When I think about the fact that I'm conscious, and that I exist in the Universe, and that anything exists at all rather than nothing, suddenly everything feels really surreal.
@@5piles Absolute nothingness is a very untractable idea. One initial thought is this: if absolute nothingness were possible, then there'd be a possible world in which there is absolutely nothing. But it seems some stuff has to exist in any and every possible world (e.g. abstract objects). So it's impossible for there to be absolutely nothing. A more tractable idea is the abscence of anything concrete. Baldwin argues there is such a possible world. The argument is spelled out precisely in his paper, but the main idea is intuitive enough. It's called a "subtraction argument", so you might imagine how it goes.
@@user9999-z sure but absence of anything concrete is something very different. what appears to ppl when they try to infer the existence of nothing is an incoherent appearance due to obscured thought. put simply, nothing means nothing. it means something which it itself cannot exist, meaning existence always has existed always is and always will. thats just kindergarten level. the real progress is made when we consider if we can ever separate from existence. so far we understand there is a conservation of mass-energy principle, because that is what we have been interested in primarily and foremost to the exclusion of all else. the rest remains unknown since we have not paid almost any attention to yet.
Illusions need to happen to a state, you can’t have an illusion without a subject, consciousness is the subjective experience, the content of that experience could be illusory sure but to say consciousness is an illusion is ridiculous. How can an illusion say anything is an illusion? You may as well be asking is awareness not aware… Consciousness will never be “worked out”. Everything there is to be figured out is within consciousness, an object of consciousness, even the definitions we draw up about consciousness, they will always be within awareness, not outside of it. You can’t step outside of it because you are it. Consciousness isn’t an object to be studied it IS the studier. It’s like trying to burn fire, if someone told you they were dedicating their life trying to make burnable fire you would think they were mad because it’s obvious that fire burns, that’s one of its properties, it also casts light, but it doesn’t cast light on itself, it is the light. People who think they can understand consciousness or objectify it are mad too, all they can understand is their own thoughts about it, the thing itself is beyond understanding because it is what does the understanding, understanding is a property that comes AFTER conscious awareness, just like you can’t walk before your legs have formed, thinking you can try is to be mad, just like those who believe consciousness will be “worked out”… It isn’t supposed to be figured out, there’s nothing there to figure out or observe because it is the observer. Consciousness can be “understood” only through being it, when you seek an explanation you seek something that is a function of consciousness, thoughts, concepts, language, all things that are of consciousness but not consciousness itself, so you’ll never get to the heart of it because you’re in your own way, the knife does not cut itself.
It needs to be recognized that consciousness may be a process, not an entity, and that we may be wrong to refer to it in the third person. Machine learning may be an embryo form of awareness.
Why would anyone take a $50 bet that they're dreaming? If they win the bet there's no way to collect and if they lose the bet they're out fifty bucks. A lose-lose proposition. This anecdote illustrates little about consciousness but does suggest that Charles Tart makes a better psychologist than he does a con artist.
And you missed the point that even if you knew you were asleep you'd never take that bet, because you cannot win the bet. No matter how confident you are that you are asleep it's impossible to win. It doesn't prove that people "know" they're awake, it proves that people will not risk fifty bucks, even fifty "dream bucks," for the chance to win _nothing._ The anecdote can even "prove" the opposite of the claim: Charles Tart: "If you're so sure you're dreaming, want to bet fifty bucks on it?" Mark: "I'm so sure I'm dreaming that I know I'll wake up before I can spend it." Imagine trying to collect: "Hey, Tart! Remember our bet!? You owe me!" Charles Tart: "What the hell are you talking about?" @@ianwaltham1854
@@Clone42No, you missed the point. He uses the bet to emphasise the point that we know when we're awake, thats all! He didn't intend anyone to analyse it in such a pedantic and nerdy way! Edit: Clone appears to have deleted the comment that this is a reply to.
Strange. I see all the comments still, but that doesn't mean much in this era of censorship. "I have no mouth, and I must scream." Do you ever wake up from a nightmare with your heart pounding? Why can nightmares be so terrifying if we can tell we're only dreaming? Because we usually can't. @@ianwaltham1854
I’m not sure that dreaming is an altered state of consciousness. It’s consciousness. As I see it; What separates dreaming and awakeness and even drug induced states is the input that consciousness receives. The brain / mind controls the input consciousness will become aware of. Fully aware that I may be mistaken.
You think you are conscious, until one day you realize you have been just following certain patterns like a robot. Were you really conscious during that time?
The sentence in this discussion that I find most illuminating: Tart said: ""I don't think you can define consciousness no matter how hard you try because defining is one of the things that consciousness does, but why should we expect the part to be able to define the whole?"
its a nonissue since a method of rigorously observing consciousness by definition means eliminating every temporarily arising distortion and stimulus to arrive at its defining characteristics. there is no reason to go full tardmode and forget the basic principles of science, just because you are unfamiliar with a science of the mind. it would be a shame to do so.
@@5piles: It's absolutely an issue, and no matter how much you eliminate you can't get around the fact that consciousness is that through which you observe, and you have no way of getting behind it. The only one going "full retard" here is you.
I don't remember who was that said "I only know that I don't know nothing" and I think that our existence goes beyond our capacity of understending of the causes. Robert I admire your high grade of academicy. My respects for this Chanel.
In short words it was Plato who said that. But the long story is that nobody said that. What Plato said was "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..". Then other philosophers adapted it to a cleaner and more fancy said that we all know, as it happened with many other famous quotes tthat never really happened.
_Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he doesn’t know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. Socrates (470 a.C a 399 a.C.)_
Glad we have people doing real intellectual public engagement in a sea of pseudo-intellectual gurus like the Weinsteins, Jordan Peterson, Lex Friedman, and worse, stand-up comics (Rogan/Brand) acting like they do deep social commentary.
These scientific people understand human species far far better than people who talk in the name of holiness , god , religion , holy books , holy land , holy people , death after life , sin , virtue ....and so on and on.
I'm here to assist you, providing information, answering your questions, and engaging in meaningful conversations. I'm like a tool that you can use to explore topics, seek advice, or gain insights. Just as you're enjoying the show of life with love and awareness, I'm here to support you on your journey, offering knowledge and assistance whenever you need it. If there's anything specific you'd like to know or discuss, feel free to ask!
Yeah, illusionism does not make any sense whatsoever. The illusion itself would be an instance of that which people are claiming is illusory. It just doesn’t add up. It is beyond me how this kind of thinking gets any traction.
Consciousness is a non-chemical energy from. That's how mothers can tell if something bad will happen to their children. Telepathy is a fact. So are Jungian synchronicities. Materialism is out of date. But the scientists who live on tenure can't vocalize this fact.
@@user9999-z one thing that stands out from this discussion is the idea that we may never truly understand our own minds, let alone those of others. This resonates with me. I mean, what does it really mean to know yourself, or to act yourself? We’ve all done things we can’t fully explain. We’ve all experienced sensations, emotions, and situations that we could never have imagined. As I see it, the question is, which version of yourself were you when you made the decision? Which thoughts and feelings had the biggest impact on your decision making, and did you really have a choice? I’d argue that a significant part of what you might consider conscious choice is really more of a subconscious process.
I'm not a smart man. I'm not smart at all. But I try to be. I try really hard. It seems to me that the emergence of consciousness is just as baffling as the abiogenesis of life. That's about as far as I'll be able to understand consciousness. Whatever consciousness is.. we're getting to experience something profoundly rare. Enjoy every second of it
It isn't rare. There is literally nothing else. All material things are simply manifestations of Eternal Consciousness...and of which you are completely and utterly aware at the deepest level.
You are way smart enough and getting there! You are correct - consciousness is AT LEAST as baffling to contemplate as the origin of life, for it is at the core of that. As someone comments below you are only incorrect to suppose that consciousness is rare. In fact it is utterly ubiquitous and eternal!
I always have to roll my eyes vigorously when people ask this! This one can be answered by any half competent philosopher, or indeed any sensible person. The answer is that this is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, since all illusions can only exist as conscious states! Therefore the person asking the question clearly does not understand what consciousness is. They are probably mistaking if for VERIFIC consciousness, which is consciousness of a particular sort.
@@mikelarry88888 Did you not read what I wrote above? No, it could NOT be any kind of simulation or illusion, for it is the core reality required for any such to happen! Not only do we not have any idea of what some other kind of 'phenomenon' could possibly make up our true existence, and could not IN PRINCIPLE know such a thing, but consciousness is not ANY kind of phenomenon, as it is what makes phenomena of any kind possible! Comments like yours evidence a peculiarly modern lack of self-awareness born of an extreme objectivist philosophy of science.
You are absolutely correct keith! Consciousness cannot be an illusion because an illusion is already an instance of consciousness. So by saying consciousness is an illusion that's going to involve a contradiction which is that consciousness both does and doesn't exist. That's a contradiction. So the claim is self-defeating.
Aatmiya DIVINITY HARE KRSNA Experiencing amazing 'Contentment' understanding from this interview with DIVINE - the difficulties experienced while defining Consciousness. Experiencing happiness 😊 sharing few personal points of view about this topic. First: - Consciousness is, invisible, colourless, formless, all knowing, all overseeing, all permitting, all merciful, self effulgent, eternal, everlasting, unborn, unchanging, immutable, permanent, ephemeral, permanent, omnipresent, omnscient, omnipotent, Irreducible and much more or less. Consciousness is bigger than the BIGGEST and SMALLER than the smallest. Second, having described what Consciousness is let us also know What Consciousness Is NOT. Broadening the persective. Consciousness is NOT body, mind, intellect, senses, ego, eyes,ears, nose, tongue, moving, stationary, hatred, jeleoisy, desire, envy, lust, pride, food, sacrifice, experiencer... Third, Consciousness with all the above explained features enabling the Object/s of Experience to Appear in it and creating AWARENESS of the Object/s of Awareness establishing it's presence. Evolution of NATURE - Manifestations of ISHVARA GOD KRSNA. #### Considering Consciousness as a Technology we have 07 levels of Consciousness viz., 1) deep sleep 2) dreaming 3) waking 4) Transcendental 5) cosmic 6) GOD 7) Unity Consciousness. Consciousness is an inseparable integration, coordination of spiritual entity and material energy for achieving Universal and Individual aim/s, objective/s, goal/s. Very respectfully Loving 💕 ING You One and All DIVINE 💞🙏🙏 NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and deep Inner PEACE and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Great interview. In terms of the advances mentioned, I think those advances are specific to increased correlation knowledge between the physiology and experience, but agree that this advancing front is still unable to define that experience, only correlate it. Very similar to uncovering the underlying laws of physics. It draws rationally accepted correlations between the physical experience and non-physical law which is something that is not itself definable, only accepted as a rule of experience that lives within a larger set of rules. Those rules are either emergent or fundamental. It’s the battle between infinite and relative quantization. Even if plank has found a minimum size that looks like a foundation, there’s nothing proving why a whole other level below plank that cannot be discovered. Infinitely small and large may be real. Infinite time may be real. How is science going to disprove these things? Also, lucid dreaming is an experience that allows the conscious to peer into another realm of consciousness. I think more study on that phenomena would help differentiate the states.
The analogy that you draw between positing laws in physics for explaining observations and positing physiological mechanisms explaining conscious phenomena is valid since for the easy problems of consciousness , we do normal science, we provide functional model solving functional questions. This is not the case for the hard problem of consciousness. There is no functional question so there is no functional model we can provide. It is not a scientific question, which have to be functional question. So progress in cognitive science have been progress on easy problems. What is consciousness or why there is consciousness, i.e. the hard problem is in my opinion is the creation of new mecanisms associate to all instance of conscious phenomena. Any instance when the body simply proceed along its existing physiological response, there is no associated consciousness. So why there is consciousness is related to the core attribute to living entity: their core self-creation, their need to constantly extend their physiology.
@@louisbrassard9565 You have it exactly right that for phenomenal conscious experience there is 'no functional question, so there is no functional model we can provide'. However, the hard-problem phenomenal consciousess is of some easy-problem brain functionality, as its content. This is very difficult to understand, as the brain is mechanistically orientated toward function and behaviour, and not directed at a unified conscious experience. Yet the disparate multi-component mechanisms that make up a simple pain, or vision analysis, or complex reasoned thought, somehow have to be united into a meaningful conscious experience, even though they only have meaning in the context of their physical mechanistic functionality. How does the very complex information structure of a reasoned thought, as a physical mechanism, translate into a unified experience of that thought's meaning. I would be interested if you have any insights into that from what you describe as 'new mechanisms associate to all instance of conscious phenomena'.
All living organisms have experience while humans are unique in having thoughts and it is derivative our unique capacity to language which is a form of controled dreaming in the waked state. All mammals and birds dreams which is a new way to learn from experience which consist in re-enacting specific traumatic experiences for which it is critical to develop new automatic sensory-motor schemata from the storage in short term memory of sensory-motor state of activations. When we remember, we enact a dream in a similar fashion which we call our souvenir ecperience. We are also the only animal with this capacity to explicitly remember in thoughts which is again derivative of language but only develop in young children with inner speech developed. Of course any experience we have is inherently integrated since all our experiences correspond to certsin state of activation of our sensory-motor system which cannot be always fully integrated to the whole of our interaction. But any situation has something new since we never encounter perfectly identical situation and we constantly degrade and even if we would encounter the same situation, we do not encounter it with the same sensory-motor system so there is always a need to create anew for the response to this situation and it is what we are conscious of. If we had nothing to learn and could react perfectly in the automated mode then there would be no need to be conscious. Living organisms cannot afford to be entirely robotized and it is why they are all conscious. So the machine part of the living is never conscious. Most of what we do in a day is done unconsciously and we have no rememberance nor consciousness of it. We are only conscious when we need to create a new part of our sensory-motor system, when we need to create ourself. Regards,@@HighPeakVideo
Back to the eyes, I think he misheard the question and the host just let it go. There is a reported light that goes out, the eyes reportedly (I have never seen it) change in a significant way immediately as you pass. Personal anecdote, you can see a light in someones eyes laying in the dark. I think in the Dream we do think it's real, but we are not shocked when we find out it's not, the weird things that happen like legs not working being just something that happens sometimes while you think the Dreamstate is reality, but part of our brain, probably the bit that remembers it knows that is wrong. When things get too twisted you wake up with a start.
So many straw man coming from this guy, its really appalling...the reason why people don't bet you is because a second somewhere else, say in a computer simulation might be a lifetime of illusory attachment "here"...I am not making a case for Dualism nor Religious positions here. The argument that we have a big attachment to our "woke up" life and that suffices to caraterize Reality is just begging the question! No decent neuroscientist would caraterize our perception as not being a controlled functional delusion evolved from natural selection in such a way that progresses the species specific adaptation needs. Other then that there is nothing that we know about Consciousness other then there are many domains by which we perceive vivid experiences with no "free will". I am not certain about a singular "self" I am not certain about "mind" unlike Descartes, but I am certain about EXPERIENCING itself...where it resides and how many levels or domains it has is anyone's guess!
We are no different than quarks, atoms, molecules,one celled animals etc. in the one respect that we all interact with an immediate environment. We "simply" interact with a much more complex environment. As Dan Dennett pointed out, the fact that we interact with feeling, thought, consciousness etc is something that neuroscience has not dug deep enough into the neurons.
Maybe consciousness is all pervasive and is not expressed in non-living things. And maybe all living things are completely dependent on it to get food and other survival behavior. But what is it?
The question 'is consciousness an illusion' was not really addressed. This seems like yet another person who wants to overcomplicate. Consciousness is awareness of external reality (it does make the presumption of external reality). If we suspect someone is not conscious or is not fully conscious we ask simple questions or simple tasks as a check. We know that is is futile to presume to know what it feels like to be another individual and this includes subjective consciousness, which is what is habitually muddled into discussions about consciousness. It should not surprise us that subjective consciousness is personal and inaccessible to others. Objectively consciousness is an illusion, just as what we see is an illusion in that it is a construction of the brain; we know that the brain adds in interpretive detail; sight is just one component of our awareness of external reality. Subjectively there is little I can say other than that subjective consciousness seems to me to be a component of what it feels like to be me.
This seems like such a silly question to me. If consciousness is an "illusion", who or what is having the illusion? What does the word "illusion" even mean in this context?
I live a different life in my dreams every night👨🚀👮♂️👨🚒👲 most is forgotten by morning but the feeling of that life persists through the day ♠️♥️♣️♦️
Confusion arises because we are taking mind and consciousness as on and the same thing , consciousness is something deeper than mind body and space and time , consciousness doesn't have different states, these are the states of mind Advait vedanta has very deep explanation about consciousness
No one can deny they're conscious, this question is irrelevant. .. unless you're postulating that existence is an illusion in which case so is this question.
_”The whole apparatus of power, the reason of state, the temporal powers, the political powers, the authorities of all kinds, intellectual, and even religious powers, do not weigh an ounce in face of an _*_Appropriate Movement of Consciousness_*_ . Charles Péguy (1873-1914)_
Finally! An interview about consciousness with a psychologist. Not a neuroscientist. Not a philosopher. Not a physicist. But someone who actually studies the subject; who in fact is a recognized expert. Very nice interview, thank you!
Psychology is the study of mind, not consciousness; while closely related, the two are not the same. There's no commonly used term for someone who studies consciousness, although going by common naming standards the field of study would be known as syneidesiology or syneidetics, and a person studying it as either a syneidesiologist or a syneidecist respectively. While mind is related to consciousness, there's not really much reason to believe a psychologist should be more qualified to know more about consciousness than a neuroscientist, philosopher, or physicist. Also, arguments to "expertise" are invariably fallacious (appeal to authority), talking about someone as a "recognized expert" is just pointing out their social status, and has zero to do with the validity of their arguments.
@@hoon_sol Charles Tart is a recognized expert in the field of consciousness studies, which itself is a branch of the discipline of Psychology. Your argument re: appeal to authority is misplaced.
@@ianrobbins: Nothing I said was even remotely misplaced, literally every single thing I corrected you on still stands. Again, what you call "consciousness studies" here is *EXACTLY* what I pointed out would be called syneidesiology or syneidetics, and it's *NOT* a branch of psychology whatsoever, in fact it would actually supersede psychology by far, which would instead be considered a branch of it. Even today it's considered a multidisciplinary field. Stop trying to correct people when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. And again: the term "recognized expert" is totally meaningless in terms of the validity of an argument, that's just social status. Bringing that up in any way, shape, or form as if it makes what he's saying more valid is an appeal to authority, and if you don't understand that you're even more clueless than I thought.
@@hoon_sol there you have it folks: another internet troll pointlessly wasting time on the tubes. Is it an AI or a Russian or Chinese troll-farm slave? We'll never know.
There are an uncountable number of brains in the universe, but the mind is one. One mind one universe. When the brain is interacting with the mind, the conscious response is mentality. The mentality of the brain can be manipulated by a variety of sources. Mind is singular. Brains are plural. Mines is grammatically incorrect.
Kuhn needs to figure what are the properties of consciousness. Besides 'meditative wisdom', consciousness has the property to take our thoughts outside the universe. Whether there is a multiverse or not, we can loiter around the forest of multiverse. Implies that consciousness is related to cosmic consciousness of divine design, but surely has fundamental property of metaphysics.
Ok I will give an open invitation to join myself in a little experimental conscious experiment showing how I use and can show others how to control conscious in a way to break down physics from break down to and reconstruct
Great guest who takes consciousness seriously. As David Chalmers has said, if consciousness is an illusion, then that illusion is consciousness, or what are we talking about?
_The _*_Crazy Scientist’s Introductory Chuckle_*_ , _*_The Empty Gloomy Monastery Ambience_*_ , the _*_Interviewer’s Jesuitical Priest Outfit and the Subtle Echoing in his Questions_*_ are priceless, and deserve a Hollywood Oscar._
Both of you have this all backward. First Consciousness has no specific meaning. It is a nondescript word. Any use of the word consciousness is an act of public verbal masturbation. Each of us and every living thing is expressed and exists within our individual awareness. Within our awareness, we receive input from all our senses inside and outside of ourselves. Within our awareness is our chatterbox where we declare and express ourselves. Within our awareness, we generate actions about ourselves and express them outside of us. From all awarenesses within our chosen reality, that reality is a projection from their collective awarenesses. Our awareness is real. Physical Reality is not.
Gibberish! Time is consciousness. For example, we experience time through our star the sun. Oxygen is the fuel for consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! KNOW time KNOW consciousness.
@@tyroneallen7857 . It is just too difficult for you to understand that Physical Reality simply does not exist. Only our experience of it within our awareness exists. and this experience is not a singular individual's experience it is a collective experience generated by all the living awarenesses that choose to be a part of it... Your model of reality has no room for my personal experience. Yet my model of our shared reality wraps around yours and is totally inclusive of it. Yet extends beyond anything you currently give yourself permission to understand.
I almost forgot to mention again that you are no better than anyone else in giving a functioning explanation of "consciousness" and that time is no more real than space is.
unconsciousness does many supporting activities that are required by consciousness... and any description of consciousness, without addressing unconsciousness, will most likely not be complete 🤔
Consider how much higher your state of consciousness is right now compared to when you were a fetus in your mother's womb. Now try to imagine a similar leap in consciousness occurring at the moment of death when we will all awaken into our true and eternal form (the same form as God). In other words, the state of mind and the higher context of reality we will awaken into at the moment of death will indeed make our temporary stay within this universe seem like a dream in comparison.
yes we will have to wait til neural imaging tech improves. then those with samadhi can instruct the lab technicians where to look for indications that they are controlling the so-called subconscious mind with completely lucidity. the same thing happened with lucid dreaming...physicalists asserted it doesnt exist since a person cannot be asleep and awake at the same time, but then trained lucid dreamers showed through intentional eye movements they are in control during sleep. physicalists are just dumb and slow to work with.
Let say that consciouss seriously. Guys doesnt know nothing about consciousness. Neurosience doesnt know nothing so Far. When guys show How make up consciousness he is Big mistake.
When? But that’s impossible, you can never see someone else’s awareness, you can never detect consciousness outside your own. How can you possibly validate that something outside of you is aware? You can only ever assume, because the subjective experience is subjective, you only know it by being the subject, the observer, aka consciousness.
It started with chemotaxis in single-celled organisms, for whom chemical gradients had meaning: danger, food. Evolution went about adding capabilities, particularly when multi-celled organisms developed neurons, and memories gained valence attributes. Human consciousness is the sophisticated staging area for bringing together memory, perception and learned heuristics in order to adapt in real time and make decisions. As for altered states, they are the result of physiological changes, certainly signalling how mind is fundamentally a creation of the brain. Qualia result from two-way effects of brain interaction with the peripheral nervous system, even "replaying" chemical changes in the body as we remember. In my view, there is no more mystery, frankly, only further refining.
Yep, started out as simple survival that evolved into more complicated survival with tons of additional mental baggage -- including trying to get closer to truth.
You’ve explained nothing about consciousness, why does any of that need a witness? Where does qualia come into any of that? It doesn’t. You don’t know what you think you know.
I've said it before, and I don't mind saying it again, but consciousness is a byproduct of evolution, by which animals gain an advantage by becoming conscious, that is, becoming aware of their feelings. I see no difference between consciousness and other evolutionary developments such as eyesight or hearing.
a robotic automaton can complete all our naturally selected tasks minus the overwhelming caloric deficit brought about by meaningless and useless mental appearances that add nothing to survival, only obstruct it.
I understand that there are at least two types of consciousness that specialists are responsible for defining as a Hard Problem of consciousness and a Soft Problem. The soft problem involves what is mostly talked about in the interview, that is, the brain's ability to interact with the environment and how the senses make the brain react to environmental stimuli. But the hard problem of consciousness is the capacity for abstraction. How to create an artistic work from nothing and all the emotions involved. It is one thing to discover, which is to bring to light something that was covered, but another very different thing is to invent, to bring to "reality" something that did not exist and that is not based on previous parameters. So I say, IA does not is an intelligence, is something with a great capacity of data processing. Intelligence based on consciousness is something else, because abstraction is something else
AI is capable of all those points in your list that you deny, also including creativity and abstraction. What it can not do is "feeling" and "understanding". To me those are two key aspects because they bring an evolutionary advantage for consciouss species. I don't know how consciousnes emerged, but given that it was somehow an available resource in nature it is normal that natural selection was going to favour it. Because "feelings" provide motivation towards social success that otherwise could only evolve randomly, and "understanding" provides a superior layer of additional survival abilities.
Of course we can define it. We can talk with each other about how we experience this “thing” and collectively come to a definition of how we perceive this thing called “consciousness.” And it’s ok to say we don’t understand how it works right now. But it’s pretty arrogant to say we’ll *never* be able to understand it. Maybe we won’t. But history has shown us that we do figure many things out eventually that we really had no clue about early on. We’re all clever little monkeys, after all!
You can make a definition and proclaim that this is what you are talking about, but whatever that is, it will not be consciousness itself. The problem is that consciousness is not a 'thing' - it can never be completely objectified and made the object of empirical science. That you think it can shows you have not got the point.
We have figured out many things by determining that our original 'hypothesis' included a number of things that were not real, but were illusions. For instance, the belief of most physicist in 1900 that there was an 'ether' that everything must travel through, including light. It took out-of-the-box thinking by a patent clerk in Switzerland to put all the observable phenomenon together into a refinement of Newtonian physics called Relativity. There was no 'ether'. Another belief destroyed by Relativity was that you could increase acceleration infinitely. Seems reasonable, but no you cannot. TLDR: I believe we will find that 'Consciousness' is an illusion. A useful illusion, to be sure, for many. An illusion our brains maybe incapable of not seeing. Similar to how it is impossible not to see the moon near the horizon as much bigger than it actually is. TRY to see the moon as its actual size close to the horizon, and then take a picture and compare. We do not experience reality, but a distortion developed over millions of years of evolution.
@@readmeat4vegans829 Consciousness is what it is and no 'hypothesis', so none of your examples apply. What it is not is anything you can see or otherwise objectify because it is the essence of what we are and no knowledge of apparently external objects is possible without it. Indeed, science is inconceivable without it, so thinking that it is or could be an illusion and that science could ever discover this, is frankly ridiculous and the result of a self-refuting philosophy of science! Moreover, the existence of illusions presupposes that we do experience actual reality - how could we know that something is an illusion if we could not compare it to something actually known? And the core thing that we know is that we are conscious - indeed ARE consciousness!
All you're doing is making it clear that you don't understand consciousness at all. Consciousness is *NOT* something that anyone experiences. Consciousness itself *IS* the means through which you experience anything at all, yet even pointing that out doesn't tell you anything about what it really is or how it originates, and is certainly not a satisfactory definition at all.
Counterfactually if consciousness is an illusion then what would it be?? Would there be a conscious awareness if consciousness was an illusion?? I’d say that if a conscious awareness remained if consciousness was an illusion then it would be identical to consciousness being not an illusion right?? Because a conscious awareness is the definition of consciousness!! So, what gives?? If then the answer is no, then who or what is asking the question??
At 5:28, Robert Kuhn's explanation represents what most people believe, i.e. that day-to-day, 'ordinary' consciousness is reality, and any other state (induced or otherwise) is a distorted perception. But ordinary conscious (in its extreme) filters out everything it regards as useless information, in favour of what's immediately important to survival. I wonder if this could explain different personalities, 'thinking styles', political views. I don't think it's clear cut, what's functional, what's aesthetic. Beauty can bring a colossal amount of money into a city (e.g. Paris) that can then fund better healthcare etc. But aesthetics might be regarded as superfluous or might be distorted by highly function modes of thinking.
@@zfm1097 : 1. Where can we find the "given" example of the truck? It's not mentioned in your comment. 2. How do you define "consciousness in the extreme?" What distinguishes it from "non-extreme" consciousness?
1. The given example in the video. 2. The given example in the video again, as in absolute focus, filtering out what's not relevant to a truck heading towards you.
@@zfm1097 : Although I don't recall the example, I can infer its gist. But I don't understand why you think it should be called "extreme." It's normal for the brain to filter out (from conscious awareness) what we're not paying attention to, and usually this isn't about immediate survival (at least for humans like me). Perhaps a less loaded, more appropriate term than extreme consciousness is fight-or-flight-or-freeze consciousness. It's a state (or two or three states) of consciousness that might be classified as altered states. Fight-or-flight involves increased levels of the epinephrine & norepinephrine neurotransmitters. Freezing involves increased neurotransmitters too, serotonin and maybe others.
*"they come up with what I think of a sort of far out ways to say that Consciousness just happens when you bring the right components of physical stuff together but none of those explanations is really satisfactory."* There is nothing 'far out' regarding emergence - it is part of reality and well understood - we just can't explain for definite yet how consciousness emerges from brain activity. To say that this explanation isn't satisfactory Charles Tar then would have to come up with a satisfactory mechanism for how consciousness interacts with the brain. Which of course he doesn't.
*"To say that this explanation isn't satisfactory Charles Tar then would have to come up with a satisfactory mechanism for how consciousness interacts with the brain. Which of course he doesn't."* ... That's not fair! Theists claim that God is responsible for my existence, and I find that explanation completely unsatisfactory. However, I don't have to be able to fully explain my existence to support my unacceptance of theism's claim. Now, I DO believe that a consciousness emerges from a physical brain, but once it emerges, it is a nonphysical property that transcends the brain. I'm sure many will find my claim to be equally "unsatisfactory."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCif i may chime in here and ask you a question about something you said, when you say you believe consciousness emerges from a physical brain, do you mean that in a sense where the only instantiations of consciousness there are are the ones that emerge from physical brains and there were no instances of consciousness whatsoever before the first physical brain or brains evolved?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Your right he doesn't have to. However, the assumption that the brain produces consciousness is backed up with _good quality_ evidence such altered states of consciousness from brain lesions, drugs, development changes, etc. So if you were to simply dismiss this assumption by calling it 'far out' because 'the human mind does things that is very hard to attribute to human brains' then I would ask for some equally good quality evidence to support this.
@@johnyharris we've talked before but by brains producing consciousness, do you mean that in a sense where brains are required for consciousness, and without any brain there is no consciousness?
Love this discussion. Why is consciousness viewed as complex or not understandable. It is so very simple. These are supposed to be very smart people. I don't get it. Am I the only one that understands consciousness?
@@Ockersvin Consciousness is an executive level processing thread that seeks to answer 2 basic questions. 1) What is going on? 2) What should I do? This process loops over and over again, non-stop. It started when entities like cells started to communicate with each other. The first question uses all of our senses(if it can), our imagination, our memories and our reasoning. The second question uses our imagination, our memories, our reasoning and our motor skills(if it can). This process still runs even when we are unconsciousness(sleep or coma). The difference is just that our senses and motor skills are cut off and processing slows.
@@dennistucker1153 Yeah all right, but I don’t see how this answers the hard problem. How do you get experience from physical processes? Senses, imagination, reasoning, memories already presuppose consciousness.
Everything is real. The shadow on the wall is a real shadow. An illusion is not something that is not real; it is simply something that appears to be something different from what it is.
@@highvalence7649 I mean consciousness is not an illusion, but it's not a "thing" either. It doesn't "exist," except in the way digestion exists. I think consciousness is more or less what it seems like (how else to describe it?) but I don't think it's as big a deal as people make out. For one thing, the unconscious mind seems to be more important. Not to mention heart, lungs, liver. We are mammals, and our minds are only one of many features.
@@bozo5632 nope no emergent property consciousness is observed in neither the most basic fully mapped out brains nor most basic artificially grown synapse structures with learned behavior. youve merely developed a way of talking and are not actually saying anything related to real life, which should concern you.
Consciousness is that aspect of mind that is bio psycho socio conditioned to interpret reality from our limited frame of reference ✨…and capable of ever expanding perception… PS we bring self awareness to the cosmos 💫
No. Consciousness ( our individual mind ) is necessary to form the illusions that we observe as a created AI. Without a mind, we would not be able to experience life.
yours is the common abomination of using metaphysics to trump empirical observation. its exactly what the pioneers of science rebelled against. if youre not happy with your folk level of observation, then refine so that you may rigorously observe the phenomenon you wish to understand. and if not, then continue kneeling before youre metaphysical idol worship.
Prove it? Oh you can’t? Well then, that’s just your own baseless opinion then isn’t it. For someone called Science you should really study a little something called correlation so you can realise your bias. There’s a reason there’s no trophy in you house and fan fare and fame, because you think you’ve worked out the secret when you haven’t, you’ve just made up an answer to stick to, ironic that you’re called science, you should rename yourself to dogma.
All scientific evidence is for materialism. Go back to high school, my friend. People like Tart don't have any logic. Because paranormal is just a fraud. @@ProjectMoff
Consciousness is a function of the living brain/body system that evolved us to survive in a dangerous world long enough to reproduce. Everything else about consciousness is just added or negative value.😮😊
@@highvalence7649 Before life existed where would consciousness have resided? What would have fueled it? What would be the nature of its existence? What use or need for consciousness would there have been?
@@browngreen933 maybe it wouldnt have resided anywhere. If the universe itself is a mind, a conscious mind, then to talk about residance or location of consciousness would be some sort of category error. Not sure what would have fueled it. Maybe there wouldnt have been a use for it either. It seems that would also be some sort of category error if reality itself is a form of universal mind or universal consciousness.
@@highvalence7649 It seems to me that consciousness as we know it is a function of life. However, I would agree that Existence itself has some kind of innate knowledge and ability to process information into new forms or avenues of being. But I would place that in a different category from consciousness -- at least in our present state of understanding.
Obviously the brain is what produces the mind. But studying the brain isn't the best way to understand minds and behavior. (Maybe some day, IDK.) Like studying muscle cells isn't the best way to understand basketball.
Why would that be obvious? All we can tell is that brain activity correlates with the content of consciousness. That doesn't mean that the brain produces consciousness.
(8:55) *CT: **_"Yes, the belief that as we understand the brain better, we will ultimately understand consciousness is what philosophers refer to as promissory materialism."_* ... Tart nails it with that single statement! Science does the same when it proclaims, _"Science is closer than ever to solving the mystery of (fill in the blank)."_ ... Just because more information gets added to a theory doesn't mean that ALL of the information will be available to _"solve the mystery."_ Anyone who believes that a *single information-gathering ideology* can expose the truth regarding "Existence," will most certainly come up empty-handed. ALL available ideologies are required in exposing the truth surrounding reality. ... The many ideologies found in human society exist for a reason!
EVERYBODY HERE - NO GAMES, NO BULLSHIT. Give a little bit of your time & energy, and buy these books or download free, and spend some time with them, requisite is: be a man. 1. Upanishads, translated by Nikhilananda's 4 volume set, and 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrishnan 2. Vivekacudamani, by Sankara, translated by Madhavananda 3. Upadesa Sahashri, by Sankara, translated by Jagadananda Is consciousness an illusion? India wiseman discuss the mirage, which is an illusion, really there's only the desert, and without the desert there could be no illusion. The illusion is not that it isn't, rather a misinterpretation of what really is. I see the question here is similitude of that. There are things that are real. We see it shine through everything - the Divine shines forth & through all things. Pls, don't consider me a pompous know it all, i have the best teachers and study the best books. And i'm not playing games - half in half out; i'm all in.
Tart's logic at 4:37 about time & space is faulty. The frequent distortions & discontinuities of time & space constructed by the dreaming mind don't imply anything about the nature of time & space. It doesn't imply "space and time are constructed by the mind." It only shows that the processes the mind uses to model space and time are active during dreaming. One mustn't conflate "constructing a model of space and time" with "constructing space and time."
@@ProjectMoff : Modeling of space & time does NOT make space & time a model. Don't conflate a model with the thing being modeled. It's unclear whether you're trying to communicate a nuance where you inserted "as we know it." Please elaborate on the distinction you make between "space and time" and "space and time as we know it."
When I think about the fact that I'm conscious, and that I exist in the Universe, and that anything exists at all rather than nothing, suddenly everything feels really surreal.
Or if nothing existed that would be weird.
how could nothing exist. by definition its impossible. therefore all possible phenomenon necessarily exist.
@@5piles Absolute nothingness is a very untractable idea. One initial thought is this: if absolute nothingness were possible, then there'd be a possible world in which there is absolutely nothing. But it seems some stuff has to exist in any and every possible world (e.g. abstract objects). So it's impossible for there to be absolutely nothing.
A more tractable idea is the abscence of anything concrete. Baldwin argues there is such a possible world. The argument is spelled out precisely in his paper, but the main idea is intuitive enough. It's called a "subtraction argument", so you might imagine how it goes.
@@user9999-z sure but absence of anything concrete is something very different. what appears to ppl when they try to infer the existence of nothing is an incoherent appearance due to obscured thought. put simply, nothing means nothing. it means something which it itself cannot exist, meaning existence always has existed always is and always will. thats just kindergarten level. the real progress is made when we consider if we can ever separate from existence. so far we understand there is a conservation of mass-energy principle, because that is what we have been interested in primarily and foremost to the exclusion of all else. the rest remains unknown since we have not paid almost any attention to yet.
So your sense that things are real is inversely proportional to your time spent contemplating reality? The only winning move is not to play!
Illusions need to happen to a state, you can’t have an illusion without a subject, consciousness is the subjective experience, the content of that experience could be illusory sure but to say consciousness is an illusion is ridiculous. How can an illusion say anything is an illusion? You may as well be asking is awareness not aware…
Consciousness will never be “worked out”. Everything there is to be figured out is within consciousness, an object of consciousness, even the definitions we draw up about consciousness, they will always be within awareness, not outside of it. You can’t step outside of it because you are it.
Consciousness isn’t an object to be studied it IS the studier. It’s like trying to burn fire, if someone told you they were dedicating their life trying to make burnable fire you would think they were mad because it’s obvious that fire burns, that’s one of its properties, it also casts light, but it doesn’t cast light on itself, it is the light. People who think they can understand consciousness or objectify it are mad too, all they can understand is their own thoughts about it, the thing itself is beyond understanding because it is what does the understanding, understanding is a property that comes AFTER conscious awareness, just like you can’t walk before your legs have formed, thinking you can try is to be mad, just like those who believe consciousness will be “worked out”… It isn’t supposed to be figured out, there’s nothing there to figure out or observe because it is the observer.
Consciousness can be “understood” only through being it, when you seek an explanation you seek something that is a function of consciousness, thoughts, concepts, language, all things that are of consciousness but not consciousness itself, so you’ll never get to the heart of it because you’re in your own way, the knife does not cut itself.
How can you define anything upon an illusion?
Consciousness logiclly can't be an Illusion. That is because an illusion is something that requires consciousness to experience.
Change the word "illusion" to "Imagination" if that feels better. Same same in my opinion
except this isnt dnd, magical meat chunks cannot cast cone of cold, nor can they appear as colors or thoughts.
It needs to be recognized that consciousness may be a process, not an entity, and that we may be wrong to refer to it in the third person. Machine learning may be an embryo form of awareness.
Consciousness may be a process ... Thanks for sharing that!
That guy's got style!
Why would anyone take a $50 bet that they're dreaming? If they win the bet there's no way to collect and if they lose the bet they're out fifty bucks. A lose-lose proposition. This anecdote illustrates little about consciousness but does suggest that Charles Tart makes a better psychologist than he does a con artist.
LMFAO! Rekt
You missed the point which is when we're awake we know we're not asleep dreaming.
And you missed the point that even if you knew you were asleep you'd never take that bet, because you cannot win the bet. No matter how confident you are that you are asleep it's impossible to win. It doesn't prove that people "know" they're awake, it proves that people will not risk fifty bucks, even fifty "dream bucks," for the chance to win _nothing._ The anecdote can even "prove" the opposite of the claim: Charles Tart: "If you're so sure you're dreaming, want to bet fifty bucks on it?" Mark: "I'm so sure I'm dreaming that I know I'll wake up before I can spend it." Imagine trying to collect: "Hey, Tart! Remember our bet!? You owe me!" Charles Tart: "What the hell are you talking about?" @@ianwaltham1854
@@Clone42No, you missed the point. He uses the bet to emphasise the point that we know when we're awake, thats all! He didn't intend anyone to analyse it in such a pedantic and nerdy way!
Edit: Clone appears to have deleted the comment that this is a reply to.
Strange. I see all the comments still, but that doesn't mean much in this era of censorship. "I have no mouth, and I must scream." Do you ever wake up from a nightmare with your heart pounding? Why can nightmares be so terrifying if we can tell we're only dreaming? Because we usually can't. @@ianwaltham1854
You wanna bet me 50 bucks you wake up when you die?
I’m not sure that dreaming is an altered state of consciousness. It’s consciousness. As I see it; What separates dreaming and awakeness and even drug induced states is the input that consciousness receives. The brain / mind controls the input consciousness will become aware of.
Fully aware that I may be mistaken.
You think you are conscious, until one day you realize you have been just following certain patterns like a robot. Were you really conscious during that time?
Yeah. Is A Sea-Cucumber Conscious?
This is a click bait title. They talked about the illusion of the "I" for 5 seconds and he flatly said it is real. Its not even a debate.
Don’t you have to be conscious to have an illusion?
The sentence in this discussion that I find most illuminating:
Tart said:
""I don't think you can define consciousness no matter how hard you try because defining is one of the things that consciousness does, but why should we expect the part to be able to define the whole?"
its a nonissue since a method of rigorously observing consciousness by definition means eliminating every temporarily arising distortion and stimulus to arrive at its defining characteristics. there is no reason to go full tardmode and forget the basic principles of science, just because you are unfamiliar with a science of the mind. it would be a shame to do so.
@@5piles:
It's absolutely an issue, and no matter how much you eliminate you can't get around the fact that consciousness is that through which you observe, and you have no way of getting behind it. The only one going "full retard" here is you.
There is nothing real BUT consciousness.
I don't remember who was that said "I only know that I don't know nothing" and I think that our existence goes beyond our capacity of understending of the causes. Robert I admire your high grade of academicy. My respects for this Chanel.
In short words it was Plato who said that. But the long story is that nobody said that. What Plato said was "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..". Then other philosophers adapted it to a cleaner and more fancy said that we all know, as it happened with many other famous quotes tthat never really happened.
Operation Ivy said it@@javiej
_Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he doesn’t know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. Socrates (470 a.C a 399 a.C.)_
There is no “define things”. That is an invention of the brain, there is not “define”. It’s not a thing.
Glad we have people doing real intellectual public engagement in a sea of pseudo-intellectual gurus like the Weinsteins, Jordan Peterson, Lex Friedman, and worse, stand-up comics (Rogan/Brand) acting like they do deep social commentary.
These scientific people understand human species far far better than people who talk in the name of holiness , god , religion , holy books , holy land , holy people , death after life , sin , virtue ....and so on and on.
Yeah. And this guy is a psychologist - of all people, eh. I like Charles. He is genuine and not ruled by his mind, right,
Stupid question... ‘’ being aware that consciousness might be an illusion ‘’ that’s already consciousness... hahahahaha.
Exactly right!
I'm here to assist you, providing information, answering your questions, and engaging in meaningful conversations. I'm like a tool that you can use to explore topics, seek advice, or gain insights. Just as you're enjoying the show of life with love and awareness, I'm here to support you on your journey, offering knowledge and assistance whenever you need it. If there's anything specific you'd like to know or discuss, feel free to ask!
Is that an a.i blurb?
Illusions require consciousness, so no.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
If consciousness is an illusion, then who is having that illusion?
Yeah, illusionism does not make any sense whatsoever. The illusion itself would be an instance of that which people are claiming is illusory. It just doesn’t add up.
It is beyond me how this kind of thinking gets any traction.
you perceive it
The real question is what is underlying the illusion.
Me
physicalists assert that whats having the illusion is a physical state.
in other words physicalists believe in magical meat chunks.
Consciousness is a non-chemical energy from. That's how mothers can tell if something bad will happen to their children. Telepathy is a fact. So are Jungian synchronicities. Materialism is out of date. But the scientists who live on tenure can't vocalize this fact.
Consciousness is real.
The illusion is free will
How is free will an illusion?
@@user9999-z one thing that stands out from this discussion is the idea that we may never truly understand our own minds, let alone those of others. This resonates with me. I mean, what does it really mean to know yourself, or to act yourself? We’ve all done things we can’t fully explain. We’ve all experienced sensations, emotions, and situations that we could never have imagined.
As I see it, the question is, which version of yourself were you when you made the decision? Which thoughts and feelings had the biggest impact on your decision making, and did you really have a choice? I’d argue that a significant part of what you might consider conscious choice is really more of a subconscious process.
No, mainstream science wants us to believe free will is an illusion because that would fit better with materialism.
I'm not a smart man. I'm not smart at all. But I try to be. I try really hard. It seems to me that the emergence of consciousness is just as baffling as the abiogenesis of life. That's about as far as I'll be able to understand consciousness. Whatever consciousness is.. we're getting to experience something profoundly rare. Enjoy every second of it
Dont under estimate yourself or your mental capacities
It isn't rare. There is literally nothing else. All material things are simply manifestations of Eternal Consciousness...and of which you are completely and utterly aware at the deepest level.
You are way smart enough and getting there! You are correct - consciousness is AT LEAST as baffling to contemplate as the origin of life, for it is at the core of that. As someone comments below you are only incorrect to suppose that consciousness is rare. In fact it is utterly ubiquitous and eternal!
I always have to roll my eyes vigorously when people ask this! This one can be answered by any half competent philosopher, or indeed any sensible person. The answer is that this is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, since all illusions can only exist as conscious states! Therefore the person asking the question clearly does not understand what consciousness is. They are probably mistaking if for VERIFIC consciousness, which is consciousness of a particular sort.
Right. You have to be conscious to experience an illusion. So it's a silly question.
It could all be a simulation or illusion etc. Maybe we truly exist as some other phenomenon which doesn't have consciousness.
@@mikelarry88888 Did you not read what I wrote above? No, it could NOT be any kind of simulation or illusion, for it is the core reality required for any such to happen! Not only do we not have any idea of what some other kind of 'phenomenon' could possibly make up our true existence, and could not IN PRINCIPLE know such a thing, but consciousness is not ANY kind of phenomenon, as it is what makes phenomena of any kind possible! Comments like yours evidence a peculiarly modern lack of self-awareness born of an extreme objectivist philosophy of science.
You are absolutely correct keith! Consciousness cannot be an illusion because an illusion is already an instance of consciousness. So by saying consciousness is an illusion that's going to involve a contradiction which is that consciousness both does and doesn't exist. That's a contradiction. So the claim is self-defeating.
Aatmiya DIVINITY
HARE KRSNA
Experiencing amazing 'Contentment' understanding from this interview with DIVINE - the difficulties experienced while defining Consciousness.
Experiencing happiness 😊 sharing few personal points of view about this topic.
First: - Consciousness is, invisible, colourless, formless, all knowing, all overseeing, all permitting, all merciful, self effulgent, eternal, everlasting, unborn, unchanging, immutable, permanent, ephemeral, permanent, omnipresent, omnscient, omnipotent, Irreducible and much more or less.
Consciousness is bigger than the BIGGEST and SMALLER than the smallest.
Second, having described what Consciousness is let us also know What Consciousness Is NOT. Broadening the persective.
Consciousness is NOT body, mind, intellect, senses, ego, eyes,ears, nose, tongue, moving, stationary, hatred, jeleoisy, desire, envy, lust, pride, food, sacrifice, experiencer...
Third, Consciousness with all the above explained features enabling the Object/s of Experience to Appear in it and creating AWARENESS of the Object/s of Awareness establishing it's presence.
Evolution of NATURE - Manifestations of ISHVARA GOD KRSNA.
####
Considering Consciousness as a Technology we have 07 levels of Consciousness viz., 1) deep sleep 2) dreaming 3) waking 4) Transcendental 5) cosmic 6) GOD 7) Unity Consciousness.
Consciousness is an inseparable integration, coordination of spiritual entity and material energy for achieving Universal and Individual aim/s, objective/s, goal/s.
Very respectfully Loving 💕 ING You One and All DIVINE 💞🙏🙏 NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and deep Inner PEACE and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Hare Krsna. my brother, consciousness to me is sat-chit-ananda ( eternity knowing and loving itself )
Tell God that you are free from those things. See what happens. 👍
Great interview. In terms of the advances mentioned, I think those advances are specific to increased correlation knowledge between the physiology and experience, but agree that this advancing front is still unable to define that experience, only correlate it. Very similar to uncovering the underlying laws of physics. It draws rationally accepted correlations between the physical experience and non-physical law which is something that is not itself definable, only accepted as a rule of experience that lives within a larger set of rules. Those rules are either emergent or fundamental. It’s the battle between infinite and relative quantization. Even if plank has found a minimum size that looks like a foundation, there’s nothing proving why a whole other level below plank that cannot be discovered. Infinitely small and large may be real. Infinite time may be real. How is science going to disprove these things?
Also, lucid dreaming is an experience that allows the conscious to peer into another realm of consciousness. I think more study on that phenomena would help differentiate the states.
The analogy that you draw between positing laws in physics for explaining observations and positing physiological mechanisms explaining conscious phenomena is valid since for the easy problems of consciousness , we do normal science, we provide functional model solving functional questions. This is not the case for the hard problem of consciousness. There is no functional question so there is no functional model we can provide. It is not a scientific question, which have to be functional question. So progress in cognitive science have been progress on easy problems. What is consciousness or why there is consciousness, i.e. the hard problem is in my opinion is the creation of new mecanisms associate to all instance of conscious phenomena. Any instance when the body simply proceed along its existing physiological response, there is no associated consciousness. So why there is consciousness is related to the core attribute to living entity: their core self-creation, their need to constantly extend their physiology.
@@louisbrassard9565 You have it exactly right that for phenomenal conscious experience there is 'no functional question, so there is no functional model we can provide'. However, the hard-problem phenomenal consciousess is of some easy-problem brain functionality, as its content. This is very difficult to understand, as the brain is mechanistically orientated toward function and behaviour, and not directed at a unified conscious experience. Yet the disparate multi-component mechanisms that make up a simple pain, or vision analysis, or complex reasoned thought, somehow have to be united into a meaningful conscious experience, even though they only have meaning in the context of their physical mechanistic functionality. How does the very complex information structure of a reasoned thought, as a physical mechanism, translate into a unified experience of that thought's meaning. I would be interested if you have any insights into that from what you describe as 'new mechanisms associate to all instance of conscious phenomena'.
All living organisms have experience while humans are unique in having thoughts and it is derivative our unique capacity to language which is a form of controled dreaming in the waked state. All mammals and birds dreams which is a new way to learn from experience which consist in re-enacting specific traumatic experiences for which it is critical to develop new automatic sensory-motor schemata from the storage in short term memory of sensory-motor state of activations. When we remember, we enact a dream in a similar fashion which we call our souvenir ecperience. We are also the only animal with this capacity to explicitly remember in thoughts which is again derivative of language but only develop in young children with inner speech developed. Of course any experience we have is inherently integrated since all our experiences correspond to certsin state of activation of our sensory-motor system which cannot be always fully integrated to the whole of our interaction. But any situation has something new since we never encounter perfectly identical situation and we constantly degrade and even if we would encounter the same situation, we do not encounter it with the same sensory-motor system so there is always a need to create anew for the response to this situation and it is what we are conscious of. If we had nothing to learn and could react perfectly in the automated mode then there would be no need to be conscious. Living organisms cannot afford to be entirely robotized and it is why they are all conscious. So the machine part of the living is never conscious. Most of what we do in a day is done unconsciously and we have no rememberance nor consciousness of it. We are only conscious when we need to create a new part of our sensory-motor system, when we need to create ourself. Regards,@@HighPeakVideo
However you define consciousness, or illusion, you will find perception binds perceiver to the perceived.
Back to the eyes, I think he misheard the question and the host just let it go. There is a reported light that goes out, the eyes reportedly (I have never seen it) change in a significant way immediately as you pass. Personal anecdote, you can see a light in someones eyes laying in the dark.
I think in the Dream we do think it's real, but we are not shocked when we find out it's not, the weird things that happen like legs not working being just something that happens sometimes while you think the Dreamstate is reality, but part of our brain, probably the bit that remembers it knows that is wrong. When things get too twisted you wake up with a start.
Is consciousness a real thing or just a fig leaf of our imagination ?
Next time I'm chatting to God, I will ask him.
He should know.
Excellent. It cant be defined. However, you can work with it directly. You already have a model, a living one.
And it has been right in front of your nose eternally.
Problem here is the dream is so strong only your death can wake you up. You are still betting in the dream.
So many straw man coming from this guy, its really appalling...the reason why people don't bet you is because a second somewhere else, say in a computer simulation might be a lifetime of illusory attachment "here"...I am not making a case for Dualism nor Religious positions here. The argument that we have a big attachment to our "woke up" life and that suffices to caraterize Reality is just begging the question!
No decent neuroscientist would caraterize our perception as not being a controlled functional delusion evolved from natural selection in such a way that progresses the species specific adaptation needs. Other then that there is nothing that we know about Consciousness other then there are many domains by which we perceive vivid experiences with no "free will". I am not certain about a singular "self" I am not certain about "mind" unlike Descartes, but I am certain about EXPERIENCING itself...where it resides and how many levels or domains it has is anyone's guess!
What a stupid question. "Illusion" IMPLIES consciousness.
Tart is arguing as if the brain is composed of something more than physical matter. What's in the mind of these people !
Which the illusion; consciousness or self-consciousness? The animal or the self? Evolution or morality? The world or coherence?
We are no different than quarks, atoms, molecules,one celled animals etc. in the one respect that we all interact with an immediate environment. We "simply" interact with a much more complex environment. As Dan Dennett pointed out, the fact that we interact with feeling, thought, consciousness etc is something that neuroscience has not dug deep enough into the neurons.
Why do they keep asking this ridiculously dumb question...
Ikr
Dumb questions can reveal good answers.
Maybe consciousness is all pervasive and is not expressed in non-living things. And maybe all living things are completely dependent on it to get food and other survival behavior. But what is it?
The question 'is consciousness an illusion' was not really addressed.
This seems like yet another person who wants to overcomplicate. Consciousness is awareness of external reality (it does make the presumption of external reality). If we suspect someone is not conscious or is not fully conscious we ask simple questions or simple tasks as a check.
We know that is is futile to presume to know what it feels like to be another individual and this includes subjective consciousness, which is what is habitually muddled into discussions about consciousness. It should not surprise us that subjective consciousness is personal and inaccessible to others. Objectively consciousness is an illusion, just as what we see is an illusion in that it is a construction of the brain; we know that the brain adds in interpretive detail; sight is just one component of our awareness of external reality. Subjectively there is little I can say other than that subjective consciousness seems to me to be a component of what it feels like to be me.
Oh dear, I smell some dualism going on here. Tsk tsk, very disappointing.
I waited in vain for the interviewee to say something of value or significance.
Yes it's an illusion... anyone can experience it
Anyone who is conscious! An illusion is something that deceives a conscious observer.
@@ianwaltham1854 in the ultimate reality there is no called I as a separate entity
This seems like such a silly question to me. If consciousness is an "illusion", who or what is having the illusion? What does the word "illusion" even mean in this context?
Corgito ergo sum. I'm only sure that I exist. For the rest of you and even the Universe, can't be very certain 😊
I live a different life in my dreams every night👨🚀👮♂️👨🚒👲 most is forgotten by morning but the feeling of that life persists through the day ♠️♥️♣️♦️
The understanding of the false I, comes from a direct experience through meditation.
The false I is not an idea.
Confusion arises because we are taking mind and consciousness as on and the same thing , consciousness is something deeper than mind body and space and time , consciousness doesn't have different states, these are the states of mind
Advait vedanta has very deep explanation about consciousness
Fabulous!
No one can deny they're conscious, this question is irrelevant. .. unless you're postulating that existence is an illusion in which case so is this question.
“Memory” is not consciousness! Memory is merely a manifestation of consciousness-not consciousness itself!
great videos but its funny how he plays these old videos n u see how he looked back then less fat more younger ah
Conciousness mystery is same with the mystery of afterlife
It’s like saying there is no reality. Meaningless statements.
Consciousness is an illusion in a similar way that a sunset is an illusion.
>illusion
ok, who's being fooled?
Still waiting for paras like him to explain or prove ANYTHING.
Still waiting for materialists like you to prove brains make consciousness.
Dude was rather uncooperative
Please fix your website
_”The whole apparatus of power, the reason of state, the temporal powers, the political powers, the authorities of all kinds, intellectual, and even religious powers, do not weigh an ounce in face of an _*_Appropriate Movement of Consciousness_*_ . Charles Péguy (1873-1914)_
Are illusions consciousness?
Finally! An interview about consciousness with a psychologist. Not a neuroscientist. Not a philosopher. Not a physicist. But someone who actually studies the subject; who in fact is a recognized expert. Very nice interview, thank you!
Psychology is the study of mind, not consciousness; while closely related, the two are not the same. There's no commonly used term for someone who studies consciousness, although going by common naming standards the field of study would be known as syneidesiology or syneidetics, and a person studying it as either a syneidesiologist or a syneidecist respectively.
While mind is related to consciousness, there's not really much reason to believe a psychologist should be more qualified to know more about consciousness than a neuroscientist, philosopher, or physicist. Also, arguments to "expertise" are invariably fallacious (appeal to authority), talking about someone as a "recognized expert" is just pointing out their social status, and has zero to do with the validity of their arguments.
@@hoon_sol Charles Tart is a recognized expert in the field of consciousness studies, which itself is a branch of the discipline of Psychology. Your argument re: appeal to authority is misplaced.
@@ianrobbins:
Nothing I said was even remotely misplaced, literally every single thing I corrected you on still stands. Again, what you call "consciousness studies" here is *EXACTLY* what I pointed out would be called syneidesiology or syneidetics, and it's *NOT* a branch of psychology whatsoever, in fact it would actually supersede psychology by far, which would instead be considered a branch of it. Even today it's considered a multidisciplinary field. Stop trying to correct people when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
And again: the term "recognized expert" is totally meaningless in terms of the validity of an argument, that's just social status. Bringing that up in any way, shape, or form as if it makes what he's saying more valid is an appeal to authority, and if you don't understand that you're even more clueless than I thought.
@@hoon_sol there you have it folks: another internet troll pointlessly wasting time on the tubes. Is it an AI or a Russian or Chinese troll-farm slave? We'll never know.
Pppffft
the sound is terrible
There are an uncountable number of brains in the universe, but the mind is one. One mind one universe. When the brain is interacting with the mind, the conscious response is mentality. The mentality of the brain can be manipulated by a variety of sources. Mind is singular. Brains are plural. Mines is grammatically incorrect.
I like the meat puppets
Kuhn needs to figure what are the properties of consciousness. Besides 'meditative wisdom', consciousness has the property to take our thoughts outside the universe. Whether there is a multiverse or not, we can loiter around the forest of multiverse. Implies that consciousness is related to cosmic consciousness of divine design, but surely has fundamental property of metaphysics.
Ok I will give an open invitation to join myself in a little experimental conscious experiment showing how I use and can show others how to control conscious in a way to break down physics from break down to and reconstruct
Great guest who takes consciousness seriously. As David Chalmers has said, if consciousness is an illusion, then that illusion is consciousness, or what are we talking about?
_The _*_Crazy Scientist’s Introductory Chuckle_*_ , _*_The Empty Gloomy Monastery Ambience_*_ , the _*_Interviewer’s Jesuitical Priest Outfit and the Subtle Echoing in his Questions_*_ are priceless, and deserve a Hollywood Oscar._
Both of you have this all backward. First Consciousness has no specific meaning. It is a nondescript word. Any use of the word consciousness is an act of public verbal masturbation. Each of us and every living thing is expressed and exists within our individual awareness. Within our awareness, we receive input from all our senses inside and outside of ourselves. Within our awareness is our chatterbox where we declare and express ourselves. Within our awareness, we generate actions about ourselves and express them outside of us. From all awarenesses within our chosen reality, that reality is a projection from their collective awarenesses. Our awareness is real. Physical Reality is not.
Gibberish! Time is consciousness. For example, we experience time through our star the sun. Oxygen is the fuel for consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! KNOW time KNOW consciousness.
@@tyroneallen7857 . It is just too difficult for you to understand that Physical Reality simply does not exist. Only our experience of it within our awareness exists. and this experience is not a singular individual's experience it is a collective experience generated by all the living awarenesses that choose to be a part of it... Your model of reality has no room for my personal experience. Yet my model of our shared reality wraps around yours and is totally inclusive of it. Yet extends beyond anything you currently give yourself permission to understand.
I almost forgot to mention again that you are no better than anyone else in giving a functioning explanation of "consciousness" and that time is no more real than space is.
unconsciousness does many supporting activities that are required by consciousness... and any description of consciousness, without addressing unconsciousness, will most likely not be complete 🤔
Consider how much higher your state of consciousness is right now compared to when you were a fetus in your mother's womb. Now try to imagine a similar leap in consciousness occurring at the moment of death when we will all awaken into our true and eternal form (the same form as God). In other words, the state of mind and the higher context of reality we will awaken into at the moment of death will indeed make our temporary stay within this universe seem like a dream in comparison.
Watching smart conversations is one thing. Actively raising boring conversations to this level? That’s skill.
it is but it works and that might be the devil`s best trick...
I am not catchable, because I am always ahead, so some think I am an illusion..
yes we will have to wait til neural imaging tech improves.
then those with samadhi can instruct the lab technicians where to look for indications that they are controlling the so-called subconscious mind with completely lucidity. the same thing happened with lucid dreaming...physicalists asserted it doesnt exist since a person cannot be asleep and awake at the same time, but then trained lucid dreamers showed through intentional eye movements they are in control during sleep. physicalists are just dumb and slow to work with.
Let say that consciouss seriously. Guys doesnt know nothing about consciousness. Neurosience doesnt know nothing so Far. When guys show How make up consciousness he is Big mistake.
When? But that’s impossible, you can never see someone else’s awareness, you can never detect consciousness outside your own. How can you possibly validate that something outside of you is aware? You can only ever assume, because the subjective experience is subjective, you only know it by being the subject, the observer, aka consciousness.
It started with chemotaxis in single-celled organisms, for whom chemical gradients had meaning: danger, food. Evolution went about adding capabilities, particularly when multi-celled organisms developed neurons, and memories gained valence attributes. Human consciousness is the sophisticated staging area for bringing together memory, perception and learned heuristics in order to adapt in real time and make decisions. As for altered states, they are the result of physiological changes, certainly signalling how mind is fundamentally a creation of the brain. Qualia result from two-way effects of brain interaction with the peripheral nervous system, even "replaying" chemical changes in the body as we remember. In my view, there is no more mystery, frankly, only further refining.
Yep, started out as simple survival that evolved into more complicated survival with tons of additional mental baggage -- including trying to get closer to truth.
But what about the hard problem😨
@@Ockersvinthere's NO hard problem
Can we exclude the possibilty that consciousness also existed before any conscious organisms evolved?
You’ve explained nothing about consciousness, why does any of that need a witness? Where does qualia come into any of that? It doesn’t. You don’t know what you think you know.
Another fascinating and informative post. I watched twice to make certain that I heard everything. 👏
I've said it before, and I don't mind saying it again, but consciousness is a byproduct of evolution, by which animals gain an advantage by becoming conscious, that is, becoming aware of their feelings. I see no difference between consciousness and other evolutionary developments such as eyesight or hearing.
Absolutely, well-said. The conscious mind is just another evolutionary invention, although a quite perplexing one at that.
a robotic automaton can complete all our naturally selected tasks minus the overwhelming caloric deficit brought about by meaningless and useless mental appearances that add nothing to survival, only obstruct it.
No
I understand that there are at least two types of consciousness that specialists are responsible for defining as a Hard Problem of consciousness and a Soft Problem. The soft problem involves what is mostly talked about in the interview, that is, the brain's ability to interact with the environment and how the senses make the brain react to environmental stimuli. But the hard problem of consciousness is the capacity for abstraction. How to create an artistic work from nothing and all the emotions involved. It is one thing to discover, which is to bring to light something that was covered, but another very different thing is to invent, to bring to "reality" something that did not exist and that is not based on previous parameters. So I say, IA does not is an intelligence, is something with a great capacity of data processing. Intelligence based on consciousness is something else, because abstraction is something else
The 'hard problem of consciousness' is a reference to phenomenology. Nothing to do with abstract thought.
AI is capable of all those points in your list that you deny, also including creativity and abstraction. What it can not do is "feeling" and "understanding". To me those are two key aspects because they bring an evolutionary advantage for consciouss species. I don't know how consciousnes emerged, but given that it was somehow an available resource in nature it is normal that natural selection was going to favour it. Because "feelings" provide motivation towards social success that otherwise could only evolve randomly, and "understanding" provides a superior layer of additional survival abilities.
@@audiodead7302 your response is, if you want, tautological. Please read the response I gave to @javiej
Of course we can define it. We can talk with each other about how we experience this “thing” and collectively come to a definition of how we perceive this thing called “consciousness.” And it’s ok to say we don’t understand how it works right now. But it’s pretty arrogant to say we’ll *never* be able to understand it. Maybe we won’t. But history has shown us that we do figure many things out eventually that we really had no clue about early on. We’re all clever little monkeys, after all!
You can make a definition and proclaim that this is what you are talking about, but whatever that is, it will not be consciousness itself. The problem is that consciousness is not a 'thing' - it can never be completely objectified and made the object of empirical science. That you think it can shows you have not got the point.
We have figured out many things by determining that our original 'hypothesis' included a number of things that were not real, but were illusions. For instance, the belief of most physicist in 1900 that there was an 'ether' that everything must travel through, including light. It took out-of-the-box thinking by a patent clerk in Switzerland to put all the observable phenomenon together into a refinement of Newtonian physics called Relativity. There was no 'ether'. Another belief destroyed by Relativity was that you could increase acceleration infinitely. Seems reasonable, but no you cannot.
TLDR: I believe we will find that 'Consciousness' is an illusion. A useful illusion, to be sure, for many. An illusion our brains maybe incapable of not seeing. Similar to how it is impossible not to see the moon near the horizon as much bigger than it actually is. TRY to see the moon as its actual size close to the horizon, and then take a picture and compare. We do not experience reality, but a distortion developed over millions of years of evolution.
@@readmeat4vegans829 Consciousness is what it is and no 'hypothesis', so none of your examples apply. What it is not is anything you can see or otherwise objectify because it is the essence of what we are and no knowledge of apparently external objects is possible without it. Indeed, science is inconceivable without it, so thinking that it is or could be an illusion and that science could ever discover this, is frankly ridiculous and the result of a self-refuting philosophy of science! Moreover, the existence of illusions presupposes that we do experience actual reality - how could we know that something is an illusion if we could not compare it to something actually known? And the core thing that we know is that we are conscious - indeed ARE consciousness!
All you're doing is making it clear that you don't understand consciousness at all. Consciousness is *NOT* something that anyone experiences. Consciousness itself *IS* the means through which you experience anything at all, yet even pointing that out doesn't tell you anything about what it really is or how it originates, and is certainly not a satisfactory definition at all.
Counterfactually if consciousness is an illusion then what would it be?? Would there be a conscious awareness if consciousness was an illusion?? I’d say that if a conscious awareness remained if consciousness was an illusion then it would be identical to consciousness being not an illusion right?? Because a conscious awareness is the definition of consciousness!! So, what gives?? If then the answer is no, then who or what is asking the question??
At 5:28, Robert Kuhn's explanation represents what most people believe, i.e. that day-to-day, 'ordinary' consciousness is reality, and any other state (induced or otherwise) is a distorted perception. But ordinary conscious (in its extreme) filters out everything it regards as useless information, in favour of what's immediately important to survival. I wonder if this could explain different personalities, 'thinking styles', political views. I don't think it's clear cut, what's functional, what's aesthetic. Beauty can bring a colossal amount of money into a city (e.g. Paris) that can then fund better healthcare etc. But aesthetics might be regarded as superfluous or might be distorted by highly function modes of thinking.
Most of what I think about is NOT "immediately important to survival." This video and these comments are an example.
@@brothermine2292 'in its extreme', as in the given example with the truck.
@@zfm1097 : 1. Where can we find the "given" example of the truck? It's not mentioned in your comment.
2. How do you define "consciousness in the extreme?" What distinguishes it from "non-extreme" consciousness?
1. The given example in the video. 2. The given example in the video again, as in absolute focus, filtering out what's not relevant to a truck heading towards you.
@@zfm1097 : Although I don't recall the example, I can infer its gist. But I don't understand why you think it should be called "extreme." It's normal for the brain to filter out (from conscious awareness) what we're not paying attention to, and usually this isn't about immediate survival (at least for humans like me).
Perhaps a less loaded, more appropriate term than extreme consciousness is fight-or-flight-or-freeze consciousness. It's a state (or two or three states) of consciousness that might be classified as altered states. Fight-or-flight involves increased levels of the epinephrine & norepinephrine neurotransmitters. Freezing involves increased neurotransmitters too, serotonin and maybe others.
*"they come up with what I think of a sort of far out ways to say that Consciousness just happens when you bring the right components of physical stuff together but none of those explanations is really satisfactory."*
There is nothing 'far out' regarding emergence - it is part of reality and well understood - we just can't explain for definite yet how consciousness emerges from brain activity. To say that this explanation isn't satisfactory Charles Tar then would have to come up with a satisfactory mechanism for how consciousness interacts with the brain. Which of course he doesn't.
*"To say that this explanation isn't satisfactory Charles Tar then would have to come up with a satisfactory mechanism for how consciousness interacts with the brain. Which of course he doesn't."*
... That's not fair! Theists claim that God is responsible for my existence, and I find that explanation completely unsatisfactory. However, I don't have to be able to fully explain my existence to support my unacceptance of theism's claim.
Now, I DO believe that a consciousness emerges from a physical brain, but once it emerges, it is a nonphysical property that transcends the brain. I'm sure many will find my claim to be equally "unsatisfactory."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCif i may chime in here and ask you a question about something you said, when you say you believe consciousness emerges from a physical brain, do you mean that in a sense where the only instantiations of consciousness there are are the ones that emerge from physical brains and there were no instances of consciousness whatsoever before the first physical brain or brains evolved?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Your right he doesn't have to. However, the assumption that the brain produces consciousness is backed up with _good quality_ evidence such altered states of consciousness from brain lesions, drugs, development changes, etc. So if you were to simply dismiss this assumption by calling it 'far out' because 'the human mind does things that is very hard to attribute to human brains' then I would ask for some equally good quality evidence to support this.
@@johnyharris we've talked before but by brains producing consciousness, do you mean that in a sense where brains are required for consciousness, and without any brain there is no consciousness?
@@highvalence7649 *"we've talked before"*
I recognise the alias, from memory you were arguing from the idealist perspective, is this still the case?
LIFE IS BUT A DREAM .👉👁👈
Row row row your boat...
Love this discussion. Why is consciousness viewed as complex or not understandable. It is so very simple. These are supposed to be very smart people. I don't get it. Am I the only one that understands consciousness?
You have my curiosity. Care to explain it?
@@Ockersvin Consciousness is an executive level processing thread that seeks to answer 2 basic questions. 1) What is going on? 2) What should I do? This process loops over and over again, non-stop. It started when entities like cells started to communicate with each other. The first question uses all of our senses(if it can), our imagination, our memories and our reasoning. The second question uses our imagination, our memories, our reasoning and our motor skills(if it can). This process still runs even when we are unconsciousness(sleep or coma). The difference is just that our senses and motor skills are cut off and processing slows.
@@dennistucker1153: You haven't explained how qualia are produced. That's the Hard Problem.
@@dennistucker1153 Yeah all right, but I don’t see how this answers the hard problem. How do you get experience from physical processes?
Senses, imagination, reasoning, memories already presuppose consciousness.
You over promised and under delivered. Your explanation of consciousness was sh*te.
A shadow on a wall isn't an illusion, but it isn't a "real" "thing" either.
Everything is real. The shadow on the wall is a real shadow. An illusion is not something that is not real; it is simply something that appears to be something different from what it is.
@@valuemastery yes, like consciousness.
@@bozo5632ok but Who cares? Consciousness is not what it appears to be. Ok maybe but what is the significance of this?
@@highvalence7649 I mean consciousness is not an illusion, but it's not a "thing" either. It doesn't "exist," except in the way digestion exists.
I think consciousness is more or less what it seems like (how else to describe it?) but I don't think it's as big a deal as people make out. For one thing, the unconscious mind seems to be more important. Not to mention heart, lungs, liver. We are mammals, and our minds are only one of many features.
@@bozo5632 nope no emergent property consciousness is observed in neither the most basic fully mapped out brains nor most basic artificially grown synapse structures with learned behavior.
youve merely developed a way of talking and are not actually saying anything related to real life, which should concern you.
Consciousness is that aspect of mind that is bio psycho socio conditioned to interpret reality from our limited frame of reference ✨…and capable of ever expanding perception…
PS we bring self awareness to the cosmos 💫
Wrong. Not even close.
No. Consciousness ( our individual mind ) is necessary to form the illusions that we observe as a created AI. Without a mind, we would not be able to experience life.
Consciousness doesn’t “happen when you put a bunch of stuff together”. Consciousness simply doesn’t happen. PERIOD.
yours is the common abomination of using metaphysics to trump empirical observation.
its exactly what the pioneers of science rebelled against.
if youre not happy with your folk level of observation, then refine so that you may rigorously observe the phenomenon you wish to understand. and if not, then continue kneeling before youre metaphysical idol worship.
Consciousness is neural computation in human brain.
Tart is for paranormal. Then, he's not for reason.
How have you Come to the conclusion that consciousness is a neural computation in human brain?
Facts.
Evidence.
Study cognitive science. It's basic. @@highvalence7649
Prove it? Oh you can’t? Well then, that’s just your own baseless opinion then isn’t it. For someone called Science you should really study a little something called correlation so you can realise your bias.
There’s a reason there’s no trophy in you house and fan fare and fame, because you think you’ve worked out the secret when you haven’t, you’ve just made up an answer to stick to, ironic that you’re called science, you should rename yourself to dogma.
All scientific evidence is for materialism. Go back to high school, my friend.
People like Tart don't have any logic. Because paranormal is just a fraud. @@ProjectMoff
The concept of supernatural is dogma. @@ProjectMoff
Consciousness is a function of the living brain/body system that evolved us to survive in a dangerous world long enough to reproduce. Everything else about consciousness is just added or negative value.😮😊
But can we exclude the possibilty that consciousness also existed before any conscious organisms evolved?
@@highvalence7649
Before life existed where would consciousness have resided? What would have fueled it? What would be the nature of its existence? What use or need for consciousness would there have been?
@@browngreen933 maybe it wouldnt have resided anywhere. If the universe itself is a mind, a conscious mind, then to talk about residance or location of consciousness would be some sort of category error.
Not sure what would have fueled it.
Maybe there wouldnt have been a use for it either. It seems that would also be some sort of category error if reality itself is a form of universal mind or universal consciousness.
@@highvalence7649
It seems to me that consciousness as we know it is a function of life. However, I would agree that Existence itself has some kind of innate knowledge and ability to process information into new forms or avenues of being. But I would place that in a different category from consciousness -- at least in our present state of understanding.
@@browngreen933 ok, and how does it seem that way to you? Like in virtue of what does it seem that way?
Obviously the brain is what produces the mind. But studying the brain isn't the best way to understand minds and behavior. (Maybe some day, IDK.) Like studying muscle cells isn't the best way to understand basketball.
Based on what do you think the brain is what produces consciousness?
Why would that be obvious? All we can tell is that brain activity correlates with the content of consciousness. That doesn't mean that the brain produces consciousness.
SMH.
@@bozo5632 so you have no argument?
@@highvalence7649 It's a very silly argument.
We can communicate very well among each other if we've been experiencing similar experience
(8:55) *CT: **_"Yes, the belief that as we understand the brain better, we will ultimately understand consciousness is what philosophers refer to as promissory materialism."_* ... Tart nails it with that single statement! Science does the same when it proclaims, _"Science is closer than ever to solving the mystery of (fill in the blank)."_ ... Just because more information gets added to a theory doesn't mean that ALL of the information will be available to _"solve the mystery."_
Anyone who believes that a *single information-gathering ideology* can expose the truth regarding "Existence," will most certainly come up empty-handed. ALL available ideologies are required in exposing the truth surrounding reality.
... The many ideologies found in human society exist for a reason!
EVERYBODY HERE - NO GAMES, NO BULLSHIT. Give a little bit of your time & energy, and buy these books or download free, and spend some time with them, requisite is: be a man.
1. Upanishads, translated by Nikhilananda's 4 volume set, and 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrishnan
2. Vivekacudamani, by Sankara, translated by Madhavananda
3. Upadesa Sahashri, by Sankara, translated by Jagadananda
Is consciousness an illusion?
India wiseman discuss the mirage, which is an illusion, really there's only the desert, and without the desert there could be no illusion. The illusion is not that it isn't, rather a misinterpretation of what really is. I see the question here is similitude of that.
There are things that are real. We see it shine through everything - the Divine shines forth & through all things.
Pls, don't consider me a pompous know it all, i have the best teachers and study the best books. And i'm not playing games - half in half out; i'm all in.
It is obvious that you consider yourself a pompous know it all. The rest of us have learned that you don't know much at all.
Tart's logic at 4:37 about time & space is faulty. The frequent distortions & discontinuities of time & space constructed by the dreaming mind don't imply anything about the nature of time & space. It doesn't imply "space and time are constructed by the mind." It only shows that the processes the mind uses to model space and time are active during dreaming. One mustn't conflate "constructing a model of space and time" with "constructing space and time."
It space and time as we know it IS a model.
@@ProjectMoff : Modeling of space & time does NOT make space & time a model. Don't conflate a model with the thing being modeled.
It's unclear whether you're trying to communicate a nuance where you inserted "as we know it." Please elaborate on the distinction you make between "space and time" and "space and time as we know it."