how you have never touched a book in your life from the 19th century and beyond, a problem with most academic philosophers who always want to incessantly bring up Kantian categories as if they are relevant today.
I always found complexity of the brain to be a magical argument. If you look at humans as black boxes with input and output, you might assume an algorithm that is able to completely mimic human behavior. Would that then be an equivalent? Is the impostor the same as the real thing? Well, if you conveniently remove all introspection from your observation - the thing closest related to consciousness - then you might belief that for quite some time until you start to see more and more contradictions, the more you research (thinking psychedelics and brain activity). Thinking that quantuum computation is not needed for consciousness seems reasonable at first glance, but is defended with (implicit) self-looping arguments: a) Because we do not observe the brain to do anything that isn't computable and we see that neurons do compute, it must be a result or side-effect of computation. b) (Example) Oh, parapsychological findings can not be real because we know that the brain is solely input-computation-output-based and childrens reincarnation stories are probably a mixture between a childs phantasy and information they picked from their surroundings (notice the convenient "random input generation"-argument called phantasy). Because we know it can't be, therefore we don't look at it. If you don't see the indications, you don't actually know the theory sufficiently well. How do single-celled organisms process information and decide upon actions? They don't have a brain. Can it all be chemical cascades and proteins twerking? spoiler: if you insist on it, you can try to find the cascade or assume it till you die. The reason you don't see the need is because you excluded all the things from your worldview that support it. If your assumptions are biased, so are your conclusions. No offence, just my observation about most peoples thinking process. I'm also sure not to be innocent of this myself in all areas
One of the most compelling things about BK is that his own idealism ribs him of his one consolation which is oblivion . If anyone has suffered from genuine existential angst which I certainly have and BK has talked about then the one thing that many people fear ie oblivion is our consolation . BK is positing a point of view that robs him of his own consolation. Not many people push a view like that . ✌️
It's literally the opposite, BK has repeatedly argued that subjective experience persists after death, he even argues it here. He is clearly pushing a view that is consoling.
the more fundamental question that is always missed in these kinds of debates is: what evidence is there that linguistically framed concepts are necessary and sufficient to describe reality itself and are not just a hall of mirrors reflecting themselves arbitrarily and ad infinitum without any ability to describe anything other than other concepts?
The law of the instrument, indeed. I'm also thinking that even when we're asking a question involving "reality", we assume that concept exists. We might not understand it when we find it, but do we even understand what we're looking for?
@@lasselasse5215 exactly! the irony is that it is perfectly possible to experience "reality" and our identity with it, the only requirement being that we let concepts and conceptual thinking subside.
The account in philosophy of science of concepts that represent reality is that their mechanism is isomorphic with the structure of the relevant natural entity. That might be the case, but it's difficult to think on how we could compare both at all. That's how I feel at least, but what do I know?
Bernardo Kastrup is not fundamentally expressing a new view in the science of consciousness, as his philosophy of science is simply a reiteration of idealism in how he views such a science.
He is very transparent about his philosophy not being original. He said many times that he doesn't feel like he has invented or discovered anything, but surely there is great value in connecting contemporary empirical evidence and express those ideas in modern and coherent language. He surely excels in that.
Bernardo Kastrup is brilliant. I'm a Hyperian Idealist and everything Bernardo says falls perfectly within that line of reasoning. Reality is fundamentally mind.
Yes, we need to learn and re-member to have direct access to the other stations of the mind. The subconscious ,unconscious, non-conscious and the dreaming mind, these are interdimensional memory matrices. The conscious mind is a very thin layer that is phase-locked from the others. It cannot understand anything on its own. Good luck everybody 👍👽
Marco you are locked into the physicalist view of reality ignoring a vast body of knowledge and evidence that would expand your views. Research, research and you will discover. Put subatomic particles aside for a moment please and view Piergiorgio Caria videos on TH-cam.
One thing I'd like to point out in these talks is the colloquial use of the word consciousness. My understanding is that consciousness refers to introspection and meta-cognition, whereas sentience refers to the inner subjective experience. I find that people often use the word consciousness when they're actually talking about sentience. So, all living things have sentience and an inner experience, but only certain animals (like humans) have some level of self aware consciousness.
If allowed a flower will bloom but if there's no reason to let it begin propagation and is harvested for a wedding before its cycle has finished is the flower a flower or just part of the plant ?
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Not sure either, but I've watched him 100 times, and he is meticulous about his references and data, during the interviews, this was a shortened clip from a longer interview which I've yet to see.
Hey ! Im curious.. for how long are you going to ignore the voices that carry real weight regarding the questions of consciousness ? Great that you are bringing on Kastrup, but why on earth is not Jay Garfield present here or on any of your other panels regarding this subject. JAY GARFIELD - write the name down. Invite him and get som serious movement.
"Will we ever be able to provide data explaining consciousness?" Yes. I think we can safely abandon any propositions that dualism is a fact. I abandon that only reluctantly, though, because no one wants dualism to be a fact more than I do. If dualism is NOT a fact, then the "secret" to consciousness is that there's no real secret. Consciousness is a finite thing, it's all contained inside a brain, and that appears to be reverse-engineerable -- a matter of asking the right questions, and going through enough dead-end hypotheses to get there. I don't necessarily like that proposition. But the truth of the matter doesn't care whether I like it or not.
@@pandawandas Which idealism: subjective or objective? Objective idealism is a version of dualism. Subjective idealism is consistent with evolution, and may imply dualism, but doesn't require it.
I don't buy into materialism at all. Consciousness is not within the boundaries of materialism. If you can define who I am as a person using materialism....than please enlighten me.....
She asks what does panpsychism offer to your practical life? Well instead of experiencing yourself as an epiphenomenal bag of chemicals, you would experience your own field of awareness as a complex manifestation of a fundamental property of the universe, which reaches all the way down into the building blocks of matter. And maybe you wouldn’t go around moaning to people about how insignificant and small and meaningless life is in a reductionistic malaise.
Although, it's not necessarily the case that consciousness is epiphenomenal if it's emergent, although some people might say so. I say this because one account of mental power is the idea that consciousness is useful because our brains perceive the whole of conscious experiences to extract information from it. That makes consciousness an entity with value that, even if emergent, if we lacked the relevant brain structures to produce it we would indeed lose something important for our cognition.
Ask Bernardo, if all living things in the universe died or were not formed in the first place, would the universe still exist (stars, planets, space/time, etc)?
What we see as physical universe is not everything that exists. It is only a surface area that emerges from deeper underlying reality. So the bodies of living things in the physical universe is only a Representation of an underlying metaphysical/virtual/informational reality. So to answer your question, if all physical living bodies die, the underlying metaphysical universe will not die, but it's physical Representation will not be rendered to any physically living entity. To conclude - our physical space-time universe is not fundamental, it is only a Representation of underlying metaphysical reality.
@@semyonNomis "our physical space-time universe is not fundamental, it is only a Representation of underlying metaphysical reality." Sure, but why would anyone call it conscious? Suppose it was only quantum fields. I don't think I can call quantum fields conscious. It would be like calling an ocean conscious. Again, if there were no living things in the universe, why would you call the underlying metaphysical foundation of reality conscious? As the one speaker said, there are bicycles in the universe. Does the underlying foundation of reality have bicycle-ness?
@@gabrielteo3636 they are conscious in so far as they are experiential or qualitative in nature. Experience is our one ontological given it’s the most obvious thing. Bernardo is not postulating anything radical, it’s the physicalists who postulate an exhaustively abstract existence called matter for which we have no account. He is simply being as parsimonious as possible.
@@spike1910 "He is simply being as parsimonious as possible." If he was being as parsimonious as possible he would be a soplipsist. This is what I think, assuming solopsims is wrong, and there is an external something outside our heads, it really appears only living things which have brains of a certain type have this thing we call consciousness. It appears the things that have no consciousness affect out brains that alter our consciousness greatly for instance drugs, electrical stimulation and surgery. When we look around us we see lots of things not conscious and incredibly few things that are conscious. Inductively, the universe is probably not conscious. In almost all of science it is believed consciousness is an emergent thing from brains of a sufficient size and complexity. How would you be able to falsify idealism? Suppose you were able to transfer your consciousness to an android do a bunch of stuff and then transfer the memories of that experience back to your biological self. Would that falsify Bernardo's idealism? Right now it is just a theory with no novel testable predictions behind it. Sure you have eliminated matter/energy/space and time, but what good is it except making you feel better?
@@gabrielteo3636 "How would you falsify idealism?" I'm not an idealist, but you could ask the same question about physicalism. If all phenomenon are presumed to have a physical explanation, how would you show any non-physical phenomenon? Falsification is only a valid criterion for scientific theories, not metaphysical ones.
To me, consciousness isnt as hard as people make it out to be. think of a paramecium, or other single-cell organism. They can search for food, and run away from bad things in the environment, like high or low PH. From this point, everything can be explained from darwinistic evolution. Most of what we think of as human consciousness, is just emotions coming from seratonin, oxytocin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Memories, especially, very short-term, a second-by-second account of our reality interacting with senses account for what we "see" and experience. So, in this respect, its "life itself" that is conscious, and yes there seems to be a barrier in our understanding here. But, i would argue, its not as big as we think. If you read "Nick Lane", and "Lee Cronin" (lots of TH-cam videos) ... you will see that life can come from molecular complexity. and that complexity itself seems to be a fundamental property of the universe.
1)Pansychism 2)Dualism 3)Non-reductive Physicalism 4)Integrated Information Theory Occam's Razor would tell me that the simplest and most trivial is 1 but the progression to 4 would tell me that some form of mechanism; or enactivation of the laws of nature into more complex structures is why brains are special. The secret sauce of animal brains is the ability to move or the emergence of "happenness". Time is the secret sauce that our own thought and language folds back.
@@namero999 Lol, really? Go solve the decombination/decomposition problem. Guess what? You will never do it because it entails a logical contradiction.
I believe self concenciousness is a result of multiple complex feedback. And I am very sadly impressed it can be suppressed using mass media manipulations. As called social engineering
I hate those manipulations one can not see where it comes from. Is like self igniting fire that can be made of phosphorus diluted in toluene. Once is evaporated phosphorus self ignitate
these two physicists should read the text written by Indian sages/Rishis. What is nonduality? how your karma affects your next birth/next moment. else explain me why two new born baby one in a rich and another in a poor family, one live lavish life and another in hardships. why someone is having extraordinary capabilities since birth? if nothing goes beyond this life then all of us should have better life. Abstract noun can't be measure but they are real! love, anger...Any Indian understand this without any objection. Bernardo is left alone to tackle such people who need evidence, we ourselves are evidence, what else u need.
1:28 can you prove with experiments that you have emotions or that you are conscious? obviously not. the scientific method cannot determine what exists and what doesnt. scientists should step up their thinking otherwise they will become just as hard-headed as dogmatic religious people. im not saying that we should just find truth with intuition however i think that bernardo is way ahead with his thinking then these two scientists are.
Depends on what your standard is for proof. We can prove that animals like humans have emotions to the same extent that we can prove something like cigarette smoking increases the chances of developing cancer. Differences in hormones, neural transmitters, and other physiological states indicate emotional states. Emotional states do not necessarily rely on consciousness.
Respected scientist and philosophers,firstly we should be open and question any and every idea . Now the point she made where are the data and where are proof ? Why should I belive this ? My counter question to her are we not limited by senses ,perception , intelligence .. Now their are lot of unsolved maths,science questions some deny the general rule of physics too . Now when we are limited by our capabilities how can we be so sure that what we know is exact truth? So,I am not saying to accept any idea but you cannot simply deny you should be open .
I watch shows like Hells Kitchen where chefs and their dishes are put through grueling challenges so that only the best chef survives. I wish we could put physicists and their theories through the same challenges.
It is indisputable that consciousness can move our body parts. And at the same time it is known that electrical neural impulse is what directly moves muscles. So whatever consciousness is, it has the ability to interact with the physical matter in the neurons, to move electrons and ions to generate the electrical impulses needed to move the body. Therefore whatever it is, it IS MATTER, or a manifestation of some configuration of or interaction pattern between matter. Because the only things in this universe that interact with matter and can move electrons are by definition, matter. If there's some soul or spiritual entity undetectable by ANY physical means, then this spiritual being by definition cannot interact with ANY matter and would therefore not be able to move the electrons in the brain, so no neural impulse, no muscle movement.
Maybe it's just not detectable by any *known* means. The concept of electromagnetic waves outside the visible spectrum, for example, would've been just as mysterious to the ancients as a spiritual entity would be to us. And even if it were impossible to detect, that doesn't mean it's non-existent; it's akin to multiple universes or the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.
@@coreygraham860 the known physical interactions (the 4 fundamental forces) don't point to evidence of souls or spirits. Other than gravity, existing physical instruments are very good at detecting the other 3 forces. And there's no sign so far. Gravity is probably out because it's the weakest of the 4 forces and can't selectively interact with SOME matter but not others to produce specific electrical impulses. There may be some force yet to be discovered that's tied to consciousness, but if it interacts with matter strongly enough to cause constant electrical currents that move the body, it should be a fairly strong interaction with known matter, and therefore not that hard to detect. The fact it hasn't been discovered yet makes its existence unlikely, but not impossible. And if a new force is discovered that's linked to souls or spirits, then this force like all known forces will likely have a force carrying particle (or quantum field, same difference), and the source of that force (the soul) would then be discovered to be just another type of matter that interacts with known matters through the force carrying particle of a newly discovered force. So the soul, if it exists, would be material in nature, just not the matter of the meat of the brain. That's possible, but not likely
Imo, you are mistaking the image of a thing for the thing itself. "Electrical impulses through muscle" is an image in our own subjective experience that represents our direct experience of moving a muscle from an outside perspective Our bodies, the electricity, and the rest of the world are made of what we call matter, but our quantitative material descriptions of matter are only an abstraction. At the base level, it's all what we already know -- mind stuff There's never a need to assume that matter is the "real stuff". Matter is a language we use to describe and predict the objective world, which lies in consciousness itself
@@olbluelips fair enough, but only if your assumption is your mind is _everything_ and it is imagining everything else. Basically the "bolsmann brain" hypothesis. However, an imaginary world does not have to have self-consistent laws of physics. It can easily be a fairytale world, or literally heaven, or whatever. The fact this world appears to have self-consistent rules of physics that's not intuitive to understand, makes it less likely that those rules, and therefore the world, is a product of the mind imagining everything
@@gggg-xv7nb no, I am not a solipsist, and I wouldn't say the world lies within MY mind. The world lies within mind itself. Mind is *the* fundamental, irreducible substance from which all things are composed. I cannot change how the natural world operates because the natural world is our perception of a mental process beyond our control
Why does the Higgs particle get its own field, but consciousness (literally the most important thing ever) doesn't get its own field. That doesn't make any sense at all.
I don't think this is a fair analogy. The Higgs boson was predicted by a scientific framework that was proven to be successful until that point, and we knew how to look for it testably, so it was not just assumed. If we don't know where to look for the field of consciousness, we cannot try to falfisy it, so it's not a scientific claim even in principle (for now). Having said that, Chalmers has said that he thinks powerful enough quantum computers can cause the collapse of the wave function, so that's seemingly testable.
When a philosopher or scientist is talking about consciousness existing outside of the brain, I usually just skip it. When they talk about objects or parts that may have consciousness, I also shy away. Consciousness is just to be explained from a neuroscientific perspective. Eventually, all our functions are controlled by the brain. Also, the notion that after we pass away, there may be something cognitive or conscious left over, is to be dismissed. I strongly recommend the works by renowned Dutch neurobiologist Dick Swaab on the subject. We are our brains (2010) and Our creative brains (2016).
What brain? The brain you had at 5 or the one you’ll have at 70? Both are completely different brains, yet you still retain your conscious perspective. How could that be?
Apoptosis reveals that our cells are replaced on average every 7 years, yet we are unaware of the fact that we have discarded our previous body. Another 7 years & we have changed bodies again, & so on throughout life. The impression that the body & consciousness constitute a whole is clearly an assumption rather than a reality.
I don't give much credit to panpsyquism, but dismissing it from the get-go is a mistake. You cannot possibly know what is conscious and what isn't not only because of solipsism, but also because there's a spectrum of brain development in tree of life, and because neural networks are similar to brains in key ways, and those are things. So it's not justified to a priori dismiss things as non-conscious. There's a problem that panpsyquism can solve that emergentism can't yet. And that is how consciousness appeared from non-consciousness through evolution. What minimal change could have caused consciousness from non-consciousness? Evolution is weakly emergent, but that account of consciousness is strongly emergent, a new phenomenon has seemingly appeared out of nowhere. And there even are protopanpsyquist theories that claim that consciousness is not fundamental but that there are fundamental protoconsciousness properties. And panpsyquism is not supernatural in the classical way, because there's no permanent substance independent of matter, it's co-dependent or co-emergent.
@@pandawandas Those changes are gradual, so they don't get registered in the awareness, and no physicalists believes that consciousness is a simple substance, but emergent.
As far as spirit is concerned, science has nothing to do with that. Even what we consider truths are just artistic expression and understanding of the universe. Science to discover truth only makes sense if the question can be subjected to the scientific method. Outside of that is not science but Gibrish theories that don't get us anywhere.
Our scientific methodologies are limited to what we have access to physically (and to observe and test physically); they cannot be used to deduce a complete or objective view of reality for this reason. It is this problem as to why metaphysics plays such a huge role in helping us understand certain aspects about what our reality may hold.
There are ways in which the idea that consciousness is fundamental might be testable. Even if I don't subscribe to the idea. _Outside of that is not science_ Well, I sort of probably agree. But the statement that science is fictional (as yoy seemingly believe with "just artistic expression") is non-scientific, it's about the foundations of science. There are theories that make sense outside of the realm of falsifiability. The purely "metaphysical" ones, because they are axiomatic (numbers or sets are just short-cuts that we impose on reality, and sets are extremely weirdly metaphysical), but in a fictionalist account of science, scientific theories are also fundamentally axiomatic. I guess the conclusion here is really that set theory is just as empirical as relativity, it's just that set theory is way more general and sets are way more generic and applicable than space-time manifolds. But scientists assume metaphysical views by default, just like we do when we speak about anything. If reality is just stuff, then our sensory data doesn't represent anything fundamental, so whenever we say that something exists or talk about physical things like chairs or particles, we are doing that because reality is too complex to be understood without concepts. Also, the idea that each of our concepts is made-up in our minds and doesn't reflect at all natural reality is controversial. So metaphysics is not so dead after all, but its questions might be unanswerable. Even worse, the fact that we say "in our minds" already assumes that there's mental stuff existing, even though we deny anything else.
To be honest, those metaphysical questions are informed by our understanding of reality, in ways that might be even empirically testable. But there are many metaphysicians that appeal to a scientific metaphysics, so "metaphysics" here just refers to the discussion on the most basic concepts that science takes for granted: What is causation, what is identity, what is time, what is probability, are there natural kinds, what is knowledge, what is logic, how do propositions work... These are really interesting questions. Can we give a good formal account of causation, knowledge or of probabilities? And account of probability could be interesting, very speculative theories all rest on appeals to pure probabilities, like the multiverse. Your conception of science is also based on thinking about the foundations of science, which are taken for granted by scientists.
Bernado will have a hard time in explaining because even scientist trust their 5 senses which science have already proven that its not giving us the truth of this world.Meditative masters like yogis and buddha have use meditation to find ultimate reality but it cannot be proven by talking or reasoning which only agitate the mind.
We extend our sense with instruments and use maths. There is no proof that the scientific method is failing to revel facts. That which cannot be proven can be dismissed.
@@vids595 some things in life cannot be proven.Prove to me scientifically with math what is depression or feelings of joy.But its real to the person where our mind is the chief.Our body is just the instrument which conciousness or mind uses.
@@vids595 Scientific theories don't need to be true to predict stuff while optimising for simplicity. I had a long essay on the topic but TH-cam doesn't allow me to visualise it for whatever reason.
I also am a physicist envolved into investigating transition from quantum to classical physics. But our brain is classical as we know now and quantum to my sense is used by manipulating people for taking advantage of ignorant credules
That it is used to take advantage of people is true, but "the science" is as well, often in a more organized an professional way. If you are not familiar with ORCH OR, then look it up. And don't stop looking until you understand it fully - it fits your field of research. The argument is that there is a molecule in basically all cells but expecially pyramidial neurons that is effectively acting like a quantuum computer. If you crack the "why can a molecule do that in a wet, warm and noisy environment"-question, then that would be a huge accomplishment with potentially technological implications
@@christianschatzschneider6817 That theory is extremely fringe and speculative, it's also not "quantum mechanics" because quantum mechanics doesn't make these claims by itself (as far as we know), it's like saying that biology or sociology are "quantum mechanics", even though no one uses quantum mechanics directly on sociological systems. So don't say that quantum mechanics is used to "take advantage of fools". And they are entitled to propose their theory, and we've yet to have a proper account of consciousness regardless.
@@didack1419 I am not particularly interested in semantics, but thank you for pointing out those problems in my comment. I could clarify what I meant and say that my optinion and your assumption of what I meant diverge, but I'd like to likewise point our focus towards something you did not intend to mean: Instead of asking me to clarify, you asked me to stop saying something. Now let me comment on that: Wanting to mute certain groups or people instead of starting a conversation and merging the best from both sides is one of the most desasterous trends of our current era that could lead to a potential disaster. Ah, and for the last part: I think that is wishfull and partially magical thinking. In the end collecting more data is key. As you might have noticed, I tried to point out the dangers of assumptions with this comment. Assumptions are not your friends no matter how much they comfort you. Once we agree on the dangers of known and especially unknown assumptions, our discussion may become meaningfull
@@christianschatzschneider6817 I only said that because I didn't like the impression that I got from the way you said it, as if QM allows by itself this theory, to say that undermines the merits of QM. Those are definitely not claims of our QM. Beyond that, I think they are entitled to propose their theory, I don't really get why Penrose is so apparently invested on it, but at least he's a smart guy. So just like I give the benefit of the doubt to other people, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he genuinely sees merit on it.
Can science crack the mystery of consciousness? No Why? "You" are incapable of understanding the answers due to inexperience; answers that could only be deemed TOO esoteric by less refined 💕/minds.
So I tried a consciousness experiment in which I project my Astral body onto an alien spacecraft that might be in Earth orbit. The first question that comes into my mind is whether or not a particular alien spacecraft is advanced enough to even be aware of Astral bodies coming onto their spaceships, and if they would have defenses or countermeasures. It is anyone's guess whether or not their technology is sensitive to the Astral plane. If consciousness is some kind of field, then one has to consider that there might be subfields for different kinds of consciousness. As I continue to focus, the words "fields and systems" come to mind. Those are engineering topics to be sure. Then I wonder what they do when they watch us. Position, velocity come to mind. Do they have a mission? Command structure. I wish that they would come and visit me. But then I feel like there is not much interest in the Earth right now. The human physics community seems to be satisfied with their panpscychism and electrons with consciousness. Nobody is trying to figure out what spacetime is made of. Nobody is trying to figure out the warp drive. There is zero risk that humanity might leave the Earth and travel to other star systems. I hate to say it, but I am disgusted with the laziness of the human scientific community. I am ashamed that you people have zero creativity and are completely blind to anything that might be possible. I wish I could fire you all and get better people who perform better experiments that are more in line with development of humanity, then all this panpsychism garbage.
In my opinion the only viable philosophical position is Monistic Idealism (MI): * Monistic idealism is compatible with all natural sciences * MI explains the relationship between physical phenomena, abstractions and subjective experiences * MI solves the problem of free will * MI solves all paradoxes * MI has potential to explain what goes on in and below the quantum realm * MI explains time, space, gravity (and everything else) * MI explains death as the the opposite of birth, not of life. We exist eternally in a timeless state * MI "explains" God * And much more ... How? These are crazy claims, I know, but I am serious. I've just written a book that explains it. You may read (or listen) FOR FREE at a specific url, but it seems like my comments get automatically deleted when I put it in here so I don't. PM me if it is of interest to you.
Why should there be a "problem of free will" if we don't have compelling reasons to think we could have acted on a different way in a given situation? People try to redefine the term, but I think all classical thinkers had the intuition that 'free will' is just *libertarian free will*, and it just failed to be true. And the common folk has an understanding that appears to overlap with LFW under the creed "free choice". Even supernaturalist worldviews that try to base their morality on the capacity of free choice struggle to explain how that foundation even makes sense, because of the failed account of LFW
"OBSERVATION CAUSES WAWE FUNCTION TO COLLAPSE", "CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY".."THE SECRET" ... Those are not contemporary ideas which are going to be solved by empiric science as many are thinking they will. It is always there, this Hard problem of consciousness: "If consciousness creates reality, then why it is not working all the time and why is brick-wall so hard?" Well, because you are not alone. If one person want sunny wheater and another rainy? What to do? Solution is there, as answered by ancient saints. This is small sample from various revealed scriptures as summed by Bhaktivinode Thakur: tad-Iksanac chaktir eva kriyavati The Lord's glance pushes His potency into action. In the Prasna Upanisad (6.3) it is said: sa Iksam cakre "He glanced over the material creation."* In the Aitareya Upanisad (1.1.1-2) it is said: sa aiksata lokan nu srja iti. sa iman lokan asrjata. "He glanced over the material creation. Thus He created the entire material world."* In the Vamana Purana it is said: tatra tatra sthito visnus tat-tac-chaktih prabodhayan eka eva maha-saktih kurute sarvam anjasa "Wherever Lord Visnu goes, His potencies follow. The master of great potencies, He does everything very easily." In the Bhagavad-gita (9.10), Lord Krsna explains: mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate "This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, 0 son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again."* Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu explains: sakti pradhana krsna icchaya sarvam karta "Lord Krsna wishes, and His potency does everything." Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu again explains (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 20.259): maya-dvare srje tenho brahmandera gana jada-rupa prakrti nahe brahmanda-karana "By the agency of the material energy, this same Lord Sankarsana creates all the universes. The dull material energy, known in modern language as nature, is not the cause of the material universe."*
David Chalmers has made the prediction that some conceivable quantum computers that are powerful enough can cause the collapse of the wave function, and that is empirically testable. If that were to be confirmed, that would indeed be empirical evidence in favour of a form of panpsyquism. And most don't understand sanskrit(?, sorry if I'm mistaken, why not try to have people understanding what you are saying instead of not understanding?
@@vids595 : You're right, it does not attempt to explain how it works. There isn't enough data yet for anyone to explain how consciousness works. Neuroscience is very young. As for your ”why” question, are ”why” questions in the realm of science?
@@brothermine2292 no I think it's perfectly fine. The theory you propose is then pulled out of thin air and was just a way to give air to the mouth, or can it be substantiated?
Can science crack the mystery of consciousness? There is no mystery to crack. Consciousness is simply awareness, the product of the active functioning of the five senses, which we share with many other animals. The only mystery here is why some ppl persist in creating problems & mysteries where there are none.
You obviously have no idea on what consciousness is.agreed though,there is not a problem science is ready to crack not even in principle.saying consciousness is simply awareness is like saying orange is simply a fruit and believing you have somehow solved something.The mystery is why people insist on using nonsense arguments or no arguments at all or simply even ending up denying the existence of the one certain thing we will ever know
@@edventuri84 you are the confused idealist hinting that idealism is synonymous with science you are wrong. eliminativism / ethical nihilism is what i do my research on.. i follow the neurocomputational predictive coding research program of andy clark, jacob hohwy, Karl friston, Micah Allen, anil seth to name a few.. also our great queen of philosophy pat churchland you should learn some from son..,francisco varela,marvin minsky terrence deacon,scott Aaronson , David deutsch , Seth Lloyd, tim maudlin also get things right.. nobody really listens to kastrup and his following in serious academia.. he is an arm chair tik tok philosopher no real scientific evidence for any of his claims. We will be 1000 years in to the future with conscious AI colonizing the cosmos and people like you and him will be dwelling in the same silly illusions of universal mind and supernatural beliefs.
![[UNCUT] ย้อนฟัง 2 บิ๊กตำรวจปะทะกัน "บิ๊กโจ๊ก VS รองแต้ม" ฟ้องเรียก 10 ล้าน!! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vNpTtVjdcBo/mqdefault.jpg)
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](/img/n.gif)
Will we ever be able to provide data explaining consciousness? What do you think? To watch the full debate visit iai.tv/video/the-new-science-of-consciousness?TH-cam&+comment
It's a young science and it's too early to predict whether we'll ever know these answers for certain. I expect the best tools for experimenting on consciousness will involve stimulating various subsets of neurons of conscious humans to try to correlate particular neural activity to particular mental experiences, but those experiments will presumably be constrained by ethical concerns.
Kastrup's argument about decreased brain activity correlating with increased mental activity seems nonsensical for two reasons: (1) there's no accepted way to measure the amount of ”mental activity,” and (2) some of the decreases of brain activity may have been in parts of the brain that ordinarily suppress the abnormal kinds of mental activity that Kastrup claimed ”increased.”
I am actually optimistic that (one day) consciousness will be explained and will be persuasive to people who are currently on all sides of the argument. What kinds of data that explanation will involve, I am not sure. But I think traditional science/engineering/maths methods will get us there. No magic is needed. Just some conceptual leaps, and lots of clever engineering. The ultimate test will be creating something that is consciousness.
Consciousness is a calculator that receives information, absorbs information, and output information within 3 moments. And that process is mentioned in Buddhism in detail.
Consciousness -- not to be confused with self-consciousness, ie how we react to our own behaviour -- is simply awareness, the 5 senses & their interactions, sth we share with many other creatures. So there's nothing needing explaining here beyond the reasons why some ppl insist on creating problems & mysteries where there are none - and that's a problem for sociologists, psychologists & psychiatrists.
Kastrup already addresses these two objections. Read his papers or books.
Bernardo showing up everywhere recently and I dig it
No he doesn't, he is always everywhere.... there is no physical Bernardo at all..
yes, it's Bernardo showing up, in a disassociated alter of himself as a temporary whirlpool of pixels on our screen.
It is hilarious that Bernardo is pretending that the relational quantum mechanics proves his viewpoint, when relational quantum mechanics is a physicalist interpretation that views _physical reality_ (not "minds") as dependent upon reference frame at all times, so physical things do not exist independent of something physical they are interacting with used as a frame of reference (again, not "minds"). What is closer to Bernardo's view of Zeilinger's "informational interpretation," which does indeed speak of "knowledge" of the "observer" and not of physical _things._ Zeilinger, along with several other authors, even wrote in one paper that they think quantum mechanics shows there is no "reality independent of the observer." That is closer to Bernardo's view than Rovelli's view that there _is_ an objective physical reality independent of the reserve, but that reality is relational (as a property of physical reality).
Patricia Churchland completely misrepresents Bernardo's view from the start. Badly. I was embarrassed for her while I had to listen to that...whatever that is. And Carlo Rovelli, as much as I enjoy him, again, he does not understand this philosophy at all. Very disappointing. Again, Kastrup is the only one here that has any idea how this works.
Who is Patricia? She comes across as a screeching politician with no idea what she's talking about - trying to use physics to show a meta-physics is such a blatant misunderstanding of why it is even called meta-physics in the first place. Experiments can point here, but not prove. Having no practical effect is basically the same as a student in maths class going "but when am I gonna need trigonometry in real life??!!".
It is hilarious that Bernardo is pretending that the relational quantum mechanics proves his viewpoint, when relational quantum mechanics is a physicalist interpretation that views _physical reality_ (not "minds") as dependent upon reference frame at all times, so physical things do not exist independent of something physical they are interacting with used as a frame of reference (again, not "minds"). What is closer to Bernardo's view of Zeilinger's "informational interpretation," which does indeed speak of "knowledge" of the "observer" and not of physical _things._ Zeilinger, along with several other authors, even wrote in one paper that they think quantum mechanics shows there is no "reality independent of the observer." That is closer to Bernardo's view than Rovelli's view that there _is_ an objective physical reality independent of the observer, but that reality is relational (as a property of physical reality).
It is Bernardo who does not have a basic understanding of philosophy. A lot of PhD philosophers fall into this camp. There is a complete obsession in academia with ancient philosophers from the 1700s and prior, with very little interaction with later philosophy that developed to actually address these questions. Rovelli comes from a background with heavy influence from Wittgensteinian philosophy, Bognadov's empriomonism, and Engels' dialectical materialism, something which you and I both know neither you nor Kastrup has never even scratched the surface of before. The fact you still think there is even a mind-body problem in the 21st century just shows how you have never touched a book in your life from the 19th century and beyond, a problem with most academic philosophers who always want to incessantly bring up Kantian categories as if they are relevant today.
@@amihartz lol
Bernardo is awesome 👌 👏 👍 😍 💖
he makes me feel a bit embarrassed for the others who are some inches below his mind flying over their heads.
@@laurakelly631 You are in a cult.
I always found complexity of the brain to be a magical argument. If you look at humans as black boxes with input and output, you might assume an algorithm that is able to completely mimic human behavior. Would that then be an equivalent? Is the impostor the same as the real thing? Well, if you conveniently remove all introspection from your observation - the thing closest related to consciousness - then you might belief that for quite some time until you start to see more and more contradictions, the more you research (thinking psychedelics and brain activity). Thinking that quantuum computation is not needed for consciousness seems reasonable at first glance, but is defended with (implicit) self-looping arguments: a) Because we do not observe the brain to do anything that isn't computable and we see that neurons do compute, it must be a result or side-effect of computation. b) (Example) Oh, parapsychological findings can not be real because we know that the brain is solely input-computation-output-based and childrens reincarnation stories are probably a mixture between a childs phantasy and information they picked from their surroundings (notice the convenient "random input generation"-argument called phantasy). Because we know it can't be, therefore we don't look at it. If you don't see the indications, you don't actually know the theory sufficiently well. How do single-celled organisms process information and decide upon actions? They don't have a brain. Can it all be chemical cascades and proteins twerking? spoiler: if you insist on it, you can try to find the cascade or assume it till you die. The reason you don't see the need is because you excluded all the things from your worldview that support it. If your assumptions are biased, so are your conclusions. No offence, just my observation about most peoples thinking process. I'm also sure not to be innocent of this myself in all areas
One of the most compelling things about BK is that his own idealism ribs him of his one consolation which is oblivion . If anyone has suffered from genuine existential angst which I certainly have and BK has talked about then the one thing that many people fear ie oblivion is our consolation . BK is positing a point of view that robs him of his own consolation. Not many people push a view like that . ✌️
It's literally the opposite, BK has repeatedly argued that subjective experience persists after death, he even argues it here. He is clearly pushing a view that is consoling.
Bernardo is the real genius for the new SPECIES -
I really enjoyed that, thank you all.
I randomly found this in my consciousness videos!! Omg it's like finding gold when your actually looking for something else!! 😯😍😍😍
the more fundamental question that is always missed in these kinds of debates is: what evidence is there that linguistically framed concepts are necessary and sufficient to describe reality itself and are not just a hall of mirrors reflecting themselves arbitrarily and ad infinitum without any ability to describe anything other than other concepts?
The law of the instrument, indeed. I'm also thinking that even when we're asking a question involving "reality", we assume that concept exists. We might not understand it when we find it, but do we even understand what we're looking for?
@@lasselasse5215 exactly! the irony is that it is perfectly possible to experience "reality" and our identity with it, the only requirement being that we let concepts and conceptual thinking subside.
The account in philosophy of science of concepts that represent reality is that their mechanism is isomorphic with the structure of the relevant natural entity. That might be the case, but it's difficult to think on how we could compare both at all.
That's how I feel at least, but what do I know?
@@valjenkins1 underrated question.
Interesting to find this channel
Bernardo Kastrup is not fundamentally expressing a new view in the science of consciousness, as his philosophy of science is simply a reiteration of idealism in how he views such a science.
He is very transparent about his philosophy not being original. He said many times that he doesn't feel like he has invented or discovered anything, but surely there is great value in connecting contemporary empirical evidence and express those ideas in modern and coherent language. He surely excels in that.
... And?
Bernardo Kastrup is brilliant. I'm a Hyperian Idealist and everything Bernardo says falls perfectly within that line of reasoning. Reality is fundamentally mind.
Yes, we need to learn and re-member to have direct access to the other stations of the mind. The subconscious ,unconscious, non-conscious and the dreaming mind, these are interdimensional memory matrices.
The conscious mind is a very thin layer that is phase-locked from the others. It cannot understand anything on its own.
Good luck everybody 👍👽
"interdimensional memory matrices" LOL!
@@vids595 well, what's telling your trillions and trillions of cells to work together so you can have the experience of being human?
I love that instead of typing her name into the title of the video like they do with her colleagues, IAI just refers to Patricia Churchland as “more.”
Marco you are locked into the physicalist view of reality ignoring a vast body of knowledge and evidence that would expand your views. Research, research and you will discover. Put subatomic particles aside for a moment please and view Piergiorgio Caria videos on TH-cam.
Believe and it shall be done for you.
One thing I'd like to point out in these talks is the colloquial use of the word consciousness. My understanding is that consciousness refers to introspection and meta-cognition, whereas sentience refers to the inner subjective experience. I find that people often use the word consciousness when they're actually talking about sentience.
So, all living things have sentience and an inner experience, but only certain animals (like humans) have some level of self aware consciousness.
If allowed a flower will bloom but if there's no reason to let it begin propagation and is harvested for a wedding before its cycle has finished is the flower a flower or just part of the plant ?
Makin my day rn. Stoked to see Bernardo’s diligence pay off
Absolutely 💯 😀
Really not demonstrating very much in the way of a convincing argument despite what diligence you're referring to.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Arte na vanguarda da ciência .
1:35 LOL Bernardo 😭😭
7:35 Question for Kastrup
What are the studies Bernardo is referring to?
Data and falsifiability are pretty rad.
Not sure either, but I've watched him 100 times, and he is meticulous about his references and data, during the interviews, this was a shortened clip from a longer interview which I've yet to see.
🕊7:00
all curiousety leads to and is about finding [TRUTH]
or fact.
I'm beginning to think that consciousness is the subconscious being able to focus on or gain attention to parts of itself.
Hey ! Im curious.. for how long are you going to ignore the voices that carry real weight regarding the questions of consciousness ? Great that you are bringing on Kastrup, but why on earth is not Jay Garfield present here or on any of your other panels regarding this subject. JAY GARFIELD - write the name down. Invite him and get som serious movement.
"Will we ever be able to provide data explaining consciousness?"
Yes. I think we can safely abandon any propositions that dualism is a fact. I abandon that only reluctantly, though, because no one wants dualism to be a fact more than I do.
If dualism is NOT a fact, then the "secret" to consciousness is that there's no real secret. Consciousness is a finite thing, it's all contained inside a brain, and that appears to be reverse-engineerable -- a matter of asking the right questions, and going through enough dead-end hypotheses to get there.
I don't necessarily like that proposition. But the truth of the matter doesn't care whether I like it or not.
What about idealism? You know, one of the main topics of this video?
@@pandawandas
Which idealism: subjective or objective?
Objective idealism is a version of dualism. Subjective idealism is consistent with evolution, and may imply dualism, but doesn't require it.
@@dougsmith6793 how is objective idealism a version of dualism?
I don't buy into materialism at all. Consciousness is not within the boundaries of materialism. If you can define who I am as a person using materialism....than please enlighten me.....
Robert and Bernardo in the same "room" hmm
She asks what does panpsychism offer to your practical life? Well instead of experiencing yourself as an epiphenomenal bag of chemicals, you would experience your own field of awareness as a complex manifestation of a fundamental property of the universe, which reaches all the way down into the building blocks of matter. And maybe you wouldn’t go around moaning to people about how insignificant and small and meaningless life is in a reductionistic malaise.
True.
I agree that panpsyquist accounts are more empowering for our identities as awared beings
Although, it's not necessarily the case that consciousness is epiphenomenal if it's emergent, although some people might say so.
I say this because one account of mental power is the idea that consciousness is useful because our brains perceive the whole of conscious experiences to extract information from it.
That makes consciousness an entity with value that, even if emergent, if we lacked the relevant brain structures to produce it we would indeed lose something important for our cognition.
...it was cloudy all day,
..how would I know..
My humble feeling is that only BK knows what is the subject in discussion.
Ask Bernardo, if all living things in the universe died or were not formed in the first place, would the universe still exist (stars, planets, space/time, etc)?
What we see as physical universe is not everything that exists. It is only a surface area that emerges from deeper underlying reality. So the bodies of living things in the physical universe is only a Representation of an underlying metaphysical/virtual/informational reality. So to answer your question, if all physical living bodies die, the underlying metaphysical universe will not die, but it's physical Representation will not be rendered to any physically living entity. To conclude - our physical space-time universe is not fundamental, it is only a Representation of underlying metaphysical reality.
@@semyonNomis "our physical space-time universe is not fundamental, it is only a Representation of underlying metaphysical reality." Sure, but why would anyone call it conscious? Suppose it was only quantum fields. I don't think I can call quantum fields conscious. It would be like calling an ocean conscious. Again, if there were no living things in the universe, why would you call the underlying metaphysical foundation of reality conscious? As the one speaker said, there are bicycles in the universe. Does the underlying foundation of reality have bicycle-ness?
@@gabrielteo3636 they are conscious in so far as they are experiential or qualitative in nature. Experience is our one ontological given it’s the most obvious thing. Bernardo is not postulating anything radical, it’s the physicalists who postulate an exhaustively abstract existence called matter for which we have no account. He is simply being as parsimonious as possible.
@@spike1910 "He is simply being as parsimonious as possible." If he was being as parsimonious as possible he would be a soplipsist. This is what I think, assuming solopsims is wrong, and there is an external something outside our heads, it really appears only living things which have brains of a certain type have this thing we call consciousness. It appears the things that have no consciousness affect out brains that alter our consciousness greatly for instance drugs, electrical stimulation and surgery. When we look around us we see lots of things not conscious and incredibly few things that are conscious. Inductively, the universe is probably not conscious.
In almost all of science it is believed consciousness is an emergent thing from brains of a sufficient size and complexity. How would you be able to falsify idealism? Suppose you were able to transfer your consciousness to an android do a bunch of stuff and then transfer the memories of that experience back to your biological self. Would that falsify Bernardo's idealism? Right now it is just a theory with no novel testable predictions behind it. Sure you have eliminated matter/energy/space and time, but what good is it except making you feel better?
@@gabrielteo3636
"How would you falsify idealism?"
I'm not an idealist, but you could ask the same question about physicalism. If all phenomenon are presumed to have a physical explanation, how would you show any non-physical phenomenon?
Falsification is only a valid criterion for scientific theories, not metaphysical ones.
To me, consciousness isnt as hard as people make it out to be.
think of a paramecium, or other single-cell organism.
They can search for food, and run away from bad things in the environment, like high or low PH.
From this point, everything can be explained from darwinistic evolution.
Most of what we think of as human consciousness, is just emotions coming from seratonin, oxytocin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters.
Memories, especially, very short-term, a second-by-second account of our reality interacting with senses account for what we "see" and experience.
So, in this respect, its "life itself" that is conscious, and yes there seems to be a barrier in our understanding here.
But, i would argue, its not as big as we think.
If you read "Nick Lane", and "Lee Cronin" (lots of TH-cam videos) ... you will see that life can come from molecular complexity.
and that complexity itself seems to be a fundamental property of the universe.
02:42
1)Pansychism
2)Dualism
3)Non-reductive Physicalism
4)Integrated Information Theory
Occam's Razor would tell me that the simplest and most trivial is 1 but the progression to 4 would tell me that some form of mechanism; or enactivation of the laws of nature into more complex structures is why brains are special. The secret sauce of animal brains is the ability to move or the emergence of "happenness". Time is the secret sauce that our own thought and language folds back.
You are missing what is actually the only game in town, idealism
@@namero999 1:10 The 4 Robert mentions.
5. Hylemorphism (profesor Edward Feser)
@@namero999 Lol, really? Go solve the decombination/decomposition problem. Guess what? You will never do it because it entails a logical contradiction.
@@anteodedi8937 no contradiction whatsoever. We perfectly know from neuroscience that mind is able to dissociate and compartmentalize.
I believe self concenciousness is a result of multiple complex feedback. And I am very sadly impressed it can be suppressed using mass media manipulations. As called social engineering
I hate those manipulations one can not see where it comes from. Is like self igniting fire that can be made of phosphorus diluted in toluene. Once is evaporated phosphorus self ignitate
You're really just referring to learning (of behavior, of ideals, etc) which occurs at the subconscious level.
So many books
If given enough time can a cow pi evolve
these two physicists should read the text written by Indian sages/Rishis. What is nonduality? how your karma affects your next birth/next moment. else explain me why two new born baby one in a rich and another in a poor family, one live lavish life and another in hardships. why someone is having extraordinary capabilities since birth? if nothing goes beyond this life then all of us should have better life. Abstract noun can't be measure but they are real! love, anger...Any Indian understand this without any objection. Bernardo is left alone to tackle such people who need evidence, we ourselves are evidence, what else u need.
Where's Penrose?
1:28 can you prove with experiments that you have emotions or that you are conscious? obviously not. the scientific method cannot determine what exists and what doesnt. scientists should step up their thinking otherwise they will become just as hard-headed as dogmatic religious people. im not saying that we should just find truth with intuition however i think that bernardo is way ahead with his thinking then these two scientists are.
Depends on what your standard is for proof. We can prove that animals like humans have emotions to the same extent that we can prove something like cigarette smoking increases the chances of developing cancer. Differences in hormones, neural transmitters, and other physiological states indicate emotional states. Emotional states do not necessarily rely on consciousness.
Respected scientist and philosophers,firstly we should be open and question any and every idea .
Now the point she made where are the data and where are proof ?
Why should I belive this ?
My counter question to her are we not limited by senses ,perception , intelligence ..
Now their are lot of unsolved maths,science questions some deny the general rule of physics too .
Now when we are limited by our capabilities how can we be so sure that what we know is exact truth?
So,I am not saying to accept any idea but you cannot simply deny you should be open .
I watch shows like Hells Kitchen where chefs and their dishes are put through grueling challenges so that only the best chef survives. I wish we could put physicists and their theories through the same challenges.
Me too, but what if they can't cook?
@@jr6200 Cook me up a testable quantum gravity theory made of everything that exists or might exist.
@@wulphstein Haven't "got time". I'm currently in the void, beyond being and non being.
Está teoria já está publicada e eu sou a autora do assunto desde 2001 ! O novo livros - La Chair de l’Univers acaba de ser publicado na Amazonfr
It is indisputable that consciousness can move our body parts. And at the same time it is known that electrical neural impulse is what directly moves muscles. So whatever consciousness is, it has the ability to interact with the physical matter in the neurons, to move electrons and ions to generate the electrical impulses needed to move the body. Therefore whatever it is, it IS MATTER, or a manifestation of some configuration of or interaction pattern between matter. Because the only things in this universe that interact with matter and can move electrons are by definition, matter. If there's some soul or spiritual entity undetectable by ANY physical means, then this spiritual being by definition cannot interact with ANY matter and would therefore not be able to move the electrons in the brain, so no neural impulse, no muscle movement.
Maybe it's just not detectable by any *known* means. The concept of electromagnetic waves outside the visible spectrum, for example, would've been just as mysterious to the ancients as a spiritual entity would be to us. And even if it were impossible to detect, that doesn't mean it's non-existent; it's akin to multiple universes or the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.
@@coreygraham860 the known physical interactions (the 4 fundamental forces) don't point to evidence of souls or spirits. Other than gravity, existing physical instruments are very good at detecting the other 3 forces. And there's no sign so far. Gravity is probably out because it's the weakest of the 4 forces and can't selectively interact with SOME matter but not others to produce specific electrical impulses. There may be some force yet to be discovered that's tied to consciousness, but if it interacts with matter strongly enough to cause constant electrical currents that move the body, it should be a fairly strong interaction with known matter, and therefore not that hard to detect. The fact it hasn't been discovered yet makes its existence unlikely, but not impossible.
And if a new force is discovered that's linked to souls or spirits, then this force like all known forces will likely have a force carrying particle (or quantum field, same difference), and the source of that force (the soul) would then be discovered to be just another type of matter that interacts with known matters through the force carrying particle of a newly discovered force. So the soul, if it exists, would be material in nature, just not the matter of the meat of the brain. That's possible, but not likely
Imo, you are mistaking the image of a thing for the thing itself. "Electrical impulses through muscle" is an image in our own subjective experience that represents our direct experience of moving a muscle from an outside perspective
Our bodies, the electricity, and the rest of the world are made of what we call matter, but our quantitative material descriptions of matter are only an abstraction. At the base level, it's all what we already know -- mind stuff
There's never a need to assume that matter is the "real stuff". Matter is a language we use to describe and predict the objective world, which lies in consciousness itself
@@olbluelips fair enough, but only if your assumption is your mind is _everything_ and it is imagining everything else. Basically the "bolsmann brain" hypothesis. However, an imaginary world does not have to have self-consistent laws of physics. It can easily be a fairytale world, or literally heaven, or whatever. The fact this world appears to have self-consistent rules of physics that's not intuitive to understand, makes it less likely that those rules, and therefore the world, is a product of the mind imagining everything
@@gggg-xv7nb no, I am not a solipsist, and I wouldn't say the world lies within MY mind. The world lies within mind itself. Mind is *the* fundamental, irreducible substance from which all things are composed. I cannot change how the natural world operates because the natural world is our perception of a mental process beyond our control
Why does the Higgs particle get its own field, but consciousness (literally the most important thing ever) doesn't get its own field. That doesn't make any sense at all.
I don't think this is a fair analogy. The Higgs boson was predicted by a scientific framework that was proven to be successful until that point, and we knew how to look for it testably, so it was not just assumed.
If we don't know where to look for the field of consciousness, we cannot try to falfisy it, so it's not a scientific claim even in principle (for now).
Having said that, Chalmers has said that he thinks powerful enough quantum computers can cause the collapse of the wave function, so that's seemingly testable.
Did you hear about the physicist stopped at the stop sign?
He's waiting for a peer reviewed paper that says he can go.
Is nobody interested in the idea that consciousness is a field?
I like the idea conceptually as a premise for fantasy, I think it's not our most plausible account of consciousness though.
Bernardo Kastrup 10 x Patricia & Roveli 0
When a philosopher or scientist is talking about consciousness existing outside of the brain, I usually just skip it. When they talk about objects or parts that may have consciousness, I also shy away. Consciousness is just to be explained from a neuroscientific perspective. Eventually, all our functions are controlled by the brain. Also, the notion that after we pass away, there may be something cognitive or conscious left over, is to be dismissed.
I strongly recommend the works by renowned Dutch neurobiologist Dick Swaab on the subject. We are our brains (2010) and Our creative brains (2016).
What brain? The brain you had at 5 or the one you’ll have at 70? Both are completely different brains, yet you still retain your conscious perspective. How could that be?
Apoptosis reveals that our cells are replaced on average every 7 years, yet we are unaware of the fact that we have discarded our previous body. Another 7 years & we have changed bodies again, & so on throughout life. The impression that the body & consciousness constitute a whole is clearly an assumption rather than a reality.
I don't give much credit to panpsyquism, but dismissing it from the get-go is a mistake. You cannot possibly know what is conscious and what isn't not only because of solipsism, but also because there's a spectrum of brain development in tree of life, and because neural networks are similar to brains in key ways, and those are things.
So it's not justified to a priori dismiss things as non-conscious.
There's a problem that panpsyquism can solve that emergentism can't yet.
And that is how consciousness appeared from non-consciousness through evolution. What minimal change could have caused consciousness from non-consciousness? Evolution is weakly emergent, but that account of consciousness is strongly emergent, a new phenomenon has seemingly appeared out of nowhere.
And there even are protopanpsyquist theories that claim that consciousness is not fundamental but that there are fundamental protoconsciousness properties.
And panpsyquism is not supernatural in the classical way, because there's no permanent substance independent of matter, it's co-dependent or co-emergent.
@@pandawandas Those changes are gradual, so they don't get registered in the awareness, and no physicalists believes that consciousness is a simple substance, but emergent.
@@didack1419 If awareness is a product of the brain, then how come you have the same awareness that you did with a different brain in the past?
..noo,
..it's a point of view...
..
As far as spirit is concerned, science has nothing to do with that. Even what we consider truths are just artistic expression and understanding of the universe. Science to discover truth only makes sense if the question can be subjected to the scientific method. Outside of that is not science but Gibrish theories that don't get us anywhere.
Our scientific methodologies are limited to what we have access to physically (and to observe and test physically); they cannot be used to deduce a complete or objective view of reality for this reason. It is this problem as to why metaphysics plays such a huge role in helping us understand certain aspects about what our reality may hold.
There are ways in which the idea that consciousness is fundamental might be testable. Even if I don't subscribe to the idea.
_Outside of that is not science_
Well, I sort of probably agree. But the statement that science is fictional (as yoy seemingly believe with "just artistic expression") is non-scientific, it's about the foundations of science.
There are theories that make sense outside of the realm of falsifiability. The purely "metaphysical" ones, because they are axiomatic (numbers or sets are just short-cuts that we impose on reality, and sets are extremely weirdly metaphysical), but in a fictionalist account of science, scientific theories are also fundamentally axiomatic.
I guess the conclusion here is really that set theory is just as empirical as relativity, it's just that set theory is way more general and sets are way more generic and applicable than space-time manifolds.
But scientists assume metaphysical views by default, just like we do when we speak about anything. If reality is just stuff, then our sensory data doesn't represent anything fundamental, so whenever we say that something exists or talk about physical things like chairs or particles, we are doing that because reality is too complex to be understood without concepts.
Also, the idea that each of our concepts is made-up in our minds and doesn't reflect at all natural reality is controversial. So metaphysics is not so dead after all, but its questions might be unanswerable.
Even worse, the fact that we say "in our minds" already assumes that there's mental stuff existing, even though we deny anything else.
To be honest, those metaphysical questions are informed by our understanding of reality, in ways that might be even empirically testable. But there are many metaphysicians that appeal to a scientific metaphysics, so "metaphysics" here just refers to the discussion on the most basic concepts that science takes for granted:
What is causation, what is identity, what is time, what is probability, are there natural kinds, what is knowledge, what is logic, how do propositions work... These are really interesting questions. Can we give a good formal account of causation, knowledge or of probabilities?
And account of probability could be interesting, very speculative theories all rest on appeals to pure probabilities, like the multiverse.
Your conception of science is also based on thinking about the foundations of science, which are taken for granted by scientists.
Bernado will have a hard time in explaining because even scientist trust their 5 senses which science have already proven that its not giving us the truth of this world.Meditative masters like yogis and buddha have use meditation to find ultimate reality but it cannot be proven by talking or reasoning which only agitate the mind.
We extend our sense with instruments and use maths. There is no proof that the scientific method is failing to revel facts. That which cannot be proven can be dismissed.
@@vids595 explain?
@@vids595 some things in life cannot be proven.Prove to me scientifically with math what is depression or feelings of joy.But its real to the person where our mind is the chief.Our body is just the instrument which conciousness or mind uses.
@@vids595 Even our instruments are limited too.
@@vids595 Scientific theories don't need to be true to predict stuff while optimising for simplicity. I had a long essay on the topic but TH-cam doesn't allow me to visualise it for whatever reason.
Why does every intellectual point their camera at their book collection?
Get your brains around lowering the price of heating our homes we are dying out here
..?...??
..when did you're sun's head..
...??
The Buddhists already solved the conundrum
I also am a physicist envolved into investigating transition from quantum to classical physics. But our brain is classical as we know now and quantum to my sense is used by manipulating people for taking advantage of ignorant credules
That it is used to take advantage of people is true, but "the science" is as well, often in a more organized an professional way. If you are not familiar with ORCH OR, then look it up. And don't stop looking until you understand it fully - it fits your field of research. The argument is that there is a molecule in basically all cells but expecially pyramidial neurons that is effectively acting like a quantuum computer. If you crack the "why can a molecule do that in a wet, warm and noisy environment"-question, then that would be a huge accomplishment with potentially technological implications
@@christianschatzschneider6817 That theory is extremely fringe and speculative, it's also not "quantum mechanics" because quantum mechanics doesn't make these claims by itself (as far as we know), it's like saying that biology or sociology are "quantum mechanics", even though no one uses quantum mechanics directly on sociological systems.
So don't say that quantum mechanics is used to "take advantage of fools".
And they are entitled to propose their theory, and we've yet to have a proper account of consciousness regardless.
@@didack1419 I am not particularly interested in semantics, but thank you for pointing out those problems in my comment. I could clarify what I meant and say that my optinion and your assumption of what I meant diverge, but I'd like to likewise point our focus towards something you did not intend to mean: Instead of asking me to clarify, you asked me to stop saying something. Now let me comment on that: Wanting to mute certain groups or people instead of starting a conversation and merging the best from both sides is one of the most desasterous trends of our current era that could lead to a potential disaster. Ah, and for the last part: I think that is wishfull and partially magical thinking. In the end collecting more data is key. As you might have noticed, I tried to point out the dangers of assumptions with this comment. Assumptions are not your friends no matter how much they comfort you. Once we agree on the dangers of known and especially unknown assumptions, our discussion may become meaningfull
@@christianschatzschneider6817 I only said that because I didn't like the impression that I got from the way you said it, as if QM allows by itself this theory, to say that undermines the merits of QM. Those are definitely not claims of our QM.
Beyond that, I think they are entitled to propose their theory, I don't really get why Penrose is so apparently invested on it, but at least he's a smart guy. So just like I give the benefit of the doubt to other people, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he genuinely sees merit on it.
Olivier -- what is your point?
It's funny watching physicalists don't even know what they are talking about in their desperate effort to defend their nonsense.
It's their religion.
Kastrup look (sound) like man speaking with a fire behind the bush when he surrounded by scientists!
No.
😀
Can science crack the mystery of consciousness?
No
Why?
"You" are incapable of understanding the answers due to inexperience; answers that could only be deemed TOO esoteric by less refined 💕/minds.
So I tried a consciousness experiment in which I project my Astral body onto an alien spacecraft that might be in Earth orbit. The first question that comes into my mind is whether or not a particular alien spacecraft is advanced enough to even be aware of Astral bodies coming onto their spaceships, and if they would have defenses or countermeasures. It is anyone's guess whether or not their technology is sensitive to the Astral plane. If consciousness is some kind of field, then one has to consider that there might be subfields for different kinds of consciousness.
As I continue to focus, the words "fields and systems" come to mind. Those are engineering topics to be sure. Then I wonder what they do when they watch us. Position, velocity come to mind. Do they have a mission? Command structure. I wish that they would come and visit me. But then I feel like there is not much interest in the Earth right now. The human physics community seems to be satisfied with their panpscychism and electrons with consciousness. Nobody is trying to figure out what spacetime is made of. Nobody is trying to figure out the warp drive. There is zero risk that humanity might leave the Earth and travel to other star systems.
I hate to say it, but I am disgusted with the laziness of the human scientific community. I am ashamed that you people have zero creativity and are completely blind to anything that might be possible. I wish I could fire you all and get better people who perform better experiments that are more in line with development of humanity, then all this panpsychism garbage.
In my opinion the only viable philosophical position is Monistic Idealism (MI):
* Monistic idealism is compatible with all natural sciences
* MI explains the relationship between physical phenomena, abstractions and subjective experiences
* MI solves the problem of free will
* MI solves all paradoxes
* MI has potential to explain what goes on in and below the quantum realm
* MI explains time, space, gravity (and everything else)
* MI explains death as the the opposite of birth, not of life. We exist eternally in a timeless state
* MI "explains" God
* And much more ...
How? These are crazy claims, I know, but I am serious. I've just written a book that explains it. You may read (or listen) FOR FREE at a specific url, but it seems like my comments get automatically deleted when I put it in here so I don't. PM me if it is of interest to you.
i'd be interested 👋
External links are typically hidden by TH-cam, the reason is people spamming links of objectionable stuff.
Why should there be a "problem of free will" if we don't have compelling reasons to think we could have acted on a different way in a given situation?
People try to redefine the term, but I think all classical thinkers had the intuition that 'free will' is just *libertarian free will*, and it just failed to be true. And the common folk has an understanding that appears to overlap with LFW under the creed "free choice".
Even supernaturalist worldviews that try to base their morality on the capacity of free choice struggle to explain how that foundation even makes sense, because of the failed account of LFW
Hylemorphism is better (profesor Edward Feser) :)
theyre Cups are too Full
"OBSERVATION CAUSES WAWE FUNCTION TO COLLAPSE", "CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY".."THE SECRET" ...
Those are not contemporary ideas which are going to be solved by empiric science as many are thinking they will. It is always there, this Hard problem of consciousness: "If consciousness creates reality, then why it is not working all the time and why is brick-wall so hard?" Well, because you are not alone. If one person want sunny wheater and another rainy? What to do?
Solution is there, as answered by ancient saints. This is small sample from various revealed scriptures as summed by Bhaktivinode Thakur:
tad-Iksanac chaktir eva kriyavati
The Lord's glance pushes His potency into action.
In the Prasna Upanisad (6.3) it is said:
sa Iksam cakre "He glanced over the material creation."*
In the Aitareya Upanisad (1.1.1-2) it is said:
sa aiksata lokan nu srja iti. sa iman lokan asrjata. "He glanced over the material creation. Thus He created the entire material world."*
In the Vamana Purana it is said:
tatra tatra sthito visnus tat-tac-chaktih prabodhayan eka eva maha-saktih kurute sarvam anjasa "Wherever Lord Visnu goes, His potencies follow. The master of great potencies, He does everything very easily."
In the Bhagavad-gita (9.10), Lord Krsna explains:
mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate "This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, 0 son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again."*
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu explains:
sakti pradhana krsna icchaya sarvam karta "Lord Krsna wishes, and His potency does everything."
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu again explains (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 20.259):
maya-dvare srje tenho brahmandera gana jada-rupa prakrti nahe brahmanda-karana "By the agency of the material energy, this same Lord Sankarsana creates all the universes. The dull material energy, known in modern language as nature, is not the cause of the material universe."*
David Chalmers has made the prediction that some conceivable quantum computers that are powerful enough can cause the collapse of the wave function, and that is empirically testable.
If that were to be confirmed, that would indeed be empirical evidence in favour of a form of panpsyquism.
And most don't understand sanskrit(?, sorry if I'm mistaken, why not try to have people understanding what you are saying instead of not understanding?
..ahhh,
..to be nobody..
Here's another theory: consciousness is a helpless passenger in brains, which has no free will and merely experiences the results of brain activity.
That does not explain how it emerges from the brain, or why.
@@vids595 : You're right, it does not attempt to explain how it works. There isn't enough data yet for anyone to explain how consciousness works. Neuroscience is very young.
As for your ”why” question, are ”why” questions in the realm of science?
@@brothermine2292 so, there is no data but you already have a strong opinion? Very rational.
@@namero999: Your reading comprehension is poor. Nothing I wrote implies I have an opinion about whether the theory is true or false.
@@brothermine2292 no I think it's perfectly fine. The theory you propose is then pulled out of thin air and was just a way to give air to the mouth, or can it be substantiated?
Bernardo is a bad bad man.
Can science crack the mystery of consciousness? There is no mystery to crack. Consciousness is simply awareness, the product of the active functioning of the five senses, which we share with many other animals. The only mystery here is why some ppl persist in creating problems & mysteries where there are none.
You obviously have no idea on what consciousness is.agreed though,there is not a problem science is ready to crack not even in principle.saying consciousness is simply awareness is like saying orange is simply a fruit and believing you have somehow solved something.The mystery is why people insist on using nonsense arguments or no arguments at all or simply even ending up denying the existence of the one certain thing we will ever know
Consciousness is more than just awareness.
scientism is the only way to explore the unknown.. kastrup is deluded
No doubt Kastrup supports scientism. Somewhere along the way you've confused reductive materialism with scientism.
@@edventuri84 you are the confused idealist hinting that idealism is synonymous with science you are wrong. eliminativism / ethical nihilism is what i do my research on.. i follow the neurocomputational predictive coding research program of andy clark, jacob hohwy, Karl friston, Micah Allen, anil seth to name a few.. also our great queen of philosophy pat churchland you should learn some from son..,francisco varela,marvin minsky terrence deacon,scott Aaronson , David deutsch , Seth Lloyd, tim maudlin also get things right.. nobody really listens to kastrup and his following in serious academia.. he is an arm chair tik tok philosopher no real scientific evidence for any of his claims. We will be 1000 years in to the future with conscious AI colonizing the cosmos and people like you and him will be dwelling in the same silly illusions of universal mind and supernatural beliefs.