He hit the nail on the head with physicalism being indefinitely extensible. I have long been saying the very same thing. The Aharonov-Bohm effect or the concept of non-locality and teleportation of quantum information is as non-physical as it gets. The fact of the matter is that physicalism is a non-falsifiable theory because it fails to adequately define "matter". Some might say this doesn't mean that physicalism itself is unfalsifiable, but rather that our current physical theories are incomplete. What's the difference, really? The hard problem of consciousness may very well be not a problem for consciousness, but a problem for physicalism. Physicalism is a philosophical stance that is indefensible and unfalisfyable. It's not a scientific theory but a metaphysical one. This is not a critique of science! When you actually look at the progress of science, it does not support physicalism at all. In fact, it undermines it at every turn. The problem is that physicalism is taken as a given, as an axiom, rather than as a hypothesis that needs to be tested and potentially falsified. And this is a huge problem because it limits the scope of inquiry and the types of questions we are allowed to ask. Look for correlations where no physicalist would look, and watch the whole thing collapse in slow motion - slow enough to make a living and keep its name forever. At the end of the day, physical is what the human mind can perceive, and matter is what the human mind can manipulate.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is based on the assumption that consciousness is a property. There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is a property. It is an experience. Properties are qualities of objects. Consciousness is not a quality of objects. It is an experience that is had by a subject. The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is a category error. If we take a cosmopsychism view, the hard problem of physicalism and the combination problem of panpsychism dissolve. In this framework, higher levels of phenomenological consciousness are not a combination of the elementary consciousness of elementary particles. Rather, we see that higher complexity of physical matter allows for more complex forms of consciousness to emerge (dissociate) and be represented. We turn the table and take consciousness as fundamental, and the physical universe as a property of it. This makes individual consciousness an aspect of universal consciousness, not a combination of parts, but a dissociated aspect that has physical correlates. As for the mind not being an extensible substance, I beg to differ. If we accept that consciousness is experience and, as such, fundamentally unlocalizable, then its physical correlates (various types of minds) must have field-like qualities and sit on a continuum of spatiotemporal spread. This spread ranges from the highly localized and individual to the highly diffuse (non-local) and collective. As such, minds are necessarily overlapping and nested into each other, and while they indeed can be seen as extensible substances, they are more like scopes of organization with differing degrees of spatiotemporal spread, making the physical universe a holographic projection of a universal mind.
@@attilaszekeres7435 Physicalism is absolutely falsifiable, in fact falsifiability is at the heart of science, it's what makes it tick. All of science is one repeatable, verifiable observation away from being refuted. It can't be any other way. Science is infinitely extensible, because it explores empirical observation so anything that is observable is tractable to scientific inquiry. I know I'm inadmissibly conflating science with physicalism above, but physicalism is an approach to the interpretation of science, so they are joined at the hip. It's not the only such approach, of course. There's also idealism. >The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is based on the assumption that consciousness is a property. No, that's property dualism. Most physicalists are some variation of functionalist and view consciousness as a process or activity. Often a computational process. Yours is a very common misunderstanding of physicalism by many non-physicalists, I would highly recommend trying to understand what a position you are criticising actually says, to avoid an awful lot of wasted time refuting something they don't think.
@@attilaszekeres7435 If matter, whatever that is, can give rise to subjective experience (consciousness) then the ability to generate a consciousness is a property of matter.
@@jackarmstrong5645 The operational word here is "if". We do not know if matter can give rise to subjective experience. We have no mechanism to explain how that could happen. All we have is correlations. And even those correlations are not as straightforward as we would like them to be. The brain is necessary for the experience of human consciousness, but it may not be sufficient. There is something more going on. The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is a philosophical stance, not a scientific fact. It is a stance that is based on the assumption that matter is fundamental and that consciousness is derived from matter. This is a metaphysical assumption. The fact that brain states and mental states are correlated does not mean that brain states cause mental states. It could just as well be the other way around, or there could be a deeper reality that gives rise to both. The consciousness-first or idealist view does offer solutions to some of the most persistent problems in philosophy of mind. It completely sidesteps the hard problem of physicalism, the combination / binding problem of emergetism, and the interaction problem of dualism.
@@attilaszekeres7435 There is no reason to assume consciousness is not just another evolved feature of the animal, like a leg. There is no reason to assume the brain is not generating consciousness.
"What’s the relationship between our brains and our consciousness, between the physical stuff in our skulls and the mental experiences in our minds? Much rides on the answer". Like what? I feel I have a mind. My feeling allows me a sense of agency and to live a fully engaged life - illusion or not. This discussion has a very "angels on the head of a pin" vibe, to it.
As we get closer to truth (and we will) it won’t come down to interpretations of definitions. How indeed. Rejected because you can’t explain how? Other dimensions (one with consciousness) so implausible? So much more to discover to reject… not me.
..our souls were not sent here to know the truth about a loving GOD but TO HAVE FAITH, because it was losing faith that we all fell from Heaven, ended in hell, and now on earth for a chance to regain our faith so for us to return to HEAVEN - Our Original Home... if we fail, we will return to a cold dark nothingness (hell) - an absence of GOD's grace..
Consciousness belongs to the observer not to objects being observed therefore consciousness is something that is subjectively private and therefore not objectively viewed through some object like the brain.
The obvious follow-up question to his non-answer about the vagueness and extensibility of "physicalism" is to substitute with well-defined terminology, in particular the Standard Model. In other words, can first-person subjective experiencing of qualia & thoughts be reduced in principle to brain activities that behave entirely according to the current Standard Model of physics?
Subjective experience may be explained in terms of a revised and extended Standard Model and of a brain reconceptualized and rebranded as a massively open system with its representations spread in spacetime. But that would not be the Standard Model and the brain you talk about. And this reduction would not be a true reduction in practice because interpretability would be lost. More importantly, we cannot derive subjective experience from the Standard Model, even in principle, because the Standard Model is not equipped to handle subjective experience. It's great for particle physics, but it doesn't encompass all of reality. It may describe the physical correlates of subjective experience but the hard problem of consciousness (the nature of experience itself) is not a question of physics, but a question of metaphysics, and is not something that the Standard Model was designed to address. The problem with trying to reduce consciousness to the Standard Model is that it commits what philosopher John Searle calls the "mistake of ontological reduction." Just because a phenomenon emerges from a certain level of reality, it does not mean that it can be reduced to that level.
>attilaszekeres7435 : I've seen no compelling argument that the current Standard Model cannot in principle produce subjective experience. It's irrelevant that the SM wasn't designed for this "off label" application. The strong neural correlations provide a hint that it suffices, in principle. It's NOT a compelling argument that no one has a clue (yet) how to solve Chalmers' Hard Problem. Searle's distinction between emergence & reduction assumes there exist "emergent" phenomena that cannot in principle be "reduced." That assumption hasn't been proved.
@@brothermine2292 Neural correlations provide a hint that SM, in principle, suffices, but this remains an assumption. No evidence for causation whatsoever. The emergence of consciousness - an unverified assumption itself - is not just a problem of scale, but a problem of complexity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The brain is more like a dissipative structure in the sense of Ilya Prigogine, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with the ability to amplify small fluctuations and stabilize complex patterns. In short, the Standard Model deals with closed systems in equilibrium. The brain is not a closed system in equilibrium. Searle's distinction between emergence and reduction is not an assumption, but an observation about the logical structure of scientific explanation. Emergent properties are properties of a system that are not present at the level of the system's components. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the components, not from the components themselves. This is not a matter of what can or cannot be "proved," but rather a recognition of the limits of certain types of explanation. For those who enjoy picking their noses with a screwdriver, plenty of fun ahead. The hard problem of consciousness is not just a hard problem; it's a different kind of problem, one that requires a different kind of science. It does not exist many of the metaphysical systems other than physicalism. The SM falls because it is based on false assumptions and doesn't ask the right questions - namely, questions about phenomenal experience, e.g. what-it-is-like to have a certain experience. The SM is ontologically silent on the qualitative aspects of reality because it is not designed to address them. Can consciousness be explained in terms of the standard model? In principle, yes. Provided it defines consciousness as cognition and not sentience, starts to ask questions outside its basic assumptions, gets completely revamped and extended, and its inability to provide interpretable answers (i.e. to be useful) disregarded. Will this new theory have anything to do with the standard model? Not really, but perhaps we can save the name...
@@brothermine2292 Neural correlations provide a hint that SM, in principle, suffices, but this remains an assumption. No evidence for causation whatsoever. The emergence of consciousness - an unverified assumption itself - is not just a problem of scale, but a problem of complexity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The brain is more like a dissipative structure in the sense of Ilya Prigogine, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with the ability to amplify small fluctuations and stabilize complex patterns. In short, the Standard Model deals with closed systems in equilibrium. The brain is not a closed system in equilibrium. Searle's distinction between emergence and reduction is not an assumption, but an observation about the logical structure of scientific explanation. Emergent properties are properties of a system that are not present at the level of the system's components. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the components, not from the components themselves. This is not a matter of what can or cannot be "proved," but rather a recognition of the limits of certain types of explanation. For those who enjoy picking their noses with a screwdriver, plenty of fun ahead. The hard problem of consciousness is not just a hard problem; it's a different kind of problem, one that requires a different kind of science. It does not exist many of the metaphysical systems other than physicalism. The SM falls because it is based on false assumptions and doesn't ask the right questions - namely, questions about phenomenal experience, e.g. what-it-is-like to have a certain experience. The SM is ontologically silent on the qualitative aspects of reality because it is not designed to address them. Can consciousness be explained in terms of the standard model? In principle, yes. Provided it defines consciousness as cognition and not sentience, starts to ask questions outside its basic assumptions, gets completely revamped and extended, and its inability to provide interpretable answers (i.e. to be useful) disregarded. Will this new theory have anything to do with the standard model? Not really, but perhaps we can save the name...
@@brothermine2292 Neural correlations provide a hint that the standard model, in principle, suffices, but this remains an assumption. No evidence for causation whatsoever. The emergence of consciousness - an unverified assumption itself - is not just a problem of scale, but a problem of complexity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The brain is more like a dissipative structure in the sense of Ilya Prigogine, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with the ability to amplify small fluctuations and stabilize complex patterns. In short, the Standard Model deals with closed systems in equilibrium. The brain is not a closed system in equilibrium. Searle's distinction between emergence and reduction is not an assumption, but an observation about the logical structure of scientific explanation. Emergent properties are properties of a system that are not present at the level of the system's components. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the components, not from the components themselves. This is not a matter of what can or cannot be "proved," but rather a recognition of the limits of certain types of explanation. For those who enjoy picking their noses with a screwdriver, plenty of fun ahead. The hard problem of consciousness is not just a hard problem; it's a different kind of problem, one that requires a different kind of science. It does not exist many of the metaphysical systems other than physicalism. The standard model fails here because it is based on false assumptions and doesn't ask the right questions - namely, questions about phenomenal experience, e.g. what-it-is-like to have a certain experience. The standard model is ontologically silent on the qualitative aspects of reality because it is not designed to address them. Can consciousness be explained in terms of the standard model? In principle, yes. Provided it defines consciousness as cognition and not sentience, starts to ask questions outside its basic assumptions, gets completely revamped and extended, and its inability to provide interpretable answers (i.e. to be useful) disregarded. Will this new theory have anything to do with the standard model? Not really, but perhaps we can save the name...
There is a clear systematic relationship between brain and consciousness. Implication, without the one the other ceases to be functional. Thus regardless of {what} con. is, it clearly has a physical component that is necessarily interdependent, and probably even causal. Iow, consciousness is a result of a physical system, and as such cannot be separated from physicalism.
What physical law or physical system that allows matter to take a break from its laws so to have free tiime to make a choice on its own to believe in SPIRITS ?.. if there is, then your science of physics or your Physical NATURAL LAW is just a Fairy Tale... you are funny..
@@BrianStevens-y6h your Conscious choice to have free time to decide what to post, where to post, when to post that comment that you just posted, that you are not supposed to have free time because you are a slave to physical natural laws ALL THE TIME, is solid proof of clear violation of NATURAL LAW that is not supposed to be broken as it is NATURAL..
@@evaadam3635 When your consciousness allows you to fly to the moon unaided get back to me. Otherwise you are constricted by the physical laws, free time is not a breakage of anything, this is such a fallacious argument it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
@@BrianStevens-y6h even if you have all the tools, all the space ships to fly to the moon, if you have no free time to decide to fly or not to the moon because you are a slave to NATURAL laws ALL THE TIME, then there is no way you can fly to the moon.. ..so, find a mirror and laugh at yourself for your funny argument.. you deserve it...
Collin seems to be making an implicit assumption that consciousness is a thing instead of a process. The orbit of the motion of a planet around the star can be talked about in terms of orbit, but orbit is the name of a process and not a thing. The physical things perform or participate in the process, but the process does not need to be physical itself. Similarly in a computer game there is the program that is saved on the disk, which then is loaded into the RAM and then executes and along with the perturbations from the user actions with the keyboard, mouse or joystick changes what happens on the screen, but that does not make the running program a physical thing. Consciousness is not a thing, but a name of a class of dynamics of physical things.
Orbiting is a process, not an orbit. An orbit is something geometric, which is non-physical. There is no orbiting without an orbit. Therefore, there is no physical without the non-physical.
What is the prblem? If man cannot objectify it, he cannot locate it, inquire it, contain it, test it, manipulate it, nor understand it. What man is trying to understand is not the principle of principles, but the modulations from. The great mistake in aquiring information opposed to seeking Wisdom. Man has always had an inner battle, on the battlefield of the mind, between the spirit Self vs existential self i.e. Buddha vs mara, Christ vs satan. He who knows not this inner battle, his spirit is not charged or awakened. All universal texts prolaim this. It's blessing to fight this righteous battle. Positing matter as principle is maya. It is reification. It is a modulation.
Continuity of Character, we remain the same person while our bodies completely regenerate over the decades. The Ego is not part of the Body, it has a Body. Eventually that Body can't regenerate and the Ego is either a parasite and dies with it or the Ego is from some other..... dimension/place/space. I think this is where Quantum comes in.
How much knowing has to be translated into words, which are then jumbled around, and he ordered to for some kind of explanation which pleases mind for a while. Most inefficient and so approximate.
Our receptors insufficient to perceive the world the universe more than meets the eye..so our epistemology limited but if. There're other beings occupy higher dimensions by far superior than us
..after reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Hitler became convinced that he is a NATURALLY SELECTED SUPERIOR SPECIES, abandoned Jesus, and then exterminated millions of species whom he thought were inferior... ..don't you have enough of all the destructions happening in this world being inspired by this Evolution GARBAGE that poisoned the minds of our children from generations to generations with Godlessness, Bigotry, No Accountability, just evolving by accident to no fault of their own ? Do you have any conscience ?
The physical is that which is studied by physicists. It's activity in the world that is empirically observable and can be characterised using predictive mathematical models. It's true that this is an expansive definition, but I don't see how we can say that this or that observable phenomenon is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, which after all is really just rigorous inquiry. If we define the physical this way, then it encompasses everything that is or can be causally contiguous with the world we experience. What scope does that leave for the 'non-physical'? I don't know, because I don't know what 'non-physical' means. It's a definition in terms of what something is not. That doesn't seem to be a great way to define something. If it could be defined in positive terms of what it is, what it's characteristics, process and and effects are then we'd have something to get intellectual traction on.
The nature is that which is studied by theologians. Activity is one thing, participation and being acted upon is another. Such can be characterized by attributes or modulation. If scientific inquiry is limited to physical measurement and manipulation - entirely dependent upon the sense perception organs - than yes such inquiry is limited and circumscribed to a particular mode or modulation. 'Physical' isn't defined the way you want it to be. For physical is a modulation; is a lower principle, one circumscribed to the temporal and spatial. When one understands properly principle and attribute they see the limiting factor in reifying everything as physical. It's not that you don't know what non-physical means; it's that you and your troglodyte reification is antithesis to the Divine - you are aversed to the Divine. You don't like wisdom. Truth is some subjective thing to you and not a principle. You show here that you have an idea of apophasis or via negativa - and because it's antithesis to your way in reification, you render it obsolete. Everything has to fit Simon's shoe, or else it's redundant. Where is your explication and exposition already?
@@S3RAVA3LM "The nature is that which is studied by theologians" Wrong. What theologians study is in the name. Since Theos is entirely hypothetical, theologians cannot know. "Activity is one thing, participation and being acted upon is another" Wrong. "participation and being acted upon" IS activity. "Such can be characterized by attributes or modulation" So what? "If scientific inquiry is limited to physical measurement and manipulation" Scientific inquiry is not so limited. Scientific inquiry involves more thinking than does theology and this because it is about actual existents and not merely hypothetical existents. "'Physical' isn't defined the way you want it to be" How can you possibly know? Are you a mind reader? You are not. " For physical is a modulation; is a lower principle, one circumscribed to the temporal and spatial." The physical is not a modulation nor is it a principle. The physical is what verifiably exists and the substrate of everything imagined. Of course the physical exists within time and space because existence outside of either is unimaginable despite linguistic efforts to assert otherwise which even shallow thought immediately reveals to be nonsense. "It's not that you don't know what non-physical means; it's that you and your troglodyte reification is antithesis to the Divine - you are aversed to the Divine. You don't like wisdom. Truth is some subjective thing to you and not a principle. " The only non physical existents are abstractions. Every abstraction either has a material substrate or is non existent. You are not a mind reader so you cannot know another's thoughts about wisdom. Truth is a relationship among thoughts that permit prediction of events that transpire as predicted. "Simon's shoe" It's not Simon's shoe, it's every thinking person's shoe, at least, those who think without the axioms of magic.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELNo. You're out of context, old man. Simon here is hardcore materialist, he doesn't understand participation because for him there is nothing other than physical objects. He doesn't know the place physical objects are in and what they participate in, nor is he aware of what acts upon these things that are receptive. For what acts upon these is not a physical object. Every other arbitrary you made here can be easily pointed out that you're a silly old man.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "the physical is what verifiablly exists" You're claiming that a description exists. A description exists. Is that all you got old man? Is reifying a description?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "you're not a mind reader so you can't know another thoughts" In the CIA, investigators aren't looking for what a suspect says, but what they don't say. I practice such methodologies. What a man claims also indirectly reveals what he doesn't acknowledge, know, or believe. You and your kin talk about cake all day long, all the while having never tasted cake nor care to, nor understand its constituents. You're sophists, everyday.
Well, in a sense energy does have shape. It manifests as excitations of quantum fields, in the form of the particles of the Standard Model and it's shape is defined by the Schrödinger equation. That's not quite the whole story, there is also gravitational energy and unfortunately we don't yet have a bridge between quantum mechanics and general relativity yet. Still, gravity in the form of the geometry of spacetime also definitely has a shape.
He speculates that if a physics of consciousness were discovered, physicists would claim it as physics. However, it would be inconsistent with the physics we know, which contains nothing to suggest that any special physics exists which is associated with consciousness. Furthermore, we can understand consciousness within physics as we know it, with no need for quantum or "integrated information" or any other kind of voodoo.
There is no physics of consciousness, as consciousness is fundamental; it is not physical or elemental, it predated quantum events and did not originate with them as did all that is elemental. The hard problem of consciousness will remain as material science can only engage with what is elemental; what is fundamental is beyond its grasp.
Suppose there is some additional property of consciousness not currently described by physics, but a neuroscientist discovers it and is able to precisely describe its behaviour, its interactions with phenomena such as quantum fields and spacetime precisely in mathematical terms just like any other phenomenon we study.
@@simonhibbs887 You can suppose that but it hasn't happened and there is no reason to believe it will since we can understand the phenomena of consciousness that we experience within physics as we know it.
@@MarkGubrud Oh, I see what you’re saying. When you said “a physics of consciousness would… be inconsistent with the physics we know”, that looked like a denial that consciousness can be a physical phenomenon. I agree that’s likely, but the fact is we don’t currently have a thorough physicalist account of consciousness. I think and hope that will be possible, but we’re not there yet.
Contrary to belief, faith is not believing in fair tales, but recognizes when one abides by the universal law, having a genuine relationship with and integration into nature and the stars, and with oneselves, intimate, and strengthened by synchronicity. Faith is an integration with the universal Soul; resolute. No man can break such faith, nor such a principled man be deterred.
"Solutions to the Mind-Body Problem" Firs thing first, you need to understand what is the "Mind-Body Problem" before looking for a solution... The mind is simply the interaction between the non-physical soul and the physical brain, where the soul is the free independent observing Subject while the physical brain, or body, is the Object being observed... ...however, if you keep staring at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama, none of these makes sense to you... so, it becomes your big Problem... It is only a problem for MATERIALISTS because they can not understand and explain why physical matter, being a slave to physical laws, can freely choose to believe in Supernatural God that defies physics - rendering science materialism as total garbage... ...but for DUALISTS who have faith in a loving God, it is never a problem because we believe for a good reason that our whole being is NOT all physical... We believe in the existence of our free aware immortal soul that is why we can freely choose to believe, and NOT just a physical bio-robot being enslaved by nature.. If there's a problem, the only real serious problem that dualists have is how to resist our bodily desires so not to hurt others for love of God, because every one of us has been given a cross to carry to test our faith in our journey to return to our Original Home or Heaven... ... in other words, the solution to materialists' Mind-Body Problem is simple, ie., "Having faith in a loving GOD that can inspire us to love one another, as all childten of GOD, for love of HIM... This kind of faith not only can solve materialts' problem but also significantly lessen the whole world's problem... ..but if you continue to narrowly define reality through the lenses of your LIMITED physical senses, then DOOMSDAY is inevitable...
@@REDPUMPERNICKELthe origin of your Science of Actuality is FAITH which is BELIEVING that there is more to know than what you can see that prompted the search and discovery.... this has led to the birth of Science.. ..without FAITH or BELIEF, your Science of Actuality is ZERO... so, stop understimating sensible faith... By the way, our souls already experienced knowledge of actuality with GOD in Heaven... but we fell from Heaven for losing faith in God's love due to our greed.. we abused our knowledge with false belief that we can be like GOD if we can find the Forbidden Fruit.. ..and now we were sent here not to know but TO BELIEVE to return Home, the same way we fell from Heaven for believing without knowing due to our greed... we just do not know this because we were not sent here to know but to regain our faith so to return HOME.. I do not know this... this is my best understanding of the light that I received.. you are free to ignore it..
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL name what is actual - for everything in phenomena has a duration. The Gods are of a trinity, one higher and lower: good, wisdom, beauty, and truth, faith love. For faith is not about believing fairy tales, but a real relationship with and integration into nature and the stars; faith strengthened by synchronicity. I don't know what books you read, but I do know what books you never have.
@@S3RAVA3LM You do not know what books I've read except the one's I've mentioned. Perhaps I've read some books that you've concluded I have not when in fact I read them but saw that they were nonsense. The good, wisdom, beauty, truth, and love are all thoughts maintained by almost everyone. One does not need faith to know one is in and of nature or that much of one's substrate is made of star dust. And the meaning in synchronicity is supplied entirely by whoever notices a coincidence launch a train of thought.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELi never claimed to know the books you've read, and I know what books you haven't read, for you're beliefs, way of life, mentality, preferences and knowledge reveal all this indirectly. The music a man values reveals much about the man. The comments, postulates, bias, style, wisdom(if any), says much about a person, their nature, and their mind.
Of all the guests on this channel I get more out of Colin McGinn than anyone else.
..how can you get more out of siding with materialism while risking your soul ?.. evil happy is never the way...
Agreed. No one explains atheism and materialism today better than Colin.
He hit the nail on the head with physicalism being indefinitely extensible. I have long been saying the very same thing. The Aharonov-Bohm effect or the concept of non-locality and teleportation of quantum information is as non-physical as it gets. The fact of the matter is that physicalism is a non-falsifiable theory because it fails to adequately define "matter". Some might say this doesn't mean that physicalism itself is unfalsifiable, but rather that our current physical theories are incomplete. What's the difference, really?
The hard problem of consciousness may very well be not a problem for consciousness, but a problem for physicalism. Physicalism is a philosophical stance that is indefensible and unfalisfyable. It's not a scientific theory but a metaphysical one.
This is not a critique of science! When you actually look at the progress of science, it does not support physicalism at all. In fact, it undermines it at every turn. The problem is that physicalism is taken as a given, as an axiom, rather than as a hypothesis that needs to be tested and potentially falsified. And this is a huge problem because it limits the scope of inquiry and the types of questions we are allowed to ask. Look for correlations where no physicalist would look, and watch the whole thing collapse in slow motion - slow enough to make a living and keep its name forever. At the end of the day, physical is what the human mind can perceive, and matter is what the human mind can manipulate.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is based on the assumption that consciousness is a property. There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is a property. It is an experience. Properties are qualities of objects. Consciousness is not a quality of objects. It is an experience that is had by a subject. The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is a category error.
If we take a cosmopsychism view, the hard problem of physicalism and the combination problem of panpsychism dissolve. In this framework, higher levels of phenomenological consciousness are not a combination of the elementary consciousness of elementary particles. Rather, we see that higher complexity of physical matter allows for more complex forms of consciousness to emerge (dissociate) and be represented. We turn the table and take consciousness as fundamental, and the physical universe as a property of it. This makes individual consciousness an aspect of universal consciousness, not a combination of parts, but a dissociated aspect that has physical correlates.
As for the mind not being an extensible substance, I beg to differ. If we accept that consciousness is experience and, as such, fundamentally unlocalizable, then its physical correlates (various types of minds) must have field-like qualities and sit on a continuum of spatiotemporal spread. This spread ranges from the highly localized and individual to the highly diffuse (non-local) and collective. As such, minds are necessarily overlapping and nested into each other, and while they indeed can be seen as extensible substances, they are more like scopes of organization with differing degrees of spatiotemporal spread, making the physical universe a holographic projection of a universal mind.
@@attilaszekeres7435 Physicalism is absolutely falsifiable, in fact falsifiability is at the heart of science, it's what makes it tick. All of science is one repeatable, verifiable observation away from being refuted. It can't be any other way. Science is infinitely extensible, because it explores empirical observation so anything that is observable is tractable to scientific inquiry.
I know I'm inadmissibly conflating science with physicalism above, but physicalism is an approach to the interpretation of science, so they are joined at the hip. It's not the only such approach, of course. There's also idealism.
>The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is based on the assumption that consciousness is a property.
No, that's property dualism. Most physicalists are some variation of functionalist and view consciousness as a process or activity. Often a computational process. Yours is a very common misunderstanding of physicalism by many non-physicalists, I would highly recommend trying to understand what a position you are criticising actually says, to avoid an awful lot of wasted time refuting something they don't think.
@@attilaszekeres7435 If matter, whatever that is, can give rise to subjective experience (consciousness) then the ability to generate a consciousness is a property of matter.
@@jackarmstrong5645 The operational word here is "if". We do not know if matter can give rise to subjective experience. We have no mechanism to explain how that could happen. All we have is correlations. And even those correlations are not as straightforward as we would like them to be. The brain is necessary for the experience of human consciousness, but it may not be sufficient. There is something more going on.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is a philosophical stance, not a scientific fact. It is a stance that is based on the assumption that matter is fundamental and that consciousness is derived from matter. This is a metaphysical assumption.
The fact that brain states and mental states are correlated does not mean that brain states cause mental states. It could just as well be the other way around, or there could be a deeper reality that gives rise to both. The consciousness-first or idealist view does offer solutions to some of the most persistent problems in philosophy of mind. It completely sidesteps the hard problem of physicalism, the combination / binding problem of emergetism, and the interaction problem of dualism.
@@attilaszekeres7435 There is no reason to assume consciousness is not just another evolved feature of the animal, like a leg. There is no reason to assume the brain is not generating consciousness.
"What’s the relationship between our brains and our consciousness, between the physical stuff in our skulls and the mental experiences in our minds? Much rides on the answer". Like what? I feel I have a mind. My feeling allows me a sense of agency and to live a fully engaged life - illusion or not. This discussion has a very "angels on the head of a pin" vibe, to it.
Presenting the physical as open-ended is the epitome of insincerity. It is a fear of being proved wrong.
Collins must have noticed that what his dog can see, he can not see... so he made it open-ended to cover up his materialism big hole...
As we get closer to truth (and we will) it won’t come down to interpretations of definitions. How indeed. Rejected because you can’t explain how? Other dimensions (one with consciousness) so implausible? So much more to discover to reject… not me.
Are you a quantum field existing in another realm , connecting via consiousness to this current reality you are occupying?
..our souls were not sent here to know the truth about a loving GOD but TO HAVE FAITH, because it was losing faith that we all fell from Heaven, ended in hell, and now on earth for a chance to regain our faith so for us to return to HEAVEN - Our Original Home... if we fail, we will return to a cold dark nothingness (hell) - an absence of GOD's grace..
Blessed are those who never heard this talk.
Consciousness belongs to the observer not to objects being observed therefore consciousness is something that is subjectively private and therefore not objectively viewed through some object like the brain.
my body has lots of problems, bits keep breaking down and not coming back.
matter extended in space; maybe mind unextended outside space develops in time?
The obvious follow-up question to his non-answer about the vagueness and extensibility of "physicalism" is to substitute with well-defined terminology, in particular the Standard Model. In other words, can first-person subjective experiencing of qualia & thoughts be reduced in principle to brain activities that behave entirely according to the current Standard Model of physics?
Subjective experience may be explained in terms of a revised and extended Standard Model and of a brain reconceptualized and rebranded as a massively open system with its representations spread in spacetime. But that would not be the Standard Model and the brain you talk about. And this reduction would not be a true reduction in practice because interpretability would be lost.
More importantly, we cannot derive subjective experience from the Standard Model, even in principle, because the Standard Model is not equipped to handle subjective experience. It's great for particle physics, but it doesn't encompass all of reality. It may describe the physical correlates of subjective experience but the hard problem of consciousness (the nature of experience itself) is not a question of physics, but a question of metaphysics, and is not something that the Standard Model was designed to address.
The problem with trying to reduce consciousness to the Standard Model is that it commits what philosopher John Searle calls the "mistake of ontological reduction." Just because a phenomenon emerges from a certain level of reality, it does not mean that it can be reduced to that level.
>attilaszekeres7435 : I've seen no compelling argument that the current Standard Model cannot in principle produce subjective experience. It's irrelevant that the SM wasn't designed for this "off label" application. The strong neural correlations provide a hint that it suffices, in principle. It's NOT a compelling argument that no one has a clue (yet) how to solve Chalmers' Hard Problem.
Searle's distinction between emergence & reduction assumes there exist "emergent" phenomena that cannot in principle be "reduced." That assumption hasn't been proved.
@@brothermine2292 Neural correlations provide a hint that SM, in principle, suffices, but this remains an assumption. No evidence for causation whatsoever. The emergence of consciousness - an unverified assumption itself - is not just a problem of scale, but a problem of complexity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The brain is more like a dissipative structure in the sense of Ilya Prigogine, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with the ability to amplify small fluctuations and stabilize complex patterns. In short, the Standard Model deals with closed systems in equilibrium. The brain is not a closed system in equilibrium.
Searle's distinction between emergence and reduction is not an assumption, but an observation about the logical structure of scientific explanation. Emergent properties are properties of a system that are not present at the level of the system's components. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the components, not from the components themselves. This is not a matter of what can or cannot be "proved," but rather a recognition of the limits of certain types of explanation. For those who enjoy picking their noses with a screwdriver, plenty of fun ahead.
The hard problem of consciousness is not just a hard problem; it's a different kind of problem, one that requires a different kind of science. It does not exist many of the metaphysical systems other than physicalism. The SM falls because it is based on false assumptions and doesn't ask the right questions - namely, questions about phenomenal experience, e.g. what-it-is-like to have a certain experience. The SM is ontologically silent on the qualitative aspects of reality because it is not designed to address them.
Can consciousness be explained in terms of the standard model? In principle, yes. Provided it defines consciousness as cognition and not sentience, starts to ask questions outside its basic assumptions, gets completely revamped and extended, and its inability to provide interpretable answers (i.e. to be useful) disregarded. Will this new theory have anything to do with the standard model? Not really, but perhaps we can save the name...
@@brothermine2292 Neural correlations provide a hint that SM, in principle, suffices, but this remains an assumption. No evidence for causation whatsoever. The emergence of consciousness - an unverified assumption itself - is not just a problem of scale, but a problem of complexity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The brain is more like a dissipative structure in the sense of Ilya Prigogine, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with the ability to amplify small fluctuations and stabilize complex patterns. In short, the Standard Model deals with closed systems in equilibrium. The brain is not a closed system in equilibrium.
Searle's distinction between emergence and reduction is not an assumption, but an observation about the logical structure of scientific explanation. Emergent properties are properties of a system that are not present at the level of the system's components. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the components, not from the components themselves. This is not a matter of what can or cannot be "proved," but rather a recognition of the limits of certain types of explanation. For those who enjoy picking their noses with a screwdriver, plenty of fun ahead.
The hard problem of consciousness is not just a hard problem; it's a different kind of problem, one that requires a different kind of science. It does not exist many of the metaphysical systems other than physicalism. The SM falls because it is based on false assumptions and doesn't ask the right questions - namely, questions about phenomenal experience, e.g. what-it-is-like to have a certain experience. The SM is ontologically silent on the qualitative aspects of reality because it is not designed to address them.
Can consciousness be explained in terms of the standard model? In principle, yes. Provided it defines consciousness as cognition and not sentience, starts to ask questions outside its basic assumptions, gets completely revamped and extended, and its inability to provide interpretable answers (i.e. to be useful) disregarded. Will this new theory have anything to do with the standard model? Not really, but perhaps we can save the name...
@@brothermine2292 Neural correlations provide a hint that the standard model, in principle, suffices, but this remains an assumption. No evidence for causation whatsoever. The emergence of consciousness - an unverified assumption itself - is not just a problem of scale, but a problem of complexity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The brain is more like a dissipative structure in the sense of Ilya Prigogine, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with the ability to amplify small fluctuations and stabilize complex patterns. In short, the Standard Model deals with closed systems in equilibrium. The brain is not a closed system in equilibrium.
Searle's distinction between emergence and reduction is not an assumption, but an observation about the logical structure of scientific explanation. Emergent properties are properties of a system that are not present at the level of the system's components. They arise from the interactions and relationships between the components, not from the components themselves. This is not a matter of what can or cannot be "proved," but rather a recognition of the limits of certain types of explanation. For those who enjoy picking their noses with a screwdriver, plenty of fun ahead.
The hard problem of consciousness is not just a hard problem; it's a different kind of problem, one that requires a different kind of science. It does not exist many of the metaphysical systems other than physicalism. The standard model fails here because it is based on false assumptions and doesn't ask the right questions - namely, questions about phenomenal experience, e.g. what-it-is-like to have a certain experience. The standard model is ontologically silent on the qualitative aspects of reality because it is not designed to address them.
Can consciousness be explained in terms of the standard model? In principle, yes. Provided it defines consciousness as cognition and not sentience, starts to ask questions outside its basic assumptions, gets completely revamped and extended, and its inability to provide interpretable answers (i.e. to be useful) disregarded. Will this new theory have anything to do with the standard model? Not really, but perhaps we can save the name...
There is a clear systematic relationship between brain and consciousness. Implication, without the one the other ceases to be functional. Thus regardless of {what} con. is, it clearly has a physical component that is necessarily interdependent, and probably even causal. Iow, consciousness is a result of a physical system, and as such cannot be separated from physicalism.
What physical law or physical system that allows matter to take a break from its laws so to have free tiime to make a choice on its own to believe in SPIRITS ?.. if there is, then your science of physics or your Physical NATURAL LAW is just a Fairy Tale... you are funny..
@@evaadam3635 At no time does consciousness break a physical law. If you have evidence of such, please provide.
@@BrianStevens-y6h your Conscious choice to have free time to decide what to post, where to post, when to post that comment that you just posted, that you are not supposed to have free time because you are a slave to physical natural laws ALL THE TIME, is solid proof of clear violation of NATURAL LAW that is not supposed to be broken as it is NATURAL..
@@evaadam3635 When your consciousness allows you to fly to the moon unaided get back to me. Otherwise you are constricted by the physical laws, free time is not a breakage of anything, this is such a fallacious argument it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
@@BrianStevens-y6h even if you have all the tools, all the space ships to fly to the moon, if you have no free time to decide to fly or not to the moon because you are a slave to NATURAL laws ALL THE TIME, then there is no way you can fly to the moon..
..so, find a mirror and laugh at yourself for your funny argument.. you deserve it...
Collin seems to be making an implicit assumption that consciousness is a thing instead of a process. The orbit of the motion of a planet around the star can be talked about in terms of orbit, but orbit is the name of a process and not a thing. The physical things perform or participate in the process, but the process does not need to be physical itself. Similarly in a computer game there is the program that is saved on the disk, which then is loaded into the RAM and then executes and along with the perturbations from the user actions with the keyboard, mouse or joystick changes what happens on the screen, but that does not make the running program a physical thing. Consciousness is not a thing, but a name of a class of dynamics of physical things.
Orbiting is a process, not an orbit. An orbit is something geometric, which is non-physical. There is no orbiting without an orbit. Therefore, there is no physical without the non-physical.
The mind IS the brain.
Cap
Could use some lights
What is the prblem?
If man cannot objectify it, he cannot locate it, inquire it, contain it, test it, manipulate it, nor understand it. What man is trying to understand is not the principle of principles, but the modulations from. The great mistake in aquiring information opposed to seeking Wisdom.
Man has always had an inner battle, on the battlefield of the mind, between the spirit Self vs existential self i.e. Buddha vs mara, Christ vs satan. He who knows not this inner battle, his spirit is not charged or awakened. All universal texts prolaim this. It's blessing to fight this righteous battle.
Positing matter as principle is maya. It is reification. It is a modulation.
Continuity of Character, we remain the same person while our bodies completely regenerate over the decades. The Ego is not part of the Body, it has a Body. Eventually that Body can't regenerate and the Ego is either a parasite and dies with it or the Ego is from some other..... dimension/place/space. I think this is where Quantum comes in.
A lot of wasted time talking about Descartes.
How much knowing has to be translated into words, which are then jumbled around, and he ordered to for some kind of explanation which pleases mind for a while. Most inefficient and so approximate.
Our receptors insufficient to perceive the world the universe more than meets the eye..so our epistemology limited but if. There're other beings occupy higher dimensions by far superior than us
Good discussion! Perhaps we need to understand how our sensory receptors evolved (I attempt this in my book (Origins of Life's Sensoria).
..after reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Hitler became convinced that he is a NATURALLY SELECTED SUPERIOR SPECIES, abandoned Jesus, and then exterminated millions of species whom he thought were inferior...
..don't you have enough of all the destructions happening in this world being inspired by this Evolution GARBAGE that poisoned the minds of our children from generations to generations with Godlessness, Bigotry, No Accountability, just evolving by accident to no fault of their own ? Do you have any conscience ?
Your book looks interesting. I will put it on my wish list.
The physical is that which is studied by physicists. It's activity in the world that is empirically observable and can be characterised using predictive mathematical models. It's true that this is an expansive definition, but I don't see how we can say that this or that observable phenomenon is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, which after all is really just rigorous inquiry. If we define the physical this way, then it encompasses everything that is or can be causally contiguous with the world we experience.
What scope does that leave for the 'non-physical'? I don't know, because I don't know what 'non-physical' means. It's a definition in terms of what something is not. That doesn't seem to be a great way to define something. If it could be defined in positive terms of what it is, what it's characteristics, process and and effects are then we'd have something to get intellectual traction on.
The nature is that which is studied by theologians. Activity is one thing, participation and being acted upon is another. Such can be characterized by attributes or modulation. If scientific inquiry is limited to physical measurement and manipulation - entirely dependent upon the sense perception organs - than yes such inquiry is limited and circumscribed to a particular mode or modulation. 'Physical' isn't defined the way you want it to be. For physical is a modulation; is a lower principle, one circumscribed to the temporal and spatial. When one understands properly principle and attribute they see the limiting factor in reifying everything as physical.
It's not that you don't know what non-physical means; it's that you and your troglodyte reification is antithesis to the Divine - you are aversed to the Divine. You don't like wisdom. Truth is some subjective thing to you and not a principle.
You show here that you have an idea of apophasis or via negativa - and because it's antithesis to your way in reification, you render it obsolete.
Everything has to fit Simon's shoe, or else it's redundant.
Where is your explication and exposition already?
@@S3RAVA3LM "The nature is that which is studied by theologians"
Wrong. What theologians study is in the name.
Since Theos is entirely hypothetical, theologians cannot know.
"Activity is one thing, participation and being acted upon is another"
Wrong. "participation and being acted upon" IS activity.
"Such can be characterized by attributes or modulation"
So what?
"If scientific inquiry is limited to physical measurement and manipulation"
Scientific inquiry is not so limited.
Scientific inquiry involves more thinking than does theology and
this because it is about actual existents and
not merely hypothetical existents.
"'Physical' isn't defined the way you want it to be"
How can you possibly know?
Are you a mind reader?
You are not.
" For physical is a modulation; is a lower principle, one circumscribed to the temporal and spatial."
The physical is not a modulation nor is it a principle.
The physical is what verifiably exists and
the substrate of everything imagined.
Of course the physical exists within time and space because
existence outside of either is unimaginable
despite linguistic efforts to assert otherwise
which even shallow thought immediately reveals to be nonsense.
"It's not that you don't know what non-physical means; it's that you and your troglodyte reification is antithesis to the Divine - you are aversed to the Divine. You don't like wisdom. Truth is some subjective thing to you and not a principle. "
The only non physical existents are abstractions.
Every abstraction either has a material substrate or is non existent.
You are not a mind reader so you cannot know another's thoughts about wisdom.
Truth is a relationship among thoughts that
permit prediction of events that transpire as predicted.
"Simon's shoe"
It's not Simon's shoe, it's every thinking person's shoe,
at least, those who think without the axioms of magic.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELNo. You're out of context, old man. Simon here is hardcore materialist, he doesn't understand participation because for him there is nothing other than physical objects. He doesn't know the place physical objects are in and what they participate in, nor is he aware of what acts upon these things that are receptive. For what acts upon these is not a physical object.
Every other arbitrary you made here can be easily pointed out that you're a silly old man.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "the physical is what verifiablly exists"
You're claiming that a description exists. A description exists.
Is that all you got old man? Is reifying a description?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "you're not a mind reader so you can't know another thoughts"
In the CIA, investigators aren't looking for what a suspect says, but what they don't say. I practice such methodologies.
What a man claims also indirectly reveals what he doesn't acknowledge, know, or believe.
You and your kin talk about cake all day long, all the while having never tasted cake nor care to, nor understand its constituents. You're sophists, everyday.
Materialism/Physicalism, at least until you have ANY evidence WHATSOEVER otherwise … … … Good luck.
All else is wishful thinking and navel-gazing …
I agree with his last opinion: energy is matter without shape
Well, in a sense energy does have shape. It manifests as excitations of quantum fields, in the form of the particles of the Standard Model and it's shape is defined by the Schrödinger equation. That's not quite the whole story, there is also gravitational energy and unfortunately we don't yet have a bridge between quantum mechanics and general relativity yet. Still, gravity in the form of the geometry of spacetime also definitely has a shape.
How do we know consciousness isn't spatially extended? There are many, many overlapping fields in space.
Maybe.
(Stolen from New Yorker)
Mind: "Get up"
Body: "No"
So the way "closer to truth" is to play word games with definitions? Not impressed.
You'd be better off realising that words are very crude symbols for aspects of reality.
I don't think the intention is to impress..
Wrong Channel Buddy
So his solution to the mind-matter problem is one of categories of mass-energy. This is not particularly satisfying.
There never was a mind-body problem…
The mind comes from the brain……everything else is modern age woo-woo…
He speculates that if a physics of consciousness were discovered, physicists would claim it as physics. However, it would be inconsistent with the physics we know, which contains nothing to suggest that any special physics exists which is associated with consciousness. Furthermore, we can understand consciousness within physics as we know it, with no need for quantum or "integrated information" or any other kind of voodoo.
There is no physics of consciousness, as consciousness is fundamental; it is not physical or elemental, it predated quantum events and did not originate with them as did all that is elemental. The hard problem of consciousness will remain as material science can only engage with what is elemental; what is fundamental is beyond its grasp.
Suppose there is some additional property of consciousness not currently described by physics, but a neuroscientist discovers it and is able to precisely describe its behaviour, its interactions with phenomena such as quantum fields and spacetime precisely in mathematical terms just like any other phenomenon we study.
@@simonhibbs887 You can suppose that but it hasn't happened and there is no reason to believe it will since we can understand the phenomena of consciousness that we experience within physics as we know it.
@@MarkGubrud Oh, I see what you’re saying. When you said “a physics of consciousness would… be inconsistent with the physics we know”, that looked like a denial that consciousness can be a physical phenomenon. I agree that’s likely, but the fact is we don’t currently have a thorough physicalist account of consciousness. I think and hope that will be possible, but we’re not there yet.
What is faith?
It is a sensible choice of belief in the existence of a loving GOD for lack of knowledge of fact...
Contrary to belief, faith is not believing in fair tales, but recognizes when one abides by the universal law, having a genuine relationship with and integration into nature and the stars, and with oneselves, intimate, and strengthened by synchronicity. Faith is an integration with the universal Soul; resolute. No man can break such faith, nor such a principled man be deterred.
Believing in something without any reliable evidence whatsoever … 😏
"Solutions to the Mind-Body Problem"
Firs thing first, you need to understand what is the "Mind-Body Problem" before looking for a solution...
The mind is simply the interaction between the non-physical soul and the physical brain, where the soul is the free independent observing Subject while the physical brain, or body, is the Object being observed...
...however, if you keep staring at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama, none of these makes sense to you... so, it becomes your big Problem...
It is only a problem for MATERIALISTS because they can not understand and explain why physical matter, being a slave to physical laws, can freely choose to believe in Supernatural God that defies physics - rendering science materialism as total garbage...
...but for DUALISTS who have faith in a loving God, it is never a problem because we believe for a good reason that our whole being is NOT all physical... We believe in the existence of our free aware immortal soul that is why we can freely choose to believe, and NOT just a physical bio-robot being enslaved by nature..
If there's a problem, the only real serious problem that dualists have is how to resist our bodily desires so not to hurt others for love of God, because every one of us has been given a cross to carry to test our faith in our journey to return to our Original Home or Heaven...
... in other words, the solution to materialists' Mind-Body Problem is simple, ie., "Having faith in a loving GOD that can inspire us to love one another, as all childten of GOD, for love of HIM... This kind of faith not only can solve materialts' problem but also significantly lessen the whole world's problem...
..but if you continue to narrowly define reality through the lenses of your LIMITED physical senses, then DOOMSDAY is inevitable...
"but for DUALISTS who have faith in a loving God"
Too bad 'faith' has no relation to actuality.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELthe origin of your Science of Actuality is FAITH which is BELIEVING that there is more to know than what you can see that prompted the search and discovery.... this has led to the birth of Science..
..without FAITH or BELIEF, your Science of Actuality is ZERO... so, stop understimating sensible faith...
By the way, our souls already experienced knowledge of actuality with GOD in Heaven... but we fell from Heaven for losing faith in God's love due to our greed.. we abused our knowledge with false belief that we can be like GOD if we can find the Forbidden Fruit..
..and now we were sent here not to know but TO BELIEVE to return Home, the same way we fell from Heaven for believing without knowing due to our greed... we just do not know this because we were not sent here to know but to regain our faith so to return HOME..
I do not know this... this is my best understanding of the light that I received.. you are free to ignore it..
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL name what is actual - for everything in phenomena has a duration.
The Gods are of a trinity, one higher and lower: good, wisdom, beauty, and truth, faith love. For faith is not about believing fairy tales, but a real relationship with and integration into nature and the stars; faith strengthened by synchronicity.
I don't know what books you read, but I do know what books you never have.
@@S3RAVA3LM You do not know what books I've read except the one's I've mentioned.
Perhaps I've read some books that
you've concluded I have not
when in fact I read them but
saw that they were nonsense.
The good, wisdom, beauty, truth, and love are all thoughts maintained by almost everyone.
One does not need faith to know one is in and of nature or that much of one's substrate is made of star dust.
And the meaning in synchronicity is supplied entirely by whoever notices a coincidence launch a train of thought.
@@REDPUMPERNICKELi never claimed to know the books you've read, and I know what books you haven't read, for you're beliefs, way of life, mentality, preferences and knowledge reveal all this indirectly. The music a man values reveals much about the man. The comments, postulates, bias, style, wisdom(if any), says much about a person, their nature, and their mind.
He keep out philosophy proceendings. It is not figure out mind problems. Rambling absolutetly.
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
It's all rambling. They know it. In the end it is all that they, you or I can do. Still, the discussion is interesting.
@@Maxwell-mv9rx, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱