@@vhawk1951klIt's not wild at all. I've been interviewed many times, I've seen many interviews and moderators in debates, I think he is quite neutral and polite and doesn't interrupt as much as others, that's all. You don't think so? Can you think of someone who is better?
@@ruaidhri777 "The best moderator on earth" *can_only* be wild or hyperbolic-the world is a big place with billions of people in it. It is wisest to avoid hyperbole and universals for reasons that a small child could set out for you. "The best moderator on earth" a. could not possibly be true and b. is unsupportable -Think on it titch and you will se that that*must* be right. If you are as you appear to be, wholly innocent of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment, it is not wise to make a song and dance of it.
Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree with your logic / truth claims. Of course, he's not the best on earth, I should have said "very good in my estimation". Thanks for pointing that out. I do agree with you there and also appreciate it. Quick question aside from the ability of this moderator, I'm interested to know, what did you think of the covid mitigation efforts as given by most governments around the world? Just wondering from someone's point of view who is clearly logical, did all or most policies make sense to you, or did you think that they were scientifically inaccurate, or to a degree incorrect in some way? Thanks!
A fantastic discussion, with great speakers. I was very impressed by the host - he was even-handed, totally free of aggression, and he always kept the conversation within the audience's understanding and interest. Even though I'm an atheist, and fully convinced of Dennet's position, I felt completely welcome as a listener, and I'll definitely come back to this channel!
Dennett doesn't even make a case. He just explains what can be materialistically, empirically distinguished---which has never been able to explain how being/consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems if matter. Nietzsche knew this was impossible explain, specifically how a nerve impulse equals sensation. It simply doesn't. This is teleological stupidity, and it is not that far from the religious ideology it criticizes.
@@NoahsUniverse Dennet isnt claiming anything is impossible, like you are. "Nietzsche said it" is not a good argument because it's completely irrelevant. Dennets argument is basically that everything we know about consciousness says it maps to a physical brain and we just don't have any reason to believe there is any magic involved. Your bald assertion that magic is required because its impossible otherwise is what is referred to as an "argument from ignorance". Its fine if you want to believe magic is involved but calling other people stupid just because they have standards of evidence is hypocritical when your logic is so flawed. Let us know when you have actual evidence for your magic.
@@john1425 Way to be a complete fool and assume I am referring to 'magic.' This is the problem I have with you insane materialistic empiricists. You don't do a lot of accommodating but narcissistic assimilating. You clearly have little to no understanding of what I was referring to. Let me break it down for you. The mind-body dualism was philosophically obliterated over 50 years ago---if not over 200 years ago with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Your clear, completely blind compartmentalization of everything that may even remotely conflict with your ideology as religious argumentum ad vericundiam is evidence profound ignorance. Daniel Dennett is a charlatan who doesn't explain anything. He is trying to explain what Nietzsche said can never be explained in the 1800s. Because you haven't read Nietzsche doesn't make you nor your philosophaster charlatan idol mr Daniel Dennett any sort of expert whatsoever. There is absolutely no causal connection between the physical and the mental/phenomenal. There is only abstraction based on representations which are fundamentally of mind. Daniel Dennett is like a child with a newfound understanding of mathematics, as if the fact that someone can infinitely represent the number one means that they have more of a knowledge of it. It doesn't mean anything. It is superfluous garbage and it says absolutely nothing.
It's always so interesting to listen to professional philosophers and academics discuss various things because they are so civil, eloquent and knowledgeable.
Dude. Please take your education into your own hands. I know many, many, many people on TH-cam that are smarter than Dennetts opponent here; in fact, I know many highly educated people with a meagre intellect, and many uneducated people who are clearly sharp. Education just comes on top of intellect, and you can see here that the Keith dude clearly isn't very intelligent, saying things like: well, just because it isn't determined it doesn't have to be random, I believe it is not wholly determined. - what did he go to Oxford for? to be confused by words he doesn't understand and throw them around, and people will listen to him, because he has a philosophy degree and comes from a good household. So, please take matters in your own hand. Educate yourself, the information is free nowadays. Read Kants "What is Enlightenment?" Good luck
buddyrichable1 🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and every thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. If humans TRULY possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to switch their preferences at any point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of their own heart. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened. The most common argument against this concept of 'non-doership', is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to CHOOSE what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) animals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way. That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent entirely upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. N. B. According to some geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate. However, that phenomenon would be included under the "conditioning" aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply impossible for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? To claim that one is the ultimate creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very BEING. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considers itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. When a person blames another person for their actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art ("tat tvam asi", in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self. Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined "Story of Life" (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, "God's Perfect Will"), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions. If, however, he blames his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called "first-world" societies, which helps to explain why the "Westernized" nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin? Never, I would posit. That explains why this “Wisdom Teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives. Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk "food" but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system. To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption. This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition. “The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.” Lord Śri Krishna, “Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61. “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” ************* "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." William Shakespeare, English Playwright.
Although I sometimes get infuriated with the people debating, I must say that Justin Brierley is an absolutely fantastic host. Completely even handed, keeps the discussion flowing without interrupting, brilliantly summarises sometimes very complex arguments, he's always kind and generous to the speakers. I suspect Justin and I would disagree about a great many things, but I always enjoy listening to Justin's shows and would love to meet him in person. A fabulous host!
Totally agree. It is clearly "christian radio" but he is definitely not on a side. If anything he looks less convinced by his theological guests trying to fit reality to their religious bias.
Language and Programming Channel That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave? Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@TheWorldTeacher that is an almost meaningless statement. They are many aspects to our point of view that is informed by personal preference, but there are some things that are quantifiable or progressions of properly applied logic. "Everyone does bad things " is equally meaningless. Just because I have raised my voice in an argument doesn't mean you can compare me to someone who turns violent. Clarity comes from recognising what part of your world view comes from your own preferences what is factual (or most defensible explanation).
Yeah, the moderator is pretty consistently great. I definitely appreciate him (as an atheist), and he's definitely a factor (along with mostly the guests he gets) in my continuing to come back to the channel.
One of the best moderated shows I know of. Even though the moderator has a bias (I assume at least, when I see it's on "Christian Radio"), you never ever notice. Always fair, always civil, never strawmanning, always giving opportunity for rebuttal and he really seems to know his stuff too, being therefore able to summarize positions and drive the discussion towards interesting directions. Thumbs up!
Yes, he's one of my favorite moderators. We tipically see mods drag the debate down and get in the way more than helping but this guy is smart enough too keep up with the topic at hand, keep his biases in check and ask good questions.
The moderator is bloody brilliant. I'm a hard-core atheist and I am sure that with him on a number of matters - but I can not find a single fault in his presentation. Total legend
Dude on the left put every conclusion of my early college years into the perfect words that I could never find. Feels so good to hear someone articulate precisely your own perspective into the world in a way you yourself could not.
At 38:38: this is where Keith Ward shows his hand! This is always where the argument ends up for people who believe in idealism, free will, non-determinism, God, etc: "If this were true, it would make me feel bad." Maybe it should make you feel bad, maybe it shouldn't; regardless, that is irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes the truth hurts.
He INSISTS that purpose is necessary for his psychological comfort. That may be true; he seems like an honest and humble guy. But you might equally ask a dog about chocolate and get a similar answer. Dogs LOVE chocolate, even though it poisons them. Affinity for a thing is not prima facie evidence for its value.
His arguments are based on different weighting of knowledge sources from the individual perspective. It is more on the epistemological level that things should be discussed to be more clear. But in that case we should get ride of the trap of confusing the efficiency of scientific methodology with the naturalistic world view. At least this trap is what psychologically make us believe that scientific method is perfect as it is based on the current paradigms of naturalism because it is efficient. There is matter, energy and you have to add information, but then again we have to think about what else may be added ? May be something like R. Sheldrake propose :D!
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state). An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner. The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'. Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16). “Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.” ************* “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.
@@TheWorldTeacher For me, it is because he explains his thoughts in a way that is easy to understand, while exposing the weaknesses of opposing arguments.
A huge thank you to the debate/discussion's facilitators. It is a joy to listen to an attentive moderator as well as to two people who are hosts to enlightening ideas, concerns, and what may be misunderstandings of what is known engaging in a respectful manner. To be transparent, I am more of a Dennettist than a Wardist. With that said, I equally value Keith's propensities which compel him to explore. Those, on their own, are priceless.
Wonderful debate.. Unusually polite, decent and civic, between a theist and an atheist, between an idealist and a materialist. These three people deserve sincere applause.. 👌👍
It is honestly vomit-worthy. The butterflies are a work of art by Escher... there is a dogma book these people love called Godel, Escher, Bach... Just another iteration of the same narrow concept.
Love this channel, the great moderating, and civil discussions between the two sides. It’s nice to see. Keep up the great work Justin. Can’t wait to see more...
@@kritika.kapoor People use these words in different ways, but I think they generally have a lower standard for "awareness" than "consciousness" --- that consciousness is something like awareness of awareness --- a level above simple, direct awareness. When a robot bumps into a wall, isn't saying that it has become aware of the wall less offensive than saying it has become conscious of the wall?
I see this comment on pretty much every video pertaining to consciousness. It just seems strange to me that awareness is absent during deep sleep, while anesthesized, etc. If awareness can be lost, it must be reducible to the brain, yes?
What would the experience of not being aware be contingent upon? Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?
RIP Prof. Dennett. I always admired his commitment to a philosophy informed by contemporary scientific advances. A lot of philosophers believe that if you just sit and think really hard you can intuit meaningful answers.
"You can be dead comatose into wide awake thrilled and at no point does an extra special thing called consciousness come into it." Either Dennett is being dense or I am, because the question is "What is occurring when someone is 'wide awake' or 'thrilled'?" Dennett, responds, "Nothing in particular." I would say, "These are specific observed phenomena to be accounted for." And it seems like Dennett comes back with, "These are not the droids you are looking for."
Great conversation! Much respect for Daniel. I don't agree with him, but he was very thoughtful, respectful and interesting to listen to. I'll be keeping him on my radar. The host is one of the best out there!
Very nice discussion. Perfectly moderated too. Dennett I already knew as a bright guy, but intelligent and honestly charming speaker was that christian philosopher too.
I've watched a few of these. I'm an atheist and this host is just amazing. (I'm assuming he is a theist but the way he interwieves is just .....) Marvelous job I say!
I'm very impressed by how the host moderates the discussions on this channel. I'm myself an atheist, or agnostic to be more exact, and is not religious by any means, but I'm intrigued by hearing an interesting and respectful conversation between two people who don't think alike and I think this is important so that we all learn from how to behave and discuss with people which we don't agree with. In the end we all grow as human beings.
Veøsity But could the brain technically use the vocals with out them? A brain is useless without an agent. I also find it funny how we’re talking about the brain when it comes to sensory stimulation.
I’m in no way a Christian or part of any religion for that matter. I have to say Ward makes his points with more nuance and no arrogance in his tone which makes me like his contribution alongside the host
Whilst I love Dan Dennett's work, I remember reading "Consciousness Explained" years ago and finding what I considered a fundamental flaw in his logic. On the question of simulation theory, his "brain in the vat" argument claimed it would be impossible to simulate reality, quantifying how much we are always aware of, and what the limits of computation - even with hypothetical light speed processing computers. Light speed could be a limit imposed within a simulation, that means nothing outside in the "real" world. I know it's hard for a brain to analyse it's own structure, but artificial intelligence and deep learning can already fool most people in conversation. Quantum computing claims it will someday shatter the upper limits we once set on computational power, and that's not even considering parallel processing quantum computers. All of these things only serve to point out that although it's highly improbable, and unable to be tested, it's wrong to completely exclude the possibility however untestable it may be. I think aliens visiting earth is ridiculous but I will concede its possible, and just because I have seen zero compelling evidence, seeing evidence could be something an advanced civilisation knows ways to erase 🙄 this conversation was completely uneven, in that Daniel wiped the floor with his opponent with pure logic. The only reason I am still on the fence is because we don't know what we don't know. I had a stroke and lost what looked like a quarter of my brain matter in the scans I've seen. I still feel like me inside, my inner thoughts haven't changed, but access to information and processing power noticeably feels like a problem with throughput now. Yes, that's subjective. The mind may give me the illusions of continuity as a coping mechanism. But my experience feels more like driving a vehicle that has been in a bad accident. The controls aren't responding the way they used to. It's waaay slower too. But I promise you the experience at least "feels" like I'm still the same driver inside. Perhaps I was just extremely lucky to avoid damage to the "me" part of my brain..
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few days in his memory 1:20:00
Wow - I’ve seen so many of his interviews and talks and wasn’t aware that he had passed away. Whether you agreed with him or not, and often times I didn’t, I felt that listening to him always sharpened your thinking.
keith's position that consciousness is something extra boils down to 'i dont understand how the brain could produce internal experience, intentionality an idea of the future, an idea of purpose etc... therefore it is a non physical soul'. sounds a lot like the god of the gap
This is a very enjoyable, well-moderated discussion. I'm glad that Keith Ward has not had to experience dementia/Alzheimer's up close. If he had, he'd know there's a bit more to it than forgetting some things. That's the least of it. There's also "remembering" of elaborate scenarios that never happened. There's hiding things and then accusing loved-ones of stealing them. There's making hurtful, slanderous comments and then not being able to remember doing so a few minutes later. I'd be interested to know whether these mental characteristics survive the death of the physical body. Or is the immaterial soul a repository for true beliefs only? That would be convenient, wouldn't it?
"I'd be interested to know whether these mental characteristics survive the death of the physical body. " There's evidence that they do. Look into terminal lucidity.
Consciousness, according to the thinkers of materialistic disposition, is a phenomenon. But, who or what entity controls this phenomenon, they are unable to explain. Perhaps a very special (phenomenal!) part of this phenomenon!
@@Arunava_Gupta perhaps you need to define "control", because I see no reason to be convinced that consciousness requires a controller or "degrees of control".
@@w0t_m818 oh, but doesn't your own conscious personality exhibit the feature of control. Even in mental activities such as deliberation, ratiocination, calculation, etc., there's control. Need I mention more?
@@Arunava_Gupta why can't this come from experience? If anything the idea of "control" supports a materialist position as people with neurological differences such as ADHD struggle with control, people who suffer brain injuries often have trouble with these kinds of faculties as well. Again, I see no reason to be convinced that it comes from some transcendent source.
It's a colective conscience constant throughout all these debates that, not only the model but above all the moderator is a central part of the interest and relevance in these conversations. It's transversal to all comments in all videos. Thumbs up, Justin! Amazing work.
Brilliant. Lovely to see two completely polarising view points engaged in a civil debate. These are the kinds of discussions we need in all areas of today's world. Thank you
Sadly, yes, because there are still people who have these idiotic ideas in their head, and who would rather believe what makes them feel good or what they Intuit to be true.
Dennett is amazing! A very tricky subject to parse with words but he manages to do so with Incredible proficiency. Around the @36:20 time stamp, his user interface metaphor between a computer and human consciousness is brilliant!
Still fails the basic test of explaining how consciousness arises from physical phenomena though. I feel dennet just made up his mind on physicalism in his youth and is now trying to piece together evidence wherever he can, and mostly failing.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
You know what Darwin thought of naturalism? Of course you don't. You all just THINK you know. He was NOT a naturalist. Read a freaking book TO THE END!
I'm impressed with Dennett's calamity in the face of Ward's sheer ignorance refraining to repeated attempts of "helping himself to problem-solvers by defining them as problem-solvers"....
I like this... “Consciousness is a user-illusion that is designed by evolution and by learning and by cultural evolution to make our brains capable of getting our bodies through this complicated world.”
@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 I am unsure if it is absolute garbage or not - I would need to delve into it more. However, I don't think of it as a 'filler' in a debate about "Mind, consciousness and free will".
@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 philanthrophist his alternative to dualism with his multiple drafts theory does not only showcast the problems that come with stating a central meaner/cartesian theater in the brain (like the problem of stalinesque or orwellian revision of information, or infinite regression of homunculi) but also provides for a concept of human consciousness that is inquirable in contemporary emperical science. He does not deny conscious experiences, otherwise it wouldn't be conceived as an illusion if there wouldnt be a consciouss being, but he denies the dualistic sort of consciousness that his opponent is suggestion. Basicallly what I'm trying to say is that is it not filler since there is alot of detailed work concering his account of human consciousness that results in consciousness in the way his opponent describes as an epiphenomenon
The statement is redundant stating the same thing three different ways to emphasize biological intelligent design. The conclusion also does not follow from the premises sufficiently moreover because we can navigate the world in other ways like whales, dinosaurs, etc.
@Grady Stein No, he is. In fact, his stance and the Idealistic stance both made a leap of faith; just at different points in the argument. In the idealistic stance, the idea is we *know* that the consciousness exists, and in fact everything we know about the universe comes through the consciousness. THEREFORE (leap of faith) the consciousness is the main driver that "creates" the rest of the universe. In the materialist stance, the idea is We can measure literally absolutely any physical phenomenon through the material world; except consciousness. THEREFORE (leap of faith) consciousness must be an illusion and byproduct of the material world, and it cannot be an exception (Inductive reasoning with insufficient proof). In fact, another inductive reasoning materialists (and pretty much everyone else) uses is the assumption that all physical phenomena can be measured/extrapolated from purely materialistic means; this *has been true* of anything we have done, and does seem likely to be true; but it is actually inductive reasoning much like saying "Every cow I've seen in my life is purple, therefore all cows must be purple." Actually, there are many more leaps of faiths, and inconclusive logic with Daniel Bennette's position. But I've already written a huge wall of text.
Question for Dan: Would there be a sense of continuity between a reconstructed mind from carbon to silicone if a person were to die and be perfectly rebuilt? In the same way that one might have a sense of continuity from myself in the morning and myself in the evening?
Writer John Buck "perfectly rebuilt" It seems that this would be the case. But there is also a "computer program" of sorts running. You turn that off without saving and you lose all of that data.
The only way to figure that out is to do it. Which basically what he’s saying anyways. We have to learn HOW it works first. So we can get the information to explain WHY.
Yes I believe so. Continuity is just an illusion created by having memories. We only experience the present moment. If my brain was perfectly replicated in a computer then it would have my memories and feel like me.
🐟 02. A BRIEF EXPLANATION FOR “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle object within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the senses, plus the subject (the observer of all phenomena) - is what most persons actually refer to when they use the term “GOD”. REAL God is Impersonal Absolute Nothingness (otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera). “God” is One Reality, but just as a knife cannot cut itself, or fire cannot burn itself, “God” cannot know Himself (or at least EXPERIENCE Himself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Himself. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness. N. B. The word “God” is, by definition, a title of the male Deity, and is not to be taken literally here. Apparently, this phenomenal universe was “created” (within Consciousness) with the initial act (the so-called “Big Bang”), and from that first deed, every action that has ever occurred has been a direct or indirect result of it. Just as every particle of matter in the universe was once contained in the ’singularity’, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the Big Bang, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (‘all this is indeed Brahman’). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are that! Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a consequence of that initial manifestation. That is the most accurate and logical explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY. The notion of retributive (“tit for tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human (and non-human animal) was determined by those two factors ALONE, thus free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Because we are temporarily residing within this dualistic universe, we experience both pleasure and pain. Suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal doership - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts and deeds. There are five MANIFESTATIONS of suffering: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including us humans, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is simply a biological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements and the three subtle material elements. The antidote to all suffering is to ‘rest’ in the primordial sense of existence (the unqualified “I am”). So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (supposedly) material universe, you are now able to be liberated from all forms of suffering, RIGHT? WRONG! It is imperative to find an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another. Even if you follow a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life (all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course). Furthermore, if it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to accept discipline from a truly enlightened master, and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by practicing at least one of the four systems of yoga (religion) described in the Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and happiness! “The meaning of life is life itself.” ************* “A wise Rabbi once said 'If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you'. In other words, we are not separate.” Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts, British-American Philosopher. (06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973). “What you seek is seeking you.” Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī, Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic. (30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
I am a theoretical phycisist with a background in philosophy and I had the great expeirnce of taking a class with Dennett at Tufts. I fully agree with Dennett that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a physical system procsesing information and hat it exists on a spectrum in complexity and intensity, but I don't see how he avoids the ultimate pansycicist conclusion which I see this leading to. Information procsesing is such a broad concept that a single particle changing it's state in response to coliding with another particle could be said to be "a system updating it's internal information in response to it's envirnment." Dennett says that there is no line where consciousness magically emerges in evolution, and I agree, but then why continue to draw a line and say that protiens don't have any form of phenominological expeirnce if their interactions with their envirnments? I agree with Keith strongly that "concousness comes first" in the sense that having conscious expeirnce is the only thing we can ever know to be true for certain and that our scientific models are an interpretation of the regularities in the universe we perceive around us. Furthermore, I think this view has real scientific implications which I think they are both missing and I strongly disagree with both of them that "if reality is just atoms buzzing around it has no inhereint meaning." The fact that we are conscious means that the laws of physics are capable of producing conscious observers! This is hugely signficant, it is a massively constraining criterea on our search space for candidate unified theories of physics. I don't think that any random bit of mathematics, any random line of computer code or cellular automata insturctions, is likely to give rise to conscious observers within it.
you can't ground metaphysics in the physical world. it's just not possible. it produces all of these bizarre threads of reasoning that are just nonsense - statements like, "consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a physical system processing information." you're just assuming the existence of superordinate metaphysics and then trying to glue them to the physical world like peter pan chasing his shadow. metaphysics exist apriori and we have to deal with the whole of reality in that order. the only reason guys like dennett refuse this position is because they don't want to believe in God. the entire english speaking world has hated metaphysics since the enlightenment and probably back to the english reformation or even william of occam. the entire philosophical position of the materialists is just bullshit and it's a waste of resources and a waste of lives. it's done nothing but rot the moral core of the social fabric of the western world and they should be ashamed of themselves.
He doesn't think consciousness is any existing thing at all that needs to be traced back any further than humans talking about themselves and representing themselves to others in ways that create a 'fiction'. I think you mean something different by the word 'consciousness'.
@Heston Westmoreland well I think the hosts job is to allow free flowing conversation which he did very well. Obviously the Christian needs a little help as he doesn't have any facts to fall back on...i still enjoy watching this channel though.
If you want to understand Dennett’s views on free will and determinism, the golfer analogy at 59:32 serves very well. In a deterministic universe an assessment of possible outcomes (whether in a golf putt or a moral choice) is really a question of how likely you are to do the same thing in very similar circumstances, not whether you’d do the same thing if the universe could be reset and run again (which is in any case impossible to know).
The debate is much more respectful than the comments. Dennet's view is rooted in facts, Keith's is rooted in beliefs. If you want to understand reality you have to follow the facts, not your belief.
Brilliant conversation with Dennett being clearly superior in his arguments and the transparency of his ideas (not to mention his background). Could have listened to this for twice as long.
Cyance 🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state). An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner. The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'. Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16). “Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.” ************* “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.
@@TheWorldTeacher I ain't reading your wall of text, especially given that you start off with an Etymological fallacy. That's usually a sign of someone pretending to have a clue but who doesn't really. But to keep it on point, is there anyone else who doesn't understand the laptop analogy, because you seem to be quite a bunch? Here's a different more simple version: Windows running on a pc. "BUT WHO BE PLAYING DEH COMPUTAAAH". Not the point of the analogy, which is that consciousness is a coherent illusion based on a sufficiently complex neural network. There is no qualia, no Cartesian theater, it's all an illusion.
Cyance If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. P. S. You edited your inane comment, yet it is STILL rife with vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and punctuation errors, Silly Sinful Slave. 🥴😬🙄☝️🤔
@@TheWorldTeacher "If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see" I don't care about conditional statements. Come with an actuality you can demonstrate or go and do pretend-philosophy somewhere else. "yet it is STILL rife with vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and punctuation errors" It's called typing on a smartphone. I'm not writing an essay, but rather a youtube comment.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state). An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner. The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'. Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16). “Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.” ************* “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.
Why would anyone ever get into a debate/argument with Dan?! He never loses... destroys his opponents with the utmost politeness until they agree with the facts he points out to them. Legend.
In my view, Dennett paints himself into a corner by (very civilly and politely) disparaging Ward's idea of a soul. But, he then reverts back to an immaterial substance which is equally difficult to describe, analyse and explain: he calls it 'information' or 'software'. I am left wondering what he has gained and how what he is saying - substantively - differs from what he rejects in Ward's position. In short, for Dennett, information and software end up as qualities not material, that are 'eternal' (he admits that or even offers that himself!), and that define identity. I get it that information is not the same thing as what Ward calls a soul, but the category as framed by Dennett shares the same objectional qualities (objectional for materialists!), the very things he says are not now needed and that can be helpfully done away with (and that *should* be done away with) by a materialist. He seems not to notice this unconscious sleight of hand (and Ward, too, seems not to notice it - or it might it be that Ward is too kind and polite to press the issue?) We must realise, too, that these two are not arguing from a similar standpoint: Dennett is attempting to DISPROVE Ward's position, trying to show that such a view is a vestige of a bygone era no longer necessary, a way of thinking that has little to no support. For Dennett, we would all be much better off if views like Ward's were disproved and eliminated. Ward, on the other hand, also asserts his position, but he has no need to prove that Dennett's position is wrong, since his position allows for Dennett's (in fact, Ward agrees with Dennett in many ways, as far as Dennett's explanation goes); Ward simply argues that Dennett's position does not explain everything. Dennett, on the other hand, says that Ward's position is wrong and superfluous.
I agree with you very much that Dennet doesn't seem to notice the the self-refuting quality of his position, which I am really surprised. I think both Justin and Keith sofely tried to point that out 😂 yet, Dennet did not realise.
I don't think he would be okay with you calling it an "immaterial substance" (which is a bit of an oxymoron!). Information is simply the way the contents of the universe are, as opposed to the other ways that they could be. It is not some mysterious substance that science has yet to discover. Your hard drive contains information. The information is not the atoms themselves or the electrons, because if we swapped the positions of the atoms and electrons around, there would be some other information on the drive instead. The information thus is in the arrangement of the atoms and electron spins. Your DNA contains information, in the particular way the base pairs are ordered, as opposed to other ways that the exact same base pairs could be ordered. This is in fact what makes DNA so important: it's good at maintaining the order that it's in, the order can be copied to new substrates, and the order can be interpreted and transferred to other information carrying molecules which use the original order to produce molecular machines which perform certain functions. It's shockingly similar to the original conception of a Turing machine, with an information-laden tape, read head, and state vector. As for whether Ward or Dennett needs to justify their position: You cannot prove a physical negative (see Russell's Teapot). Ward is saying "observation Z requires that X AND Y be true", whereas Dennett is saying "X implies Z", so in fact, Y **is** superfluous. You can choose to believe in Y, but Z is not a good reason to do so.
@agentdarkboote Three problems. I realize that Dennett would probably not like what I am saying. That is not actually the point. What IS he saying? What is he describing? In terms of connotation, it sounds very similar to what he is critiquing and rejecting as put forward by Ward. It does not appear Dennett realizes that. On what basis is he rejecting Ward's argument, then, if it is not immateriality? What you describe above is correct - I have no quibbles. But information on the hard drive or DNA codes is where, then? This is a problem if 'where' is a necessary feature of things existing or being plausible. Second, we are forced to use material/location metaphors to describe that which we cannot describe in any other way? Thus, utilizing the existence or not of materiality in order to critique the existence of something causes us, in our own discourse, significant self-referential problems. In a word, we end up forced (often without knowing it or being aware) that we are violating the very materiality condition we are arguing for. Third, your third paragraph assumes the very thing that is in question. 'Proving' in Western science rests on conditions of proof that themselves are the very things in question. If one proves something, then it exists. But that logically does not mean that if one cannot prove something that it does NOT exist. But, most Western science assumes this logical fallacy. It is often called 'Denying the Antecedent'.
One could almost sense the limitations of Daniel's thought process as an atheist compared to the more rich and expounding thought process of Keith. Personally I run into the same freedom of "scientific" and philosophical thoughts when contemplating the questions of consciousness and free will being a theist to explore further.
If by "rich and expounding" you mean "sounds prettier", then I'll grant you that. But reality doesnt care about what's pretty. We should try to believe things we can actually verify, not what sounds more nice.
@@hawkxlr No, rich and expound means deeper into the meaning of things and with logical rigorousness. Verification is important but scientific verification also has limitations including the truth about evolution as a creation theory. Some may say truth is beautiful and I can agree with that metaphorically speaking but truth is also exclusive.
@@leoteng1640 One cannot praise logical rigorousness while also denying one of the most scientifically validated theories in history, like evolution. It rings as especially hypocritical
@@hawkxlr Macro evolution has not been proven and the Darwinian theory is on its last legs it is always presented as fact but it is still fiction. Only micro evolution has been observed.
dennet gave answers and even elaborated step by step how consciousness could've come a about. The other guy was just denying Dennet's claims by saying he doesn't accept a life without purpose without any argument or evidence other than wishful thinking. He doesn't want a world where free will doesn't exist but doesn't explain how it can exist without the brain.
33:50 "I wouldn't call this supernatural, but it's not physical." Right, there is a separate category for phenomena which exist neither outside the natural world nor inside it: IMAGINARY
I'm just wondering if a dream is real or imaginary. The content may be imaginary, but the dream happens - unless you imagined you had the dream. But even things you imagine are caused by neuron activity, which is real. Paul McCartney heard 'Yesterday' in a dream, so something imaginary can transform into something real.
@Dan Razzell “The natural world” exists entirely within consciousness. The natural world is the perceived world and perceptions are mental. If anything it’s our conceptions of what the world is like external to our perceptions that is imaginary.
@@Sam-hh3ry No, the natural world, by definition, exists entirely IRRESPECTIVE of consciousness. The entire universe and all its processes appears to have developed over a vast span of time - some 13 billion years - before our own species developed consciousness perhaps a few tens of thousands of years ago. And we are the only instance of consciousness that we know of. That's not to discount the possibility of other conscious beings, but in fact we know of none. So it would be absurd to suppose ON NO EVIDENCE that the universe - the natural world - somehow exists as a result of consciousness. ALL EVIDENCE points to the converse.
I'm confused as to why "matter in motion" is used to demean the naturalistic worldview. The fact that an emergent property of "matter in motion" is consciousness is an astounding and beautiful fact of the universe.
The claim that "I know things that happened before my consciousness" shows that our knowledge can affect things happened before our knowledge so the time priority of our material brain does not debunk the independence priority of our consciousness.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns holy fuck this comment is old af i dont remember shit about why i made that comment. u materialist shithead never cease to amaze me. ask me a SPECIFIC question and ill answer. no open ended bullshit.
@@estring123 Keith's arguments are total bunk. "only you can perceive your own consciousness.." this is simply just not true, and a baseless assertion! if we construct a mind reading device, then other people could definitely be able to perceive other people's' experience.
The hard problem of consciousness is called that for a reason. Critics contend that rather than explaining consciousness, Dennett has explained it away. Whatever the explanation, it's undeniable that there is something qualitatively different about consciousness. To argue, as Dennett does, that we simply need to develop a better understanding of how the brain works in order to fully account for consciousness is conjecture. That may be true but it's also possible, as postulated by Thomas Nagel, that the solution to the problem will require a paradigm shift in our understanding.
The paradigm shift you seek is precisely that on offer from DD, namely a move away from the vitalistic expectation, which in many ways is simplistic dogma. DD paradigm is highly nuanced, complex and multilevelled as opposed to the ‘just so’ injection of magic ‘soul’
I actually don't think he argues that at all. I get the sense people haven't read a lot of Dennett. Explaining consciousness doesn't eliminate its phenomenology. I'd go further and make the case, based on insights from Dennett and other systems thinkers, that intelligence is a feature of systems. Experience is then a function of intelligence across a range of self-definable capacities and an infinite range of semi-randomly accrued aesthetic appreciations. As I've often argued, the point of life is to appreciate that there may be a point, the beauty is that we may see the beauty.
@@paddydiddles4415 Dennett's explanation did not seem to rid me of qualia, which cannot exist if there truly is no qualitative difference between minds and non-minds.
1:17:30 Digital Immortality. Black Mirror Season 3 Episode 4: San Junipero. A completely conceivable and possible form of physicalist immortal existence. The 'soul' is a way of talking about information. Information, however, can only exist 'encoded' (i.e. organized) in some physical substrate that can be accessed and processed in a causal manner. The thing about information though is that it can be 'encoded' in different physical structures and thus the mind of an entity may possibly be 'multiply realizable'. This is the keen insight of Functionalist and Computational/Syntactical Theories of Mind and Cognition.
this guy is so dumb "only you can perceive your own consciousness.." this is simply just not true, and a baseless assertion! if we construct a mind reading device, then other people could definitely be able to perceive other people's' experience.
great talk, fantastic interviewer 👍 I can understand that for lots of ppl its hard to grasp that lots of new qualities and capacities can emerge from a complex system of simple individual units all connected to and dependent of each other.
Golden nugget of a comment 0the0web0. I could put parts of it on my wall as a picture. The fundation can be simple and redundant while a wast complex network of relations can grow on top of it, it really amazes me.
Why do we like music? Because we've been equipped to observe patterns as a neurological short cut to understanding the world around us, and there is a noticeable pattern in music. Not only that we can feel the music. To our detriment, we are so adept at observing patterns we often see them where they don't exist.
One needs to be conscious in order to have an illusion…. So if consciousness is an illusion how can we assert that we are thinking correctly since its all an illusion?
@swift73ify but if we made a robot brain to be virtually identical to a human's or a simulation of a human's then it would for all purposes, a human brain, just because it uses different atoms doens't make it not human
Keith Ward's worldview seems to be directed by his idea of what type of world he would prefer to live in rather than the type of world facts and reasoning actually describe. It seems Ward rejects Dennett's view of the world simply because he wouldn't want to live in that kind of world.
Same with that guy Dennis Prager. He says he cannot exist in a world where he won't be able to see his dead family after he is dead, THEREFORE god. It is like they cannot handle the weight of finite existence so they adopt fantasy as reality to cope.
Existence cannot, logically, come from anywhere. If existence has a cause, that means the cause exists. If the cause exists, it cannot be said to explain existence. The prior cause of existence has to be non existent. So the cause of existence, by definition, does not exist. Therefore, existence has no cause. If you want to believe God created existence, you must first admit God does not exist.
My commentary doesn't refute the idea of a first cause. It refutes the idea that existence could have a cause outside of itself. Existence cannot be created because it's cause would also have to exist, which would mean it wouldn't account for existence. As for the Universe: if time began with the "Big Bang", there was no moment BEFORE the "Big Bang", thus excluding the possibility of a PRIOR cause.
What makes you think "nothing" has to come from somewhere ? "Nothing" is NOT something. It cannot come into being because "nothing", by definition, does not exist. If time began at the Big Bang, there is no "before" the Big Bang".
Fantastic conversation! Am now a big Keith Ward fan! Interesting to hear their respective views on free will/reason follow from their views of "the self".
Are coin flips really as hard to predict as Dennett claims at 55:17? I have a hard time believing that “the position of electrons at the edge of the visible universe” has a non-negligible effect on the result. Wouldn’t a much simpler model that only included the gravitational field of the Earth, the friction of the air, the weight and shape of the coin, the initial position of the coin, the height at which it is caught, and the magnitude and position of the force applied to the coin probably suffice? I really don’t think that you would need to be Laplace’s demon to predict something as simple as a coin flip...
Great discussion, very good interviewer. Dennett dissected and undermined every one of Ward's points and presented a clear and appealing expression of philosophical naturalism, but he lets himself down with his silly compatibilism. From about 1:11:40, he's asked the standard question about whether we could have done otherwise if the universe were reset, and he says: "Maybe there's an ultimate sense of freedom in which neither Keith nor I nor you are free, but that's not one that cuts any ice when it comes to the question of whether we have reasons." Of course, it does - it determines exactly what reasons we have, inevitably. Every event at every moment, including all our reasons and decisions about them, is inevitably caused by the state of the universe at the previous moment. That doesn't allow you to invent an "ultimate sense of freedom" different from the actual freedom at any moment, which determinism denies. Harris has argued with him on this point until he's blue in the face, and Dennett still either seems unable to see the consequence of determinism or has decided it would be too much of a U-turn to admit he got it wrong. Ooh, just saw there's a list of the other convos - Peterson and Blackmore, hell yes.
lettersquash the biblical view is that whilst we have free will that will is constrained by our (sinful) nature. So we are free in the sense that our decisions are not coerced by any external force. We are free to do as we please.
@@ephs145 I see. So we're free to do as we please, except that's constrained by our sinful nature, which is presumably an internal force. Does it matter if something is external or internal if it constrains us? Did God create our sinful nature?
@@lettersquash is it surprising that we are constrained by our nature. If you put a rabbit in a cage with some carrots and a dead mouse it will eat the carrots not the mouse. The biblical view is that although we have free will (a will that is free to do as it pleases, free from external coercion) that will is constrained or in bondage to our nature which has an inclination to be a law unto itself. We cannot ourselves change this no more than a rabbit can become an eagle.
@@ephs145 Thanks, I see what you mean, of course. My mistake. I think I was a bit misdirected by the wider question I was addressing at the top of the thread, compatibilism, in which one believes everything happens according to determinism, yet at the same time argues that we have free will. Your position seems quite consistent to me - it is libertarianism, the belief that we have free will, as you say (and of course that is/can be relatively constrained free will, due to our 'nature' or other conditions).
@@lettersquash i don't think it is libertarianism - that would be the humanist view. The biblical view is not libertarian but that our will is in bondage to our sin nature - a nature that rejects God. Our choices are determined by our nature but we are still free - we are self determined. The biblical view is that our nature is fallen.
Sounds silly, but it can make sense from a certain perspective. For example, mathematics uses symbols and representations that humans made up, but they are used to describe things and processes that are quite real. Could be wrong, but that’s my 2 cents on it.
Of course it doesn't mean it's not true, but making shit up is a pretty good method of being wrong. The chance of being wrong is not 100% but it is close lol
This guy is the best moderator on earth. I've seen him many times before. He's always level, courteous, fair and timely with his interjections.
Ah good old reverse or inverted ad hominem, so popular with slaves of the functions- so wet, so feeble, so pathetic-so *weak*
Hmm, of exactly how many moderators have you direct immediate personal experience that you may make that rather wild assertion?
@@vhawk1951klIt's not wild at all. I've been interviewed many times, I've seen many interviews and moderators in debates, I think he is quite neutral and polite and doesn't interrupt as much as others, that's all.
You don't think so?
Can you think of someone who is better?
@@ruaidhri777 "The best moderator on earth" *can_only* be wild or hyperbolic-the world is a big place with billions of people in it.
It is wisest to avoid hyperbole and universals for reasons that a small child could set out for you.
"The best moderator on earth" a. could not possibly be true and b. is unsupportable -Think on it titch and you will se that that*must* be right. If you are as you appear to be, wholly innocent of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment, it is not wise to make a song and dance of it.
Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree with your logic / truth claims. Of course, he's not the best on earth, I should have said "very good in my estimation". Thanks for pointing that out. I do agree with you there and also appreciate it.
Quick question aside from the ability of this moderator, I'm interested to know, what did you think of the covid mitigation efforts as given by most governments around the world?
Just wondering from someone's point of view who is clearly logical, did all or most policies make sense to you, or did you think that they were scientifically inaccurate, or to a degree incorrect in some way? Thanks!
A fantastic discussion, with great speakers. I was very impressed by the host - he was even-handed, totally free of aggression, and he always kept the conversation within the audience's understanding and interest. Even though I'm an atheist, and fully convinced of Dennet's position, I felt completely welcome as a listener, and I'll definitely come back to this channel!
Yeah hes mormon.
Dennett doesn't even make a case. He just explains what can be materialistically, empirically distinguished---which has never been able to explain how being/consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems if matter. Nietzsche knew this was impossible explain, specifically how a nerve impulse equals sensation. It simply doesn't. This is teleological stupidity, and it is not that far from the religious ideology it criticizes.
@@NoahsUniverse Dennet isnt claiming anything is impossible, like you are. "Nietzsche said it" is not a good argument because it's completely irrelevant. Dennets argument is basically that everything we know about consciousness says it maps to a physical brain and we just don't have any reason to believe there is any magic involved. Your bald assertion that magic is required because its impossible otherwise is what is referred to as an "argument from ignorance". Its fine if you want to believe magic is involved but calling other people stupid just because they have standards of evidence is hypocritical when your logic is so flawed. Let us know when you have actual evidence for your magic.
@@john1425 Way to be a complete fool and assume I am referring to 'magic.' This is the problem I have with you insane materialistic empiricists. You don't do a lot of accommodating but narcissistic assimilating. You clearly have little to no understanding of what I was referring to. Let me break it down for you.
The mind-body dualism was philosophically obliterated over 50 years ago---if not over 200 years ago with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Your clear, completely blind compartmentalization of everything that may even remotely conflict with your ideology as religious argumentum ad vericundiam is evidence profound ignorance. Daniel Dennett is a charlatan who doesn't explain anything. He is trying to explain what Nietzsche said can never be explained in the 1800s. Because you haven't read Nietzsche doesn't make you nor your philosophaster charlatan idol mr Daniel Dennett any sort of expert whatsoever. There is absolutely no causal connection between the physical and the mental/phenomenal. There is only abstraction based on representations which are fundamentally of mind. Daniel Dennett is like a child with a newfound understanding of mathematics, as if the fact that someone can infinitely represent the number one means that they have more of a knowledge of it. It doesn't mean anything. It is superfluous garbage and it says absolutely nothing.
@@DouwedeJong Daniel Dennett has shown nothing. He is a wannabe Oliver Sacks. Sacks was infinitely more understanding of the human mind than him.
It's always so interesting to listen to professional philosophers and academics discuss various things because they are so civil, eloquent and knowledgeable.
Dude. Please take your education into your own hands. I know many, many, many people on TH-cam that are smarter than Dennetts opponent here; in fact, I know many highly educated people with a meagre intellect, and many uneducated people who are clearly sharp.
Education just comes on top of intellect, and you can see here that the Keith dude clearly isn't very intelligent, saying things like: well, just because it isn't determined it doesn't have to be random, I believe it is not wholly determined. - what did he go to Oxford for? to be confused by words he doesn't understand and throw them around, and people will listen to him, because he has a philosophy degree and comes from a good household.
So, please take matters in your own hand. Educate yourself, the information is free nowadays. Read Kants "What is Enlightenment?" Good luck
Sapere Aude my friend ^^
This what I imagined adults would act as a child. However, reality often tells a different story about civil discourse in our daily lives.
If something is not determined, but arranged in a specific order by someone with free will it would not be random.
buddyrichable1
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and every thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
If humans TRULY possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to switch their preferences at any point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of their own heart.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened.
The most common argument against this concept of 'non-doership', is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to CHOOSE what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) animals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way. That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent entirely upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
N. B. According to some geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate. However, that phenomenon would be included under the "conditioning" aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply impossible for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature?
To claim that one is the ultimate creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very BEING. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considers itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence.
When a person blames another person for their actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art ("tat tvam asi", in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self.
Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined "Story of Life" (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, "God's Perfect Will"), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions.
If, however, he blames his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called "first-world" societies, which helps to explain why the "Westernized" nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin? Never, I would posit.
That explains why this “Wisdom Teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives.
Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk "food" but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system.
To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption.
This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition.
“The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.”
Lord Śri Krishna,
“Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question.”
*************
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."
William Shakespeare,
English Playwright.
Although I sometimes get infuriated with the people debating, I must say that Justin Brierley is an absolutely fantastic host. Completely even handed, keeps the discussion flowing without interrupting, brilliantly summarises sometimes very complex arguments, he's always kind and generous to the speakers. I suspect Justin and I would disagree about a great many things, but I always enjoy listening to Justin's shows and would love to meet him in person. A fabulous host!
Brilliant moderator I have to say. Nice discussion.
Totally agree. It is clearly "christian radio" but he is definitely not on a side. If anything he looks less convinced by his theological guests trying to fit reality to their religious bias.
Matthew Vicendese
ALMOST every single person is biased.
Language and Programming Channel
That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@TheWorldTeacher that is an almost meaningless statement. They are many aspects to our point of view that is informed by personal preference, but there are some things that are quantifiable or progressions of properly applied logic.
"Everyone does bad things " is equally meaningless. Just because I have raised my voice in an argument doesn't mean you can compare me to someone who turns violent.
Clarity comes from recognising what part of your world view comes from your own preferences what is factual (or most defensible explanation).
Yeah, the moderator is pretty consistently great. I definitely appreciate him (as an atheist), and he's definitely a factor (along with mostly the guests he gets) in my continuing to come back to the channel.
One of the best moderated shows I know of. Even though the moderator has a bias (I assume at least, when I see it's on "Christian Radio"), you never ever notice. Always fair, always civil, never strawmanning, always giving opportunity for rebuttal and he really seems to know his stuff too, being therefore able to summarize positions and drive the discussion towards interesting directions.
Thumbs up!
Yes, i was delighted by this.
Yes, he's one of my favorite moderators. We tipically see mods drag the debate down and get in the way more than helping but this guy is smart enough too keep up with the topic at hand, keep his biases in check and ask good questions.
Totally, the guy is excellent.
The moderator is bloody brilliant.
I'm a hard-core atheist and I am sure that with him on a number of matters - but I can not find a single fault in his presentation. Total legend
Wish he would have asked Dennett what information is, rather than him just asserting it as real. Sounds like kicking the can.
This has to be the first one of these kinds of debates I've seen with a great moderator.
The problem of investigating conscienceness is that it needs conscienceness
That's why this is an endless debate lol
The problem with investigating anything is that you need consciousness.
Dude on the left put every conclusion of my early college years into the perfect words that I could never find. Feels so good to hear someone articulate precisely your own perspective into the world in a way you yourself could not.
At 38:38: this is where Keith Ward shows his hand! This is always where the argument ends up for people who believe in idealism, free will, non-determinism, God, etc: "If this were true, it would make me feel bad." Maybe it should make you feel bad, maybe it shouldn't; regardless, that is irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes the truth hurts.
He INSISTS that purpose is necessary for his psychological comfort. That may be true; he seems like an honest and humble guy.
But you might equally ask a dog about chocolate and get a similar answer. Dogs LOVE chocolate, even though it poisons them. Affinity for a thing is not prima facie evidence for its value.
Yeah I was pretty disappointed when I saw the argument just ended at 40 mins in😕
His arguments are based on different weighting of knowledge sources from the individual perspective. It is more on the epistemological level that things should be discussed to be more clear. But in that case we should get ride of the trap of confusing the efficiency of scientific methodology with the naturalistic world view. At least this trap is what psychologically make us believe that scientific method is perfect as it is based on the current paradigms of naturalism because it is efficient. There is matter, energy and you have to add information, but then again we have to think about what else may be added ? May be something like R. Sheldrake propose :D!
Yet Dennett denies consciousness, even though he is using Consciousness to deny its validity
Jason Aus
Exactly!
Just discovered this channel. My new favorite. The moderator is the greatest.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by).
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE
All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
@@TheWorldTeacher So do you think that we are more than matters.
JB gives another master class as the host. Ask good questions, clarify as needed, but mostly get out of the way and let the guests have at it.
Always a privilege to hear Dan speak
Because?
@@TheWorldTeacher For me, it is because he explains his thoughts in a way that is easy to understand, while exposing the weaknesses of opposing arguments.
Beacuse he is a atheist
A huge thank you to the debate/discussion's facilitators. It is a joy to listen to an attentive moderator as well as to two people who are hosts to enlightening ideas, concerns, and what may be misunderstandings of what is known engaging in a respectful manner. To be transparent, I am more of a Dennettist than a Wardist. With that said, I equally value Keith's propensities which compel him to explore. Those, on their own, are priceless.
Great debate, but can't say I'm impressed with this Keith Ward chap
It is very rare for me to praise things, but here it goes - what a sublime discussion! Thank you.
Naram Sin thanks! Do let others know about the series
Wonderful debate.. Unusually polite, decent and civic, between a theist and an atheist, between an idealist and a materialist. These three people deserve sincere applause.. 👌👍
If conciousness is an illusion what's there to be tricked?
Well put!
🍕
the brain!
@Viacheslav Vasiliev So, can nothing be tricked?
@Viacheslav Vasiliev Aren't we brains?
"From Bacteria to Bach and Back" What a great name for a book.
Honestly
It is honestly vomit-worthy. The butterflies are a work of art by Escher... there is a dogma book these people love called Godel, Escher, Bach... Just another iteration of the same narrow concept.
Yes! I love it, very clever.
Compared to "Why there is almost certainly a god" 🤢
The Flaming Philosopher Could you maybe elaborate on your conclusions? Seems like blind vitriol
Love this channel, the great moderating, and civil discussions between the two sides. It’s nice to see. Keep up the great work Justin. Can’t wait to see more...
Keith Ward's Love is His Meaning is a great read. His interpretation of the Gospels make the most sense to me. Life changing.
Nope, thanks. He is clearly a hopemongering moron
@@enlightenedturtle9507 How can you judge something you haven't read?
Read the first dozen pages-ego-driven and purple.
"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
But awareness doesn't have to be conscious to be aware.
@@kritika.kapoor People use these words in different ways, but I think they generally have a lower standard for "awareness" than "consciousness" --- that consciousness is something like awareness of awareness --- a level above simple, direct awareness.
When a robot bumps into a wall, isn't saying that it has become aware of the wall less offensive than saying it has become conscious of the wall?
I see this comment on pretty much every video pertaining to consciousness. It just seems strange to me that awareness is absent during deep sleep, while anesthesized, etc. If awareness can be lost, it must be reducible to the brain, yes?
@@k-3402have you not heard of the condition where people are aware during anesthesia? or even dreams for that matter...
What would the experience of not being aware be contingent upon? Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?
What a great conversation between people who completely disagree. Dan is a true legend
Dan is so articulate !
RIP Prof. Dennett. I always admired his commitment to a philosophy informed by contemporary scientific advances. A lot of philosophers believe that if you just sit and think really hard you can intuit meaningful answers.
"You can be dead comatose into wide awake thrilled and at no point does an extra special thing called consciousness come into it." Either Dennett is being dense or I am, because the question is "What is occurring when someone is 'wide awake' or 'thrilled'?" Dennett, responds, "Nothing in particular." I would say, "These are specific observed phenomena to be accounted for." And it seems like Dennett comes back with, "These are not the droids you are looking for."
Great conversation! Much respect for Daniel. I don't agree with him, but he was very thoughtful, respectful and interesting to listen to. I'll be keeping him on my radar.
The host is one of the best out there!
I need both of these guys in my world.
I appear to be thrilled by this discussion. But am I really thrilled?
Doesn't matter, You had no choice in the matter XD
Are feelings matter?
Rawjugga0 hahah
It's your brains best guess to be thrilled by this discussion :D
There is no way I could scientifically prove it. Ever.
Very nice discussion. Perfectly moderated too. Dennett I already knew as a bright guy, but intelligent and honestly charming speaker was that christian philosopher too.
I've watched a few of these. I'm an atheist and this host is just amazing. (I'm assuming he is a theist but the way he interwieves is just .....) Marvelous job I say!
I'm very impressed by how the host moderates the discussions on this channel. I'm myself an atheist, or agnostic to be more exact, and is not religious by any means, but I'm intrigued by hearing an interesting and respectful conversation between two people who don't think alike and I think this is important so that we all learn from how to behave and discuss with people which we don't agree with. In the end we all grow as human beings.
Great moderator. In every way. Enjoyable amicable discussion. I could have listened for another hour quiet easily.
It would be funny if Keith called Dan “your brain” instead of “you” during the duration of this discussion
@@NickWheeler9559 Do brains talk or do they just use the mouth? hmmmmm
Veøsity But could the brain technically use the vocals with out them? A brain is useless without an agent. I also find it funny how we’re talking about the brain when it comes to sensory stimulation.
@@NickWheeler9559 So what manages the brain?
@@NickWheeler9559 No? How does it interact with abstract ideas to generate reason?
@@NickWheeler9559 I doubt that a brain could generate it's own thoughts without out external experience.
I’m in no way a Christian or part of any religion for that matter. I have to say Ward makes his points with more nuance and no arrogance in his tone which makes me like his contribution alongside the host
Whilst I love Dan Dennett's work, I remember reading "Consciousness Explained" years ago and finding what I considered a fundamental flaw in his logic. On the question of simulation theory, his "brain in the vat" argument claimed it would be impossible to simulate reality, quantifying how much we are always aware of, and what the limits of computation - even with hypothetical light speed processing computers. Light speed could be a limit imposed within a simulation, that means nothing outside in the "real" world. I know it's hard for a brain to analyse it's own structure, but artificial intelligence and deep learning can already fool most people in conversation. Quantum computing claims it will someday shatter the upper limits we once set on computational power, and that's not even considering parallel processing quantum computers. All of these things only serve to point out that although it's highly improbable, and unable to be tested, it's wrong to completely exclude the possibility however untestable it may be. I think aliens visiting earth is ridiculous but I will concede its possible, and just because I have seen zero compelling evidence, seeing evidence could be something an advanced civilisation knows ways to erase 🙄 this conversation was completely uneven, in that Daniel wiped the floor with his opponent with pure logic. The only reason I am still on the fence is because we don't know what we don't know. I had a stroke and lost what looked like a quarter of my brain matter in the scans I've seen. I still feel like me inside, my inner thoughts haven't changed, but access to information and processing power noticeably feels like a problem with throughput now. Yes, that's subjective. The mind may give me the illusions of continuity as a coping mechanism. But my experience feels more like driving a vehicle that has been in a bad accident. The controls aren't responding the way they used to. It's waaay slower too. But I promise you the experience at least "feels" like I'm still the same driver inside. Perhaps I was just extremely lucky to avoid damage to the "me" part of my brain..
Your last sentence seems completely obvious to me. How is that not your immediate conclusion?
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few days in his memory 1:20:00
Wow - I’ve seen so many of his interviews and talks and wasn’t aware that he had passed away. Whether you agreed with him or not, and often times I didn’t, I felt that listening to him always sharpened your thinking.
@@LapinDebogues to me he was brilliant, he even went against Sam Harris, Saplowsky, and Pinker
keith's position that consciousness is something extra boils down to 'i dont understand how the brain could produce internal experience, intentionality
an idea of the future, an idea of purpose etc... therefore it is a non physical soul'. sounds a lot like the god of the gap
This is a very enjoyable, well-moderated discussion. I'm glad that Keith Ward has not had to experience dementia/Alzheimer's up close. If he had, he'd know there's a bit more to it than forgetting some things. That's the least of it. There's also "remembering" of elaborate scenarios that never happened. There's hiding things and then accusing loved-ones of stealing them. There's making hurtful, slanderous comments and then not being able to remember doing so a few minutes later. I'd be interested to know whether these mental characteristics survive the death of the physical body. Or is the immaterial soul a repository for true beliefs only? That would be convenient, wouldn't it?
"I'd be interested to know whether these mental characteristics survive the death of the physical body. "
There's evidence that they do. Look into terminal lucidity.
@@pandawandasit has nothing to do with surviving physical body, terminal lucidity is before death experience
YES A GREAT MODERATOR and HOST!!
*J is for JUSTICE!
Yes, the moderator is great, one of the few moderators who make the thing interesting. And of course, the speakers are both great too.
Consciousness, according to the thinkers of materialistic disposition, is a phenomenon. But, who or what entity controls this phenomenon, they are unable to explain. Perhaps a very special (phenomenal!) part of this phenomenon!
Why does an entity have to control it?
@@w0t_m818 All manifestations of consciousness involve (degrees of) control, do not they? Therefore, a central controller is necessary.
@@Arunava_Gupta perhaps you need to define "control", because I see no reason to be convinced that consciousness requires a controller or "degrees of control".
@@w0t_m818 oh, but doesn't your own conscious personality exhibit the feature of control. Even in mental activities such as deliberation, ratiocination, calculation, etc., there's control. Need I mention more?
@@Arunava_Gupta why can't this come from experience? If anything the idea of "control" supports a materialist position as people with neurological differences such as ADHD struggle with control, people who suffer brain injuries often have trouble with these kinds of faculties as well. Again, I see no reason to be convinced that it comes from some transcendent source.
It's a colective conscience constant throughout all these debates that, not only the model but above all the moderator is a central part of the interest and relevance in these conversations. It's transversal to all comments in all videos. Thumbs up, Justin! Amazing work.
Brilliant. Lovely to see two completely polarising view points engaged in a civil debate. These are the kinds of discussions we need in all areas of today's world. Thank you
Sadly, yes, because there are still people who have these idiotic ideas in their head, and who would rather believe what makes them feel good or what they Intuit to be true.
Dennett is amazing! A very tricky subject to parse with words but he manages to do so with Incredible proficiency.
Around the @36:20 time stamp, his user interface metaphor between a computer and human consciousness is brilliant!
Still fails the basic test of explaining how consciousness arises from physical phenomena though. I feel dennet just made up his mind on physicalism in his youth and is now trying to piece together evidence wherever he can, and mostly failing.
You must be crazy for saying Dennett is amazing. Lol
Can we take a moment to appreciate that at this time keith was 81 and daniel 76. How sharp they both still are.
Everytime I listen to Dennett, I become more idealistic 😅
I believe that idealism is embraced by people who dislike or fear the fact that we are limited.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
Great debate - can't say I'm impressed by this Keith Ward chap.
Is that his fault or yours?
As a determinist a really like the question; “When did you decide to be you?”
Dan is morphing into Darwin with every passing day 😂
Lol
my theory of darwinism is that darwin was adopted
*evolving
You know what Darwin thought of naturalism? Of course you don't. You all just THINK you know. He was NOT a naturalist. Read a freaking book TO THE END!
@@markgado8782, origin of species?
I'm impressed with Dennett's calamity in the face of Ward's sheer ignorance refraining to repeated attempts of "helping himself to problem-solvers by defining them as problem-solvers"....
You gotta hand to Keith Ward for being a religious person that can discuss these things without getting overly offensive about differing views
Actually he was all time on the defensive
@@albiboy1599nah
I like this...
“Consciousness is a user-illusion that is designed by evolution and by learning and by cultural evolution to make our brains capable of getting our bodies through this complicated world.”
illusion implies consciousness
This line is absolute garbage used to act as a filler in debate.
@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 I am unsure if it is absolute garbage or not - I would need to delve into it more. However, I don't think of it as a 'filler' in a debate about "Mind, consciousness and free will".
@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 philanthrophist his alternative to dualism with his multiple drafts theory does not only showcast the problems that come with stating a central meaner/cartesian theater in the brain (like the problem of stalinesque or orwellian revision of information, or infinite regression of homunculi) but also provides for a concept of human consciousness that is inquirable in contemporary emperical science. He does not deny conscious experiences, otherwise it wouldn't be conceived as an illusion if there wouldnt be a consciouss being, but he denies the dualistic sort of consciousness that his opponent is suggestion.
Basicallly what I'm trying to say is that is it not filler since there is alot of detailed work concering his account of human consciousness that results in consciousness in the way his opponent describes as an epiphenomenon
The statement is redundant stating the same thing three different ways to emphasize biological intelligent design. The conclusion also does not follow from the premises sufficiently moreover because we can navigate the world in other ways like whales, dinosaurs, etc.
This is what intelligent debate and conversations sound like. Brilliant
Daniel Dennett vs Rupert Sheldrake would be a true match. 😍
Or maybe Stephen Meyer....one of the leading ID exponents .
He'd give Dan a run around the block .
Dan Dennet would mop the floor with dear Rupert.
This happened twice. Dennett was in a round table with him, and he accused sheldrake of being dishonest in person.
@@michaelbuck9945 Meyer would destroy dan
I'd like to see him try Bernardo Kastrup. BK is on a different level. Dennett would have a stroke trying to keep up with him.
Seems like Keith didn't really get where Dan was going with the vitalism bit
No, he is clearly ignorant and not that intelligent.
Enlightened Turtle
Unlike the “ENLIGHTENED” turtle. 😉🐢😉
and Daniel doesn't realize the leaps of faith he's making himself as well.
@Grady Stein No, he is. In fact, his stance and the Idealistic stance both made a leap of faith; just at different points in the argument.
In the idealistic stance, the idea is we *know* that the consciousness exists, and in fact everything we know about the universe comes through the consciousness. THEREFORE (leap of faith) the consciousness is the main driver that "creates" the rest of the universe.
In the materialist stance, the idea is We can measure literally absolutely any physical phenomenon through the material world; except consciousness. THEREFORE (leap of faith) consciousness must be an illusion and byproduct of the material world, and it cannot be an exception (Inductive reasoning with insufficient proof).
In fact, another inductive reasoning materialists (and pretty much everyone else) uses is the assumption that all physical phenomena can be measured/extrapolated from purely materialistic means; this *has been true* of anything we have done, and does seem likely to be true; but it is actually inductive reasoning much like saying "Every cow I've seen in my life is purple, therefore all cows must be purple."
Actually, there are many more leaps of faiths, and inconclusive logic with Daniel Bennette's position. But I've already written a huge wall of text.
@Grady Stein
Go read about dunning-krueger. That's you.
It's Nice to see two well educated men talking without insulting one and another. Civilized conversation
"Civilized"according to which understand of a word which otherwise means no more than living in cities?
Ah, you mean it-likes-it.
Question for Dan: Would there be a sense of continuity between a reconstructed mind from carbon to silicone if a person were to die and be perfectly rebuilt? In the same way that one might have a sense of continuity from myself in the morning and myself in the evening?
Writer John Buck
"perfectly rebuilt"
It seems that this would be the case. But there is also a "computer program" of sorts running. You turn that off without saving and you lose all of that data.
definitely not.
The only way to figure that out is to do it. Which basically what he’s saying anyways. We have to learn HOW it works first. So we can get the information to explain WHY.
Yes I believe so. Continuity is just an illusion created by having memories. We only experience the present moment. If my brain was perfectly replicated in a computer then it would have my memories and feel like me.
Daniel Dennett did a fantastic job!
Nahh. He is deluded with his atheistic religion.
I'm an atheist but heavily idealistic and my desire to agree at some points and disagree in others with both speakers is blowing my mind.
🐟 02. A BRIEF EXPLANATION FOR “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle object within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the senses, plus the subject (the observer of all phenomena) - is what most persons actually refer to when they use the term “GOD”.
REAL God is Impersonal Absolute Nothingness (otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera).
“God” is One Reality, but just as a knife cannot cut itself, or fire cannot burn itself, “God” cannot know Himself (or at least EXPERIENCE Himself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Himself. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness. N. B. The word “God” is, by definition, a title of the male Deity, and is not to be taken literally here.
Apparently, this phenomenal universe was “created” (within Consciousness) with the initial act (the so-called “Big Bang”), and from that first deed, every action that has ever occurred has been a direct or indirect result of it.
Just as every particle of matter in the universe was once contained in the ’singularity’, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the Big Bang, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network.
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (‘all this is indeed Brahman’). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace -
and you are that!
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a consequence of that initial manifestation. That is the most accurate and logical explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY. The notion of retributive (“tit for tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human (and non-human animal) was determined by those two factors ALONE, thus free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe.
Because we are temporarily residing within this dualistic universe, we experience both pleasure and pain.
Suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal doership - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts and deeds.
There are five MANIFESTATIONS of suffering:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including us humans, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is simply a biological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements and the three subtle material elements.
The antidote to all suffering is to ‘rest’ in the primordial sense of existence (the unqualified “I am”). So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (supposedly) material universe, you are now able to be liberated from all forms of suffering, RIGHT?
WRONG! It is imperative to find an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another.
Even if you follow a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life (all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course).
Furthermore, if it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to accept discipline from a truly enlightened master, and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by practicing at least one of the four systems of yoga (religion) described in the Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and happiness!
“The meaning of life is life itself.”
*************
“A wise Rabbi once said 'If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you'.
In other words, we are not separate.”
Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
(06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973).
“What you seek is seeking you.”
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī,
Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic.
(30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
Brilliant and so mind bending! Thank you again Justine for getting these two amazing speakers together.
An excellent discussion, thank you all! I'm with Dan on this one, though.
I am a theoretical phycisist with a background in philosophy and I had the great expeirnce of taking a class with Dennett at Tufts. I fully agree with Dennett that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a physical system procsesing information and hat it exists on a spectrum in complexity and intensity, but I don't see how he avoids the ultimate pansycicist conclusion which I see this leading to. Information procsesing is such a broad concept that a single particle changing it's state in response to coliding with another particle could be said to be "a system updating it's internal information in response to it's envirnment." Dennett says that there is no line where consciousness magically emerges in evolution, and I agree, but then why continue to draw a line and say that protiens don't have any form of phenominological expeirnce if their interactions with their envirnments? I agree with Keith strongly that "concousness comes first" in the sense that having conscious expeirnce is the only thing we can ever know to be true for certain and that our scientific models are an interpretation of the regularities in the universe we perceive around us. Furthermore, I think this view has real scientific implications which I think they are both missing and I strongly disagree with both of them that "if reality is just atoms buzzing around it has no inhereint meaning." The fact that we are conscious means that the laws of physics are capable of producing conscious observers! This is hugely signficant, it is a massively constraining criterea on our search space for candidate unified theories of physics. I don't think that any random bit of mathematics, any random line of computer code or cellular automata insturctions, is likely to give rise to conscious observers within it.
you can't ground metaphysics in the physical world. it's just not possible. it produces all of these bizarre threads of reasoning that are just nonsense - statements like, "consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a physical system processing information." you're just assuming the existence of superordinate metaphysics and then trying to glue them to the physical world like peter pan chasing his shadow. metaphysics exist apriori and we have to deal with the whole of reality in that order. the only reason guys like dennett refuse this position is because they don't want to believe in God. the entire english speaking world has hated metaphysics since the enlightenment and probably back to the english reformation or even william of occam. the entire philosophical position of the materialists is just bullshit and it's a waste of resources and a waste of lives. it's done nothing but rot the moral core of the social fabric of the western world and they should be ashamed of themselves.
He doesn't think consciousness is any existing thing at all that needs to be traced back any further than humans talking about themselves and representing themselves to others in ways that create a 'fiction'. I think you mean something different by the word 'consciousness'.
the last finishing argument from keith was an ad consequentiam par exellence
The host is very good
@Heston Westmoreland well I think the hosts job is to allow free flowing conversation which he did very well. Obviously the Christian needs a little help as he doesn't have any facts to fall back on...i still enjoy watching this channel though.
If you want to understand Dennett’s views on free will and determinism, the golfer analogy at 59:32 serves very well. In a deterministic universe an assessment of possible outcomes (whether in a golf putt or a moral choice) is really a question of how likely you are to do the same thing in very similar circumstances, not whether you’d do the same thing if the universe could be reset and run again (which is in any case impossible to know).
The debate is much more respectful than the comments.
Dennet's view is rooted in facts, Keith's is rooted in beliefs. If you want to understand reality you have to follow the facts, not your belief.
PleasePense fee sure love dan
"If you want to understand reality you have to follow the facts, not your belief."Is this a fact or a belief?
It's a claim.
Nice try, but think a little harder about your response.
PleasePense. You say: Dennet's view is rooted in facts
Response: What are these facts..?
Brilliant conversation with Dennett being clearly superior in his arguments and the transparency of his ideas (not to mention his background). Could have listened to this for twice as long.
Great moderator
36 mins Dennett compares our consciousness to a laptop screen...but what is viewing the screen? I wish people would take him up on these analogies.
You completely missed the point of the analogy.
Cyance
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by).
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE
All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
@@TheWorldTeacher I ain't reading your wall of text, especially given that you start off with an Etymological fallacy. That's usually a sign of someone pretending to have a clue but who doesn't really.
But to keep it on point, is there anyone else who doesn't understand the laptop analogy, because you seem to be quite a bunch? Here's a different more simple version: Windows running on a pc. "BUT WHO BE PLAYING DEH COMPUTAAAH". Not the point of the analogy, which is that consciousness is a coherent illusion based on a sufficiently complex neural network. There is no qualia, no Cartesian theater, it's all an illusion.
Cyance
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
P. S. You edited your inane comment, yet it is STILL rife with vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and punctuation errors, Silly Sinful Slave. 🥴😬🙄☝️🤔
@@TheWorldTeacher "If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see"
I don't care about conditional statements. Come with an actuality you can demonstrate or go and do pretend-philosophy somewhere else.
"yet it is STILL rife with vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and punctuation errors"
It's called typing on a smartphone. I'm not writing an essay, but rather a youtube comment.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by).
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE
All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
Ok cool
like this comentary pls
wow its amazing how an academic/professors (Dr. Daniel Dennett) can bring such insight, knowledge and clarity to a discussion
You must be crazy for saying that. Lol
Why would anyone ever get into a debate/argument with Dan?! He never loses... destroys his opponents with the utmost politeness until they agree with the facts he points out to them. Legend.
I love how Daniel Dennet seems like santa claus s2
Secular Clause?
What a fantastic mind Dan is
In my view, Dennett paints himself into a corner by (very civilly and politely) disparaging Ward's idea of a soul. But, he then reverts back to an immaterial substance which is equally difficult to describe, analyse and explain: he calls it 'information' or 'software'. I am left wondering what he has gained and how what he is saying - substantively - differs from what he rejects in Ward's position. In short, for Dennett, information and software end up as qualities not material, that are 'eternal' (he admits that or even offers that himself!), and that define identity. I get it that information is not the same thing as what Ward calls a soul, but the category as framed by Dennett shares the same objectional qualities (objectional for materialists!), the very things he says are not now needed and that can be helpfully done away with (and that *should* be done away with) by a materialist. He seems not to notice this unconscious sleight of hand (and Ward, too, seems not to notice it - or it might it be that Ward is too kind and polite to press the issue?)
We must realise, too, that these two are not arguing from a similar standpoint: Dennett is attempting to DISPROVE Ward's position, trying to show that such a view is a vestige of a bygone era no longer necessary, a way of thinking that has little to no support. For Dennett, we would all be much better off if views like Ward's were disproved and eliminated. Ward, on the other hand, also asserts his position, but he has no need to prove that Dennett's position is wrong, since his position allows for Dennett's (in fact, Ward agrees with Dennett in many ways, as far as Dennett's explanation goes); Ward simply argues that Dennett's position does not explain everything. Dennett, on the other hand, says that Ward's position is wrong and superfluous.
I was going to post a comment a lot like this. Seems I don’t need to anymore.
I agree with you very much that Dennet doesn't seem to notice the the self-refuting quality of his position, which I am really surprised. I think both Justin and Keith sofely tried to point that out 😂 yet, Dennet did not realise.
I don't think he would be okay with you calling it an "immaterial substance" (which is a bit of an oxymoron!). Information is simply the way the contents of the universe are, as opposed to the other ways that they could be. It is not some mysterious substance that science has yet to discover.
Your hard drive contains information. The information is not the atoms themselves or the electrons, because if we swapped the positions of the atoms and electrons around, there would be some other information on the drive instead. The information thus is in the arrangement of the atoms and electron spins. Your DNA contains information, in the particular way the base pairs are ordered, as opposed to other ways that the exact same base pairs could be ordered. This is in fact what makes DNA so important: it's good at maintaining the order that it's in, the order can be copied to new substrates, and the order can be interpreted and transferred to other information carrying molecules which use the original order to produce molecular machines which perform certain functions. It's shockingly similar to the original conception of a Turing machine, with an information-laden tape, read head, and state vector.
As for whether Ward or Dennett needs to justify their position: You cannot prove a physical negative (see Russell's Teapot). Ward is saying "observation Z requires that X AND Y be true", whereas Dennett is saying "X implies Z", so in fact, Y **is** superfluous. You can choose to believe in Y, but Z is not a good reason to do so.
@agentdarkboote Three problems.
I realize that Dennett would probably not like what I am saying. That is not actually the point. What IS he saying? What is he describing? In terms of connotation, it sounds very similar to what he is critiquing and rejecting as put forward by Ward. It does not appear Dennett realizes that. On what basis is he rejecting Ward's argument, then, if it is not immateriality? What you describe above is correct - I have no quibbles. But information on the hard drive or DNA codes is where, then? This is a problem if 'where' is a necessary feature of things existing or being plausible.
Second, we are forced to use material/location metaphors to describe that which we cannot describe in any other way? Thus, utilizing the existence or not of materiality in order to critique the existence of something causes us, in our own discourse, significant self-referential problems. In a word, we end up forced (often without knowing it or being aware) that we are violating the very materiality condition we are arguing for.
Third, your third paragraph assumes the very thing that is in question. 'Proving' in Western science rests on conditions of proof that themselves are the very things in question. If one proves something, then it exists. But that logically does not mean that if one cannot prove something that it does NOT exist. But, most Western science assumes this logical fallacy. It is often called 'Denying the Antecedent'.
Good
It should be Dennett and Kastrup! Make that one happen although I don't think Dan would want to take Bernardo on!
I think Bernardo would take him apart. David Bentley Hart would drop kick him too.
Bernardo Kastrup is awesome!
Bernardo Kastrup would take dennet apart no doubt
One could almost sense the limitations of Daniel's thought process as an atheist compared to the more rich and expounding thought process of Keith. Personally I run into the same freedom of "scientific" and philosophical thoughts when contemplating the questions of consciousness and free will being a theist to explore further.
If by "rich and expounding" you mean "sounds prettier", then I'll grant you that. But reality doesnt care about what's pretty. We should try to believe things we can actually verify, not what sounds more nice.
@@hawkxlr No, rich and expound means deeper into the meaning of things and with logical rigorousness. Verification is important but scientific verification also has limitations including the truth about evolution as a creation theory. Some may say truth is beautiful and I can agree with that metaphorically speaking but truth is also exclusive.
@@leoteng1640 One cannot praise logical rigorousness while also denying one of the most scientifically validated theories in history, like evolution. It rings as especially hypocritical
@@hawkxlr Macro evolution has not been proven and the Darwinian theory is on its last legs it is always presented as fact but it is still fiction. Only micro evolution has been observed.
Keith Ward is incredible!
Daniel Dennett: a true master of missing, evading, or ignoring the point in question.
Luke Abbott: a true master of dismissing what he doesn't understand
dennet gave answers and even elaborated step by step how consciousness could've come a about. The other guy was just denying Dennet's claims by saying he doesn't accept a life without purpose without any argument or evidence other than wishful thinking. He doesn't want a world where free will doesn't exist but doesn't explain how it can exist without the brain.
Keith is the man!
33:50 "I wouldn't call this supernatural, but it's not physical."
Right, there is a separate category for phenomena which exist neither outside the natural world nor inside it:
IMAGINARY
I'm just wondering if a dream is real or imaginary. The content may be imaginary, but the dream happens - unless you imagined you had the dream. But even things you imagine are caused by neuron activity, which is real. Paul McCartney heard 'Yesterday' in a dream, so something imaginary can transform into something real.
@@Nicolas-S-Brown Dreams aren't imaginary. Just like thoughts aren't imaginary. They map to brain states.
@Dan Razzell “The natural world” exists entirely within consciousness. The natural world is the perceived world and perceptions are mental. If anything it’s our conceptions of what the world is like external to our perceptions that is imaginary.
Dafuq you mean by “outside the natural world” ?
@@Sam-hh3ry
No, the natural world, by definition, exists entirely IRRESPECTIVE of consciousness.
The entire universe and all its processes appears to have developed over a vast span of time - some 13 billion years - before our own species developed consciousness perhaps a few tens of thousands of years ago.
And we are the only instance of consciousness that we know of. That's not to discount the possibility of other conscious beings, but in fact we know of none.
So it would be absurd to suppose ON NO EVIDENCE that the universe - the natural world - somehow exists as a result of consciousness. ALL EVIDENCE points to the converse.
I'm confused as to why "matter in motion" is used to demean the naturalistic worldview.
The fact that an emergent property of "matter in motion" is consciousness is an astounding and beautiful fact of the universe.
'Emergent property' is a placeholder for ignorance. Sounds fancy but has no empirical basis.
The claim that "I know things that happened before my consciousness" shows that our knowledge can affect things happened before our knowledge so the time priority of our material brain does not debunk the independence priority of our consciousness.
danny boy, i could listen to you talk about emergent complexity all. damn. day.
Yeah. Strong emergent complexity for which we have no. damn. explanation.
u dont even know what emergence is do u? fucking idiot
@@estring123 In what way(s) would you say that Stephen is confused or mistaken? Please explain.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns holy fuck this comment is old af i dont remember shit about why i made that comment. u materialist shithead never cease to amaze me. ask me a SPECIFIC question and ill answer. no open ended bullshit.
@@estring123 Keith's arguments are total bunk. "only you can perceive your own consciousness.." this is simply just not true, and a baseless assertion! if we construct a mind reading device, then other people could definitely be able to perceive other people's' experience.
The hard problem of consciousness is called that for a reason. Critics contend that rather than explaining consciousness, Dennett has explained it away. Whatever the explanation, it's undeniable that there is something qualitatively different about consciousness. To argue, as Dennett does, that we simply need to develop a better understanding of how the brain works in order to fully account for consciousness is conjecture. That may be true but it's also possible, as postulated by Thomas Nagel, that the solution to the problem will require a paradigm shift in our understanding.
The paradigm shift you seek is precisely that on offer from DD, namely a move away from the vitalistic expectation, which in many ways is simplistic dogma. DD paradigm is highly nuanced, complex and multilevelled as opposed to the ‘just so’ injection of magic ‘soul’
I actually don't think he argues that at all. I get the sense people haven't read a lot of Dennett. Explaining consciousness doesn't eliminate its phenomenology. I'd go further and make the case, based on insights from Dennett and other systems thinkers, that intelligence is a feature of systems. Experience is then a function of intelligence across a range of self-definable capacities and an infinite range of semi-randomly accrued aesthetic appreciations. As I've often argued, the point of life is to appreciate that there may be a point, the beauty is that we may see the beauty.
@@wfifer Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of consciousness!
You needed only ask ;)
@@paddydiddles4415 Dennett's explanation did not seem to rid me of qualia, which cannot exist if there truly is no qualitative difference between minds and non-minds.
Beautiful debate, I wish every debate betwen is this elequant and mind you, transparent at times.
1:17:30 Digital Immortality. Black Mirror Season 3 Episode 4: San Junipero. A completely conceivable and possible form of physicalist immortal existence. The 'soul' is a way of talking about information. Information, however, can only exist 'encoded' (i.e. organized) in some physical substrate that can be accessed and processed in a causal manner. The thing about information though is that it can be 'encoded' in different physical structures and thus the mind of an entity may possibly be 'multiply realizable'. This is the keen insight of Functionalist and Computational/Syntactical Theories of Mind and Cognition.
this guy is so dumb "only you can perceive your own consciousness.." this is simply just not true, and a baseless assertion! if we construct a mind reading device, then other people could definitely be able to perceive other people's' experience.
great talk, fantastic interviewer 👍
I can understand that for lots of ppl its hard to grasp that lots of new qualities and capacities can emerge from a complex system of simple individual units all connected to and dependent of each other.
Golden nugget of a comment 0the0web0. I could put parts of it on my wall as a picture. The fundation can be simple and redundant while a wast complex network of relations can grow on top of it, it really amazes me.
Agreed. The complexity of the material world emerging from simple interconnected set of experiences is really amazing.
Why do we like music? Because we've been equipped to observe patterns as a neurological short cut to understanding the world around us, and there is a noticeable pattern in music. Not only that we can feel the music. To our detriment, we are so adept at observing patterns we often see them where they don't exist.
First things first, Keith Ward reminds us that consciousness understands matter and not the other way round.
Sergio Freitas Nice! Here’s another gem: “consciousnesses is the brain’s user illusion of itself”.
One needs to be conscious in order to have an illusion…. So if consciousness is an illusion how can we assert that we are thinking correctly since its all an illusion?
"You should never sign a contract with a robot ... When a robot makes a promise, you'd be a fool to accept it" - Daniel Dennett
tom or ours.
I'd accept any of Data's promises. And any other robot or human or animal that demonstrates sufficient trustworthiness.
letsomethingshine _I'd accept any of Data's promises_
Commander Data is fictional.
In what way is Dan Dennett anything but a robot? Can he trust himself?
@swift73ify but if we made a robot brain to be virtually identical to a human's or a simulation of a human's then it would for all purposes, a human brain, just because it uses different atoms doens't make it not human
Saying that consciousness is an illusion is a pure contradiction, as you have to have a consciousness that is illuded in the first place
No. not true
Keith Ward's worldview seems to be directed by his idea of what type of world he would prefer to live in rather than the type of world facts and reasoning actually describe. It seems Ward rejects Dennett's view of the world simply because he wouldn't want to live in that kind of world.
Same with that guy Dennis Prager. He says he cannot exist in a world where he won't be able to see his dead family after he is dead, THEREFORE god. It is like they cannot handle the weight of finite existence so they adopt fantasy as reality to cope.
Existence cannot, logically, come from anywhere. If existence has a cause, that means the cause exists. If the cause exists, it cannot be said to explain existence. The prior cause of existence has to be non existent. So the cause of existence, by definition, does not exist. Therefore, existence has no cause. If you want to believe God created existence, you must first admit God does not exist.
My commentary doesn't refute the idea of a first cause. It refutes the idea that existence could have a cause outside of itself. Existence cannot be created because it's cause would also have to exist, which would mean it wouldn't account for existence. As for the Universe: if time began with the "Big Bang", there was no moment BEFORE the "Big Bang", thus excluding the possibility of a PRIOR cause.
What "nothing" are you talking about ?
What makes you think "nothing" has to come from somewhere ? "Nothing" is NOT something. It cannot come into being because "nothing", by definition, does not exist. If time began at the Big Bang, there is no "before" the Big Bang".
Fantastic conversation! Am now a big Keith Ward fan! Interesting to hear their respective views on free will/reason follow from their views of "the self".
Are coin flips really as hard to predict as Dennett claims at 55:17? I have a hard time believing that “the position of electrons at the edge of the visible universe” has a non-negligible effect on the result. Wouldn’t a much simpler model that only included the gravitational field of the Earth, the friction of the air, the weight and shape of the coin, the initial position of the coin, the height at which it is caught, and the magnitude and position of the force applied to the coin probably suffice? I really don’t think that you would need to be Laplace’s demon to predict something as simple as a coin flip...
Both speakers are pre-supposing materialism. Matters is a concept and never observed in nature (Berkeley, Pythagoras, Al-Asharee).
How is Keith Ward presupposing materialism? He's a substance idealist.
The guy on the right is literaly an idealist
Lol
"and" rather than "versus" in the title would better reflect the good-natured atmosphere of this debate
Great discussion, very good interviewer. Dennett dissected and undermined every one of Ward's points and presented a clear and appealing expression of philosophical naturalism, but he lets himself down with his silly compatibilism. From about 1:11:40, he's asked the standard question about whether we could have done otherwise if the universe were reset, and he says: "Maybe there's an ultimate sense of freedom in which neither Keith nor I nor you are free, but that's not one that cuts any ice when it comes to the question of whether we have reasons." Of course, it does - it determines exactly what reasons we have, inevitably. Every event at every moment, including all our reasons and decisions about them, is inevitably caused by the state of the universe at the previous moment. That doesn't allow you to invent an "ultimate sense of freedom" different from the actual freedom at any moment, which determinism denies. Harris has argued with him on this point until he's blue in the face, and Dennett still either seems unable to see the consequence of determinism or has decided it would be too much of a U-turn to admit he got it wrong.
Ooh, just saw there's a list of the other convos - Peterson and Blackmore, hell yes.
lettersquash the biblical view is that whilst we have free will that will is constrained by our (sinful) nature. So we are free in the sense that our decisions are not coerced by any external force. We are free to do as we please.
@@ephs145 I see. So we're free to do as we please, except that's constrained by our sinful nature, which is presumably an internal force. Does it matter if something is external or internal if it constrains us? Did God create our sinful nature?
@@lettersquash is it surprising that we are constrained by our nature. If you put a rabbit in a cage with some carrots and a dead mouse it will eat the carrots not the mouse. The biblical view is that although we have free will (a will that is free to do as it pleases, free from external coercion) that will is constrained or in bondage to our nature which has an inclination to be a law unto itself. We cannot ourselves change this no more than a rabbit can become an eagle.
@@ephs145 Thanks, I see what you mean, of course. My mistake. I think I was a bit misdirected by the wider question I was addressing at the top of the thread, compatibilism, in which one believes everything happens according to determinism, yet at the same time argues that we have free will. Your position seems quite consistent to me - it is libertarianism, the belief that we have free will, as you say (and of course that is/can be relatively constrained free will, due to our 'nature' or other conditions).
@@lettersquash i don't think it is libertarianism - that would be the humanist view. The biblical view is not libertarian but that our will is in bondage to our sin nature - a nature that rejects God. Our choices are determined by our nature but we are still free - we are self determined. The biblical view is that our nature is fallen.
“Someone made it up but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.” Wow.
Sounds silly, but it can make sense from a certain perspective. For example, mathematics uses symbols and representations that humans made up, but they are used to describe things and processes that are quite real.
Could be wrong, but that’s my 2 cents on it.
God is made up. Might be real though.....
Of course it doesn't mean it's not true, but making shit up is a pretty good method of being wrong. The chance of being wrong is not 100% but it is close lol
@@FinneousPJ1 Depends on how far removed it is from what can be demonstrated.
@@naomi-nada A "god" is pretty fucking far.