Physicist argues about consciousness | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sean Carroll: General ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- HiddenLayer: hiddenlayer.com/lex
- Cloaked: cloaked.com/lex and use code LexPod to get 25% off
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
I love you and huberman both for completely different reasons. Thought you were friends and seemingly he's easier to find. I went to Pennsylvania but ended up in Scranton and went to nyc and I'm in San Francisco now. Hopefully free by Thursday. Would love a ride if you or someone else could pick me up. Otherwise I'll get back on the plane and head back... if I can.
Consciousness is like a golden box filled with newspaper clippings. The contents of consciousness are mostly, if not entirely trivial, bad memories, worries we can't delete. Who's to say whether the dream state isn't our real reality. The bizarre things one encounters while awake outstrip any nightmare.
This was a very good talk. At the end I was like whao where are they going to go with this. I think if they went with what's in front of them as in matter it may have been different.
Our conscious experiences are "just words"? Even as a metaphor, that makes no sense.
Religion and science are best understood through the pragmatic lens. What do they do? What technique best performs at a certain level of analysis?
You'll find they're both useful within their respective domains.
Go William James!!!
The difference between the two is religion's premises are patently false. The premises behind the scientific method is demonstrably true. Utility is one thing, what's real is another.
@@rationalmuscle the elaborate explanations we use to make sense of scientific observation are abstractions, they are also a kind of useful fiction. What we call 'truth' is simply the abstraction which performs best at a given moment in time. This is why science is constantly changing in response to new observations and better explanations.
Religion is similar in this sense, although it develops at a slower pace and deals with more esoteric questions which cannot be understood through reductive emperical means. How does one measure an 'ought to' decision using emperical methodology? You simply cannot do this, there's nothing to quantify and anyone who speaks to the contrary is deceiving you.
Whether you choose to obey your blind instincts, state decree, philosophical doctrine or a religious tradition; at some point you will need to abandon 'truth', and take a leap of faith into the metaphysical.
Carroll talks about the illusion of the valley in the desert and how you walk towards it only to find out you were wrong. thats similar to what happens with pleasure and pain, they move you towards or away from the objects you understand as their cause only to find they are gone when you are done doing whatever they moved you to do.
If we assume physicalism, meaning: the world as we perceive it from a first person view is identical to how it would be perceived from a third person view, then everything that springs us to action is illusory
Time is not a exclusively concept: time is an a priori form of our sensibility (along with space) - meaning that time is the very form of sensibility, such that were there no time there would be no experience possible.
Please, Sean, have a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup.
Bernardo kastrup would have him for lunch
Bernardo avoids the same thing all the time
How do computers map out our dream imagery if it can't be computed physically? He hates that question so he just strawmans it.
But I get it, he says what you want to believe, so reason goes out the window
Benardo would spank him
@@ryanprice9841 don’t the computers just decode the dream by measuring activity in certain areas of the brain. Have a tantrum somewhere else lol
@@skitzcunt2351 yes that exactly what they do. That means Bernardo's fundamental claim that the visual of "red (or any other example) is in principle not able to be calculated (which is why he claims it's "not a material process").
So you are right about the very way it works and that is what undermines Bernardo's hypothesis.
I give him credit for making falsifiable claims but no credit for acknowledging the results once they rejected his hypothesis.
I don't know if you are new to the internet or what, but the tantrum part you threw in at the end was pretty pathetic.
Inductively speaking, the observation that pleasures correlate with positive feedback loops facilitated by neural activity necessarily increases the likelihood that any system’s positive feedback loop correlates with its pleasure as well. Panpsychism is just physicalism taken to its logical conclusion.
Would you be so kind to explain this like I'm 25 but haven't studied philosophy (don't have philosophical vocabulary)?
What classes as a "system's positive feedback loop"?
If you can input X to a system (any collection of things) and it outputs X, the system has a positive feedback loop. It will be stuck in a causal loop until something interferes.
This is not necessarily a positive feedback loop; the loop gain has to be greater than one for it to have an enhancing effect on the input. A system that does not interact with, or modify X, or returns X to its original form at the end of its processing satisfies your definition of a positive feedback loop without enhancing the magnitude of the input
You can certainly be a dualist and panpsychist.
Talk about an empty vacuous argument that's been shrouded in pretentious, flowery language just to sound like an "intellectual". I don't blame ya when you listen to Lex's tired and idealistic hot takes.
I always enjoy Sean’s clear rational explanations.
Which is odd since he believes in determinism which refutes humans having reason since reason implies free choice or what is the point then of having reason if you are just a meat puppet.
From wiki: "Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible."
@@TDL-xg5nnReason is just the application of cause and effect. We evolved really good mental algorithms. Free choice doesn’t even make sense. How does that even explain anything?
Lex you need to have Bernardo Kastrup on your podcast
as well as Rupert Sheldrake and Gregory Morgan (Formscapes)!
yes please
It comes first bc when your body dies that information does not die
It is conscience that 'makes' predictions, right?
The way these guys talk about consciousness makes me wonder if they're philosophical zombies.
How does he completely misrepresent or fundamentally misunderstand the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
The brain is a *Transceiver...*
Consciousness is an _Uploaded Experience._
Jesus, Lex... imagining a thing, then building it... isn't an illusion. It's an idea that leads to action. An illusion would be thinking you see that you have the materials to build the thing, you start, and then you realize that you never had the materials in the first place. Lex sticks to lexicon like a freshman in college lol
You can’t just will things into existence? 😂
hes always been like that...
yup, his talk there is embarrassing
Carroll insists that he does not have a problem explaining “what it is like to be you”, insisting that “it’s a certain way of talking about the atoms and the neurons, etc., that make up you”; however, Carroll does have a problem here - but, because he implicitly is defending a naïve realist materialism here, ipso facto, he is unaware of the mistake he is engaging in (he claims he does not have a problem here, but he does; namely, he is engaging in a species of fallacy). To begin, Carroll is engaging in the fallacy of hypostasis, as Kant pointed out in the Transcendental Dialectic of his first Kritik; there, Kant specified that “we hypostatise outer appearances … [when we] come to regard them not as representations but as things existing by themselves outside us, with the same quality as that with which they exist in us” (A 387). Additionally, Carroll, here, is begging the question (petitio principii), for, as noted David Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature, “That our senses offer not their impressions as the images of something distinct, or independent, and external, is evident; because they convey to us nothing but a single perception, and never give us the least intimation of any thing beyond. A single perception can never produce the idea of a double existence, but by some inference either of the reason or imagination. When the mind looks farther than what immediately appears to it, its conclusions can never be put to the account of the senses; and it certainly looks farther, when from a single perception it infers a double existence, and supposes the relations of resemblance and causation betwixt them”; namely, Carroll is naively including his conclusion (that “our senses offer ... their impressions as the images of something distinct, or independent, and external”) in his premises, even though “That our senses offer not their impressions as the images of something distinct, or independent, and external, is evident; because they convey to us nothing but a single perception, and never give us the least intimation of any thing beyond. A single perception can never produce the idea of a double existence, but by some inference either of the reason or imagination. When the mind looks farther than what immediately appears to it, its conclusions can never be put to the account of the senses; and it certainly looks farther, when from a single perception it infers a double existence, and supposes the relations of resemblance and causation betwixt them”.
It is a tragedy that there are so-called intellectuals out there who would not recognize a fallacy to save their life - Carroll, unfortunately, thinks he is making a valid point, while actually (1) commiting the fallacy of hypostasis already pointed out by Kant in his first Kritik and (2) including his conclusion in his premises.
Lastly, concerning the question of illusion (which was also brought up in this clip), the words of Kant are relevant: as he writes in his first Kritik, we have no justification “for regarding appearance and illusion as being identical. For truth or illusion is not in the object, in so far as it is intuited, but in the judgment about it, in so far as it is thought it is therefore correct to say that the senses do not err - not because they always judge rightly but because they do not judge at all. Truth and error, therefore, and consequently also illusion as leading to error, are only to be found in the judgment, i.e., only in the relation of the object to our understanding. In any knowledge which completely accords with the laws of understanding there is no error. In a representation of the senses - as containing no judgment whatsoever there is also no error. No natural force can of itself deviate from its own laws. Thus neither the understanding by itself (uninfluenced by another cause), nor the senses by themselves, would fall into error” (B 350).
I take it you've read Kant?
You're strawmanning Carroll's position to some degree, aside from that, your points regarding Kant (Truth and Illusion) are valid.
@@SagaciousSpace Your accusing me of “strawmanning” Carroll’s position, without showing how, amounts only to an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy: when you accuse someone of a fallacy, without showing how they are actually guilty of the fallacy you accuse them of, this is the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy; ipso facto, because you are accusing me of engaging in the straw man fallacy, without pointing out how, you are only engaging in the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.
@@rationalmuscle I can't get Kant.
He used to be known for time keeping in his town - as he was so regular and exact - on taking walks. Good habit.
In the 80's - found - that I could not walk - with his giant strides.
Read Pirzig - Zen and motorcycle maintenance - instead.
It boinged - in me heart - and I knew to pursue - this way and that it was already known to me - in some way.
Supported me - meditation efforts, too.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
@@OuroboricIdealism
You see - One would rather read - Zen Buddhism and or Vedas. Hee hee.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
The fact that we can do physics.. science.. mathematics..is axiomatically dependent on consciousness itself. Consciousness is queueing on the deepest truth and then we formalize what we can through space-time and computation.
"The fact that we can do physics.. science.. mathematics..is axiomatically dependent on consciousness itself." This is rather unclear actually; in terms of processing, yes to have consciousness is a predicate to reflect upon such concepts, however - are such things dependent themselves on conscious entities? All empirical knowledge currently says no - yet we have no means of exploring this outside the boundaries of our perceptions.
@@thomabow8949 I understand. There's a lot of semantics to deal with here. I hope you are up for a conversation.
It's been thought/said that set theory is retroactively the foundation for mathematics itself and that logic itself is the foundation for set theory.
Would you agree with this?
Eventually I want to show you how and why I think that a singular conscious agent must be fundamental.
Hmu when you get this.
Consciousness is an emergent property. You know this intuitively. You are less conscious or more conscious depending upon what the chemical cocktail is that you have coursing through your system. Coffee? More conscious. Benadryl? Less. Deprived of oxygen? It fades away.
It’s just a biochemical dance of electricity flowing through circuitry in a manner that is capable of interacting with the world. Stimuli flows in through receptors. The biochemical dance swirls on in a new direction.
I know man, I don't know why people can not just see this obvious fact. A lot of it is just the history of people wanting magical stuff, and historically people had no idea what the difference was, so we have tons of magical thinking built into our language and culture.... and our whole frame of reference for everything
At the end of the day I just see all the people who fight against what you're saying, at the end of the day, they just really want some sort of magical fantasy to be true and can't accept that it's not
I mean science can only describe, in a shorthand way, how the world works. But that description is always going to be different than the actuality of the world
Like if you describe how the sun works you're not going to actually produce heat and light
The same way if you describe how a person works... you're not actually going to create personal experiences
To me this is like the bottom line with all this...
When you describe how fire works, you're not going to actually create heat and light. But people somehow can't accept that explaining consciousness is not going to actually create the experience
The experience is something that is the end product of trillions and trillions of interactions. It's unfathomable the complexity that goes into it
So obviously any shorthand account which is just going to sum it up in a few paragraphs is going to be completely different to the incredible intricacy and complexity that make up a living organism, never mind the most complex ones on the planet
Anyway hit me back and let me know how much you appreciate my building on what you said. I bet you're grinning right now, saying this guy really gets it. Finally someone gets it
@@origins7298 I really appreciate what you wrote. You do get what I’m saying, and you were right that I was grinning after I read your comment.
There is nothing mysterious or magical about consciousness. Since time immemorial, people have taken physical processes and assigned mysterious vague qualities to them. Take stars for example. Look at all of the myths and stories that were created by ancient people to explain what they were.
If you can take a drug like LSD, Ayahuasca, or Psilocybin and it completely alters your state of consciousness, then your consciousness is only a biochemical process that was temporarily tampered with by the drug. The brain’s neurotransmitters weren’t able to fire how they normally do because of the drug. What consciousness is should be taught in schools, but it offends people’s delicate sensibilities to call it physical in nature. They think that somehow this definition degrades how amazing it is, but the opposite is true. Once you truly understand what’s going on, you can appreciate the beauty of the complexity.
I hope to write a book one day where each chapter is dedicated to a topic that people commonly misunderstand or a social issue with an obvious solution. I may also have a chapter or two dedicated to debunking some commonly held conspiracy theories.
Would you mind if I included what you wrote? You phrased it so well.
Consciousness is fundamentally personhood. It’s who you are, that experiences things. You may get a sugar high, that doesn’t mean you’re more conscious. Ur just experiencing something. If you lose your sense of smell or taste as many did during the pandemic, doesn’t mean you’ve lost a part of your consciousness. You’re still you.
@@sparshparimoo It sounds like you are talking about the particular way that your brain is wired to function and the exact baseline neurotransmitters you have. We call this our personal experience and personality.
If you take ketamine you can completely disassociate with who you think you are and that’s just a chemical. Dementia chips away at our personhood.
Are you familiar with the expression "barely conscious"? If you are more capable of perceiving the world, you are absolutely in a higher state of consciousness. It doesn’t mean someone else isn’t conscious that can’t hear, or see, or is barely awake. It just means you are at a higher state of consciousness. It also doesn’t mean you are more important, but when you drink a lot of caffeine, you are more alert and think very clearly. If you could perceive infrared light, that would further elevate consciousness. It’s a sliding scale. It’s all determined by the wiring and the chemistry in our brains.
@@ScentlessSunSo that’s where we disagree fundamentally. You don’t differentiate between mind and consciousness and I do. Does a frog or a bat or a dog differ from us in how they experience reality based on sense input? Of course. But what is it, that’s experiencing the input? The people who after decades of meditative practice achieve the state of “samadhi”, where they tune out all the senses, and are aware only of the self….what is that? Looking at that person slumped over, you might think he’s “barely conscious”, but that seems to be far from the case.
I think people are too dogmatic in their views when it comes to things not fully explained by science. But tend to ignore just how weird science really is, especially when you get to the quantum level. A pervasive consciousness is not such a far flung idea as some would have you believe.
There’s no scientific explanation for consciousness yet, but still you’re choosing to believe that it’s all just a secretion of the brain. That’s a choice you’re making.
I dont think sean understands the subject because he starts off thinking its people who are afraid of death and are coping. Thats not it, nor where people are coming from. And when Sean says he has a way to explain who you are as a person through neurons, he does not get it.
I agree, I really like Sean and his answers about physics are amazing, but I agree he is being somewhat obtuse here
@jacksmith4460 it feels like the obtuse factor ironically comes from his own fear of anything like this being real (hasnt even been proven). Rather than being skeptical its almost like hes just anti current day perception of what spooky is. In the same way that people from the middle ages would find electricity spooky and silly
@@jaz4742no, he’s just against ridiculous new age beliefs that have no basis in science. At least Many Worlds solves the measurement problem.
@FPSIreland2 the concept of consciousness existing as a gradient in nature is an ancient concept. New age people are irrelevant to the conversation.
May be u are just too stupid to figure out that those things have absolutely nothing to do with reality and just bunch of word salad with no empirical evidence 😊.
8:40 woah there.....that has never been proved either way, ...that statement was illusion
Exactly, he talking as if God has been debunked 😂. There is still no evidence for or against. Sean needs to go back and read Socrates
If you make an unverifiable claim, I don't believe there's a need for anyone to prove it doesn't exist.
@@bltwegmann8431 if you can't prove it doesn't exist, then saying it doesn't exist is an unverifiable claim...
@@UriyahRecords One must do one's own deep thinking, ever deeper.
Who will do this for oneself - only the willing - joyful self.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
Naïve realist materialism is not compatible with modern physics: as writes Eugene Wigner, in his essay ‘Remarks on the Mind-Body Question’, while “Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, monism in the case of materialism is not”; as stated Max Planck, in Das Wesen der Materie (a speech given in 1944, in Florence, Italy), “my research on the atom has shown me that there is no such thing as matter in itself”; and, as affirmed Werner Heisenberg, in his Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie, “modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language”.
In what sense is naïve realist materialism incompatible with modern physics? In the sense that experiments like the double-slit experiment have shown that particles behave like waves when not subjected to measurement or observation: the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics insists that there is a collapse of the wave function upon measurement or observation thereof (so that the wave function collapses upon its being measured or observed), such that it is allowed that a cat in a box is not in a determinate state until the box is opened and its contents measured or observed. Proponents of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, however, may insist that there is no wave function collapse, and that all possible configurations of systems have a constitutive existence, if only in independent universes; however, it should be noted that the theory that there exist many universes independent of each other is egregiously a petitio principii fallacy. Defenders of the Many-Worlds Interpretation may argue that it is not circular reasoning to argue for the existence of many universes, because the conclusion of many worlds follows from or is implied by the application of mathematical equations; however, all the same, it is a petitio principii to suppose, not only that there are many empirically-unverifiable worlds, but that the math and logic that holds for this universe holds equally for and tells us something about other universes which we cannot possibly know or have any access to empirically (if equations hold for this universe, this tells me nothing concerning whether they hold for other hypothetical universes, so that to assume that theories developed by man in this world hold for and apply to other unknowable hypothetical worlds, indisputably, is circular reasoning all the same).
But, further, when I run the double-slit experiment and note its results (or when I experiment in general), what do I have to do with if not my own Vorstellungen? In the words of George Berkeley, “what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?” (namely, what I entitle the “wave function” is, in Hume’s terminology, an idea in my own consciousness, and the results of any experiment I happen to run, again, in Hume’s terminology, amount to impressions). As stated Hume “To begin with the senses, ’tis evident these faculties are incapable of giving rise to the notion of the continu’d existence of their objects, after they no longer appear to the senses. For that is a contradiction in terms, and supposes that the senses continue to operate, even after they have ceas’d all manner of operation”. In a word, it is a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of a mind-independent thing-in-itself (whether a mind-independent wave function (what I call the “wave function” being, in Hume’s terminology, an idea), mind-independent determinate matter, or whatsoever other mind-independent x you postulate) given only my consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen; ipso facto, there can be no argument for a mind-independent thing-in-itself that is not a non sequitur, since all it is technically possible to know is consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen. There is no experiment I can run, and there is no interpretation I can give of its results, which will enable me to pronounce concerning anything other than my own consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen, since all I know is the activity of my own consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen (I refer the reader to the analysis of instrumentalism given above). Just as much as it is a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of a mind-independent thing-in-itself given only my consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen, so too is it a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of other minds given only my consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen. Not to mention that, since all it is technically possible to know is our own consciousness and its attendant Vorstellungen, it is a petitio principii to affirm the existence of either a mind-independent thing-in-itself or other minds, let alone a mind-independent wave function (although, if by “mind-independent wave function” we mean “sheer indeterminacy”, perhaps we can say that such a wave function, such “sheer indeterminacy”, exists beyond my own consciousness, since, as Kant argued, because the a priori forms of the understanding and of our sensibility determine our Wahrnehmungen, granting Kant’s transcendental idealism, we can reasonably insist that whatsoever is mind-independent necessarily must be indeterminate and un-conditioned (not conditioned by either the a priori forms of our sensibility or of the understanding), though this is practically to say that whatsoever is mind-independent is nothing to us).
Much like Copernicus undermined geocentrism with his heliocentric account, impartial criticism, unbiasedly applied, undermines the thesis that “my Vorstellungen are not my Vorstellungen” (namely, impartial criticism, unbiasedly applied, undermines, invariably and inevitably, a naïve realist materialism (to say nothing of the fact that naïve realist materialism undermines itself by way of entailing, egregiously, a contradiction in terms)). Incidentally, it must be said, the Copernican heliocentric thesis is perfectly compatible with a Kantian empirical realism: Kant insisted, per his empirical realism (and in opposition to transcendental realism), that objectivity is to be determined, not according to the correspondence of our Wahrnehmungen to mind-independent things-in-themselves (transcendental realism), but according to the conformity of our Wahrnehmungen to the a priori forms of the understanding and of our sensibility.
This is not to criticise or anything like that.
Me - Raja yoga teacher - said philosophy should start from wonder (East) and not from doubt (West).
He also said that philosophy - is like looking for a black cat - in a darkened room.
Not to negate your long term study and learning. I have been doing meditation training - on the heart for 42 yrs and a decade of Zen - starting at 11 yrs.
He said those things - to protect the spiritual aspirant - against too much intellectualism - because it does not suit the needs of Yoga.
What you are doing - suits yourselves. Thank you - for sharing.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
I second all the comments about Bernardo Kastrup coming on
Consciousness is simply the collapsing of the wave function within matter itself, like each cell or atom is "aware" of it's own position/place/perspective... Human consciousness, is our brains measuring and collapsing the wave function of all inputs through our neural network.
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 .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: 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. 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, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(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).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists 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 can be identified with 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.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. 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 (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, 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. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
The notion that consciousness is just a description of what you are doing when you’re experiencing red etc. has been debunked many years ago. It’s called behaviorism. Consciousness is definitely more than just a description of what someone is doing. It is feeling like something to be “doing” (experiencing) something. And physicalism has no need nor explanation for it.
This is as close as one can get from a Cartesian mind. Brilliant.
Im happy Sean kept his composure.
The universe does not need us to exist, so therefore it and every particle within it is not an illusion. We are participants
please have on Bernardo kastrup
What level of predictive success do you deem as sufficient to claim that the theory making the prediction contains ontologically true concepts?
There have been theories in the past that contradict theories today. These theories in the past had predictive power, however they had less than the theories we have today.
It seems arbitrary to say that x amount of predictive power (essentially theory today that has x amount of predictive power) =truth when it is possible that a contradictory theory will be developed in the future with a better predictive power.
I think it’s an error that comes from falsely equivocating prediction with truth.
Consciousness controls all we experience when you die you'll come back when is totally up to the observer the conscious being it has perfectly outsmarted death of the physical being
I think people are missing the point. At first, he mentioned what is famous as the "psycophisycal problem" . He doesn't claim that science has a solution for it. What he argues against, is the fact that we should look for something non-scientific, non-empirical, as a way of solving this problem. It's not very different than if in the past saying you don't believe the world was created by a diety, just because we didn't have the science how the world came to be.
Spatial awareness is constructed from consciousness, that allows conscious to act as a tool of assistance , from the effects of causality within the responses of the environmental impact that is continuously moving through the cycle of constant changing conditions of duality occurring within us and around us all , both independently and collectively within the absence of time. Time is emergence of relevance to formulating matter, as time starts as being absent both physically and mentally and simultaneously present itself as an opportunity to align with change constantly occurring, both physically and psychologically,
becoming responsibility for the consequences that will potentially arise throughout multiple locations and positions, in us all individually and collectively, regardless of position and location, this may appear as radomness seeking order, within the use of consciousness, change is constantly changing with or without consciousness, which means human beings are choosing to not look deeper into themselves , but rather accept whatever they believe comes from change, this is what I believe Sean is referring towards here as the wrong definition for illusion, which to me seems to reflect the power of the mind, when attaching mental beliefs to become matter, which is manifestation of practice of repetition, to form order from the perception of disorder and the feelings of discomfort , is the notion of past mermoy that you accept as being accepted and accurate information, consciousness comes from the emergence of constant change, if consciousness is used correctly, then consciousness allows for you to create spatial awareness, within the assistance of timelines and memory to support yourself within the determination of relevance and irrelevance, which is based upon your actions and ability to not only understand what you seek within various values , but also understand which variables values are irrelevant, either way, whatever you decide to practice and nurture to reinforce that becomes your responsibility towards your alternate reality. Awareness is the observation of yourself becoming the observer of your own circumstances, without the use of consciousness supporting you to focus and identify yourself as the baseline of change within your position and location within space time, in multiple dimensions during your search, as the universe doesn’t stop moving, so we must continuously observe ourselves to sustain awareness, to adapt our position with change, by doing this , you evolve, because you were self aware of the change occurring within multiple parameters and align with momentum, this effect is what I believe happiness is, as time becomes absent again, because you are consciously self aware of the fun occurring within yourself, and therefore time itself disappears, but when you are suffering, time drags , this is the perception of acceptance of poor decisions that you have reinforced either emotionally, mentally or both, if you don’t identify the appropriate awareness that is necessary for change and adaptability, then you hold on to the pastime of whatever you believed is accurate, and the universe doesn’t personalise change, only you do, meaningful connection is your decision, but with or without you willingness to seek forward without looking back to observe how you got to this position, this means you will live in the pasting moments of your own belief system,and the history of the environments you expose yourself to, which will then mean , you have written your future to repeat, no awareness to observe the unknown, then nothing changes, because you don’t know how to realign yourself and adapt, but use consciousness to observe the unknowns, then change present itself as potential to predict the future and realign yourself in the present moment, and practice the need, towards evolving your future by using time and awareness to grow your discomfort to become something better, because this need, is what you truly believes matters.
How does life spring from non-living matter unless consciousness is fundamental? And once life exists, why does it favor survival? Why isn't it indifferent to whether it lives or dies? Life not only has a bias toward living, but it affirmatively pursues achieving immortality through reproduction. I can only conclude from all of this that consciousness is not emergent but fundamental.
Life doesn't favor survival. It just happens that the life you see favors survival, otherwise you wouldn't see it. There are lots of mutations that make living organisms die and they are just not transmitted further.
@@visionvtm By favors I meant prefers and desires. Life wants to live. Why? Why does it care about surviving? Why isn't it indifferent to returning to a non-living state?
@@bromleysimon7414 desire to be alive only applies to humans from what we know. Because we have an understanding of what death means to us. Other living things may not have the desire to live but have a fear of being hurt. You can imagine that if you wouldn't be afraid of dying or of being hurt you wouldn't be living for a long time, probably not even enaugh to have kids.
@@bromleysimon7414 Again, it's the same point as made before. Life (or more accurately, matter) doesn't instrinsically favor survival, it's simply that all the life you see around you had to have by definition favored survival up to that point (hell, it could even have survived by pure chance without any causality of a life-desire). Human's who commit suicide or exhibit other maladaptive behaviors did not favor life, yet they were clearly still alive.
To be even more technical; saying life favors living is non-sensical as a definition problem, because living is what defines life. It is like saying why do circles prefer to be made up of a line? Because the definition of a circle involves a line.
@@visionvtm - That would mean those animals have an understanding of whatever it is that induces fear.
mat·ter
noun
1.
physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
"the structure and properties of matter" 0:24 panpsychism would only apply to living forms of matter or is dna 🧬 conciousness
The argument to your comment would be concerning where consciousness comes from, what it actually is. If all things are atoms, from rocks to clouds to humans to insects, then why does this “consciousness “ thing only arise in certain things.. where does it begin, where does it end:.. it can’t be located.
@@darrenbrown7037 looking for the answer, not claiming to have it.
I want Lex Friedman to interview the self help guru and TH-camr Leo Gura. Would be a hard-hitter
7:50 Paul Wallis (author and Bible translator) would have some views about god being simply an illusion.
He would be an interesting guest.
Hint: he believes personified 'gods' were real and very much non-human.
Lex should try and get Bruce Lipton on the show.
Life and Consciousness is Eternal,
the 'Real Illusion', (Stuff-side) is a consequence of our
Eternal Basic-Abilities, and Creator-Principles.
So Rainbow is our Consciousness, (7) and
Colors is our Basic-Abilities,
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo.
1-2-3-4-5-6.
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory.
1-2-3 is the Stuff-Bearing, basic-Abilities, and 4-5-6
is the Mind-Bearing, but all Thoughts and Stuff,
is a certain composition of them all.
The Set of our Basic-Abilities is of very dynamic nature,
expose, both Life-side and Stuff-side.
Gravity=Heat+Feeling=Freeze = Stuff,
Instinct keep them in a harmonic balanced tension.
The Contrast-Princip and the Perspective-Princip,
makes Feeling, into Sensing, (Life-side)
Just to give an Idea of the Eternal Basic Perspective.
And this Cosmic order is also mirrored in our physical body-structure,
and Day/Night-Circuit, Wake+Deep-sleep.
The future being able to be predicted is a contradiction to his statements on imagination.
How am I the 5th comment? Love this man.
It seems to me that to believe panpsychism is to believe consciousness has no purpose whatsoever. If everything has is conscious, then consciousness is the least special thing in existence.
I used to think Sean Carroll was smart but now I'm kind of doubting that because if one is the only thing that could explain reality cuz nothing is completely material or solid matter there is no such thing as solid matter so it's all information and energy that means it's all part of the Mind nothing would carry meaning to where it would be something that was understood or meant something to do anything without there being a mind to understand it because there would be no reason for it and as I said there is nothing material in the universe at all it is almost complete emptiness with little points of vibration and energy Ben Fields all of this is created out of nothing that's basically just from laws and information and forces alone all of these things have to be fine-tuned and directed and all of the values of each thing have to be calculated and balanced. You're just missing the basic picture itself that information is the very Fabric and structure of reality and something had to create this information it cannot have just come into being a book does not write itself. Furthermore everything in reality has its very own identity and definition of what it is while its definition might be shared with other things its identity is not and that bit of information cannot be blended into any of the other bits of information so it all has to be differentiated in separated and organized. Furthermore the information has to be recorded in the first place so this stuff can be created because it all starts out as an idea or a concept. But the universe or creation as itself is a Unity or a Continuum it's a singular thing and although it is one impotent field of awareness or mind it is not a consciousness at the Consciousness is something more limited to one point or one position within time and space with a given amount of matter and energy or whatever data associated with it where are the cases is quantized and focused and it's in motion whereas the field of mind that is the foundation of all existence is infinite and continuous in absolutely Motionless Andy's in almost every single way mathematically equivalent to zero or absolute nothingness which is actually the largest Infinity there is it's the largest set of all infinite sets and it's the largest thing you can even imagine to exist and it's what gives rise to everything else. Mine is not separate from physics is the information that mine contains that gives rise to all the laws of physics and everything else and all the quantum field electromagnetic field all those things are fields that are generated from mind. Now all the things that mine had recorded and and learned had to have been learned just like we have to learn things there's no way around that no matter if you're a gigantic universal mind or if you're a God or if you're a human and the only way you can learn these things is by learning them. Or experiencing them I should say but when you are a Unity that doesn't really have any existence and can't move or anything as the infinite mind is then you have a little problem especially since there's an infinite number of things that you must learn and you are one. So the only way you can do that is to divide yourself up into an infinite amount of finite units that can be further divided up into an infinite amount of infinitesimals where is singularities that hold within each one of themselves a whole another universe or Infinity that's from the inside is the infinite volume. Matter in in mind are not separated matter is mind mind is the foundation and the force that is broadcasting the signal and frequency that's manifesting as matter to our awareness . There is no such thing as comes first considering that there is no time outside of the universe as it applies to us and time is only our illusion that we experience moving through the four-dimensional time-space Continuum we are in and the fourth dimension being the temporal Dimension that we experience as a present moment of now and time flowing. This is all necessary for Consciousness to learn all the things that need to learn so mind can be taught all the things that needs to know so it can create itself. Consciousness is just mind manifesting itself as a temporal Singularity so we can have our present moment of now and have locality within SpaceTime so we can have mattered form movement and growth. I thought Sean Carroll was smart I just found out he's a Materialist or whatever he said is which means That he's an absolute moron As his own science experiments and Mathematics has proven Long and long time ago that there's nothing material in this universe it is all almost complete emptiness with vibrating points of energy as its only Objects and then these are not material Period Consciousness does not require you to change the laws of physics it's what Gives the laws of physics to reality it's what has thought up the laws of physics Period God this dude really disappoints me I've heard him So many times when he seen halfway smart and now My estimation of him is gonna be forever tarnished
Who is the “I” that sees?
It is an embarrassment that there are scientists and philosophers who try to solve the hard problem of consciousness by attempting to discover how the brain or the body causes consciousness (it is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to argue for causation given only correlation) - the fact is that the scientist or philosopher who tries to discover how consciousness is caused by body is either dogmatic or naïve, and he may as well try to discover how a rendered object in a digital video game world causes the rendering of the video game world (in the same way that a rendered object in a video game world is only a property of the video game world rendered, so too is the phenomenal body a property of (a set of Vorstellungen in) consciousness, for, in Hume’s words, “properly speaking, ’tis not our body we perceive, when we regard our limbs and members, but certain impressions, which enter by the senses”, and, as Berkeley writes, “It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But, with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For, what are the fore-mentioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?”).
There’s no inherent contradiction in the idea of a physical system producing consciousness. You just really like your idealistic fairytales
@@caveman-cp9tqIt entails (1) circular reasoning to affirm the constitutive existence of a mind-independent physical system that causes consciousness; in the words of David Hume, “That our senses offer not their impressions as the images of something distinct, or independent, and external, is evident; because they convey to us nothing but a single perception, and never give us the least intimation of any thing beyond. A single perception can never produce the idea of a double existence, but by some inference either of the reason or imagination. When the mind looks farther than what immediately appears to it, its conclusions can never be put to the account of the senses; and it certainly looks farther, when from a single perception it infers a double existence, and supposes the relations of resemblance and causation betwixt them” (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1.4.2.4). Additionally, (2) it entails a contradiction in terms to suppose that the contents of our experience are not the contents of our experience - we do this when we label as “physical system” what is, in fact, a system of perceptions (impressions or ideas, in Hume’s terminology) - for, to again cite Hume, “To begin with the senses, ’tis evident these faculties are incapable of giving rise to the notion of the continu’d existence of their objects, after they no longer appear to the senses. For that is a contradiction in terms, and supposes that the senses continue to operate, even after they have ceas’d all manner of operation” (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1.4.2.3). Furthermore, (3) it is an instance of the fallacy of hypostasis to treat our perceptions as if they were mind-independent things-in-themselves, for, as writes Kant, in his first Kritik, “we hypostatise outer appearances … [when we] come to regard them not as representations but as things existing by themselves outside us, with the same quality as that with which they exist in us …” (A 387). Also, (4) your remarks in effect amount to an ignoratio elenchi fallacy, since rather than actually address my point (that the contents of our consciousness are the contents of our consciousness), you just ignore it and posit your own contradiction-in-terms physicalism (I refer you to point two above), and, worse, you are only begging the question against what I have stated (you have not at all rebutted what I have said so much as you have just dogmatically stated your own opinion against it, without defending at all that opinion, simply just taking it for granted).
Simple question, show me evidence of conciouness /mind absence of matter/brain/biology .
@@AtheistfanGuava The onus is not on me, since, like Berkeley “I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend either by sense or reflexion. That the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is THAT WHICH PHILOSOPHERS CALL MATTER or corporeal substance. And in doing of this there is no damage done to the rest of mankind, who, I dare say, will never miss it”. The onus is on you, if you desire to insist that there exists any mind-independent matter.
Now, you cannot appeal to any of your perceptions to argue for the existence of mind-independent matter, for, as David Hume wrote: “That our senses offer not their impressions as the images of something distinct, or independent, and external, is evident; because they convey to us nothing but a single perception, and never give us the least intimation of any thing beyond. A single perception can never produce the idea of a double existence, but by some inference either of the reason or imagination. When the mind looks farther than what immediately appears to it, its conclusions can never be put to the account of the senses; and it certainly looks farther, when from a single perception it infers a double existence, and supposes the relations of resemblance and causation betwixt them” (Treatise of Human Nature).
You are practically asking me to provide evidence for something I reject (that mind-independent matter is necessary for consciousness), so you are missing my point and ipso facto engaging in the ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
I love Mr Carroll, and see him as a great scientist, writer, and intellectual. The power that he possess to explain even most complex ideas, is truly stunning.
What a man.
Can science - or Mr Carroll - explain - a good joke or the taste of wheat ?
Somethings - remain - quite willing - in their - uniqueness.
Good to reflect on - with joy.
Fare the well - in life's journey.
Please Invite Swami Sarvapriyananda on your podcast.
So my pet rock could get a headache?
Interesting that Sean Carroll has a backwards understanding of it. He says "The argument for it is supposed to be that there is something fundamentally uncapturable about conscious awareness by physical behavior of atoms and molecules"
No lol.. what you just said is the detection of consciousness. I interpret it as there is something unexecutable about existence without the observation of something conscious. Consciousness is a prerequisite to existence. Consciousness is a prerequisite to any action. It cannot happen if it cannot be observed. It only happens because it was or it can be. So in other words "a tree doesn't make a sound when it falls in the woods if there is nothing alive to hear it fall"
When you say "consciousness is a prerequisite to existence" what does that mean exactly? Does that mean all things in existence have a conscious? Or everything exists because of our own conscious. If that is the case when you or I look at the color red we may see different things?
@@GetOffTheLawn correct, otherwise known as the anthropic principle. It's why the double slit experiment gives you different results dependent on whether or not you are observing the experiment
@@GetOffTheLawn another example is a device can determine whether a particle is here or there but only a conscious being can observe or measure a superposition. I am just of the belief that without us the particle is either here or there and we are the phenomenon that introduce things like superpositions. Who's to say anything outside of us even experiences time. It would make superpositioning a phenomenon that requires consciousness to be observed.
Consciousness is simply the awareness of reality. Basically, self-awareness and awareness of the physical world.
Yea we all know that. That's the face level definition. But what really is it? Where did it come from? What's the point of it?
What is a mystery for you in so-called "consciousness"?
Consciousness is who you are, it is your essence.
@@fearlessj.walker3277 It's a feedback loop between the hippocampus and prefrontal-cortex. Its purpose is complicated and goes into the nature of the universe itself.
@@mirr1984 That is just a road map ----- essence please
- yoga says it is a manifestation of the Divine - First Mind - we have humanised its function and engrossed its quality - and going back to the Source - will bring back - the Divine Purity and the real Way of Work.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
Maybe consciousness is dark matter. You heard it here first okay.
Fr I’ve been thinking this for a while and that the timing in which we “understand” things collectively and individually adjusts dark matter with it accordingly in some sense… almost like time and understanding are one in the same. Idk, obviously a crazy statement but i feel that the pace per say or timing of new understandings and insights about what we are as a whole is a subject that hasn’t been talked about enough or thought of outside of the box.
It's a perfectly acceptable theory in that as a life evolves over billions of years we eventually transcend our physical biological brains in to the digital then to the atomic to the quantum etc, etc.... and if other life has been doing this over billion of years then that amount of "consciousness" in this realm has a weight, force in the universe, albeit imperceptible to our current physics.
I believe consciousness arises as an interplay within the brain, combining past memories, predictive processing, sensory input, and neurochemical activity. This intricate process serves an evolutionary purpose, allowing us to perceive reality and navigate the world around us.
@@RaphaelDartigueswhere/what in the biological brain is consciousness?
What brain Neuron decides what is Truth or not true?
What Gene gives birth to Morality?
Also, saying dark matter is the source of human Consciousness, is imaginative science Fiction, because scientists on earth do Not have a clear understanding of dark matter.
😂😅
Sean Carroll absolutely destroyed Goff during a live debate and it was glorious. I myself am panpsychism curious, but Goff is the worst person to advocate for it. His arguments are so heavily flawed that I'm not sure how anyone could take him seriously. Would love to see Hoffman on Mindscape though.
Hoffman and Carroll - let that happen - soon.
Let us see how opposite camps - try and unify - under the umbrella of - scientific enquiry and search - for truth.
Fare thee well - on life's journey.
Want a lesson in consciousness? Inhale some Salvinorin A...
what did you smoke this time???? :D
Isn't the Earth a travelling spaceship within space-time? So technically we are flying lolz. Also if Earth (Gaia) is a living entity wouldn't that make our Universe a living entity as well...?
Pathetic when people with no technical background decide that if they cannot postulate a solution, then nobody else will. We only hear from a small handful of people on this problem.
When sailing - we move up and down continually.
We may get sun - we will definitely - get wet.
Hope for smooth sailing - no guarantee, though.
It is in the mix - this sharing of ideas.
Fare thee well - on life's journey.
@@user-hy9nh4yk3p True but depends on who we let in the boat with us as well..
@@nyworker
That's the rub.
Just sailed into this storm of consciousness research..
It got quite heated and a bit heavy - lightness needed and flexibility - for the nature - of this exploration.
Results have come - as in meditation for 52 years - has a central goal within - using the heart and mind - in harmony.
Hoping for your success - it is a thorough Gordian knot.
Maybe your sword - is at the ready? Mind and metal - honed.
Fare thee well - on life's journey
Consciousness is a fifth dimension.
In fact, you could say that consciousness is the universe.
As such, it transcends the other four dimensions.
Mind is a bad analogy for consciousness - so the arguments in this video are flawed because the analogy is flawed.
A better idea is that, somewhere in the brain, the matter/energy/time dimensions of the universe have an interface to the conscious dimension
And to go one step further, there is a force in the universe that has yet been undiscovered that causes matter to organize in such a way that it will eventually connect to consciousness. Some people call this force God, altho' the thought of the force being an old man sitting somewhere in the sky getting pissed off if you covet another guy's old lady seems incredibly simplistic in describing what this force is.
It appears, from where I'm sitting, that there is an intelligence to the universe, that that intelligence did set in motion the four dimensions (matter/time) that a force guiding those dimensions would eventually result in those dimensions interfacing with consciousness.
It's hard to believe that every creature on the planet from amoebas to cockroaches to horses to humans all create consciousness in whatever brains they have. And they must be conscious in order to navigate the material world as they do. It's a lot more likely that all we need is an interface to consciousness in our brains.
Think of the internet as an anology. Every iphone doesn't need the complete internet on it and in such a way that it agrees with every other device's conception of the internet - all it needs is an interface to the internet and some basic processing capabilities in its "brain".
Daily activities are buffered in our little brains. Dreaming is the organizing of your little brain's information inside the brain and sending info to the internet where it is processed and stored somewhere in the conscious universe. Note that if you are not allowed to dream to enter your daily buffer, you die. Dreaming and the fact that it is mandatory sort of suggests that a key part of why we are here is to transfer the essence of our activity to a central repository for who knows what reason.
Carroll's definition of panpsychism is actually a definition of Idealism. This is why I hate hearing physicists talk about philosophy.
You can’t talk someone out of an illusion, he must see if for himself :)
Sort of like you not being able to use reason to change someone's belief that he has not himself reasoned into believing.
@@thecarman3693 yup, and no belief necessary to see through an illusion :)
Your own - worked out - solutions - not even God - can take from you. (India)
3:00 I have to admit this is the best and most simple explanation of why consciousness might very well just be the chemical reactions in brain.
I still like to believe in panpsychism but he has good explanation.
I actually love Sean Carrol I have to say that, but I don't think that explanation actually makes sense. A way of talking about what? Our words have references or they don't. They point beyond themselves, or they don't. So God for instance. Sean believes that it has no reference. That's what it means for something to be an illusion or to not exist. But he does not think consciousness is an illusion. Therefore, we are left with two options. Either it is a way of talking about matter, in which case, to say that something is the color red for instance is just to talk about wavelengths of light and chemical reactions in the brain. Or it's a way of talking about a property that cannot be identified or described by talking about those other things. Either the color read just *is* neural activity or it is something in addition to it, something that either emerges from it or exists prior to or alongside it. The problem is that if we say consciousness is emergent in this context we also can't say it's simply a way of talking about those other things. That is to say, to say that something is a certain color is to say something else, or additional to, what the physical description does, and indeed I can perfectly describe the brain state I'm in when I see red and would have not described the color at all. So it can't simply be another way of talking about physical matter so long as it describes a property that physical matter, by itself or before consciousness emerges, does not possess.
I understand where the thought comes from and when I say it doesn't make sense I don't mean to disparage it. It's the best explanation we have. Yet it really does not make sense at all. Consciousness is just that weird. And I think saying it's just chemical reactions in the brain downplays that strangeness. For if it is emergent than it can't be "just" chemical reactions in the brain, since if you describe the chemical reactions alone you would not thereby have described the phenomenon entirely, since you would have left out the thing that emerges from it. If I ask you how much matter an object has, and you tell me its mass, you have answered my question. That's what heaviness is. But if I ask you what the color you are seeing is, and you tell me the neural state your brain is currently in, you haven't answered my question. That isn't what a color is. It may or may not be what produces a color, but it can't be what it is. So color concepts can't be ways of talking about chemical reactions in the brain, even if they emerge from them, and so this answer does not address, but rather avoids the problem.
Maybe he thinks we are just here to understand the world, not create it.
I wonder what Mr. Carroll would say, since he 'dismisses' God, does his 'person' continue to exist after his body will die? Does he just go poof and stop existing? Such a horrible and hopeless thought. But if he thinks his 'self' will continue to exist, perhaps in another dimension, then God becomes becomes necessary.
"then God becomes becomes necessary." this does not follow - there are many non-theist systems of belief that posit for immaterial consciousness without it being justified by a creator God. Sean does not regard, and has mentioned in the past, the concept of ceasing to exist as horrible; and he has commented he is under the impression once biological function ceases so too does one's consciousness. He does not dismiss the concept of God, he outright refutes its current definitions by established religions, and chooses not to make grand conjectures as many do.
@@thomabow8949For Lex to be a scientist, his audience is very anti science and very pro pseudoscience
@@dogecoin1692 Lex is not the one we are referring to as a scientist
There is no such thing as self. There is only consciousness
The existence of god is wrong? Sean Carroll's arrogance is amazing. It also amazes me that someone so smart can have such little insight to anything beyond the material world. I guess that is what makes him feel safe.
Consciousness is just a byproduct of evolutionary preference.
Oh really? And evolutionary preference is a byproduct of what? That's the problem with physicalism, eventually you're gonna hit a hard limit of some kind or other, and that limit is as enigmatic and inexplicable as ascribing the world's existence to a creator.
God and the Holy Spirit in all of us. He’s real.
Lol him saying the existence of god has been proven wrong is a contradiction to the observer concept. Lol they can’t explain that yet still push their beliefs as fact
Why would someone even think to listen to a physicist concerning this subject? Why would one expect them to know anything?
It’s because his IQ is around 150.
We live in hope and wonder and are trying to learn things. Well - one - writing this - is.
I think Lex is an atheist, I wish he would get someone like William Lane Craig, or Josh Rasmussen or Trent Horn or other theistic philosophers and thinkers on. Because in the end We all know God exists.
He's a dimwit when he thinks the belief in God was just about science. It was more about establishing hope over fear and human civilization itself.
Deluded talk about illusions and delusions. A false idea is a delusion. A false impression about what you are seeing/sensing is an illusion. Consciousness itself cannot be an illusion. Everything within consciousness can be an illusion, but you cannot falsely experience that you are experiential. Simply nonsense.
Lex is (or seems) drunk!...as allways!
Mr. Carol has now the religion of science to believe even if does not explain a lot more then then it does and that no matter in what direction it goes it stumbles more and more on consciousness, something science know’s as much or less of then of black energy.
Well, according to all the gurus and anyone who has done psychedelics throughout history, the whole universe has life running through it everything. However we want to slice it, life and everything else is completely connected to the the whole universe. We are ultimately part of one existence with infinite forms.
I do not think in the same way as a man who picks out that shirt to wear in public.....
His shirt works for him just fine. Let's see your wardrobe.
I did not mean to say his shirt does not work just fine for him. My point I guess is people see the same object in different ways ...and maybe that can translate into our views and opinions on many subjects....@@thenewtowncryer
@@beerman204 cool
It just depends on the brew - one prefers - and the socks - that suit - the occasion.
I just dont understand how people are so dismissive of God. But have no problem accepting everything coming from nothing.
which God? I was raised Catholic by Catholic parents, went to church on Sundays but never believed that God was any more real than the Easter Bunny. Sincerely no shade on your beliefs. I think it's a good thing that people believe in God. It gives them hope and spirituality and community and I wish I believed in God. But I never have. I also have never really trusted in the Big Bang any more than General Relativity explains black holes. There's more to know than our little brains can comprehend almost certainly. My gut instinct has me Atheist. I'm open to debate though.
Can you understand why people don't believe in unicorns, Zalmoxis, and Aphrodite?
@@visionvtm corny reply
@@seanhumphreys3993 you take a look inside your wallet and it's empty but you know that it's still possible to spend money with the condition that you'll have to pay back. i.E. 0=1-1
@@seanhumphreys3993and what makes you say that this was a corny reply? The fact that the things that I mentioned seem to not exist in real life?
Isn't it obvious that everything on earth is conscious. The plants the trees the earth everything has consciousness
I love conversations like this. I also believe in God.😄
That is just fine and dandy. Back - to my coffee.
Fare thee well - on life's journey.
Darling Duck, call me mad, bad and dangerous to know.
And yes, that is not a literal suggestion.
@@jenniferkruse7269 Ping !
What it ALL comes down to is VERY simple: There is VERY big question that nobody yet has an answer to (or even the beginnings of an answer to). In fact...it is the BIGGEST unanswered question in science. Literally! Why?...because science is created by consciousness. When we figure out what consciousness is and how it's created...we figure out where science comes from...AND...most importantly...we finally figure out where mathematics comes from.
You don't know the recent neuroscience of Tononi and Graziano
@@acarbonunit Yes I do. And if you multiplied them by a million they still couldn't even begin to explain how I produced a single letter of a single word of this entire sentence. And that's just a simple fact!
There is one answer why Conciousness exists, because God created embodied beings as well as unembodied beings such as angels.
@@gsp3428 Well...that solves it then. Why do we even bother with science anymore. The answer to everything...is just 'God'. I'll remember that next time my car breaks down.
@@timb350 Who made your car, well if we know who made your car why even bother trying to fix it, because we know who made it. Imagine saying we can explain the science of how a car works, what it is made of, but then well someone asks "who made it" well if the answer is always people, might as well forget about it. Science is just the study of everything, the study of what things are, how things work and the physical explanations of reality, because we can explain physically how a computer or a car works and what they are made of does not mean they didnt have a maker, actually there lots of deep philosophical questions science can never answer, the most fundamental being why anything exists at all, or you may have heard it as why is there something rather than nothing, when you can answer that give me a call, and I will erase God from the picture.
I always find it interesting that science is the study of God’s creation but many “scientists” and such people have removed God from the equation. Really odd behavior
I have not encountered anywhere where science is declared as the "study of God's creation"; I have not met any theistic or secular scholars who posit this. If you are referencing Francis Bacon's intentions when he helped devise the scientific method, I encourage you to refer not to one mans system of thought but the broader scientific philosophy that has emerged. It is not odd behavior in the slightest
@@thomabow8949 why would you have had to hear this before? Who cares if you’ve heard it before. The statement stands and is the truth. Science is the study of God’s creation and laws. They’re looking for laws. Meaning there is a creator of those laws (physics)
@@dizzlerz There is no sane modern practitioner of scientific philosophy that holds "Science is the study of God’s creation and laws." as their fundamental definition. It is a horrendous presuppositional stance when beginning any investigation and is arguably not even a scientific inquiry if this is one's starting position.
Secondly - I would have to consider your behavior *extremely* odd given the fact that you seem completely unable to comprehend the idea of atheistic, be it agnostic or positive in their lack of belief, or even secular positions, make up the *vast* *vast* majority of scientists who for the most part regard theistic beliefs as entirely irrelevant to their investigations, or utterly false based on all known empirical knowledge. This is only odd behavior to you due to your beliefs, it is hilariously normal to anyone who does not share your beliefs.
Why don't I ever see these Silly materialist debate or have open conversations with Bernardo Kastrup. Don't worry guys physicalism will be dead soon and finally, this mindless dogma will end.
Based on what evidence
Well, physicalism is already a minority view. The vast majority of earth’s population already believes that there is more than just the physical world.
@@acarbonunitlisten to Bernardo kastrups work
@@adamkallin5160who cares what the vast majority of the world thinks? Go back far enough in time and a vast majority of the world thinks the world is flat or cannibalism is fine
Sean Carroll is really good at sounding smart
Not really, he just communicates quite well. He might sound smart to an unintelligent person though. Something to think about.
Yes. That’s the point.
@@curiouslyeternallet me guess, you think Jesus is gonna come down and save you?
No
You may just have a short attention span and couldn’t capture a single thought of his lol
I am of the belief that consciousness is an artifact of the body. The body is confined to a time and a location. I am of the belief that this is solely what makes up individual experience. Essentially it is a condition That arises from being in a time and at a place not so much you being you. I think we are all the same person just indifferent times and places experiencing all possibilities simultaneously. Consciousness is just the shapes of the holes of a lampshade. We all have the same light bulb. But we all project a different light pattern.
You're wrong.
That is definitely not true, and would imply so many different things in science that make 0 sense lmao.
@@VolodymyrPankov hahaha at least I'm not a virgin 😅
@@a1ux It's called the anthropic principle actually and it's why The double slit experiment gives you a different result visually than what you are detecting with the computer. That's why you can visualize superpositioning but you can't measure it with a computer. The observation of the measurement has a direct impact on the measurement. This is like basic entry level stuff lol.. It's literally how the uncertainty principle came to be lol. Did you skip middle school science? 😅
@@a1ux it's literally the exact same concept as schrödinger's cat. There would actually be major problems if it wasn't mostly true 😅
consciousness is matter
science is leading you in the wrong direction. what you are looking for cannot be measured with physical instruments
prove it
@@ballskin open your eyes and look around
@@eyesee5834 cool. now prove looking around supports your argument.
It can be experienced though 😉
all the information you know, does it take up physical space? if not, then where is it?
Lex, make no mistake. Your guest doesn’t believe your god, or his/her/its "son."😅
Dude i cant believe Sean doesnt believe in Jesus Christ rising from the dead
Lol
Honestly though, in the quantum realm, it’s possible this happened lol
He believes in a multitude of alternate universes where you exist and made different decisions. He's not too far off in his fairy tales there, bud lol
Lol
Haha
in 1983 when Lieutenant Colonel Wayne McDonnell submitted a very unusual and detailed report to US Army Intelligence.
It was called "Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process". This is a step-by-step guide on how to achieve an out-of-body experience for the purpose of intelligence gathering.
But Colonel McDonnell's report went much further than that. An advanced Gateway participant can not just project their consciousness to a different place; They could pull their consciousness completely out of this reality. They could travel anywhere in the universe, and at any point in time.
The report revealed that our universe doesn't actually exist. It's a construct, created by our mind. By using the Gateway Process, you can exit the construct and see reality for what it really is.
The 30-page Gateway report was immediately classified for one simple reason: anyone can learn to do it.
And if you believe this, you are quite possibly the single most gullible person on TH-cam right now.
@@toddsmith5715 Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but I've studied the phenomena and it is 100 percent factual
@@RCSkunkWorXjust because you studied it? That's what makes it a fact?😂 What do you even mean by studying it?
@@RCSkunkWorX Lol, that's actually both hilarious and sad at the same time.
Consciousness is likely an energy field itself. It is around and within everything. Assuming our brain creates consciousness is childish. This is likely the mechanism for remote viewing and OBE.
Nonsense and without evidence
There is no evidence for any of those.
then why can't you remember what you were conscious of before you were born?
So what consciousness is just the Force from Star Wars? You’ve literally just described the force from Star Wars
@@kevinm9246 No evidence for remote viewing? Tell that to DARPA.
Who verified that the existence of God is wrong??
For your information sir, people still believe in God !
People believing in a God has no bearing on whether or not said God exists
Hypothesizing about the unknowable😱
Why is it unknowable
If you ask me if I am conscious, I will answer that I am. So my mind has moved my lips and created words. If panpsychism was correct, you'd still need a mechanism to bridge the gap between the "extra-physical", supposedly panspychist properties of my mind, and the way it affects the matter around itself. If you have an algorithm that ads 2 and 2 together, the answer it would provide would still be 4, even if you would assign some base consciousness to the algorithm. So panpsychism is wrong.
Consciousness = energy = Second law of thermodynamics. Consciousness is part of a process of entropy. All we do is eat and crap and procreate. Our consciousness is in two parts 1. to survive at a basic level (instincts of survival) and 2. guides us to get more food, security and ability in order eat, crap and procreate. This process increases entropy in the process of the earth and the universe expanding. It's that simple.
Lol damn, my man has a lot to learn about consciousness
The quarks in my brain are conscious enough to taste that apple experience, therefore consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and the stuff it is made of.
You have no proofs. You just believer in stupidity created by philosophers. I mean religious idea, so-called "panpsychism".
@@VolodymyrPankov Panpsychism isn't a religious idea.
So is the question "is consciousness created by the brain or does the brain receive consciousness from a outside source" ? God does very much exist, it's encoded in our DNA.
A synthesis of both.
how is god encoded in our DNA?
@@isaiahking4165 I wouldn't do it justice by trying to explain it. TH-cam it because the experts will be able to explain it better. It's actually very fascinating.
@@KristianWontroba one and the same.. you are both the rider and the horse
@@theydisintegrate Yes
Mind over matter, Sean. Mind over matter.
What nonsense
Sean has a perfectly reasoned hypothesis about religion. He’s obviously spent a lot of time thinking about how to debunk any and all faiths. I suspect that if he had focused his giant intellect on the canons of Christian belief he could have come to a different conclusion. Regardless, his arguments have little effect on people who have already had a genuine religious experience.
I had a genuine a-religious experience that perfectly confirmed to me that there were no supernatural entities that governed, created, or interacted with this world. It was so, so profound that it genuinely touched the balls of my consciousness and made me completely convinced in my position, a position so utterly unassailable by any criticism or commentary for I alone know of its strength!
People have religious experiences from various religions. Proof that it’s just a delusion
He's really arrogant for someone who believes in magic... everything from nothing. Life from non life. All magic fairy dust.
If nothing exists then logic doesn’t exist either, and there is no contradiction about a universe like this one existing without a cause
@@caveman-cp9tq Right, let me know next time you see a universe come into existence out of nothing. Or anything for that matter... Nevermind the finely tuned for life universe that we find ourselves in. Dude, materialism's dead and it's been for years now... Old news
@@shellback971able But we already live in something. If a unicorn popped into existence, it wouldn’t be coming from nothing, but whatever governs the rules of the universe. Those rules don’t exist prior to the existence of this universe. There’s no contradiction in assuming that logic and causality simply emerged from nothing, because that emergence happens in the absence of causality. What is the cause of causality? There isn’t one.
@@caveman-cp9tq The fact that you at least know that there are rules means you're halfway to understanding.
@@shellback971able And where did the rules come from? God? But then where did God come from? And so on. Is the greatest being in all of existence really uncaused? But then why can’t the universe be uncaused?
God is real.
Of course, it's very simple. Consciousness doesn't just emerge, it is programmed.
The Real Being - who ......
Fare thee well - in life's journey.