Why scientists fail to understand consciousness
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this clip from The Life Lessons Podcast with Simon Mundie, Professor Donald Hoffman and nondual teacher Rupert Spira discuss why it is that some scientists fail to understand consciousness...
**
If you enjoyed this content please subscribe to my channel! / @iamsimonmundie
MyTwitter: / simonmundie
Instagram: / simonmundie
TikTok: / simonmundie
Email me: info@simonmundie.com
To subscribe to my 'A New Way of Being' newsletter for more life hacks head to simonmundie.com.
**
#donaldhoffman #consciousness #nonduality #spiritualawakening #anewwayofbeing #simonmundie #infiniteconsciousness #rupertspira #materialism #thehardproblemofconsciousness
I think this must be right. Slowly, the materialist paradigm is becoming obsolete. The weight of the many anomalies which cannot be explained by materialism is becoming too much for the structure to bear. It’s already cracking; within a hundred years it will be as outdated as heliocentrism.
Donald Hoffman is my hero he is not afraid to test NEW ideas 💪
I love the "Hard Problem of Matter" idea.... we have had everything upside down.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Check out Advaita.
Brilliant Marco.....I am a comparative philosopher. Please write a book or article. My area of research is NDEs, psychedelic's, meditative journeying, anomalous experiences, OBEs etc. At the moment I am drawn to the theory of non local consciousness, and the filter theory of the brain, with universal conscious awareness being part of the cosmos at the deepest level... it seems a definite possibility. This new frontier needs to be an interdisciplinary venture.
Donald Hoffman is always so interesting to listen to, I can never get enough! Thank you!
The Hardest Problem of Consciousness
We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur?
Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one.
Billions showed up after this one.
None of them seem to have created my existence.
This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others
All bodies are made of the same elements.
All brains have the same basic anatomy.
If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously.
A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once.
I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different.
Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs?
When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious atoms over there would generate your specific consciousness?
If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room?
According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence.
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
How could pure awareness even be individualized?
Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure.
There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that.
Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized.
My blender uses electricity.
Is it a genius?
Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is.
As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual.
One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case.
In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
EXCELLENT insight! You've been checking out Advaita and Nonduality (right?).
Again - ✨TERRIFIC✨ insight!
✨👋🥴👍✨
Ram Dass said, “Be here now,” and Alan Watts said we are already here now.
Amazing guests 👌🏻
Since space-time does not exist, movement does not exist either, the ever present is static, nothing moves, it is all an illusion of our mind, we cannot walk towards that place that we call there because there does not exist, it is always here, which It is not a place in space either.
⚡KILLER⚡ comment!
✨👋🥴👍✨
Two legends
Excellent.....❤ thanks 🙏.
Gratitude 🙏
This is when we will become inclusive and not see Nature and Matter as something different from us.....🙏🙏🙏
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. spoke of the Universal Will to Become.
Magnificent - the hard problem is how the physical universe emerged from consciousness - Return of the God Hypothesis?
Consciousness does not emerge from matter (just as explained in the video) but I think it is safe to say that self-awareness does, indeed, emerge from material brain processes insofar as the concept of an individual "self" is a construct - a way of perceiving - just as, in Spira's example, "orange" is a way of perceiving snow. But, of course, this concept of "material brain processes" is, itself, another construct. Physical reality/matter is a way of Reality (fundamentally conscious or, at least fundamentally qualitative/proto-conscious) perceiving "itself" - it is how Reality appears "to itself" when it manifests itself as "other". This self-reference is a process of translation that is fundamentally metaphorical. It is a way for Reality to perceive it's essence (which we might experience as an unbounded set of 'logical relations") AS "other". This process of "othering" takes on the qualitative nature of what we experience as "matter" for the sake of another qualitative experience - the feeling of what it feels like to understand/comprehend something - the feeling of something being "true". To experience the feeling of "THAT is true", Reality must experience the qualitative feeling of something "being out there" - something to play the logical role of "that". This leads to experiences of "universals" and "particulars", with particulars being experiences as "being material" and universals being experienced as "non-physical" relations (e.g., math, logic...). Material brains are a way for Reality to experience itself as "that doing that" in ways that "give the feeling of ah-ha! That's true!" - which is why brains appear to be material processes following natural laws and why consciousness appears to emerge from brain processes. Reality's essential nature is, in a manner of speaking "qualitative logical dynamics" that uses metaphor to achieve feelings of "truth" and "understanding" and one of the core metaphors employs feelings of "that stuff out there" that appears as other.
The idea that it's not possible to know/research/understand reality through thought and perception is about as incoherent as it gets. How else are we to know? What is the assertion itself based on if not some kind of observation and reflection (inadequate as it may be)? Consciousness is by its own nature difficult to grasp, but for that very reason requires clear and precise reasoning, which is sadly lacking here. To say consciousness itself is the ultimate reality is vague hand waving, and leaves unclarified the meaning of those two terms.
The mind dualises the non dual, being Consciousness.
Why, because it is alone. What would you do when you were all alone?
You are doing it right now.
Advaita Vedanta doesn’t tell you, it shows you.
When scientists disable their own biases and take a serious look into it..much progress will be made
If you go after the culprit behind the so called physical reality you will end up nailing the mind.
J. Krishnamurti's books are good reading about that.
you have to be totally enlightened to understand what consciousness really is and even then totally enlightened beings might disagree..
We will never understand consciousness because we are only a small part of it. How can a small part of something understand the whole? We lack the necessary perspective to do so. Same reason we will never understand the universe. We are a small creature, on one of a trillion planets, that made up a language with 26 letters- then claim we can use that language to explain the universe and all creation. Its literally laughable. I don't think some of these people realize how crazy it sounds.
@@kennethmalafy503 you have to be the infinite unlimited Thing to know the infinite unlimited Thing. The finite and the infinite are two different realms
The word "consciousness" alone is very strange. Because it suggests that it is an object..
The universe has to be infinite. For it not to be the endless dark empty space would have to come to an end and be replaced by...... what? What could replace the space? It has to be eternal because the alternative is that there used to be nothing and then something came into existence. You can't get something from nothing so there must always have been something - hence no beginning. You don't have to be a scientist to see this - but if you are one you'll never see it because the scientific mind can't deal with these obvious statements.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. WHAT WE THINK WE BECOME.” - Buddha. This statement by Buddha is about "what mind and thought does" (what it produces) but is silent on the matter of "how mind and thought works".
The Hindus prior to Buddha had a meme of the "snake eating its own tail" to illustrate the point "THAT MIND AND THOUGHT FEEDS OFF ITSELF". (which is why we now have these University lunatic echo chambers.) The result of "insanity" feeding off itself, because insanity is now concentrated there.
These are a couple of other observations about mind and thought: "mind and thought does not "know" what it does not know". "mind and thought can make "assumptions" that are not necessarily representative of reality", "beliefs and belief systems are nothing more than "thoughts" that keep repeating themselves, or "feeding off" themselves". and by extension of all these previous observations, "insanity" or "error of thought", or "sin" does not recognize itself.
So knowing these things about "how thought works" (and even according to Buddha "what thought produces") how is it possible to apprehend reality at all????
So if we ascribe the other endless words such as "Consciousness, Awareness, Knowing, Understanding, Reasoning" etc. to this "mind and thought" phenomena, it still does not explain it, because the exercise is "mind and thought trying to understand its own self". (again the "snake eating its own tail".)
So then we introduce this concept of God, and ascribe its attributes as an "all powerful entity" outside of ourselves. When in fact the Bible and other eastern writings indicate that we are "in the image of that God", and THAT IMAGE is inside of us, and that God describes himself as I AM, THAT I AM. Which sort of takes you back to what Buddha said: "WHAT WE THINK WE BECOME".
Which sort of implies: when we "understand and know what mind and thought is" we will then know "our own selves", and coincidentally know God.
They have never heard of microtubules
From a professional perspective, It is important to distinguish the scientific establishment from active scientists and the scientific method. The establishment consists largely of doddering frumps well past their creative periods, if they ever had them. From a spiritual perspective, ultimate reality is indeed darn tough to understand via the mind studying matter, yet humans still discovered relativity and quantum mechanics-which both greatly expanded our concepts of the physical universe and provided clues on additional dimensions and structures of potential universes. Reliable deductions demand disciplined, systematic approaches, along with meaningful measurements. Data from our amazing telescopes and particle accelerators is reduced by sophisticated, extremely creative mathematics. Math likely will bridge the gap to ultimate reality before physics. In lieu of dependable equipment, spiritual investigators must run experiments with flakey humans-especially themselves. I’m having a blast post-retirement poking around in exotic regions with major guidance from Seth, along with teachers such as Rupert. Furthermore, my son is becoming a spiritual professional (Jef’s Way on TH-cam), so I’m delighted to try keeping him in sight. Cheers!
How can math ever lead to ultimate reality when it is based on a fallacy - multiplicity? Surely when it comes to reality itself it can only muddy the waters by trying to divide the indivisible.
Check out Advaita
Yaeh, Science can only be 100% science,
if it is in 100% harmony with reality.
It is natural that Life have a Life-side and a Stuff-side,
but even the researchers and scientist have
different focus, it will end up in Life Science,
Science of the Eternal Life.
Rainbow is our Signature, colors picture
our Eternal Abilities as also make this device
work, in technical form.
A technical composition of 'the Consciousness'
as Basis for further Conscious Programming.