This is what humanity should be doing, talking respectfully to each other with love and decency, exchanging ideas and exploring the meaning of existence. It's the very lifeblood of progress.
oh! you mean like pre-Uncle Ronnie times and a bit before the emergence of this current Republican Party.. (that includes Democrats too) ... it still drools no matter what it looks like.
It's amazing how people can take a cordial conversation between two respectful gentlemen and turn it into a reason to start calling each other names, devaluing each other's views. Having opposing views is a chance to grow and become a much more dynamic human being. So let's try to honor this discourse and act in kind. Namaste
lew bronstein There is no reason to be upset. Okay sure he may not be Nepali, nevertheless he's saying Namaste as a way to greet others and welcome them into a conversation with peace and respect. It's like slang for a person is "dude" or "bro"
@@kungadodhenx4038 imagine reality with-out any ideas,words ,thoughts,or concepts. What reason would there be to believe that you are anything other than what you are aware of.? What evidence is there that there is anything other than what you are aware of?
My husband is a SCD Material Scientist. I am a sociologist, Art Historian, Poet, and Teacher. Our world views are almost opposite. We watched this wonderful video together. Enjoyed the many truths as well as the humor evident. Thank you!!!
Anyone that calls themselves a poet you can be certain is a pretentious self-deceiver.Real poets *never* call themselves poets.Apropos sociology, in universities where hard subjects are taught there is often have a sign above the lavatory paper reading:Sociology agrees please take one.
@@vhawk1951kl spontaneous belittlement of a total stranger. I'm trying to grasp the contribution this makes to the dialog introduced in this video presentation. gfy
@@barryrempp1261 Balls, it's a fake a putup job by two lying mutual masturbaters Rehearsed questions and rehearsed answers - a classic example of mutual masturbation; the the whole thing is a con. *And-you-know- it*It is fake from beginning to end (and -you-know-that* *for-a-certainty* also, so don't bother to lie.
@@barryrempp1261 It is not any* kind of genuine dialogue, it is a put-up job p-r-e-t-e-n-d-i-n-g* to be a dialogue to deceive- A bit of mutual masturbation *pretending* to be a dialogue - I't's an act and you know it - pure fakery which I call lying because it *is* lying, something pretending to be what it is not, and you know that too because you have a special organ called with_knowledge or a sense of truth of which you may or may not, be aware. Those two mutual-masturbators are no more PhDs than you are, however, whatever is supposed imagined fantasied or racked up to be omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent- Call that what you will is as fond of lying conmen and mutual masturbaters as it is of Nazis murderers whores thieves robbers rapist idolaters concentration camps unborn baby slaughtering shops, sewerites or queers, rapist murderers and the deliberately cruel so it is hardly likely to balk at a couple of lying mutual masturbaters setting out to trick you poor stupefied credulous Elsies, because *Everything* --Absolutely_Everything* with *No* exceptions whatsoever that either is/exists or occurs, happens, takes place or can be experienced is the wish want will or fancy or suits the purposes of whatever is, superposed to be omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent., *Or* it is not not omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. Now what do you call *that* thing? Since that thing clearly takes no exception to liars frauds misery sorrow agony and or those that appear to cause or induce those thigs , far be it fro me to criticise a couple of mutually masturbating conmen tyinfg to con half-witted Elsies that mistakenly suppose themselves to be what re called Christians, mistakenly because there are no Christians because dreaming machines simply *cannot* *Live the preceps of one Josh Bar-Joseph aka jesus christ whose teachings have *Fcuk_Nothing* to do with any thing in the Jew-book or a chapter therein called Genesis which actually*means make-it-up-as-you-go-along in Aramaic or in n babytalk Noachian floods have fcuk_nothing to do with christianity the founder of which strictly *forbade*his pupils from*believing* *Any thing , pointing out to them that one of their weaknesses was their predisposition to passive mechanical acceptance without question known as belief which is the *Exact_Opposite of Faith which has Nothing_Whatsoever to do with faith because belief is *passive* while faith must be active and impartial because it is one of the functions of reason(the capacity to apprehend what-i-and-cannot-be-different). There are vast amounts of records of the teaching of the master known as Jesus Christ which are mostly kept secret and only shown to initiates because thathat tradition which has been extinct for thousands of years was an esoteric or secret/private tradition mostly based on Egyptian traditions, old Josh having been taught by Egyptian priests. Who knows why early conmen tacked what little they could discover of his teaching onto the Jewbook which has *Absolutely_Nothing* to do with his teaching/method/way, and of course he never once in his entire life used the word god for reasons which can be found set out in the more recondite sources. Hd you sked him whether or not he supposed there to have been a noachian flood he would have shrugged his shoulders and said don't know, don't care, there are floods of various definitions all over the place from time to time and the one thing he *definitely would have said is never ever ever * believe* anything pasively mechanically-certain don't fall for that con act put on by those two lying mutual masturbators. The contrived dialogue is an old forensic trick. Anyone who says there was or that he believes there was a Noachian flood is *L-y-i-n-n-g*to you. the writers of genesis are referring to a folk memory of the creation of the Mediterranean when - at the end of an ice age , of which there have been several, the atlantic overtopped the barrier between it and what is no the Mediterranean which may have been dry land at one time, and *that* would have ben " the world" of those living there at time. The Noah tale is simply a crib or copy of the kummerian epic of Gilgamesh- is thus not original. Your " world is pretty tiny too is it not? " world " is a weasel word - a specues of blaub which can mean almost anything. The " world" of English barristers is the Inns of court in an about the temple in the city of London and it is the rather small world of those in that professionfrom which you Elsies that are cut off if not specifically excluded for the world of law is a mystery to you just as most Elsies suppose books and writing to be a sort of magic - You are like children to we your betters whom you were bred to serve. Would you agree with me that anyone callinh himself doctor that *does not* have a PhD from an accredited or proper university is a liar? You do not have a degree or any kind of higher learning, do you?Mind you these days PhDs are a dime a dozen and worthless and in kinder land - America you can buy them. not one single genuine phd from s reputable university-*not*Makeitupasyougoalong University of Ahitkicker Tennessee, will tell you that there is no evidence whatsoever if any kind of Nochian or Gilgameshian flood anywhere and the will all tell you that the two lying mutual mastUrbaters stare *L-y-i-n-**-g-*- or being wholly disingenuously selective- which is lying by any other name. Intellectual dishonesty is *still* dishonesty. "World can men anything-you please and different -things-to-different-people, and that is the trick of lying, keep your lies as generalised and-nebulous as possible and *above_all* avoid specifics. use your brains Elsie; the omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent does not, nor does it *need* to fcuk about with rain particularly when it is perfectly at ease with concentration camps slavery(to which I take no particular objection) and the slaughter of the unborn on s scale which makes the holocaust amateur or positively benevolentand can bring about an entire solsr system merely on a whim or because it said to itself 'fcuk me it's a bit dark what I need is a bit of nuclear fusion- Oops no, since I am omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent, there is no need for that shit. if it exists occurs happens or can be experienced, By_defintion I *am* it, right down to lying mutual masturbators trying to con Elsies that imagine they are Christians - which is of course impossible.
Once of the best parts about this is how contrarian the ideas are. Yet both gentlemen are able to have a respectful conversation without personal attacks on one another. In fact they complement each other multiple times even though they disagree. Hopefully this is the direction we can go in the future on a larger scale
Argumenting without lifting a finger is a gold standard in Indian Dharmic traditions. Shankara-Charya roamed allover India and won minds of Budhists in intense arguments. That tradition is rarely found in The history of Abrahamic religions - as there no way or my way
Well, that's how discussion is meant to be done. I daresay it's probably how life should be lived. Offering contrary perspectives in order to inspire others, but without trying to convince each other or fight against each other. Considering other viewpoints without feeling attacked. Thinking about what other people feel or believe without ruling out their belief, or assuming that they mean to invalidate oneself. Not dogmatically claiming to one's own perspective to be valid for everyone. It's an idealized goal, I know, but it's one to strive for. I'm pretty sad that in today's world, people more and more seem to be unable to do that.
@@amberazurescale5617 there is no such thing as different view points when dealing with facts. Its only when beliefs are involved that conflict arises.
1:19:02 I am a Buddhist (from Bangladesh) and I must say Sean Carroll is a true scientist who is so open to learn even more about reality (For the sake of Humanity) ! His last speech was amazing. However, For reference: Buddha said that even the consciousness does not have the ultimate reality, consciousness is not eternal, not constant, not lasting , therefore subject to suffering. In the Pheṇapiṇḍ-ūpama-sutta, Buddha said "Consciousness is like magician's trick in the crossroads."
You're too kind. This is a social danger of Buddhism. It's good not to assume malice where stupidity suffices as an explanation, but sometimes it is anger (i.e., willful ignorance, the cascade of disasters that follows from attachment to the contemplation of sense objects).
4 ปีที่แล้ว +3
he has more sense, the other man was really just talking nonsense.
"I am a Buddhist". What is the "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist? By making that statement, you have proved you aren't a Buddhist, but then again, as I say, what is the "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist? Answer that and you will find there is no "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist.
@Michael Terrell II the Buddhist demonstrates more openness, mental flexibility and recognition that his belief is a belief. The other guy insists that he knows, that he has facts, despite the evidence that neither one can really know. The "facts" aren't conclusive in either direction. I get a feeling of rigidity and insecurity, and that doesn't read as strength, whereas the Buddhist is asking questions, addressing doubts and speaking to the human questions of existence. That's authentic engaging. I'll take a pass on the guy who responds like a robot and is too insecure to entertain the possibility that there are things he doesn't know and can't know based on current knowledge. Meh! They're operating in two very different levels, and one of them is flat-out obnoxious in his arrogance.
@@gplionk1 Uhh the Buddhist monk forgets the unanswerable questions of buddha? "The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2[4]) also mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self. What am I? How am I? Am I? Am I not? Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, did I become what in the past? Shall I exist in future? Shall I not exist in future? What shall I be in future? How shall I be in future? Having been what, shall I become what in future? Whence came this person? Whither will he go?" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions The buddha warned against trying to "find where the mind interfaces with the brain". This Buddhist monk has a bit too much ego to be a real Buddhist. Also, this conversation was supposed to be about the "nature of reality". And the buddhist instead attacks "colonial white" science for not having a good enough measurement for the human condition? I'm with Carroll. That's a bit ego-centric
A very quick way of showing the effect of mind with matter is to say to oneself "I want to raise my arm" and raise it! Thanks for the great conversation Alan, Sean and Marcello! 🌿
@@mcgee227 science hasn't proven it instead a school of neuroscientists proposed it . There's a lot of work happening in this field to explain the phenomenon called qualia which is if mind is a biproduct of brain then how can an objective brain experience subjective feelings.
People so often confuse the mind or the personality with consciousness. The exercise of not thinking, not behaving, not acting for a few seconds is so very insightful.
Also, being silent can be very active. Meditation is active. When increasing our ken or knowledge range, what helps is to diversify different types of intelligence. Bc each gives a different perspective of life that can be revealing. If one is tuned, one can see the issue as many truths and how limited our thinking can be. It is limited by one’s freedom of choice, we let go by our choice to believe. When we learn how illusory speech is, then we see more.
All the blablablahbla aside, ask a Buddhist, why women are never to be seen, or heard or exercise power, on equal terms like Buddhist men do. Have done for 2000+ years. What a bullshit religion. Like all organised religions.
@@AudioPervert1 What? There are many different sects and monasteries that practice Buddhism. One example is Plum Village and they have many woman speakers and leaders. Even the Buddha himself spoke of an even more enlightened form of equality: seeing a person rather than a woman. There is a great quote I'll paraphrase here: "The wise man compares himself to no one. He seeks not what others have and does not pride himself on what he has. The wise man does not see himself as greater than, lesser than, or equal to others, for he is others and others are himself. Then, how could he be equal, less, or more than anyone else?" One of the core tenants on Buddhism as a whole is interconnectedness, and this is what dissolves any notion of us being seperate, which is where the terms "equal, lesser, and better" come from.
amazed that i watch and listened to the whole video without skipping. what i learned.. is that .. there is hope for humanity.. after witnessing this respectful conversation between two very reverential gentlemen with diverse viewpoints. kudos to the moderator too.
I felt exactly the same way, like I just watched one of the most remarkable exchanges of 3 very kind, open-minded and thoughtful humans! There was healthy skepticism, not cynicism, and so much hope and wonder!
Metacognition also indicatively accelerates evolution because obtaining the ability to understand our own consciousness is another layer of reality which happens to be the layer that perceives and unifies all others, including the biological makeup of our brains. Thus our brains begin to physically adapt to our own changes in pattern of thought overtime, because thought exists at the physical level shared at the same biological transparency.
Seems logical and common sense to me. But of course there are those who say that any insights you have about consciousness are delusory because science though.
@@MackemChops If you are blind and deaf than you have no visual or auditory consciousness. You still have mental consciousness. Of course the self is not an object of consciousness and is unknowable. The mind, however, is an umbrella term for all conscious processes which they can be reduced down to (sensory and mental) and their functions (perception and so on).... Parts of the mind can indeed observe other parts of the mind. The mental consciousness can observe what the sensory cosciousnesses observe and form opinions about appearances. When you are observing the self, what is it that you are observing? Obviously, not the self, but merely the mind. But then, what is consciousness? Can it be identified?
Language is completely inadequate. So open to interpretation. The experience of consciousness is entirely within an individual. I may be able to share your experience but I can never have your experience
Indian practices include trans-person experiences. But that's aside the point. Why do you want anyone else's experience? That is one of the beneifts of interpretive meaning. You are provided with a structure upon which you can build an understanding if you want.
@@deeplorable8988 I particulaly didn't see anyone being humiliated by anyone. Both managed to express their respective points and didn't contradict themselves. For me was just one more discussion on physicalism.
@@deeplorable8988 What? are you stupid? HE wasn't called out for racism against anyone. You can't be racist towards a philosophical system. He's probably skeptical of eastern mysticism ...but he's also skeptical of western mysticism.
I am a Sri Lankan and i am a Buddhist. Really proud to be a Buddhist. Our teaching is very special. It is teach us many thing about our mind. Warmly welcome who is going to study about the budhdha and Buddhism. You will be luckiest and you are special ❤❤❤❤🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰
@@SoreInMusic their english is incredibly decent considering their natural language doesn't even share the same kind of alphabet! :) I've been struggling enough with french which isn't even very far from my native tongue!
Congratulations to the all participants in this conversation. Alan and Sean are belong the same quality of humans, respectful. honest, lovers of truth and experts in their fields. Even though I am an atheist and follower of the scientific method, seem to me that science should be open to consider the possibility that maybe Nature has some aspect that escape the scientific measurement, until now. We need more research and absolutely no dogma. Thank you for sharing such interesting conversation.
i agree with you brother. But I would argue that materialistic reductionism, and identification to any sort of method is dogma because it is an attempt to encapsulate reality, but reality cannot be encapsulated by anything. Its simply a filter of understanding. This is why consciousness is the hardest problem of science because its attempting to measure and localize it somewhere in the body. This is not possible because consciousness is not physical, and exists outside the boundaries of space and time.
@@FreakMeat74 "Even though I am an athiest and follower of the scientific method, seem to me that science should be open to consider the possibility that maybe nature has some aspect that escape the scientific measurment." Well then.....you aren't an athiest.... Lololol. Nor a follower of science.
@@zach3305 So one can't identify as an atheist or user of the scientific method and yet also be open to further data/possibilities? How do you think science advances? Lol you silly guy.
This is a DIALOGUE, nothing more. Food for the mind. So just take it as that, and enjoy. Maybe it will spark something within you, which is the ultimate point of this being presented for you. It's not a contest of who's right, or, who has evidence supporting the points they make.
Couldn't agree more...... BUT this is TH-cam and us humans being what we are, we will protect the reality we perceive as if our lives depended on it. 1st rule, All things perceive their own reality. 2nd, reality is greater than the sum of it's parts. 3rd, the only source of knowledge is experience. I could go on but wars are fought over definitions of reality. We even murder each other defending our realities. So while you are correct, I counsel wisdom and understanding as the solution not correct behavior
People's belief systems are at threat here. The three things you aren't supposed to discuss in polite company are sex, politics and religion - but especially religion. The first one irritates people, the second pisses them off, the third drives them batshit crazy.
Very nice discussion to watch. Should be an example for how to have discussion in general. Calm, open minded, humble, and yet extremely enriching and informative.
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
As an engineer and astrophysics enthusiast I really admire Sean and I appreciate all that he has done for science but I've always had an intuitive belief that what makes us human - our consciousness, is simply something that science have not been able to explain and I don't think they ever will because just like what Alan said, you can't measure it.
You can't measure because it has no affect, no influence. If it had an influence then it could be measured. "Consciousness" is a problem because it is so ill-defined. It means one thing in one context (say awareness) and something else in another (some spirit inside). That sort of fuzziness is the cause of all sort of muddled thinking.
@ you're confusing the inputs and outputs of consciousness with consciousness itself. It's like saying your computer is frozen when really the mouse and keyboard are unplugged. Or suggesting that the batteries of an RC drone control it's movement because the drone doesn't move when you remove the batteries.
Consciousness is the fabric of reality. What is there to experience of seeing for example other than the knowing of it? What is there to the experience of hearing other than the knowing of it? Knowing or consciousness is the underlying ground of everything. Without it, nothing could exist. Or if it did - nothing would be there to know it.
I am old enough to remember a time before the internet. Seriously, people's attention spans were much longer then, mine was too. I could listen to a 1 hour lecture no problem, most of my friends could. Now people can usually not focus for longer than 5 or 10 minutes.
This was a great discussion: The chasm existing between matter and consciousness IS in fact the prime directive of material-based science itself. If it can't be measured physically then Sean has made up his MIND that it is not part of the universe. Alan points out perfectly that it is this scientific point of view which is firmly entrenched into its very own 3D physical hole of matter, space and time. It suggests that we become what we think; attaching meaning to certain thoughts over and over becomes that body-mind problem alluded to in the conversation. It doesn't take a PhD or a Doctorate to understand that consciousness precedes everything: Without consciousness there is no thought, no body, no things, no time. Every human being experiences this every time they lie down and rest in dreamless sleep. Would love to see more of this type of dialog between the scientific and philosophical in public. Although Sean wasn't prepared to begin to explore his own experience of consciousness during this talk, certainly there are many other scientists that would open to doing so: Sean needs to brush up on 21st century neuroscience, which has discovered that the heart also contains neurons, and is in fact more powerful than the brain in terms of generating electromagnetic energy. The science of body mind exists today - relevant discoveries made within the fields of epigenetics, neuroplasticity, cognitive neuroscience, endocrinology, and in the latest field of psychoneuroimmunology reveal that the mind (thought) and the body (experience) are intricately linked and intertwined. The Institute of Noetic Sciences has been around since 1975 - it is a research center and direct-experience lab whose mission for the last 45 years has been to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through scientific exploration and personal discovery. Main-stream scientists' understanding of consciousness is long overdue and must begin exploring the fundamental cause of mind, thought, emotions, the body, and everything we see and experience in our physical existence - it originates in this conscious waking 3D dream we call life on Earth.
Beautiful and unfortunately too true, Sean conveniently leaves out non locality and the double split experiment which provides evidence that an intelligent observer creates reality. Therefore our most up-to date scientific thinking is that non- local consciousness creates our 3d reality we live in.
I wish he would have asked him about so many people today they are pronounced clinically dead and brought back that describe seeing their loved one who passed on, and they all describe similar things, Also people that have been in comas say they could hear and knew everything being said and done. I think the reason they have so much trouble understanding quantum physics it because it is hitting on the supernatural, such as something being in 2 places at once or communication across vast distances. The CIA was using remote viewers to spy on the Russians and visa versa. There are documented cases of spontaneous healing. The placebo effect is well known to science, I just wish they had discussed some of these things.
Great conversation! For all who want to experience what Allan is talking about - try Vipassana meditation. There should be a center nearby you and they teach you for free and in the same way that the Buddha taught 2500 years ago.
@@myutubechannel_nr1 this actually perfectly summarizes the fundamental difference... it's a matter of levels of awareness. you can tell if someone works out because their physiology reflects it, very clearly. how can you tell if someone is lying? what if someone is on the verge of having an epilepsy flare up or if they're about to break down into tears if you say something triggering? each of these involve different observable patterns present in an individual that, if you can pick up on and know what they mean, lead you to certain conclusions/hypotheses.
The hard problem of consciousness is the core of this debate and the general public, including most scientists, need to realise that this IS a huge blind spot in contemporary science, as Alan Wallace correctly points out. The colour red is not a particle nor made of particles. There are physical causes and conditions which allow the colour to manifest to us, but that does not explain for subjective experience of the colour arising in consciousness and it cannot be measured empirically. There are some comments here which argue that Alan is talking a load of jibberish and yet they are comfortable with Sean's technical jargon because they either have a pre-established bias to accepting what he says or have studied the same theories and realised their underlying truth. Alan has his own jargon which anyone who is experienced with meditation is very comfortable with. Observe your critical stance and test it yourself, don't just allow this to be another habitual fobbing off of what you already regard as nonsense.
1+1= 3 .......reality is more than the sum of it's parts. If you are sensitive you know this organically, if you are not, the natural evolution of your consciousness will lead you to that place eventually. Whether you like it or not. It's that last part that scares the control driven, science fundamentalist types.
Knowing it organically will not be enough to change the overall situation, though. In order to enact real change, we need to be able to prove this mathematically and in physics. And also, we need to find ways to make deeper experiences of reality more widely available, because by far the biggest reason there is such questioning of subjective experience is because it takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort to deeply shift your perception. Things that may be evident to Alan Wallace after 50,000 hours of meditation (according to himself) are simply not accessible to the 99% of us who do not have that kind of time to burn on retreat or whatever. Dude started when he was 20 and was a monk for 14 years.
+valar well we've kinda been here before, we agree about a lot BUT we disagree about some important things. My view, my reality is that nothing is broken so nothing needs to be fixed. There is nnnothing to be proved we don't all have to agree. I've meditated off and on for many years. The growth I've experienced is relative to my level of awareness. Tibetan Buddhists say it is useless to expect a child to understand tantric realities. Another way to say this is to each his/her own according to his/her capacity. Some people, like Dan will not be available to input that does not conform to their preconceptions because they are just not ready.
Sorry, I often forget things that I post :) But yeah, we very much disagree on the subject of skillful means and that's fair. Time will tell as to this subject in the next few decades. On the other hand, I would be open to debate with Dan if he showed any interest whatsoever in engaging other than to swear at us and sort-of-not-but-actually-really compared us to ISIS.
Thank you for this fascinating discourse exploring our reality through physics, the intellect, consciousness and the supernatural. Since mankind hasn’t found the answers after thousands of years of inquiry perhaps we could serve the universe better through love.
Throwing in my two cents. As a Zog Chen Buddhist for 45 years and an ardent follower of physics as well, I found the talk fascinating, erudite and enlightening with a lot of great ideas from both sides. I didn't even see them very much at odds with each other. Physics and Buddhism are two sides of the same coin and using them together is useful in understanding the nature of reality and the mind. Bravo to both of you.
Could explain to me how physics and Buddhist philosophy are "two sides of the same coin" given that one is based upon presuppositions of materialism and the other presuppositions of idealism? Or am I confused? Thanks :)
And Buddhism doesn't presuppose idealism. Both materialism and idealism are concepts, which means they exist only relatively. Science and Buddhism are tools to transcend conceptual thinking when practiced at the highest level. There are no limits to what one can achieve (whether it's Neils Bohr and quantum law or a Buddha's understanding of the ultimate empty nature of the mind beyond relativity) By talking about a presupposition of materialism and idealism you're limiting their scopes. This is why I said it's two sides of the same coin.
Wow you're smart. But you can be too smart if you're trying to find absolute truth. The truth that never changes. Instead of holding on to your clever arguments and opinions look at the mind itself. Not what it creates but what it is. Neurons firing, creating illusions we think are real. But the past doesn't exist, it's gone. The future isn't here yet. The only thing we have is this "now" which isn't even now, because that's another concept we've created in our minds. We create reality inside our brain. Colors for instance don't exist out there, but inside our head. It's just various wave lengths. In truth the yellow door is blank. And... there is no door, only a bunch of atoms thrown together giving the illusion of one to our eyes. But this isn't to be understood intellectually, but to be seen by examining the mind and transcending these concepts that haunt us from the moment we're born to the moment we die. It's not easy, but it's possible. Stop being attached to concepts. It's all a cosmic joke.That's real Buddhism, not all the cultural nonsense, mystical claptrap or superstitions. I agree with you there. Even this is all blah, blah, blah. We can do this dance forever but we'll be forever dancing in circles getting nowhere until this is understood.
Wow that was a mouthful. You got your bases covered don't you? And you believe everything you think. Your brain is your ultimate arbiter. Annabel Boissevain's comment below said it correctly. It's like describing the color red to a blind man. My conclusions aren't coming from more thoughts, they are from a direct experience of what thoughts are...empty. And there is no ego thinking them. That's also an illusion. This "enlightenment" can't be scientifically proven (yet) but can be understood as clearly as the hand in front of your face. I'm not downgrading scientific thought. In the relative world it rules supreme. But science (as all relative truth) has its limits. This is simple, look at the mind itself and see it's emptiness. It takes practice but I've been doing it for 45 years. This isn't a new construct we create, this is the mother of all truths. But again, if you haven't discovered it, it'll seem like gobbledygook and you'll dismiss it out of hand. And by the way, I wasn't being pompous. I was being snarky. And I apologize. However, we both know this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. I do wish you the best. I admire your mind. You're brilliant and if that's enough for you, that's great. I'm not being sarcastic here. Our lives are brief and whatever gets us through the day without hurting other people is all right with me. I've enjoyed our exchange but I think I'm done. Not sure yet.
Okay. Let's keep going. Let me try to be clearer now that you dazzled me with your verbal fireworks. If I burn my hand on a stove or I'm tickled, I don't need a double blind experiment to tell me what's happened. It's self evident. I'm not saying meditation frees me from thought or I go into some reverie. It's not a new experience. It's an acknowledgment. The analogy is, you're having a nightmare and suddenly recognize you're dreaming, you can keep the dream but now the images have no power to cause suffering. That's all Zog Chen meditation is. Recognizing, when you're awake, that you don't have to be attached to these ephemeral thoughts. This isn't about proving it's existence or whether it's scientifically feasible. It's looking at the mind directly and recognizing it's essential nature. If I understood Allan Wallace correctly he was saying science doesn't spend time delving into this aspect of the mind. That it's not a worthy endeavor. And yet, this is the root of everything. Our mind. It deserves more investigation.No?
@@talastra Feyman was being humble. He also said: if you think you understand quantum mechanics; then you don't understand it. Does that mean it's pointless in trying to understand it? No!
@@deeplorable8988 yeah but his ego is so strong and hes happy that hes about to sell books. I wish he would take some mushrooms or something and get another perspective.
Bryan Guilford I remember hearing him say he took LSD with his wife when she was writing a book about something related, but he never disclosed the dosage. I doubt it was very high.
Sean Carroll is famous for using words such as "the short answer is ... we don't know" when asked about Quantum Mechanics many years ago. Well at least he is honest. But time can change a person. I am not saying he is lying now.
Deepak Bellur Emptiness is form and form is emptiness There is no other form than emptiness and there is no other emptiness than form. Arya Nagarjuna. 1st century Buddhist master.
Another way of framing the question is how the mind and the brain interact? One Buddhist view is that mind is not produced by the brain but is transformed by the brain. Hence the differences in experience when our brains are affected by physical substances, activities, injuries etc.
@@RolandANambo Emptiness is a somewhat clumsy translation of 'Sunyata' which means 'hollowness' which at least implies a certain structure. So emptiness, in this sense is not nothingness. Neither does it assert a concrete, inherently existent reality. It walks the middle way, between these two extremes.
Simple, at the fundamental level of the universe, there is no difference between mind and matter- everything is just vibrating energy. Inthe video the Buddhist mentioned how we really aren’t sure if we are the only conscious beings or if its possible that elementary particles are conscious too. The view that everything is conscious is called panpsychism. In going off of a panpsychist view, once the fundamental conscious particles of the universe become more and more complex and folds in on its self (allowing the transfer of information) is where you get more complex forms of consciousness. (For example microbes to fish to humans) To answer your question it is not matter that is affecting the consciousness- it is the fundamental consiousness that is affecting our own consciousness mind.
Great Discussion. I have watched Carroll's other videos and liked them. Here Carroll's belief seems to be deeply rooted in physicalism and realism. But as Alan Wallace pointed out Quantum Physics has not yet solved the "observer effect". So, consciousness and "first-person experience of the mind" are crucial to understanding the nature of reality. Alan Wallace is very eloquent in putting forth his points. As he said, we need a lot more empirical research into the mind and consciousness from a first-person perspective. And I am glad that Carroll is open to evidence like any good scientist should be.
This was one of the most stimulating, coolest talks I've heard in awhile :) I'm glad ignored all the comments that essentially painted Allan Wallace as a dolt that just didn't listen to Sean Carroll, or provide any real challenge to Sean Carroll. The dialogue Wallace provided was really really thought provoking (to me at least), particularly highlighting the axioms Carroll rests upon. Very very cool talk.
Very cool, please he was talking out of bottom. Do Buddhist not know how to use pencils, and tell us about mind instead of telling us that we must mediate.
@@SudhirYadav-kz6ts But you can explain physics to a small child, they might not be able to do math. Also our experience can be fooled, how do I know you are really seeing my blue?. My model of the world absolutely does not come from my experience, how can I experience the very small Bacteria? the very large Supernovae? My model is constantly updated by the scientific method. Ask anybody who has taken LSD do they trust experience.
@@TheReferrer72 They tell you to experience it yourself through meditation and not take it as gospel. There are sutras that explain what is explainable though, so yeah pencils.
@@TheReferrer72 The facts born out of the scientific method are themselves experiences of the scientists who declared those facts out of observations and interpretation of their experiences. You can certainly experience bacteria, because since it is a scientific fact, you can re-experience what the original scientists did by just doing their experiments and then interpreting what you observe and measure, with some sort of generally agreed-upon standard of qualitative and quantitative measurements. You can also experience supernovae the same way. Because scientific facts are borne out of experiences, then your own points about the fallibility of experience necessarily implies the fallibility of the very scientific facts that you say that you value over facts borne from your own experiences. "Facts from experiences of individual observers are fallible and unreliable, so I will instead rely on facts from the experiences of individual observers" is what you're saying. The difference with scientific facts and your own facts are not that they are derived in fundamentally different ways (they are fundamentally derived in the same way), but that your own facts are most likely to be done with faulty or incorrect interpretation as compared to the scientist's interpretations of their experiences.
I've been watching these types of video long enough to know the terminology. So I can sound smart ane regurgitate the types of things I hear smart people say but what it all means, how it all works and why it's all there are complete mysteries to me. I also don't understand what roll the knowledge that everything is made of quarks, particles and atoms is supposed to play in my life. Can I make decisions about what to do using the knowledge of physics? How is this useful to the average person? On the other hand, buddhism and particularly zen buddhism have drastically changed the way I operate on a daily basis. I find this knowledge useful day to day.
In a lot of ways they point to the same thing. By the nature of observation we change the state of the observed. Therefore by creating an explanation of something you create an abstraction from what is real. So what is real? Experience is real, being present and aware is real but when we describe experience there is an abstraction from what is real. This is not good or bad, it is only when we become attached to beliefs and identities that we loose the awareness of experience and now we are in illusion. Bring awareness to the illusion and it will dissolve. We can practice this in everyday life when we feel a disproportionate reaction to a situation/experience in our bodies. A disproprtionate reaction is a sign the egoic identity/illusion is in play. Become aware of the illusory nature of the belief arising and also what is real (for me I come to you inherently belong, you are inherently lovable and you are inherently valuable as all of the universe is) Science is symbolic, (as is language) it is a description of phenomena. to truly understand we have to experience.
"I also don't understand what role the knowledge that everything is made of quarks, particles, and atoms is supposed to play in my life. Can I make decisions about what to do using the knowledge of physics? How is this useful to the average person? " To give a little pushback, this knowledge, or worldview if you will, may not be useful for the average person, but we would not be having this conversation if this worldview didn't exist. The modern era is marked by the rapid development of scientific thinking and the technology that comes from it. So it may not interest you, but the reality that the rules of the universe are discernable and then predictable by motivated humans so that we can do things that would have been considered magic yesterday or a century ago sure as hell is useful to you in a way. Like us being able to communicate on an internet video comment section is a pretty amazing thing unimaginable to previous generations. So as the Buddhist guy Allan Wallace said more or less, it's still a useful worldview, but that doesn't mean it's fair to say it is the fundamental worldview or axiomatic worldview. Perhaps 'consciousness' should be what we pay attention to more than the 'natural' or 'physical' world. Or perhaps the natural world really should be our focus as we will only be able to survive as a species for much longer if we really master the natural world. Who knows for sure?
Actually, it could be extremely helpful, as its the basis of neuroscience, which can provide useful, insightful, and in my opinion, empathetic explanations for why we think and feel and behave the way we do. Neuroscience isn't as old as other branches of science, but its made significant progress that mystics and even some physicists ( not Sean) utterly ignore.
A both a student of science and a student of Vipassana meditation I have come to place each path to knowledge in its own domain. Science is the exploration of external reality and the modelling of this experience in language that is logically consistent and objectively verifiable. The original purpose of the teaching of Goetma before it was co-opted into a formal religion was to explain the cause and cure for the suffering of human beings based on his subjective examination of his personal consciousness. As he pointed out many times, the truth for him is not your truth. The truth that someone else tells you or that you believe is true because you revere a teacher or god is still not your truth. Only through the practice of meditation can you experience your own truth of the cessation of suffering. Science is more flexible. Most physicists have never actually done the fundamental calculations or reproduced the experiments of the giants of science in their own training. They accept these models of reality because they trust the methods used allow their truth to be regenerated. For Buddhists the only truth is the subjective experience of liberation and freedom from suffering that comes from meditating in the same way as people before you have been successful with. Buddhism is more a folk medical practice and not really an attempt to explain reality in any objective way. This ignores the suttas from the advanced Buddhist philosophies that were incorporated by Brahmin priests and later Mahayana schools long after Goetma died. The one thing that both Buddhists and Quantum Physicists do agree on is that everything is in a process of constant change. Reality in terms of eternal essences that transcend time and space can't exist.
Nature only changes in form but that’s what keeps it consistent. Reality is nature and that itself is eternal and it’s true essence. It also transcends time and space in how it performs in time and space. Reality is just this, dualistic and infinite. Infinite in silence though and only in silence is where nature can truly exist formless.
Wrong. Basis to all Buddhist practice is the trust in the teachings itself or the teacher you listen to. It's not just sitting down and training awareness, the practice is interwoven with teachings. And that's far from being 100% subjective aka. "rely only on your own experiences". The moment, you turn to (any kind of) teachings, you are not purely subjective anymore. So, this is similar to the trust of the Physics scholars trusting their scientific predecessors (as you pointed out). Furthermore, if you try to figure out everything by yourself, you are limiting your insights about reality immensely, bc then you highly underestimate the mental prowess of the last 100-200 years Science scholars. There were and are some damn smart people out there without an religious agenda. I practice Buddhist meditation myself, but if I want to more about the beginning and course of our Universe, I'd rather ask an astro physicist.
@@jonathanwaltherNo Johnathan, WRONG! Guru just means dispeller of darkness. That doesn't necessarily mean a person. It's called self realization for a reason.
They all make very good points and all have aspects of truth in what they had to say. I'm excited to see what the world of science proves to be in the future.
Its simple, just like Allan Wallace said thats what everyones missing. Even with science expanding every year and there being breakthroughs; theres always some sort of missing puzzle to the piece and that is people are not studying the mind. Without this, science in itself will not give you a fundamental answer to this question.
Consciousness in its Utilitarian form is a string of recorded subjective experience of a living being that evolved to form the ability to record said experience. Not only to react but to participate in the timing of its environment. Consciousness is Memories. Memories came from evolution. And this is the same reason why writing and reading became the paradigm shift of our global civilization because memory can be passed down through generations w.o exhaustive life cycles. From that evolution you can repose that Consciousness is a constant for Life evolution. But it is not central to what the universe is. The highest form of consciousness in the universe will be that of the indigenous Americans doing bushfires to clear forest floors of dead leaves. Keeping the pristine condition of the universe while being unnoticeable in its grandest schemes. I would also like to add in an individual levels that when someone is UNCONSCIOUS. The body is alive yet it is not recording the experience of its current environment. Which is why for anyone who wants to use the mystery of consciousness to be the last bastion of "life after death"... They perhaps not have seen someone who has Alzheimer's. Someone's Consciousness slowly dying whilst the body continues to live. In that Utilitarian sense, thode that are conscious are often social brings, meaning that their actions in their environment will have ripple effects down the social line. Dus perhaps legacy and "life after death" and why people indigenous folks believe that even after death we live on as long as the memory of us lives on the living or has the effect of that life lived.
First off, thanks to both of these guys for keeping this a formal dialogue and respecting each other's differences. That should be the main focus whenever we have any types of discussions. Second, this discussion captures the 2 sides of the same coin which we call reality. There's the quantitative (what you can measure) and the qualitative (what you experience; qualia). Neither can prove their existence purely by using what can be observed in both those realms. This is the reason why I respect Sean Carroll for coming because in his mind(the quantitative mindset), if there is no physical evidence to prove your claim, then it is invalid. However, he came on to hear a new perspective so he can ponder about the questions which were presented. But the main argument that Allan Wallace presented is that all we know fundamentally is what in the mental, which is the qualitative (our consciousness). Our earliest memories are memories of our emotions to a specific occurrence. It is not a quantitative memory. These are things that we can not measure physically, at least not yet. This is the part that Western objective science has neglected and should incorporate so that there is a full description of the 2 sided coin that we call reality. I think having both these 2 types of "radical" viewpoints expresses their ideas was a great balance. We should look at the world objectively so we can remove all the invalid superstitious beliefs but we should not neglect the very perceiving force which is experiencing life on all levels of existence.
What a brilliant dialogue between these two fantastic men! Sean is an excellent/ impeccable speaker and Alan is captivating! I am so happy so have seen this video! I will be watching it again and again
Indeed, these interdisciplinary exchanges are vital to humanity beginning to better understand ourselves, each other and our place in the universe. I truly felt these erudite individuals conducted a challenging discourse and debate with mutual respect and some good humor. And now I am fascinated with the idea of studying states of consciousness with careful scientific rigor. Thank you. ☯️
Buddhism is empirical science. I born and brought up in a Buddhist family and I am an atheist. Both goes hand in hand. There is no compulsion to accept or deny any sort of theories/ Dogma that are existed.Buddha himself said and bluntly quote that,” don’t believe anything because it is written in a auspicious book or said by someone revered or even said by me, if is isn’t confirmed by evidence “. I think that’s one of the most scientific thing that anyone could say.
What about karma, reincarnation, nirvana? Buddhism is an ancient version of Phenomenology, so it has many of the same insights as Schopenhauer and the Existentialists.
@@aesop1451 Schopenhauer BORROWED ideas from Buddhism. And the influence of that religion on existentialists like Sartre, Beckett, Camus, Ionesco, y Gassett, etc., is negligible if not nil.
he has debated all the neuroscientists from chalmers to christof koch. the downside of that is you are dealing with 19th century physics. he prefers to debate with leading quantum physicists such as anton zeilinger.
@@backwardthoughts1022 neuroscientists have bad physics. physicists have bad neuroscience. This is why materialist scientists can't seem to manage to tackle the qualia question.
@@Otome_chan311 that colors sounds etc are not part of any physics model does not mean that very good biology such as discriminating neural correlates with precision is not possible or very useful. its very useful. for example we have located the neural correlates for attention and concentration and can now empirically state that the avg person is capable of 2 seconds max on avg concentration, whereas the rare genuine tibetan buddhist can remain not for seconds or minutes but entire multiple hours in perfect single-pointed concentration that is unimpinged and uninterrupted by any external sensory stimulus or internal distraction. these are minor example of things that should not be humanly possible that can only be taken seriously by physicalist thanks to their physics etc.
It feels to me that the brain is the epiphenomena of the mind, and the wise attitude towards reality is just curiosity and agnosticism. We can know some things, but Mystery is greater.
I believe the Buddha was really enlightened since his teachings conclusively explained for everything including those that science couldn't answer and all his teachings have not found to be wrong, bad, illogical or debunked.
We learn - sometimes in life - or the after life (Bardo) or then - in the new life. We know things - in the heart - that we have never learnt - in the mind. It awakens an interest and then we may do - some research and then - if deep enough - the learning - increases vastly - about the wonder of life etc. To learn about transmigration - is to really enhance - the potential of humanity. Or, we do not do anything - to learn about ourselves - in this regard. Fare thee well.@@พิมพันธ์สุรางค์กูร
Death is not the opposite of life, death is the opposite of birth. Before birth, during life and after death we were, we are and we will be an integral part of the Infinite Cosmic Consciousness that permeates everyone and everything ❤
Nothing magical of conscientious whatever. This religious chap keeps asserting mind this and mind that. Minds are made of matter, and matter is made of atoms. We don't know of any minds that exist apart of material so he is taking nonsense. It's all bunk.
@JohnGrove310 I can say a complete opposite of what you said and it would be also a valid conclusion. Since everything we know is from our senses and in our minds, existence of material world can't be proven. Yes, there are some rules that our experience does follow which results in laws in physics but it doesn't change the fact that it's still within our minds. There are things that are missing and we don't or can't take into account, that's why this duality of interpretations is possible.
@@JohnGrove310matter has never been found outside of consciousness, no one has ever experienced matter without consciousness. Consciousness is the only constant experienced.... not matter. You may have "faith" that matter exists outside consciousness, but I don't care about faith or some physicalism of the gaps arguments, stick with your actual experience and stop appealing to complexity.
"The greatest gains and values are farthest from being appreciated. We easily come to doubt if they exist. They are the highest reality. It is a little star dust caught, a segment of the rainbow which I have clutched." --- Henry David Thoreau
Highlight of this talk at 1:13:00-1:19:00 -Allan Wallace raises testable theory of a deeper level of consciousness - reached through 10-12 hours of meditation - where memories are stored, including memories from past lives. Reports that thousands of Asian contemplative practitioners have observed this. Plans to start a contemplative research centre to investigate formally. Very intriguing
I think he’s already started it and has the land. There are other tests he wants to do as well. Some meditators have reached a level of calm abiding or shamata which is like a level of focus that leads to siddhis. Siddhis are powers that some would deem supernatural but Alan is hoping to prove real through the hard work of meditation. One such power is the ability to tell when people or conscious beings are in a 50 foot radius. So the plan is to get the meditator deprived of normal senses that could detect a person in their vicinity and see if they indeed have this ability. It’s really exciting how Alan wants to demistify the results of shamata and vipasana (insight/inquiry). And the Dalai Lama supports him in this effort.
There is no past life memory. Just like there is no past life body. Just like the body disintegrates, consciousness if there was any, would have also completely disintegrated. Infact consciousness starts building and disintegrating in sync with the body. We slowly start becoming forgetful, lose power to learn and adapt.
@@michaelrosen5333 but the evidence that we have does seem to support it. That our consciousness only lasts for as long as we have a working body. Watching someone succumb to Altzheimers, for example, will show you someone slowly disappearing as their brain physically deteriorates. They are, in effect, “dying in slow motion.” And you get to witness them leaving until at last they are gone. There is no objective evidence that their consciousness is “living on” in some sense independent of their physical body. I don’t like these facts myself. I object to “Physicalism.” I feel sure there must be a “mental sphere” in which thoughts and sensations exist distinct from the physical operation of nerve impulses. But I can find NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for such a belief.
I am a Buddhist. I am a poet. And also a scientist who’s spent most of his life immersed in the scientific exploration of consciousness. That said, I find that my sympathies are closer to Sean’s in this discussion. Alan largely frames his perspective in terms of what we perceive as central to reality, the different perspectives we might hold as our fulcrum in trying to understand the world. That focus on centrality is why Sean’s reference to Copernicus is so salient. But what I find most fascinating about our particular universe is that through its history our cosmos has promoted a stable succession of ever more complex emergent layers of organization. Quarks and gluons gave rise to primitive nuclei. Then the plasma cooled enough for electrons to be captured, forming simple atoms. Then slight anisotropies allowed gravity to organize primordial stuff into lumps that became stars and galaxies and planets. Then some of those stars fused simple atoms into heavier, more complex ones and blew them out into space as supernovae or spectacular interstellar collisions. Then chemistry used those atoms in places like our planet to form geological systems and promote the growth of regular patterns like crystals that may, along with other emerging chemical features like lipid coacervates, have served as the precursors to make protected bubbles of even higher organization that emerged over time as autonomous cells. And then, these cells developed into communities - probably in ways and through teleological pathways that we little understand but that preceded our more familiar notion of Darwinian imperatives. And then those most primitive drives evolved to support perception and purposeful action and the earlies stages of conscious choice. Then language and persistence of thought through time and across generations (lots of steps skipped here!!) and in time reached our current stage of awareness, including introspection about the nature of introspection itself. Even with all these emergent layers, consciousness remains difficult to understand for the same reason we can’t see our own eyes. Our eyes are always occupied looking out at the world and are therefore unavailable to look directly back at themselves. This is a good analogy for why we need science, using our minds to reflect back to us what our eyes and experiences suggest but can’t directly perceive. My point is that the question about the nature of reality is less about what we prefer to put in the center of our worldview - physics, psychology, primordial/universal consciousness - ¬ than an appreciation for the exquisite choreography of stages and levels of ever more rarified and complex emergent phenomena. I love the stories our ancestors have told and preserved through the generations. Taken as a whole, they describe the ladder humanity has, and continues, to climb, towards ever greater understanding. As the late Paul Grobstein said, science isn’t ultimately about being right. It’s about being progressively less wrong. Amen (or Svāhā, if you prefer)!
Wonderful reading your lengthy comment. I am a novice to Buddha Dhamma coming from Evangelical Christian tradition. Metta to all sentient beings [that drew me into Buddhism]
@@timetoreason7090 Hi there. I'm glad you liked my comment. I actually love the original Christian teachings. From the perspective of our lived human experience, putting the primacy of love in the center, holding a spiritual imperative to find compassion and connection in even the most unlikely places, is a pretty great teaching. I think if I had been alive in the age of early Christianity I would probably have been a follower. But the gospels took the story of a man, living a wise man's life and making a great soul's sacrifice in order to demonstrate the transcendent power of love ("Father...forgive them" etc.) and turned it into a Marvel superhero comic with ever more outlandish sci-fi embellishments. That, for me, is the worm in the apple that over the centuries transformed a simple and beautiful teaching about universal love and turned it into a kind of Disneyland commercial operation - from selling indulgences in the middle ages so that reprehensible behaviors could be "erased" in the eyes of God by paying off the priests to the mega-churches of today that are nothing more than a con game played against the gullible. It's not just the crimes I hate - it's that good-hearted people looking for love and meaning in their lives are being fed a false diet and in the end are actually be cheated out of the great lessons attributed to Jesus. Sorry for the rant - I really care about this stuff. I love Buddhism because there are still teachings that retain the original notion that the Buddha was just a man, one who, like Jesus, attained a transcendent understanding of the world and attempted to teach people about it. There are certainly sects within Buddhism that fused the simplicity of the original teachings with existing religious traditions. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is filled with God and Monsters that are nowhere in the actual teachings of the Buddha but carried over from local traditions - much like we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December but there's no historical information that this date has anything to do with the birth of Jesus. Actually, that was the date of the Roman holiday Sol Invictus - the day associated with the sun reaching its lowest point in the sky and then beginning to climb again - the victory (Invictus) of the sun (Sol) over darkness. Anyway, science is supposed to be free of such biases and preferences - but it's not. I don't know if you're aware of Sean's dedication to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but he points out that it's practically taboo to study the foundations and deeper meaning of quantum theory. "Just shut up and calculate!" is the way many scientists approach the foundations of physics, but Sean - whether or not I always agree with him - is a rabble rouser, and good on him! OK - it seems I like to write a lot of words, but I hope you enjoy them. I understanding a rational person wanting to leave the evangelical world behind and I salute you - but I hope you can also retain that spiritual dedication to love and compassion so richly present in the original teachings of Jesus who, like the Buddha, Sean Carroll, and you and I, are simply good people trying to make sense of a complex world and experience both love and reason living in harmony. Peace.
Beautifully put! The most incredible thing about being a conscious being at this precise time in history is the cognitive access to the emergent layers of reality. Our ability, because of what we know and continue to learn, to feel a seemingly limitless sense of awe is something I am ever growing in gratitude towards.
Right off the bat, one thing that bothers me is Sean Carroll's use of the word "contain" when discussing how everything in the room works on a molecular level. Our bodies do not contain atoms, we are atoms. There's no container that is not made up of atoms. The particles are not in us, we are them. There is no physical separation in the interaction between our beings and the rest of the world on a molecular level.
@@a.bagasm.7253 If you believe that consciousness exists, then either a collection of atoms can have consciousness or atoms themselves have consciousness. With regard to reality, a physicist says only atoms are reality, whereas, a Buddhist says consciousness is reality and atoms are a way of measuring the physical reality of consciousness.
@@maketracksoffroad6602 atoms combined in very specific ways to make neural cells which combined and connected in specific ways to allow consciousness to emerge. There's no magic involved - just the magnificent emergence of new properties caused by the right combinations and interactions of molecules. For example: Hydrogen and oxygen combine in specific ways that make the amazing material substance of water.
@@rckflmg94 I think my statement “collection of atoms” covers your point. Not ruling out “magic” or “divine Providence” however. It’s still a lot of speculation and assumptions until someone can actually locate, define and measure consciousness.
@@rckflmg94 atoms combined in very specific ways "BELIEVED" to make (what we have observed and identified as) neural cells which, combined and connected in different ways "ARE BELIEVED" to allow (the phenomenon obscurely understood as) consciousness to emerge. (emerge from what, exactly?) I don't doubt the validity of this interpretation, but I also don't believe it's anywhere near complete, and as such deserves greater scrutiny as well as an introduction to different perceptions to test it's reliability. The point made by Wallace is that we are, indeed, not paying rigorous attention to the hard problem of consciousness in any manner that can be considered rigorously scientific. It's really being swept under the rug by the western science community, which is a shame because that gives all these pseudoscientists and bugouts more incentive to spread misinformation regarding consciousness, and manipulating the ignorant masses who have no reliable, thoroughly-tested source for information on the matter
A very wise man at an advanced age told me once: “you know, at some point in my life I thought that when I grew old I was going to understand so much more; the reality is that you realize you are just as ignorant of mostly anything and everything”.
This is a very important point I wish Alan would have elaborated on. If mind is simply the brain--a collection of atoms obeying physical forces--then free will cannot be said to exist. All of our thoughts and decisions are deterministic--determined by the elementary particles of the brain obeying physical forces. Free will requires a Mind which is capable of directing the energy of the brain to have certain thoughts or perform certain actions. So the question becomes: What's directing the energy in our brains? Material particles/energy acting on blind physical forces, unguided by any intelligence OR Mind intelligently guiding the particles/energy in our brains to produce desired outcomes (thoughts and behaviors)?
MysticDan, having a biology does not negate Transcendence. I assume you are for the abolition of the courts, as no one without free will can be held responsible.
I like Marcelo and would be interested in hearing his perspectives as a participant even though he was an excellent moderator. Especially his comment about approaching the subject of consciousness with a great amount of humility, although I don't think Sean Carroll knows that word.
@@jimbomb3318 Being impressed by the knowledge of others and feeling their honesty doesn't necessarily mean I know any any better. Maybe it means I feel respect and grateful for them for educating me about topics in their expertise. You need to relax
I wish this had been more of a conversation. The format was rather tedious like a high school debate, each side giving their insights, but not enough one on one challenging of each other.
I would love to be a part of a study on consciousness, specifically the one Alan mentioned about meditation for years and trying to access past life memories and to test it for validity
It was this talk (the link at the end of this message!) and that I first got my Self realisation, (The Only requirement is to have , an open heart and a pure desire, to achieving our second birth/Self realisation! ) I received a very strong ‘Cool breeze’ coming from the top of the head, the fontanelle bone area (derived from Latin, meaning ‘small/little fountain’) which I came to realise was/is ‘The cool breeze of the Holy Ghost and is infact, ‘the actualisation of Baptism, the real Baptism! ‘ Self realisation is the starting point of reality! “We will never know the meaning of our lives, not until we are connected to the Power,which created us!” -Shree Mataji nirmala Devi Jai Shree Mataji, _/|\_ 1
Past life tracing is not possible. Just by checking your cells I cannot find the animals and plants you ate. Old soul has to disintegrate for new one to form.
@@manog8713 Buddha took birth over 100000 times. Many people who have collected enough parmitas can recall their past births. For most practitioners this is not that important though. Some may want to explore it.
This is a stellar talk. These two chaps are really listening to each other. It’s almost as if they agree: two viewpoints saying that science and spirituality are the same.
Spirituality is science. Matter is derivative of consciousness. Multiplicity is only apparent in truth there is only one mind. No matter as such. Matter is 99.99999% empty space held together by virtue of the force of vibration. The mind is the matrix of all matter. We are forced to witness the ego and the universe become one, over and over again in the never ending cycle of rebirth death and destruction. I have known you since before you were in your mother belly. I sanctified thee before you came forth from the womb. I ordained you as a prophet to the nations. The lord said "Do not tell me you are a child. You will go where i command of thee and you will say the things I tell you to say." And he reached out and touched Jeremiah by the mouth and said "the words that you speak are my words." Do not fear the looks on their faces for I am right beside you and I will fight alongside you. Jeremiah 1: 5-8 The creator lives through the eye of every living being. He is getting to know himself and we are him.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” ― Max Planck, Where is Science Going? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Therefore while Quantum physicist when asked where is observer (human-themselves) than they get stuck. So comes explaination from 3000s years of contemplative indian knowledge called "Atma" which was again refined by buddha- Buddhist phylosophy which explains throughly about selfless theory or emptiness or theory of interdependence or not inherently existing.
54:43 Well, just because it's different doesn't mean it needs to contain something unique. An apple is sweet, while the leaves and wood are not. There is no sweetness in the tree but the sweet thing is a recombination of stuff, that was already there, we know that the stuff we are made of is incredibly versatile and capae of many things!
What about the Monroe institute and the data with remote viewing as well as the importance of the observer and the part his conscious plays even to the affect of a single photon
Consciousness is bigger than a tiny function in the brain, we dream don't we, we don't have to have a a physical body acting to experience a type of reality n energy can never be destroyed only recycled, your consciousness will go on
This reminds me of what prof. Harari onc said , “when I found out it’s not ME who has control of my mind ,while trying to meditate , I learned something NEW “!
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
"It doesn't seem to me that we need to invoke new stuff outside the laws of physics." "New stuff... consciousness is not new stuff." Love that interaction.
But Carroll didn't mean that consciousness was new. Simply that however it works, it doesn't require completely different laws of physics, laws or phenomenon the people suggesting might exist, can provide zero evidence for.
Alan clearly explains that the study of consciousness is not stuff, it’s been there since our existence of life, but it’s was Asian philosophers like Buddha who started observing the mind radically and imperially it’s nature or the reality of nature through observing our mind…
@Buddhist Beast They problem with saying consciousness is not material is the lack of any explanation of how consciousness interacts with the matter of which we are made? Why is it so radically altered by brain injuries, dementia, LSD, comas?
@@karmatravelogue they experienced evil people who found out where the wealth was coming from and they ended up building a wall and learning tactical and stratigic methods to stay under the radar but are there as others are pushing issues of old scars open and blood thirsty is what is quenching their thirst but not love or forgiveness
@@miguelnewmexico8641 I'm not being "judgy"; I was expressing astonishment that the OP had apparently never heard the word "intersubjectivity" before. You're being judgy in judging me to be judgy.
Only 35 minutes in and Alan is now touching on the very thing I noticed Sean never touched on? Consciousness, the observer and it's affects on the material realm or the outcome thereof as a result of the observer. And this from a supposed Quantum expert none the less? Consciousness is THE thing, subject, object, question, or whatever label you want to give it, today, to try and figure out and understand just what it is, how it operates, where it comes from, etc? There was also a Proverbist called Solomon many millennial ago that said, "As a man thinks/believes in his heart so is it." Proverbs 23:7 As Alan points out, he would expect nothing less than the explanation/belief of reality from any physicist/materialist. What a shame that Sean and possibly the host haven't awaken to the level of awareness that some others have about the true nature of reality. But then, one would hope that through wonderful dialogues such as this that we can become more aware and awakened to what and who we truly are, our true nature, that which is beyond the flesh and blood or material realm. There was another well respected ancient teacher that would quote an even more ancient writing when he stated, in Matthew 13: "13 That’s why I teach the people using parables, because they think they’re looking for truth, yet because their hearts are unteachable, they never discover it. Although they will listen to me, they never fully perceive the message I speak. 14 The prophecy of Isaiah describes them perfectly: Although they listen carefully to everything I speak, they don’t understand a thing I say. They look and pretend to see, but the eyes of their hearts are closed. 15 Their minds are dull and slow to perceive, their ears are plugged and are hard of hearing, and they have deliberately shut their eyes to the truth. Otherwise they would open their eyes to see, and open their ears to hear, and open their minds to understand. Then they would turn to me and I would instantly heal them. 16 “But blissful are your eyes, for they see. Delighted are your ears, for they are open to hear all these things." At an hour and two minutes I can see the host does have ears to hear and eyes to see, while sean remains deaf and blind, sadly. If only our pride and hubris would not get in the way.
I seriously can't believe how non confrentational that was and though my knowledge of both individuals is limited I'd read articles with quotes or remarks from Sean and was under a much more cynical impression than I am now watching this he seemed really down to earth.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt I don't know who ur talking about since I haven't watched it yet, but I know from knowledge of both sides this could literally be referring to either one
Imagine connecting string theory with beliefs like Buddhism to explain karma and life's energy. Maybe the metaphysical approach of some religion was our ancient human attempt to describe life down to the sub atomic particles. Is there not a resemblance between string vibrations and what we call energy in spiritual terms?
I guess in a view from Buddhism, there is no need to explain the karma and energiy in a physical approach. That is a main part of Buddha's teach. Energy, space, your life, karma is only a definition of our dualistic mind. The true essence of the phenomas ist emptiness. And that is the spring, where it all starts to exist, but also going to fade in in the future. That does not mean that the aproach of science is wrong. Quantum mechanics, for example, is a proper Theorie to explain a lot in this universe and as far as we know it is a "true theory", which is the root Fundament of most of our technical stuff like computers and Internet.. But as from the physicist told: Reality has a lot of layers, which all exist parallel and which all are more ore less"true". So quantum mechanics cannot be the absolute "truth". That is the problem, why the general relativity theory and quantum mechanics seem not to fit to each other, but work both extraordinary. The nature of truth lives in a world, where our logical thinking has no access to.. Difficult to explain, but "true", so to speak. 😌
You should read the books of an independent scholar called Graham Smetham, who in fact dedicated his entire life to researching on quantum physics and Buddhism. In fact, he has been self-publishing all his books in the last decade or so. I came across him while watching a movie on David Bohm called Infinite Potential. It is a must watch if you’re interested in the topic.
asia some of the notable books written around 05 AD by nativs of India are Aryabhattahi - maths physics Sushrut samhita - Medicine Shatakatreyam - Poetry philosophy Also, much older, Veda.
The physicist surprised me a great deal with his philosophical relativism! Most people who study physics tend to describe the world in an ,,objective" manner, without understanding the shortcomings of such a rigid epistemology!
That’s not been my experience. Physicists are among the most philosophical people I’ve ever met. Think about it: people drawn to these studies are the ones who are so fixated on the big questions they turn it into a career. How did we get here? What happens to the universe? What is reality? Scientists often get pegged as “too objective,” because people only interact with them in a classroom or a lab or on a TV. And scientists are different from the philosophers and religious scholars who also attempt to answer these questions. Scientists have chosen to explore these big questions while being bound by the scientific method, which is rooted in objectivity. Others may explore them spiritually, and some take several approaches. I know many scientists who explore these questions scientifically during the week, and on the weekends explore them in a religious, philosophical, and/or meditative setting instead.
@Dirk Knight Great Argument, Good points. Buddhism is a genuine path to liberation and the truth of the universe. Of course, if one is stuck in close mindedness and his conceptual mind, he/she wouldn‘t understand because he/she loves his/her ego, similar to you. :)
@Andreaz-64 He never said that he isn't. By the way, "the ego" is not the same as "arrogance". The ego is a layer of the conscious mind, described by Freud, that deals with problem-solving within your experience of reality. It's clear that you just wanted to insult the guy, because you don't like his way of talking, but you haven't really understood what he said.
Alan's point is that the organization and interaction of neurons and other physical elements are simply correlates, not causes, to thoughts and behavior. You can study the brain all you like, you can arrive at the ultimate laws of physics, but you'll never understand deeper truths such as what it means to love by that method. Science is wonderful, and limited.
I wish somebody asked a question regarding consciousness being subjective. Why am I a conscious being separate from others? Why am I not you? are we simply all one spit consciousness that keeps budding off with each iteration of life? So what are we budding from?
I think Sean tried to ask that when he asked him about the minds - being one mind or individuals, I feel like he was going in that direction with that question he popped up, but I may be wrong.
Meditation, in my experience calms your mind and body, causing me to relax and achieve the best whole body relaxation - which in turn heals the mind and body. Thanks for the presentation.
When Alan Wallace talks of mind / consciousness, it is (I think) of the immediate awareness of sensations, feelings, memories, thoughts - whatever you are aware of. His point is that your mind is highly complex and dynamic and you would be advised to spend time trying to understand how it works! Consciousness is not a direct experience of reality. What we know of "reality" is a model our mind creates and that we are aware of. We all agree on the basics; there is no question it is out there, as Sean Carrol clearly explained. And over hundreds of millions of years, the processes inherent in that reality have generated life and human brains and - consciousness. "Material reality" and consciousness are not exclusive, nor should either be considered primary. However, if you do not understand how your "mind works", you can be led to false beliefs, such as that the earth is the center of the solar system. Science eschews dualistic thinking - hence the "idolization" of mathematics. But mathematics is a tool to represent and explore reality. Wallace notes regarding the "scientific view" of consciousness that "Mind doesn't matter, because it's not matter. However, our brain function, and hence our thinking, is fundamentally dualistic. Asian teaching recognizes this - the "yin-yang" principle. This is the origin of the "mind-body" problem, panpsychism, and other misguided beliefs. Mind and body (physical material reality) are one; our dualistic thinking prevents us from knowing that. Here is how to cross that bridge. Uh oh sorry gotta go walk my dog.
@@stefanb6539 not necessarily an actual experience with the eyes or sensations lmao I’m referring more to just a realization of the oneness of everything.
As a person who values both philosophy and science, I would have wanted to ask certain questions that were never answered. Questions about how the mind could be the fundamental base to everything. I do believe everything is a subjective experience too, and that I can't experience anything else but a subjective world. Relativism, in a sense. However, I'd want to question this: - If the conscious and subjective experience is NOT directly linked to the brain, then why is the system a closed loop? For example, if I stimulate certain regions of the brain correctly, a corresponding experience will arise. Furthermore, if the same corresponding experience is percieved indirectly through stimuli, the same region of the brain will light up as well. To me, this indicates a closed, self-dictating and responsive system. I would imagine a counter-argument would be that we are, through both cases of this thought-experiment, conscious. That consciousness is therefore the foundation. However, bundles of nerves have been found that makes you unconscious when inactivated, which to me indicates that consciousness, like any other perception, is just a part of this closed subjective system of brain-environment interactions. I invite you to discuss this with me in the comment section. It would be most interesting.
Larri my response is that instead of focusing on the physical difference between conscious and biological processes we should acknowledge that conscious is binded by and determined by the processes occurring in neuron interactions and from there trying to integrate the building blocks of consciousness that are these biological reactions into an understanding of the consciousness it creates. They are separate just as brick and mortar is not a house, but they are made up of the same material and only exist separately because we choose to say that at a certain point that brick and mortar creates what we know as a house, and once the house is created, it extends to a level of meaning above the mere brick and mortar. Mind and biology really are the same, but we have to look at the complex biological processes of mind to try to understand that which mind is just as you can study every brick to begin understanding each room of the house before finally you tie the rooms together to understand the house. So let’s not get caught up in semantics because ultimately yes bricks and house are same, but because we want to understand mind as the house and not the bricks, we must try to piece the bricks together until we arrive at the functioning of the house.
I love the dialogue between Buddhism and modern science, whether it's physics or neuroscience, there is such overlap. I do think there was a bit of discussion at the very beginning where Alan and Sean were talking about different things when discussing "consciousness".
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
Very thought provoking discussion. One of the best I have experienced. I tend to agree with Mr. Wallace that there is an intrinsic Western bias in regards to how science sees the mind/ consciousness. What I strive to know is; what METHODS can be used to empirically begin to understand what consciousness really is. Perhaps what Alan suggests in his Tuscany Institute idea of intensive study to develop a methodology is what we are missing in trying to answer this question. We must develop better TOOLS to define all these concepts and incorporate them in our search for the truth.
Wow. The yogis of Tibet are talking about their experiences, this is information we’ve never had privy to until very recently. (Long story that I’ll skip). These people have spent years meditating in isolation. They claim to remember previous lives, even back to being animals. The U of Virginia has researched reincarnation. The information they have gathered is incredible! The discussions about Near death experiences… our consciousness is not what we’ve been led to believe.
Both are really good speakers and very eloquent with their point of view and respectable at the same time. I liked both of them. However, my views are more aligned towards the Buddhist perspective eventho knowledge of Physics is very important to our everyday life. Probably my experience with meditation had influenced my view. Well done also the interviewer. Thanks for this thought provoking interview.
I am honestly having difficulty finding the point in which they disagree other than that “consciousness” is the underlying principle of reality. It seems like consciousness could fit into the physical model as ability for the observation of the interaction of Particles and forces inside of the brain which is presented to our “mind” by our thoughts. I think Alan’s point is that there actually are methods in which we could observe our consciousness by turning attention inward with introspection and meditation.
This is what humanity should be doing, talking respectfully to each other with love and decency, exchanging ideas and exploring the meaning of existence. It's the very lifeblood of progress.
so if someone, from a group being killed, was saying "we are being killed" would you say they were doing the wrong thing?
Define progress? Where are we standing now? Where are we going? How do we handle radical difference in the meaning of existence?
oh! you mean like pre-Uncle Ronnie times and a bit before the emergence of this current Republican Party.. (that includes Democrats too) ... it still drools no matter what it looks like.
progress from what and to what?
My gut disagrees.
It's amazing how people can take a cordial conversation between two respectful gentlemen and turn it into a reason to start calling each other names, devaluing each other's views. Having opposing views is a chance to grow and become a much more dynamic human being. So let's try to honor this discourse and act in kind. Namaste
Carey M X Thomas ditto. Proves we really do live on a planet still in kindergarten on a planetary 🌏 level!
lew bronstein Adults are having a conversation, go sit down and be quiet
lew bronstein There is no reason to be upset. Okay sure he may not be Nepali, nevertheless he's saying Namaste as a way to greet others and welcome them into a conversation with peace and respect. It's like slang for a person is "dude" or "bro"
Not really, just average claptrap
lew bronstein LoL where are you from. Looks like the west
"Spiritual awakening doesn't require a new experience,its simply seeing clearly whats already happening"
Define clearly?
Until Jesus shows up and changes your paradigm.
You have new experiences everyday, you dont live someone elses life. Hence spiritual enlightenment. Everyone has there own life path.
But how do you know ,, what's already happening because you will be seeing it as a filter by the influence mind of various circumstances ,,
@@kungadodhenx4038 imagine reality with-out any ideas,words ,thoughts,or concepts.
What reason would there be to believe that you are anything other than what you are aware of.?
What evidence is there that there is anything other than what you are aware of?
My husband is a SCD Material Scientist. I am a
sociologist, Art Historian, Poet, and Teacher. Our world views are almost opposite. We watched this wonderful video together. Enjoyed the many truths as well as the humor evident. Thank you!!!
Anyone that calls themselves a poet you can be certain is a pretentious self-deceiver.Real poets *never* call themselves poets.Apropos sociology, in universities where hard subjects are taught there is often have a sign above the lavatory paper reading:Sociology agrees please take one.
@@vhawk1951kl Every great poet has referred to themselves as a poet. Because they're poets.
Also, you dropped out of community college.
@@vhawk1951kl spontaneous belittlement of a total stranger. I'm trying to grasp the contribution this makes to the dialog introduced in this video presentation. gfy
@@barryrempp1261 Balls, it's a fake a putup job by two lying mutual masturbaters Rehearsed questions and rehearsed answers - a classic example of mutual masturbation; the the whole thing is a con.
*And-you-know- it*It is fake from beginning to end (and -you-know-that* *for-a-certainty* also, so don't bother to lie.
@@barryrempp1261 It is not any* kind of genuine dialogue, it is a put-up job p-r-e-t-e-n-d-i-n-g* to be a dialogue to deceive- A bit of mutual masturbation *pretending* to be a dialogue - I't's an act and you know it - pure fakery which I call lying because it *is* lying, something pretending to be what it is not, and you know that too because you have a special organ called with_knowledge or a sense of truth of which you may or may not, be aware. Those two mutual-masturbators are no more PhDs than you are, however, whatever is supposed imagined fantasied or racked up to be omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent- Call that what you will is as fond of lying conmen and mutual masturbaters as it is of Nazis murderers whores thieves robbers rapist idolaters concentration camps unborn baby slaughtering shops, sewerites or queers, rapist murderers and the deliberately cruel so it is hardly likely to balk at a couple of lying mutual masturbaters setting out to trick you poor stupefied credulous Elsies, because *Everything* --Absolutely_Everything* with *No* exceptions whatsoever that either is/exists or occurs, happens, takes place or can be experienced is the wish want will or fancy or suits the purposes of whatever is, superposed to be omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent., *Or* it is not not omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. Now what do you call *that* thing?
Since that thing clearly takes no exception to liars frauds misery sorrow agony and or those that appear to cause or induce those thigs , far be it fro me to criticise a couple of mutually masturbating conmen tyinfg to con half-witted Elsies that mistakenly suppose themselves to be what re called Christians, mistakenly because there are no Christians because dreaming machines simply *cannot* *Live the preceps of one Josh Bar-Joseph aka jesus christ whose teachings have *Fcuk_Nothing* to do with any thing in the Jew-book or a chapter therein called Genesis which actually*means make-it-up-as-you-go-along in Aramaic or in n babytalk Noachian floods have fcuk_nothing to do with christianity the founder of which strictly *forbade*his pupils from*believing* *Any thing , pointing out to them that one of their weaknesses was their predisposition to passive mechanical acceptance without question known as belief which is the *Exact_Opposite of Faith which has Nothing_Whatsoever to do with faith because belief is *passive* while faith must be active and impartial because it is one of the functions of reason(the capacity to apprehend what-i-and-cannot-be-different). There are vast amounts of records of the teaching of the master known as Jesus Christ which are mostly kept secret and only shown to initiates because thathat tradition which has been extinct for thousands of years was an esoteric or secret/private tradition mostly based on Egyptian traditions, old Josh having been taught by Egyptian priests.
Who knows why early conmen tacked what little they could discover of his teaching onto the Jewbook which has *Absolutely_Nothing* to do with his teaching/method/way, and of course he never once in his entire life used the word god for reasons which can be found set out in the more recondite sources.
Hd you sked him whether or not he supposed there to have been a noachian flood he would have shrugged his shoulders and said don't know, don't care, there are floods of various definitions all over the place from time to time and the one thing he *definitely would have said is never ever ever * believe* anything pasively mechanically-certain don't fall for that con act put on by those two lying mutual masturbators. The contrived dialogue is an old forensic trick.
Anyone who says there was or that he believes there was a Noachian flood is *L-y-i-n-n-g*to you. the writers of genesis are referring to a folk memory of the creation of the Mediterranean when - at the end of an ice age , of which there have been several, the atlantic overtopped the barrier between it and what is no the Mediterranean which may have been dry land at one time, and *that* would have ben " the world" of those living there at time. The Noah tale is simply a crib or copy of the kummerian epic of Gilgamesh- is thus not original. Your " world is pretty tiny too is it not? " world " is a weasel word - a specues of blaub which can mean almost anything. The " world" of English barristers is the Inns of court in an about the temple in the city of London and it is the rather small world of those in that professionfrom which you Elsies that are cut off if not specifically excluded for the world of law is a mystery to you just as most Elsies suppose books and writing to be a sort of magic - You are like children to we your betters whom you were bred to serve.
Would you agree with me that anyone callinh himself doctor that *does not* have a PhD from an accredited or proper university is a liar?
You do not have a degree or any kind of higher learning, do you?Mind you these days PhDs are a dime a dozen and worthless and in kinder land - America you can buy them. not one single genuine phd from s reputable university-*not*Makeitupasyougoalong University of Ahitkicker Tennessee, will tell you that there is no evidence whatsoever if any kind of Nochian or Gilgameshian flood anywhere and the will all tell you that the two lying mutual mastUrbaters stare *L-y-i-n-**-g-*- or being wholly disingenuously selective- which is lying by any other name.
Intellectual dishonesty is *still* dishonesty.
"World can men anything-you please and different -things-to-different-people, and that is the trick of lying, keep your lies as generalised and-nebulous as possible and *above_all* avoid specifics.
use your brains Elsie; the omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent does not, nor does it *need* to fcuk about with rain particularly when it is perfectly at ease with concentration camps slavery(to which I take no particular objection) and the slaughter of the unborn on s scale which makes the holocaust amateur or positively benevolentand can bring about an entire solsr system merely on a whim or because it said to itself 'fcuk me it's a bit dark what I need is a bit of nuclear fusion- Oops no, since I am omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent, there is no need for that shit. if it exists occurs happens or can be experienced, By_defintion I *am* it, right down to lying mutual masturbators trying to con Elsies that imagine they are Christians - which is of course impossible.
A Higgs Boson is denied entry to a church. It said, “but without me, you can’t have mass!”
Rim shot.....bada-boom. ;)
🤣
word ! ;b
To me, it doesn't matter!
It's theory, and size breaks down compared to energy.
Once of the best parts about this is how contrarian the ideas are. Yet both gentlemen are able to have a respectful conversation without personal attacks on one another. In fact they complement each other multiple times even though they disagree. Hopefully this is the direction we can go in the future on a larger scale
Such a lucid point. 👍
Argumenting without lifting a finger is a gold standard in Indian Dharmic traditions.
Shankara-Charya roamed allover India and won minds of Budhists in intense arguments. That tradition is rarely found in The history of Abrahamic religions - as there no way or my way
Well, that's how discussion is meant to be done. I daresay it's probably how life should be lived. Offering contrary perspectives in order to inspire others, but without trying to convince each other or fight against each other. Considering other viewpoints without feeling attacked. Thinking about what other people feel or believe without ruling out their belief, or assuming that they mean to invalidate oneself. Not dogmatically claiming to one's own perspective to be valid for everyone.
It's an idealized goal, I know, but it's one to strive for. I'm pretty sad that in today's world, people more and more seem to be unable to do that.
My gut feeling is that it remained „gentlemanly“ because Sean had fallen asleep during Alan‘s contribution
@@amberazurescale5617 there is no such thing as different view points when dealing with facts. Its only when beliefs are involved that conflict arises.
1:19:02 I am a Buddhist (from Bangladesh) and I must say Sean Carroll is a true scientist who is so open to learn even more about reality (For the sake of Humanity) ! His last speech was amazing. However, For reference: Buddha said that even the consciousness does not have the ultimate reality, consciousness is not eternal, not constant, not lasting , therefore subject to suffering. In the Pheṇapiṇḍ-ūpama-sutta, Buddha said "Consciousness is like magician's trick in the crossroads."
You're too kind. This is a social danger of Buddhism. It's good not to assume malice where stupidity suffices as an explanation, but sometimes it is anger (i.e., willful ignorance, the cascade of disasters that follows from attachment to the contemplation of sense objects).
he has more sense, the other man was really just talking nonsense.
@ Don‘t confuse your close mindedness with intelligence.
"I am a Buddhist". What is the "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist? By making that statement, you have proved you aren't a Buddhist, but then again, as I say, what is the "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist? Answer that and you will find there is no "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist.
@@eclipse369. Don‘t confuse your close mindedness with intelligence.
The answer Alan give to Sushmitha's question is really mind blowing 🤯
What an absolutely fantastic discussion between two powerhouses in their respective fields. Both, super intelligent, open minded and light-hearted.
One is a powerhouse, the other is an insecure dote.
@Michael Terrell II the Buddhist demonstrates more openness, mental flexibility and recognition that his belief is a belief. The other guy insists that he knows, that he has facts, despite the evidence that neither one can really know. The "facts" aren't conclusive in either direction. I get a feeling of rigidity and insecurity, and that doesn't read as strength, whereas the Buddhist is asking questions, addressing doubts and speaking to the human questions of existence. That's authentic engaging. I'll take a pass on the guy who responds like a robot and is too insecure to entertain the possibility that there are things he doesn't know and can't know based on current knowledge. Meh! They're operating in two very different levels, and one of them is flat-out obnoxious in his arrogance.
@@gplionk1 Uhh the Buddhist monk forgets the unanswerable questions of buddha?
"The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2[4]) also mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self.
What am I?
How am I?
Am I?
Am I not?
Did I exist in the past?
Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past?
How was I in the past?
Having been what, did I become what in the past?
Shall I exist in future?
Shall I not exist in future?
What shall I be in future?
How shall I be in future?
Having been what, shall I become what in future?
Whence came this person?
Whither will he go?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions
The buddha warned against trying to "find where the mind interfaces with the brain". This Buddhist monk has a bit too much ego to be a real Buddhist.
Also, this conversation was supposed to be about the "nature of reality". And the buddhist instead attacks "colonial white" science for not having a good enough measurement for the human condition? I'm with Carroll. That's a bit ego-centric
@@mariociani4918 based on my first impression, I wouldn't care to listen a second time.
@@aidenmurphy9924 good thing is not a debate about buddhism, but about consciousness. I find your whole comment irrelevant.
How can people hate social media when you have debates like these for free 😭 It's basically what we use it for 🤷🏻♂️
Er what you might use it for.. *Vietname flashbacks of 1000000 Kardashianeque narcissists*
Great but cant debate merits of c0^id responses, origin or therapy, no less the scam behind these points. All is censored or outright quashed.
I wish.. Social media is mostly mass psychosis inducing marketing.
TH-cam is a treasure. The rest? Not so much 😅😂
Well we need to make a distinction here: A TH-cam video is not "social media."
A very quick way of showing the effect of mind with matter is to say to oneself "I want to raise my arm" and raise it! Thanks for the great conversation Alan, Sean and Marcello! 🌿
The brain is most important part of the body according to the brain
The elbow though, strongly disagrees.
you mean according to the mind.
@@mcgee227 correlation isn't causation
@@mcgee227 science hasn't proven it instead a school of neuroscientists proposed it . There's a lot of work happening in this field to explain the phenomenon called qualia which is if mind is a biproduct of brain then how can an objective brain experience subjective feelings.
Haha what a way to put it!!
People so often confuse the mind or the personality with consciousness. The exercise of not thinking, not behaving, not acting for a few seconds is so very insightful.
Also, being silent can be very active. Meditation is active. When increasing our ken or knowledge range, what helps is to diversify different types of intelligence. Bc each gives a different perspective of life that can be revealing. If one is tuned, one can see the issue as many truths and how limited our thinking can be. It is limited by one’s freedom of choice, we let go by our choice to believe. When we learn how illusory speech is, then we see more.
Everything is conscious, because they can respond to who know how to communicate with consciousness. Lots of people in the world know.
I feel so lucky to have been in the room for this conversation. We need more discussions like this.
All the blablablahbla aside, ask a Buddhist, why women are never to be seen, or heard or exercise power, on equal terms like Buddhist men do. Have done for 2000+ years. What a bullshit religion. Like all organised religions.
@@AudioPervert1 cuz they know women
And you are a pc simp
@@AudioPervert1 What? There are many different sects and monasteries that practice Buddhism. One example is Plum Village and they have many woman speakers and leaders. Even the Buddha himself spoke of an even more enlightened form of equality: seeing a person rather than a woman. There is a great quote I'll paraphrase here: "The wise man compares himself to no one. He seeks not what others have and does not pride himself on what he has. The wise man does not see himself as greater than, lesser than, or equal to others, for he is others and others are himself. Then, how could he be equal, less, or more than anyone else?" One of the core tenants on Buddhism as a whole is interconnectedness, and this is what dissolves any notion of us being seperate, which is where the terms "equal, lesser, and better" come from.
@@AudioPervert1 Did the Buddha ever preach about women never being seen?
@@AudioPervert1 you're mixing culture with religion, it's not your fault cuz that's what religious people also do LOL
amazed that i watch and listened to the whole video without skipping.
what i learned.. is that .. there is hope for humanity.. after witnessing this respectful conversation between two very reverential gentlemen with diverse viewpoints.
kudos to the moderator too.
Humanity has to get rid of the parasite on its back if we are to have any hope beyond being cattle for the “elites”.
Oh, and if you don’t know, “elite” is a euphemism for Jew.
I felt exactly the same way, like I just watched one of the most remarkable exchanges of 3 very kind, open-minded and thoughtful humans! There was healthy skepticism, not cynicism, and so much hope and wonder!
In case you missed it: It is within our power as human beings to gain insight into the nature of our own consciousness through self-observation.
Metacognition also indicatively accelerates evolution because obtaining the ability to understand our own consciousness is another layer of reality which happens to be the layer that perceives and unifies all others, including the biological makeup of our brains. Thus our brains begin to physically adapt to our own changes in pattern of thought overtime, because thought exists at the physical level shared at the same biological transparency.
"gain insight into the nature of our own consciousness through self-observation" Is that why people take so many selfies? LOL
Seems logical and common sense to me. But of course there are those who say that any insights you have about consciousness are delusory because science though.
Does that mean I have no consciousness if I'm blind and deaf, and therefore can't observe myself?
@@MackemChops If you are blind and deaf than you have no visual or auditory consciousness. You still have mental consciousness. Of course the self is not an object of consciousness and is unknowable. The mind, however, is an umbrella term for all conscious processes which they can be reduced down to (sensory and mental) and their functions (perception and so on).... Parts of the mind can indeed observe other parts of the mind. The mental consciousness can observe what the sensory cosciousnesses observe and form opinions about appearances.
When you are observing the self, what is it that you are observing? Obviously, not the self, but merely the mind. But then, what is consciousness? Can it be identified?
Language is completely inadequate. So open to interpretation. The experience of consciousness is entirely within an individual. I may be able to share your experience but I can never have your experience
@LINUS spot on :)
Look into Body Mind Centering - for shared experience, not my experience or your experience but shared consciousness.
Indian practices include trans-person experiences. But that's aside the point. Why do you want anyone else's experience? That is one of the beneifts of interpretive meaning. You are provided with a structure upon which you can build an understanding if you want.
th-cam.com/video/U84nxCsQpus/w-d-xo.html
Not for as long as we are not us..
If you and me are the same entity it is our experience
It's so pleasant to listen to Sean. What a combination of scientist with an enlightened thinker.
Sean was somewhat humiliated.
@@deeplorable8988 I particulaly didn't see anyone being humiliated by anyone. Both managed to express their respective points and didn't contradict themselves.
For me was just one more discussion on physicalism.
@@gustavodeoliveira702 I'm talking about when he was called out for his racism towards Eastern philosophy.
@@deeplorable8988 What? are you stupid? HE wasn't called out for racism against anyone. You can't be racist towards a philosophical system. He's probably skeptical of eastern mysticism ...but he's also skeptical of western mysticism.
@@qualiacomposite Tell it to the guy how called him out.
I am a Sri Lankan and i am a Buddhist. Really proud to be a Buddhist. Our teaching is very special. It is teach us many thing about our mind. Warmly welcome who is going to study about the budhdha and Buddhism. You will be luckiest and you are special ❤❤❤❤🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰
If only it could teach you to master your mind in order to learn decent English :D Your Buddhism didn't help you there at all.
@@SoreInMusic their english is incredibly decent considering their natural language doesn't even share the same kind of alphabet! :) I've been struggling enough with french which isn't even very far from my native tongue!
Congratulations to the all participants in this conversation. Alan and Sean are belong the same quality of humans, respectful. honest, lovers of truth and experts in their fields. Even though I am an atheist and follower of the scientific method, seem to me that science should be open to consider the possibility that maybe Nature has some aspect that escape the scientific measurement, until now. We need more research and absolutely no dogma. Thank you for sharing such interesting conversation.
i agree with you brother. But I would argue that materialistic reductionism, and identification to any sort of method is dogma because it is an attempt to encapsulate reality, but reality cannot be encapsulated by anything. Its simply a filter of understanding. This is why consciousness is the hardest problem of science because its attempting to measure and localize it somewhere in the body. This is not possible because consciousness is not physical, and exists outside the boundaries of space and time.
"Im a follower of science but HEY maybe there is something else" ............. Lol
@@zach3305 Huh? The scientific process is supposed to continually search for truths, perhaps you are confused.
@@FreakMeat74 "Even though I am an athiest and follower of the scientific method, seem to me that science should be open to consider the possibility that maybe nature has some aspect that escape the scientific measurment."
Well then.....you aren't an athiest.... Lololol. Nor a follower of science.
@@zach3305 So one can't identify as an atheist or user of the scientific method and yet also be open to further data/possibilities? How do you think science advances? Lol you silly guy.
This is a DIALOGUE, nothing more. Food for the mind. So just take it as that, and enjoy. Maybe it will spark something within you, which is the ultimate point of this being presented for you. It's not a contest of who's right, or, who has evidence supporting the points they make.
Couldn't agree more...... BUT this is TH-cam and us humans being what we are, we will protect the reality we perceive as if our lives depended on it. 1st rule, All things perceive their own reality. 2nd, reality is greater than the sum of it's parts. 3rd, the only source of knowledge is experience. I could go on but wars are fought over definitions of reality. We even murder each other defending our realities. So while you are correct, I counsel wisdom and understanding as the solution not correct behavior
People's belief systems are at threat here. The three things you aren't supposed to discuss in polite company are sex, politics and religion - but especially religion. The first one irritates people, the second pisses them off, the third drives them batshit crazy.
valar: LOL!!!
right!
Dark matter is imagination juice
Very nice discussion to watch. Should be an example for how to have discussion in general. Calm, open minded, humble, and yet extremely enriching and informative.
I wish Democrats and Republicans spoke like this.
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
It was utmost pleasure to listen this decent intellectual dialogue.
As an engineer and astrophysics enthusiast I really admire Sean and I appreciate all that he has done for science but I've always had an intuitive belief that what makes us human - our consciousness, is simply something that science have not been able to explain and I don't think they ever will because just like what Alan said, you can't measure it.
You can't measure because it has no affect, no influence. If it had an influence then it could be measured.
"Consciousness" is a problem because it is so ill-defined. It means one thing in one context (say awareness) and something else in another (some spirit inside). That sort of fuzziness is the cause of all sort of muddled thinking.
@ Do you have any reading comprehension skills? There's a big difference between turning something on/off and measuring it.
@ you're confusing the inputs and outputs of consciousness with consciousness itself. It's like saying your computer is frozen when really the mouse and keyboard are unplugged. Or suggesting that the batteries of an RC drone control it's movement because the drone doesn't move when you remove the batteries.
Consciousness is the fabric of reality. What is there to experience of seeing for example other than the knowing of it? What is there to the experience of hearing other than the knowing of it? Knowing or consciousness is the underlying ground of everything. Without it, nothing could exist. Or if it did - nothing would be there to know it.
@@mattsniper362 it’s the second one lol
Existence exists whether any part of it ever knows it
Not a fan of how short this is.
Which also happens to be what she said
I don't think Sean was going to hold up any longer though.
I am old enough to remember a time before the internet. Seriously, people's attention spans were much longer then, mine was too. I could listen to a 1 hour lecture no problem, most of my friends could. Now people can usually not focus for longer than 5 or 10 minutes.
@@thomas-beaver As smart as Dr. Carroll is, he was losing ground.
@@dougporter2356 Yeah. I like sean a lot, but I think he was a little arrogant to the nature of what buddhism is all about.
This was a great discussion: The chasm existing between matter and consciousness IS in fact the prime directive of material-based science itself. If it can't be measured physically then Sean has made up his MIND that it is not part of the universe. Alan points out perfectly that it is this scientific point of view which is firmly entrenched into its very own 3D physical hole of matter, space and time. It suggests that we become what we think; attaching meaning to certain thoughts over and over becomes that body-mind problem alluded to in the conversation. It doesn't take a PhD or a Doctorate to understand that consciousness precedes everything: Without consciousness there is no thought, no body, no things, no time. Every human being experiences this every time they lie down and rest in dreamless sleep. Would love to see more of this type of dialog between the scientific and philosophical in public. Although Sean wasn't prepared to begin to explore his own experience of consciousness during this talk, certainly there are many other scientists that would open to doing so: Sean needs to brush up on 21st century neuroscience, which has discovered that the heart also contains neurons, and is in fact more powerful than the brain in terms of generating electromagnetic energy. The science of body mind exists today - relevant discoveries made within the fields of epigenetics, neuroplasticity, cognitive neuroscience, endocrinology, and in the latest field of psychoneuroimmunology reveal that the mind (thought) and the body (experience) are intricately linked and intertwined. The Institute of Noetic Sciences has been around since 1975 - it is a research center and direct-experience lab whose mission for the last 45 years has been to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through scientific exploration and personal discovery. Main-stream scientists' understanding of consciousness is long overdue and must begin exploring the fundamental cause of mind, thought, emotions, the body, and everything we see and experience in our physical existence - it originates in this conscious waking 3D dream we call life on Earth.
Beautiful and unfortunately too true, Sean conveniently leaves out non locality and the double split experiment which provides evidence that an intelligent observer creates reality. Therefore our most up-to date scientific thinking is that non- local consciousness creates our 3d reality we live in.
I wish he would have asked him about so many people today they are pronounced clinically dead and brought back that describe seeing their loved one who passed on, and they all describe similar things, Also people that have been in comas say they could hear and knew everything being said and done. I think the reason they have so much trouble understanding quantum physics it because it is hitting on the supernatural, such as something being in 2 places at once or communication across vast distances. The CIA was using remote viewers to spy on the Russians and visa versa. There are documented cases of spontaneous healing. The placebo effect is well known to science, I just wish they had discussed some of these things.
`Alan Wallace, wish I had heard this years ago--
Alan Wallace's talk was quite brilliant... thank you.
Great conversation! For all who want to experience what Allan is talking about - try Vipassana meditation. There should be a center nearby you and they teach you for free and in the same way that the Buddha taught 2500 years ago.
Well I can say that clearly you don't meditate lol
@@myutubechannel_nr1 this actually perfectly summarizes the fundamental difference... it's a matter of levels of awareness. you can tell if someone works out because their physiology reflects it, very clearly. how can you tell if someone is lying? what if someone is on the verge of having an epilepsy flare up or if they're about to break down into tears if you say something triggering? each of these involve different observable patterns present in an individual that, if you can pick up on and know what they mean, lead you to certain conclusions/hypotheses.
@@myutubechannel_nr1 Only one who does not meditate, cannot tell if others meditate or not.
The hard problem of consciousness is the core of this debate and the general public, including most scientists, need to realise that this IS a huge blind spot in contemporary science, as Alan Wallace correctly points out. The colour red is not a particle nor made of particles. There are physical causes and conditions which allow the colour to manifest to us, but that does not explain for subjective experience of the colour arising in consciousness and it cannot be measured empirically. There are some comments here which argue that Alan is talking a load of jibberish and yet they are comfortable with Sean's technical jargon because they either have a pre-established bias to accepting what he says or have studied the same theories and realised their underlying truth. Alan has his own jargon which anyone who is experienced with meditation is very comfortable with. Observe your critical stance and test it yourself, don't just allow this to be another habitual fobbing off of what you already regard as nonsense.
No one, absolutely no one, has any idea of what exactly consciousness is. In a world where we like certainty, this is a frightening prospect.
1+1= 3 .......reality is more than the sum of it's parts. If you are sensitive you know this organically, if you are not, the natural evolution of your consciousness will lead you to that place eventually. Whether you like it or not. It's that last part that scares the control driven, science fundamentalist types.
Knowing it organically will not be enough to change the overall situation, though. In order to enact real change, we need to be able to prove this mathematically and in physics. And also, we need to find ways to make deeper experiences of reality more widely available, because by far the biggest reason there is such questioning of subjective experience is because it takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort to deeply shift your perception.
Things that may be evident to Alan Wallace after 50,000 hours of meditation (according to himself) are simply not accessible to the 99% of us who do not have that kind of time to burn on retreat or whatever. Dude started when he was 20 and was a monk for 14 years.
+valar well we've kinda been here before, we agree about a lot BUT we disagree about some important things. My view, my reality is that nothing is broken so nothing needs to be fixed. There is nnnothing to be proved we don't all have to agree. I've meditated off and on for many years. The growth I've experienced is relative to my level of awareness. Tibetan Buddhists say it is useless to expect a child to understand tantric realities. Another way to say this is to each his/her own according to his/her capacity. Some people, like Dan will not be available to input that does not conform to their preconceptions because they are just not ready.
Sorry, I often forget things that I post :) But yeah, we very much disagree on the subject of skillful means and that's fair. Time will tell as to this subject in the next few decades.
On the other hand, I would be open to debate with Dan if he showed any interest whatsoever in engaging other than to swear at us and sort-of-not-but-actually-really compared us to ISIS.
Thank you for this fascinating discourse exploring our reality through physics, the intellect, consciousness and the supernatural. Since mankind hasn’t found the answers after thousands of years of inquiry perhaps we could serve the universe better through love.
On the Island of the Tonal . .
Throwing in my two cents. As a Zog Chen Buddhist for 45 years and an ardent follower of physics as well, I found the talk fascinating, erudite and enlightening with a lot of great ideas from both sides. I didn't even see them very much at odds with each other. Physics and Buddhism are two sides of the same coin and using them together is useful in understanding the nature of reality and the mind. Bravo to both of you.
Could explain to me how physics and Buddhist philosophy are "two sides of the same coin" given that one is based upon presuppositions of materialism and the other presuppositions of idealism? Or am I confused? Thanks :)
And Buddhism doesn't presuppose idealism. Both materialism and idealism are concepts, which means they exist only relatively. Science and Buddhism are tools to transcend conceptual thinking when practiced at the highest level. There are no limits to what one can achieve (whether it's Neils Bohr and quantum law or a Buddha's understanding of the ultimate empty nature of the mind beyond relativity) By talking about a presupposition of materialism and idealism you're limiting their scopes. This is why I said it's two sides of the same coin.
Wow you're smart. But you can be too smart if you're trying to find absolute truth. The truth that never changes. Instead of holding on to your clever arguments and opinions look at the mind itself. Not what it creates but what it is. Neurons firing, creating illusions we think are real. But the past doesn't exist, it's gone. The future isn't here yet. The only thing we have is this "now" which isn't even now, because that's another concept we've created in our minds. We create reality inside our brain. Colors for instance don't exist out there, but inside our head. It's just various wave lengths. In truth the yellow door is blank. And... there is no door, only a bunch of atoms thrown together giving the illusion of one to our eyes. But this isn't to be understood intellectually, but to be seen by examining the mind and transcending these concepts that haunt us from the moment we're born to the moment we die. It's not easy, but it's possible. Stop being attached to concepts. It's all a cosmic joke.That's real Buddhism, not all the cultural nonsense, mystical claptrap or superstitions. I agree with you there. Even this is all blah, blah, blah. We can do this dance forever but we'll be forever dancing in circles getting nowhere until this is understood.
Wow that was a mouthful. You got your bases covered don't you? And you believe everything you think. Your brain is your ultimate arbiter. Annabel Boissevain's comment below said it correctly. It's like describing the color red to a blind man. My conclusions aren't coming from more thoughts, they are from a direct experience of what thoughts are...empty. And there is no ego thinking them. That's also an illusion. This "enlightenment" can't be scientifically proven (yet) but can be understood as clearly as the hand in front of your face. I'm not downgrading scientific thought. In the relative world it rules supreme. But science (as all relative truth) has its limits. This is simple, look at the mind itself and see it's emptiness. It takes practice but I've been doing it for 45 years. This isn't a new construct we create, this is the mother of all truths. But again, if you haven't discovered it, it'll seem like gobbledygook and you'll dismiss it out of hand. And by the way, I wasn't being pompous. I was being snarky. And I apologize. However, we both know this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. I do wish you the best. I admire your mind. You're brilliant and if that's enough for you, that's great. I'm not being sarcastic here. Our lives are brief and whatever gets us through the day without hurting other people is all right with me. I've enjoyed our exchange but I think I'm done. Not sure yet.
Okay. Let's keep going. Let me try to be clearer now that you dazzled me with your verbal fireworks. If I burn my hand on a stove or I'm tickled, I don't need a double blind experiment to tell me what's happened. It's self evident. I'm not saying meditation frees me from thought or I go into some reverie. It's not a new experience. It's an acknowledgment. The analogy is, you're having a nightmare and suddenly recognize you're dreaming, you can keep the dream but now the images have no power to cause suffering. That's all Zog Chen meditation is. Recognizing, when you're awake, that you don't have to be attached to these ephemeral thoughts. This isn't about proving it's existence or whether it's scientifically feasible. It's looking at the mind directly and recognizing it's essential nature. If I understood Allan Wallace correctly he was saying science doesn't spend time delving into this aspect of the mind. That it's not a worthy endeavor. And yet, this is the root of everything. Our mind. It deserves more investigation.No?
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that's just an error on your part." - Richard Feynman
Didn't he make some claims in which he was certain of?
@@nik8099 Can't he be mistaken?
he may have said that, but you are trying to twist his intention, and meaning.
@@rwjazz1299 Ah, I see. He said something, so we should ignore that in favour of what you want to hear. Got it :) Thanks.
@@talastra Feyman was being humble. He also said: if you think you understand quantum mechanics; then you don't understand it. Does that mean it's pointless in trying to understand it? No!
godamit why don't the interesting videos ever have cc
noticed that actually lol
That is completely unfair
They should make an app for that
Lol
This was an absolutely brilliant discussion.
Until the Buddhist played the race card. The kookys always do that - when in doubt, play the multiculturalism angle.
Those two are asked "What is the nature of reality?"
Scientist: "We don't know"
Buddhist: "Scientists don't know"
Sean was somewhat humiliated.
@@deeplorable8988 yeah but his ego is so strong and hes happy that hes about to sell books.
I wish he would take some mushrooms or something and get another perspective.
@@deeplorable8988 Good observation.
Bryan Guilford I remember hearing him say he took LSD with his wife when she was writing a book about something related, but he never disclosed the dosage. I doubt it was very high.
Sean Carroll is famous for using words such as "the short answer is ... we don't know" when asked about Quantum Mechanics many years ago. Well at least he is honest. But time can change a person. I am not saying he is lying now.
Great presentation and subject matter. Excellent guests and host. Thanks for sharing.
What seems interesting is that certain chemicals (matter) does affect and alters mind. How does matter and mind interact?
Deepak Bellur
Emptiness is form and form is emptiness
There is no other form than emptiness and there is no other emptiness than form.
Arya Nagarjuna. 1st century Buddhist master.
星白 閑 false. Emptiness is nothingness. What is nothingness? That which sleeping rocks dream about.
Another way of framing the question is how the mind and the brain interact? One Buddhist view is that mind is not produced by the brain but is transformed by the brain. Hence the differences in experience when our brains are affected by physical substances, activities, injuries etc.
@@RolandANambo Emptiness is a somewhat clumsy translation of 'Sunyata' which means 'hollowness' which at least implies a certain structure.
So emptiness, in this sense is not nothingness. Neither does it assert a concrete, inherently existent reality. It walks the middle way, between these two extremes.
Simple, at the fundamental level of the universe, there is no difference between mind and matter- everything is just vibrating energy. Inthe video the Buddhist mentioned how we really aren’t sure if we are the only conscious beings or if its possible that elementary particles are conscious too. The view that everything is conscious is called panpsychism. In going off of a panpsychist view, once the fundamental conscious particles of the universe become more and more complex and folds in on its self (allowing the transfer of information) is where you get more complex forms of consciousness. (For example microbes to fish to humans) To answer your question it is not matter that is affecting the consciousness- it is the fundamental consiousness that is affecting our own consciousness mind.
Great Discussion. I have watched Carroll's other videos and liked them. Here Carroll's belief seems to be deeply rooted in physicalism and realism. But as Alan Wallace pointed out Quantum Physics has not yet solved the "observer effect". So, consciousness and "first-person experience of the mind" are crucial to understanding the nature of reality.
Alan Wallace is very eloquent in putting forth his points. As he said, we need a lot more empirical research into the mind and consciousness from a first-person perspective. And I am glad that Carroll is open to evidence like any good scientist should be.
@@jmc000 And the observer does not need to be conscious.
this a rehash of the "god of the gap".
This was one of the most stimulating, coolest talks I've heard in awhile :) I'm glad ignored all the comments that essentially painted Allan Wallace as a dolt that just didn't listen to Sean Carroll, or provide any real challenge to Sean Carroll. The dialogue Wallace provided was really really thought provoking (to me at least), particularly highlighting the axioms Carroll rests upon. Very very cool talk.
"Interesting"(both) but nothing new or special (both) about it. And nothing really challenging to lazy views being already there.
Very cool, please he was talking out of bottom.
Do Buddhist not know how to use pencils, and tell us about mind instead of telling us that we must mediate.
@@SudhirYadav-kz6ts But you can explain physics to a small child, they might not be able to do math. Also our experience can be fooled, how do I know you are really seeing my blue?. My model of the world absolutely does not come from my experience, how can I experience the very small Bacteria? the very large Supernovae? My model is constantly updated by the scientific method. Ask anybody who has taken LSD do they trust experience.
@@TheReferrer72 They tell you to experience it yourself through meditation and not take it as gospel. There are sutras that explain what is explainable though, so yeah pencils.
@@TheReferrer72 The facts born out of the scientific method are themselves experiences of the scientists who declared those facts out of observations and interpretation of their experiences. You can certainly experience bacteria, because since it is a scientific fact, you can re-experience what the original scientists did by just doing their experiments and then interpreting what you observe and measure, with some sort of generally agreed-upon standard of qualitative and quantitative measurements. You can also experience supernovae the same way. Because scientific facts are borne out of experiences, then your own points about the fallibility of experience necessarily implies the fallibility of the very scientific facts that you say that you value over facts borne from your own experiences. "Facts from experiences of individual observers are fallible and unreliable, so I will instead rely on facts from the experiences of individual observers" is what you're saying. The difference with scientific facts and your own facts are not that they are derived in fundamentally different ways (they are fundamentally derived in the same way), but that your own facts are most likely to be done with faulty or incorrect interpretation as compared to the scientist's interpretations of their experiences.
Wallace is the best. The speech around 31:00 has profoundly effected me right now. Im almost in tears
I've been watching these types of video long enough to know the terminology. So I can sound smart ane regurgitate the types of things I hear smart people say but what it all means, how it all works and why it's all there are complete mysteries to me. I also don't understand what roll the knowledge that everything is made of quarks, particles and atoms is supposed to play in my life. Can I make decisions about what to do using the knowledge of physics? How is this useful to the average person?
On the other hand, buddhism and particularly zen buddhism have drastically changed the way I operate on a daily basis. I find this knowledge useful day to day.
In a lot of ways they point to the same thing. By the nature of observation we change the state of the observed.
Therefore by creating an explanation of something you create an abstraction from what is real.
So what is real? Experience is real, being present and aware is real but when we describe experience there is an abstraction from what is real.
This is not good or bad, it is only when we become attached to beliefs and identities that we loose the awareness of experience and now we are in illusion. Bring awareness to the illusion and it will dissolve.
We can practice this in everyday life when we feel a disproportionate reaction to a situation/experience in our bodies. A disproprtionate reaction is a sign the egoic identity/illusion is in play. Become aware of the illusory nature of the belief arising and also what is real (for me I come to you inherently belong, you are inherently lovable and you are inherently valuable as all of the universe is)
Science is symbolic, (as is language) it is a description of phenomena. to truly understand we have to experience.
@@niallmoore8240 Well stated! (... and in much less than an hour and half! :-)
"I also don't understand what role the knowledge that everything is made of quarks, particles, and atoms is supposed to play in my life. Can I make decisions about what to do using the knowledge of physics? How is this useful to the average person? "
To give a little pushback, this knowledge, or worldview if you will, may not be useful for the average person, but we would not be having this conversation if this worldview didn't exist. The modern era is marked by the rapid development of scientific thinking and the technology that comes from it. So it may not interest you, but the reality that the rules of the universe are discernable and then predictable by motivated humans so that we can do things that would have been considered magic yesterday or a century ago sure as hell is useful to you in a way. Like us being able to communicate on an internet video comment section is a pretty amazing thing unimaginable to previous generations. So as the Buddhist guy Allan Wallace said more or less, it's still a useful worldview, but that doesn't mean it's fair to say it is the fundamental worldview or axiomatic worldview. Perhaps 'consciousness' should be what we pay attention to more than the 'natural' or 'physical' world. Or perhaps the natural world really should be our focus as we will only be able to survive as a species for much longer if we really master the natural world. Who knows for sure?
Actually, it could be extremely helpful, as its the basis of neuroscience, which can provide useful, insightful, and in my opinion, empathetic explanations for why we think and feel and behave the way we do. Neuroscience isn't as old as other branches of science, but its made significant progress that mystics and even some physicists ( not Sean) utterly ignore.
Ummmm hello the phone you are typing on would not exist without physics.
A both a student of science and a student of Vipassana meditation I have come to place each path to knowledge in its own domain. Science is the exploration of external reality and the modelling of this experience in language that is logically consistent and objectively verifiable. The original purpose of the teaching of Goetma before it was co-opted into a formal religion was to explain the cause and cure for the suffering of human beings based on his subjective examination of his personal consciousness. As he pointed out many times, the truth for him is not your truth. The truth that someone else tells you or that you believe is true because you revere a teacher or god is still not your truth. Only through the practice of meditation can you experience your own truth of the cessation of suffering.
Science is more flexible. Most physicists have never actually done the fundamental calculations or reproduced the experiments of the giants of science in their own training. They accept these models of reality because they trust the methods used allow their truth to be regenerated.
For Buddhists the only truth is the subjective experience of liberation and freedom from suffering that comes from meditating in the same way as people before you have been successful with. Buddhism is more a folk medical practice and not really an attempt to explain reality in any objective way. This ignores the suttas from the advanced Buddhist philosophies that were incorporated by Brahmin priests and later Mahayana schools long after Goetma died.
The one thing that both Buddhists and Quantum Physicists do agree on is that everything is in a process of constant change. Reality in terms of eternal essences that transcend time and space can't exist.
Nature only changes in form but that’s what keeps it consistent. Reality is nature and that itself is eternal and it’s true essence. It also transcends time and space in how it performs in time and space. Reality is just this, dualistic and infinite. Infinite in silence though and only in silence is where nature can truly exist formless.
Wrong. Basis to all Buddhist practice is the trust in the teachings itself or the teacher you listen to. It's not just sitting down and training awareness, the practice is interwoven with teachings. And that's far from being 100% subjective aka. "rely only on your own experiences". The moment, you turn to (any kind of) teachings, you are not purely subjective anymore. So, this is similar to the trust of the Physics scholars trusting their scientific predecessors (as you pointed out).
Furthermore, if you try to figure out everything by yourself, you are limiting your insights about reality immensely, bc then you highly underestimate the mental prowess of the last 100-200 years Science scholars. There were and are some damn smart people out there without an religious agenda.
I practice Buddhist meditation myself, but if I want to more about the beginning and course of our Universe, I'd rather ask an astro physicist.
@@jonathanwaltherNo Johnathan, WRONG! Guru just means dispeller of darkness. That doesn't necessarily mean a person. It's called self realization for a reason.
They all make very good points and all have aspects of truth in what they had to say. I'm excited to see what the world of science proves to be in the future.
Science is pseudo religion, a bunch of humans dictating reality based upon perception. Whereas the Dharma is here and now and no human can change it.
Its simple, just like Allan Wallace said thats what everyones missing. Even with science expanding every year and there being breakthroughs; theres always some sort of missing puzzle to the piece and that is people are not studying the mind. Without this, science in itself will not give you a fundamental answer to this question.
Consciousness in its Utilitarian form is a string of recorded subjective experience of a living being that evolved to form the ability to record said experience. Not only to react but to participate in the timing of its environment.
Consciousness is Memories.
Memories came from evolution.
And this is the same reason why writing and reading became the paradigm shift of our global civilization because memory can be passed down through generations w.o exhaustive life cycles.
From that evolution you can repose that Consciousness is a constant for Life evolution. But it is not central to what the universe is.
The highest form of consciousness in the universe will be that of the indigenous Americans doing bushfires to clear forest floors of dead leaves.
Keeping the pristine condition of the universe while being unnoticeable in its grandest schemes.
I would also like to add in an individual levels that when someone is UNCONSCIOUS. The body is alive yet it is not recording the experience of its current environment.
Which is why for anyone who wants to use the mystery of consciousness to be the last bastion of "life after death"...
They perhaps not have seen someone who has Alzheimer's.
Someone's Consciousness slowly dying whilst the body continues to live.
In that Utilitarian sense, thode that are conscious are often social brings, meaning that their actions in their environment will have ripple effects down the social line.
Dus perhaps legacy and "life after death" and why people indigenous folks believe that even after death we live on as long as the memory of us lives on the living or has the effect of that life lived.
@Abram Rex Joaquin
Excellent perspective. Thanks.
@@abramrexjoaquin7513 Really insightful. Nice!
First off, thanks to both of these guys for keeping this a formal dialogue and respecting each other's differences. That should be the main focus whenever we have any types of discussions.
Second, this discussion captures the 2 sides of the same coin which we call reality. There's the quantitative (what you can measure) and the qualitative (what you experience; qualia). Neither can prove their existence purely by using what can be observed in both those realms. This is the reason why I respect Sean Carroll for coming because in his mind(the quantitative mindset), if there is no physical evidence to prove your claim, then it is invalid. However, he came on to hear a new perspective so he can ponder about the questions which were presented. But the main argument that Allan Wallace presented is that all we know fundamentally is what in the mental, which is the qualitative (our consciousness). Our earliest memories are memories of our emotions to a specific occurrence. It is not a quantitative memory. These are things that we can not measure physically, at least not yet. This is the part that Western objective science has neglected and should incorporate so that there is a full description of the 2 sided coin that we call reality.
I think having both these 2 types of "radical" viewpoints expresses their ideas was a great balance. We should look at the world objectively so we can remove all the invalid superstitious beliefs but we should not neglect the very perceiving force which is experiencing life on all levels of existence.
What a brilliant dialogue between these two fantastic men! Sean is an excellent/ impeccable speaker and Alan is captivating! I am so happy so have seen this video! I will be watching it again and again
Sean is horriblle ! conscious of being a public personality..selling
@@OscarWrightZenTANGO grow up.
Indeed, these interdisciplinary exchanges are vital to humanity beginning to better understand ourselves, each other and our place in the universe. I truly felt these erudite individuals conducted a challenging discourse and debate with mutual respect and some good humor. And now I am fascinated with the idea of studying states of consciousness with careful scientific rigor. Thank you. ☯️
This was incredible. Thank you for uploading this!
Buddhism is empirical science. I born and brought up in a Buddhist family and I am an atheist. Both goes hand in hand. There is no compulsion to accept or deny any sort of theories/ Dogma that are existed.Buddha himself said and bluntly quote that,” don’t believe anything because it is written in a auspicious book or said by someone revered or even said by me, if is isn’t confirmed by evidence “. I think that’s one of the most scientific thing that anyone could say.
Atgeism and buddhism are incompatibe.
thank you, i hate that 'Buddhist' ideas often gets put into debate along the the same lines with theology instead of psychology or philosophy
@@hurrell2 Me too. It's annoying as hell
What about karma, reincarnation, nirvana? Buddhism is an ancient version of Phenomenology, so it has many of the same insights as Schopenhauer and the Existentialists.
@@aesop1451 Schopenhauer BORROWED ideas from Buddhism. And the influence of that religion on existentialists like Sartre, Beckett, Camus, Ionesco, y Gassett, etc., is negligible if not nil.
Alan Wallace should have a debate with a neuroscientist. Neuroscience deals with consciousness more than geology, astronomy or physics.
he has debated all the neuroscientists from chalmers to christof koch. the downside of that is you are dealing with 19th century physics. he prefers to debate with leading quantum physicists such as anton zeilinger.
@@backwardthoughts1022 neuroscientists have bad physics. physicists have bad neuroscience. This is why materialist scientists can't seem to manage to tackle the qualia question.
@@Otome_chan311 that colors sounds etc are not part of any physics model does not mean that very good biology such as discriminating neural correlates with precision is not possible or very useful. its very useful. for example we have located the neural correlates for attention and concentration and can now empirically state that the avg person is capable of 2 seconds max on avg concentration, whereas the rare genuine tibetan buddhist can remain not for seconds or minutes but entire multiple hours in perfect single-pointed concentration that is unimpinged and uninterrupted by any external sensory stimulus or internal distraction. these are minor example of things that should not be humanly possible that can only be taken seriously by physicalist thanks to their physics etc.
Thanks so much for posting.
It feels to me that the brain is the epiphenomena of the mind, and the wise attitude towards reality is just curiosity and agnosticism.
We can know some things, but Mystery is greater.
I'm sad that a lot of people will just not get how delightful and correct "the brain is the epiphenomena of the mind" is.
@jdebri Indeed. And if you check, you will find that mind is prior to brain.
That sounds similar to what Donald Hoffman says
@@talastra Please explain your argument. This way, your remark may be meaningful.
@@Pheer777 Very similar, yes. It's also what 5000 years of sadhu insight from "the east" says.
I believe the Buddha was really enlightened since his teachings conclusively explained for everything including those that science couldn't answer and all his teachings have not found to be wrong, bad, illogical or debunked.
Except for reincarnation!
@@พิมพันธ์สุรางค์กูร Why? Do you understand reincarnation?
Siddharta Gautama never aske to be worshipped, but you did.
We learn - sometimes in life - or the after life (Bardo) or then - in the new life. We know things - in the heart - that we have never learnt - in the mind. It awakens an interest and then we may do - some research and then - if deep enough - the learning - increases vastly - about the wonder of life etc. To learn about transmigration - is to really enhance - the potential of humanity. Or, we do not do anything - to learn about ourselves - in this regard. Fare thee well.@@พิมพันธ์สุรางค์กูร
@@พิมพันธ์สุรางค์กูร reincarnation still not debunked as well.. 😮
Death is not the opposite of life, death is the opposite of birth. Before birth, during life and after death we were, we are and we will be an integral part of the Infinite Cosmic Consciousness that permeates everyone and everything ❤
Consciousness may become yet another branch of physics in the future. I would certainly like to know more about this topic.
That's fantasy, Neil. Physics has no way at all to investigate consciousness.
Nothing magical of conscientious whatever. This religious chap keeps asserting mind this and mind that. Minds are made of matter, and matter is made of atoms. We don't know of any minds that exist apart of material so he is taking nonsense. It's all bunk.
@JohnGrove310 I can say a complete opposite of what you said and it would be also a valid conclusion. Since everything we know is from our senses and in our minds, existence of material world can't be proven. Yes, there are some rules that our experience does follow which results in laws in physics but it doesn't change the fact that it's still within our minds. There are things that are missing and we don't or can't take into account, that's why this duality of interpretations is possible.
@@JohnGrove310matter has never been found outside of consciousness, no one has ever experienced matter without consciousness. Consciousness is the only constant experienced.... not matter. You may have "faith" that matter exists outside consciousness, but I don't care about faith or some physicalism of the gaps arguments, stick with your actual experience and stop appealing to complexity.
@@VinceofYawk
If that's the best you got I'm still not convinced
"The greatest gains and values are farthest from being appreciated. We easily come to doubt if they exist. They are the highest reality. It is a little star dust caught, a segment of the rainbow which I have clutched." --- Henry David Thoreau
Highlight of this talk at 1:13:00-1:19:00 -Allan Wallace raises testable theory of a deeper level of consciousness - reached through 10-12 hours of meditation - where memories are stored, including memories from past lives. Reports that thousands of Asian contemplative practitioners have observed this. Plans to start a contemplative research centre to investigate formally. Very intriguing
I think he’s already started it and has the land. There are other tests he wants to do as well. Some meditators have reached a level of calm abiding or shamata which is like a level of focus that leads to siddhis. Siddhis are powers that some would deem supernatural but Alan is hoping to prove real through the hard work of meditation. One such power is the ability to tell when people or conscious beings are in a 50 foot radius. So the plan is to get the meditator deprived of normal senses that could detect a person in their vicinity and see if they indeed have this ability. It’s really exciting how Alan wants to demistify the results of shamata and vipasana (insight/inquiry). And the Dalai Lama supports him in this effort.
This is how we will deconstruct the Cartesian-Newtonian imperialist paradigm in the next 100 years.
There is no past life memory. Just like there is no past life body. Just like the body disintegrates, consciousness if there was any, would have also completely disintegrated. Infact consciousness starts building and disintegrating in sync with the body. We slowly start becoming forgetful, lose power to learn and adapt.
@@RAIRADIO this is conjecture.
@@michaelrosen5333 but the evidence that we have does seem to support it. That our consciousness only lasts for as long as we have a working body. Watching someone succumb to Altzheimers, for example, will show you someone slowly disappearing as their brain physically deteriorates. They are, in effect, “dying in slow motion.” And you get to witness them leaving until at last they are gone. There is no objective evidence that their consciousness is “living on” in some sense independent of their physical body. I don’t like these facts myself. I object to “Physicalism.” I feel sure there must be a “mental sphere” in which thoughts and sensations exist distinct from the physical operation of nerve impulses. But I can find NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for such a belief.
I am a Buddhist. I am a poet. And also a scientist who’s spent most of his life immersed in the scientific exploration of consciousness. That said, I find that my sympathies are closer to Sean’s in this discussion. Alan largely frames his perspective in terms of what we perceive as central to reality, the different perspectives we might hold as our fulcrum in trying to understand the world.
That focus on centrality is why Sean’s reference to Copernicus is so salient. But what I find most fascinating about our particular universe is that through its history our cosmos has promoted a stable succession of ever more complex emergent layers of organization. Quarks and gluons gave rise to primitive nuclei. Then the plasma cooled enough for electrons to be captured, forming simple atoms. Then slight anisotropies allowed gravity to organize primordial stuff into lumps that became stars and galaxies and planets. Then some of those stars fused simple atoms into heavier, more complex ones and blew them out into space as supernovae or spectacular interstellar collisions.
Then chemistry used those atoms in places like our planet to form geological systems and promote the growth of regular patterns like crystals that may, along with other emerging chemical features like lipid coacervates, have served as the precursors to make protected bubbles of even higher organization that emerged over time as autonomous cells. And then, these cells developed into communities - probably in ways and through teleological pathways that we little understand but that preceded our more familiar notion of Darwinian imperatives. And then those most primitive drives evolved to support perception and purposeful action and the earlies stages of conscious choice. Then language and persistence of thought through time and across generations (lots of steps skipped here!!) and in time reached our current stage of awareness, including introspection about the nature of introspection itself.
Even with all these emergent layers, consciousness remains difficult to understand for the same reason we can’t see our own eyes. Our eyes are always occupied looking out at the world and are therefore unavailable to look directly back at themselves. This is a good analogy for why we need science, using our minds to reflect back to us what our eyes and experiences suggest but can’t directly perceive.
My point is that the question about the nature of reality is less about what we prefer to put in the center of our worldview - physics, psychology, primordial/universal consciousness - ¬ than an appreciation for the exquisite choreography of stages and levels of ever more rarified and complex emergent phenomena.
I love the stories our ancestors have told and preserved through the generations. Taken as a whole, they describe the ladder humanity has, and continues, to climb, towards ever greater understanding. As the late Paul Grobstein said, science isn’t ultimately about being right. It’s about being progressively less wrong.
Amen (or Svāhā, if you prefer)!
Buddhism is technically a science of the mind is it not?
Love your comments too!!
Very interesting
Wonderful reading your lengthy comment. I am a novice to Buddha Dhamma coming from Evangelical Christian tradition. Metta to all sentient beings [that drew me into Buddhism]
@@timetoreason7090 Hi there. I'm glad you liked my comment. I actually love the original Christian teachings. From the perspective of our lived human experience, putting the primacy of love in the center, holding a spiritual imperative to find compassion and connection in even the most unlikely places, is a pretty great teaching. I think if I had been alive in the age of early Christianity I would probably have been a follower. But the gospels took the story of a man, living a wise man's life and making a great soul's sacrifice in order to demonstrate the transcendent power of love ("Father...forgive them" etc.) and turned it into a Marvel superhero comic with ever more outlandish sci-fi embellishments. That, for me, is the worm in the apple that over the centuries transformed a simple and beautiful teaching about universal love and turned it into a kind of Disneyland commercial operation - from selling indulgences in the middle ages so that reprehensible behaviors could be "erased" in the eyes of God by paying off the priests to the mega-churches of today that are nothing more than a con game played against the gullible. It's not just the crimes I hate - it's that good-hearted people looking for love and meaning in their lives are being fed a false diet and in the end are actually be cheated out of the great lessons attributed to Jesus. Sorry for the rant - I really care about this stuff.
I love Buddhism because there are still teachings that retain the original notion that the Buddha was just a man, one who, like Jesus, attained a transcendent understanding of the world and attempted to teach people about it. There are certainly sects within Buddhism that fused the simplicity of the original teachings with existing religious traditions. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is filled with God and Monsters that are nowhere in the actual teachings of the Buddha but carried over from local traditions - much like we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December but there's no historical information that this date has anything to do with the birth of Jesus. Actually, that was the date of the Roman holiday Sol Invictus - the day associated with the sun reaching its lowest point in the sky and then beginning to climb again - the victory (Invictus) of the sun (Sol) over darkness. Anyway, science is supposed to be free of such biases and preferences - but it's not. I don't know if you're aware of Sean's dedication to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but he points out that it's practically taboo to study the foundations and deeper meaning of quantum theory. "Just shut up and calculate!" is the way many scientists approach the foundations of physics, but Sean - whether or not I always agree with him - is a rabble rouser, and good on him! OK - it seems I like to write a lot of words, but I hope you enjoy them. I understanding a rational person wanting to leave the evangelical world behind and I salute you - but I hope you can also retain that spiritual dedication to love and compassion so richly present in the original teachings of Jesus who, like the Buddha, Sean Carroll, and you and I, are simply good people trying to make sense of a complex world and experience both love and reason living in harmony. Peace.
Beautifully put! The most incredible thing about being a conscious being at this precise time in history is the cognitive access to the emergent layers of reality. Our ability, because of what we know and continue to learn, to feel a seemingly limitless sense of awe is something I am ever growing in gratitude towards.
@@dylandutson1626 Thanks Dylan. I'm with your sentiments 100%. Gratitude on, brother. - Stuart
“This is a very narrow sliver of humanity that seems to regard itself as the center of the universe”
Where did the original particles come from to smash together to make other particles from , in the first place ?
We said they're there.
I would like to have a conversation with the guy who programmed Sean Carroll.
The Buddhists
the point is , he does sound so programmed !!!
he is a victim of too much education leading to ego, self importance, dogma imprisoned
Very thought provoking with some innate understanding on both sides in a courteous discourse. Very enjoyable to see and hear....thank you for this!
What a great and respectful debate this was! Very informative and enjoyable! Thank you gentlemen!
Right off the bat, one thing that bothers me is Sean Carroll's use of the word "contain" when discussing how everything in the room works on a molecular level. Our bodies do not contain atoms, we are atoms. There's no container that is not made up of atoms. The particles are not in us, we are them. There is no physical separation in the interaction between our beings and the rest of the world on a molecular level.
Consciousness inside of a body that’s made out of atoms
@@a.bagasm.7253 If you believe that consciousness exists, then either a collection of atoms can have consciousness or atoms themselves have consciousness. With regard to reality, a physicist says only atoms are reality, whereas, a Buddhist says consciousness is reality and atoms are a way of measuring the physical reality of consciousness.
@@maketracksoffroad6602 atoms combined in very specific ways to make neural cells which combined and connected in specific ways to allow consciousness to emerge. There's no magic involved - just the magnificent emergence of new properties caused by the right combinations and interactions of molecules. For example: Hydrogen and oxygen combine in specific ways that make the amazing material substance of water.
@@rckflmg94 I think my statement “collection of atoms” covers your point. Not ruling out “magic” or “divine Providence” however. It’s still a lot of speculation and assumptions until someone can actually locate, define and measure consciousness.
@@rckflmg94 atoms combined in very specific ways "BELIEVED" to make (what we have observed and identified as) neural cells which, combined and connected in different ways "ARE BELIEVED" to allow (the phenomenon obscurely understood as) consciousness to emerge. (emerge from what, exactly?)
I don't doubt the validity of this interpretation, but I also don't believe it's anywhere near complete, and as such deserves greater scrutiny as well as an introduction to different perceptions to test it's reliability. The point made by Wallace is that we are, indeed, not paying rigorous attention to the hard problem of consciousness in any manner that can be considered rigorously scientific. It's really being swept under the rug by the western science community, which is a shame because that gives all these pseudoscientists and bugouts more incentive to spread misinformation regarding consciousness, and manipulating the ignorant masses who have no reliable, thoroughly-tested source for information on the matter
A very wise man at an advanced age told me once: “you know, at some point in my life I thought that when I grew old I was going to understand so much more; the reality is that you realize you are just as ignorant of mostly anything and everything”.
You only end up more ignorant if you stop learning
Language and Programming Channel
Lovely quote!
Might use it in conversation so I sound less ignorant! lol
Omg! "Do you believe in freewill? Yes ofcourse! Do I have a choice?"
“Of course you have free will, the boss says so”
Christopher Hitchens.
No
This is a very important point I wish Alan would have elaborated on. If mind is simply the brain--a collection of atoms obeying physical forces--then free will cannot be said to exist. All of our thoughts and decisions are deterministic--determined by the elementary particles of the brain obeying physical forces. Free will requires a Mind which is capable of directing the energy of the brain to have certain thoughts or perform certain actions. So the question becomes: What's directing the energy in our brains? Material particles/energy acting on blind physical forces, unguided by any intelligence OR Mind intelligently guiding the particles/energy in our brains to produce desired outcomes (thoughts and behaviors)?
Christopher Hitchens missed the point with that quote
MysticDan, having a biology does not negate Transcendence. I assume you are for the abolition of the courts, as no one without free will can be held responsible.
I like Marcelo and would be interested in hearing his perspectives as a participant even though he was an excellent moderator. Especially his comment about approaching the subject of consciousness with a great amount of humility, although I don't think Sean Carroll knows that word.
They're both honest to themselves and knowledgeable. They both deserve all the respect
@@jimbomb3318 Being impressed by the knowledge of others and feeling their honesty doesn't necessarily mean I know any any better. Maybe it means I feel respect and grateful for them for educating me about topics in their expertise.
You need to relax
I wish this had been more of a conversation. The format was rather tedious like a high school debate, each side giving their insights, but not enough one on one challenging of each other.
It's propaganda for people looking for prizes and funding.. Luckily, genuine science exists.. www.spaceandmotion.com
Buddhism are extreme compatible with science, the most compatible actually i think.
It would have been a blood bath.
I would love to be a part of a study on consciousness, specifically the one Alan mentioned about meditation for years and trying to access past life memories and to test it for validity
It was this talk (the link at the end of this message!) and that I first got my Self realisation, (The Only requirement is to have , an open heart and a pure desire, to achieving our second birth/Self realisation! ) I received a very strong ‘Cool breeze’ coming from the top of the head, the fontanelle bone area (derived from Latin, meaning ‘small/little fountain’) which I came to realise was/is ‘The cool breeze of the Holy Ghost and is infact, ‘the actualisation of Baptism, the real Baptism! ‘
Self realisation is the starting point of reality!
“We will never know the meaning of our lives, not until we are connected to the Power,which created us!” -Shree Mataji nirmala Devi
Jai Shree Mataji, _/|\_ 1
Past life tracing is not possible. Just by checking your cells I cannot find the animals and plants you ate. Old soul has to disintegrate for new one to form.
Buddha talks about accessing past life in idhipada vibhanga sutta.
Past life experience? What does it mean?
@@manog8713 Buddha took birth over 100000 times. Many people who have collected enough parmitas can recall their past births. For most practitioners this is not that important though. Some may want to explore it.
This is a stellar talk. These two chaps are really listening to each other. It’s almost as if they agree: two viewpoints saying that science and spirituality are the same.
Spirituality is science. Matter is derivative of consciousness. Multiplicity is only apparent in truth there is only one mind. No matter as such. Matter is 99.99999% empty space held together by virtue of the force of vibration. The mind is the matrix of all matter. We are forced to witness the ego and the universe become one, over and over again in the never ending cycle of rebirth death and destruction.
I have known you since before you were in your mother belly. I sanctified thee before you came forth from the womb. I ordained you as a prophet to the nations. The lord said "Do not tell me you are a child. You will go where i command of thee and you will say the things I tell you to say." And he reached out and touched Jeremiah by the mouth and said "the words that you speak are my words." Do not fear the looks on their faces for I am right beside you and I will fight alongside you. Jeremiah 1: 5-8
The creator lives through the eye of every living being. He is getting to know himself and we are him.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” ― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Godels incompleteness theory
Godels incompleteness theory what? Are you trying to say something or just writing random words?
Therefore while Quantum physicist when asked where is observer (human-themselves) than they get stuck. So comes explaination from 3000s years of contemplative indian knowledge called "Atma" which was again refined by buddha- Buddhist phylosophy which explains throughly about selfless theory or emptiness or theory of interdependence or not inherently existing.
@@M16-k6s ... nowadays also known as new age bullsh*t which doesn't explain anything.
Same for the religious. They can't solve it either. So let's quit pretending.
54:43 Well, just because it's different doesn't mean it needs to contain something unique. An apple is sweet, while the leaves and wood are not. There is no sweetness in the tree but the sweet thing is a recombination of stuff, that was already there, we know that the stuff we are made of is incredibly versatile and capae of many things!
20:15 Nobody's gonna talk about how Sean's ankle disobeys the laws of Physics
What are you talking about?! The other guys ankle is way more weird
They both have rubber ankles. It's required for a Ph.D
bro he took off his shoe.
Damn you, now I have to stop reading comments and go check Sean's ankle.
What about the Monroe institute and the data with remote viewing as well as the importance of the observer and the part his conscious plays even to the affect of a single photon
Consciousness is bigger than a tiny function in the brain, we dream don't we, we don't have to have a a physical body acting to experience a type of reality n energy can never be destroyed only recycled, your consciousness will go on
This reminds me of what prof. Harari onc said , “when I found out it’s not ME who has control of my mind ,while trying to meditate , I learned something NEW “!
Enlightenment has always been about who not why--excellent comment.
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
"It doesn't seem to me that we need to invoke new stuff outside the laws of physics."
"New stuff... consciousness is not new stuff."
Love that interaction.
th-cam.com/video/U84nxCsQpus/w-d-xo.html
But Carroll didn't mean that consciousness was new. Simply that however it works, it doesn't require completely different laws of physics, laws or phenomenon the people suggesting might exist, can provide zero evidence for.
Alan clearly explains that the study of consciousness is not stuff, it’s been there since our existence of life, but it’s was Asian philosophers like Buddha who started observing the mind radically and imperially it’s nature or the reality of nature through observing our mind…
@Buddhist Beast They problem with saying consciousness is not material is the lack of any explanation of how consciousness interacts with the matter of which we are made? Why is it so radically altered by brain injuries, dementia, LSD, comas?
@@karmatravelogue they experienced evil people who found out where the wealth was coming from and they ended up building a wall and learning tactical and stratigic methods to stay under the radar but are there as others are pushing issues of old scars open and blood thirsty is what is quenching their thirst but not love or forgiveness
"Intersubjectivity" … .What a great word!
Yes, it is.
You mean to say you had never heard the word "intersubjectivity" before?
@@b.g.5869 why are you being so judgy?
@@miguelnewmexico8641 I'm not being "judgy"; I was expressing astonishment that the OP had apparently never heard the word "intersubjectivity" before.
You're being judgy in judging me to be judgy.
Only 35 minutes in and Alan is now touching on the very thing I noticed Sean never touched on? Consciousness, the observer and it's affects on the material realm or the outcome thereof as a result of the observer. And this from a supposed Quantum expert none the less? Consciousness is THE thing, subject, object, question, or whatever label you want to give it, today, to try and figure out and understand just what it is, how it operates, where it comes from, etc?
There was also a Proverbist called Solomon many millennial ago that said, "As a man thinks/believes in his heart so is it." Proverbs 23:7 As Alan points out, he would expect nothing less than the explanation/belief of reality from any physicist/materialist.
What a shame that Sean and possibly the host haven't awaken to the level of awareness that some others have about the true nature of reality.
But then, one would hope that through wonderful dialogues such as this that we can become more aware and awakened to what and who we truly are, our true nature, that which is beyond the flesh and blood or material realm.
There was another well respected ancient teacher that would quote an even more ancient writing when he stated, in Matthew 13: "13 That’s why I teach the people using parables, because they think they’re looking for truth, yet because their hearts are unteachable, they never discover it. Although they will listen to me, they never fully perceive the message I speak. 14 The prophecy of Isaiah describes them perfectly: Although they listen carefully to everything I speak, they don’t understand a thing I say. They look and pretend to see, but the eyes of their hearts are closed.
15 Their minds are dull and slow to perceive, their ears are plugged and are hard of hearing, and they have deliberately shut their eyes to the truth. Otherwise they would open their eyes to see, and open their ears to hear, and open their minds to understand. Then they would turn to me and I would instantly heal them.
16 “But blissful are your eyes, for they see. Delighted are your ears, for they are open to hear all these things."
At an hour and two minutes I can see the host does have ears to hear and eyes to see, while sean remains deaf and blind, sadly.
If only our pride and hubris would not get in the way.
It is thought, thought is both a reaction and a creation of a product, all at the summon of the physical or ones own living meta verse.
One of the Buddha's first teachings was a universal teaching of Right Understanding... which is an ultimate truth that we all need...
I seriously can't believe how non confrentational that was and though my knowledge of both individuals is limited I'd read articles with quotes or remarks from Sean and was under a much more cynical impression than I am now watching this he seemed really down to earth.
And that is a rarity in Physics world to see down the earth guy! Most of them live in their own egocentric world.
Mr. Wallace gave a superb talk.I love how he gave examples of different physicists and that we are consciousness first and foremost.
Brilliant! It is just so deeply satisfying to listen to this kind of discussions from this kind of amazing people :D
Brilliant on one side, hubris, arrogance, ignorance, and egoism on the other.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt I don't know who ur talking about since I haven't watched it yet, but I know from knowledge of both sides this could literally be referring to either one
If I was programming a simulation I would have put this in just to mess with myself.
Me2
;)
Haha yes. Hiding the truth in plan sight.
I would've made the buddhist the physicist's equal, by having him also speak for himself, rather than reading off a notebook.
That’s a religion I could get behind
Imagine connecting string theory with beliefs like Buddhism to explain karma and life's energy. Maybe the metaphysical approach of some religion was our ancient human attempt to describe life down to the sub atomic particles. Is there not a resemblance between string vibrations and what we call energy in spiritual terms?
Buddhism understood that our reality is made out of particles way before scientists figured it out
I guess in a view from Buddhism, there is no need to explain the karma and energiy in a physical approach.
That is a main part of Buddha's teach. Energy, space, your life, karma is only a definition of our dualistic mind. The true essence of the phenomas ist emptiness. And that is the spring, where it all starts to exist, but also going to fade in in the future.
That does not mean that the aproach of science is wrong. Quantum mechanics, for example, is a proper Theorie to explain a lot in this universe and as far as we know it is a "true theory", which is the root Fundament of most of our technical stuff like computers and Internet..
But as from the physicist told: Reality has a lot of layers, which all exist parallel and which all are more ore less"true".
So quantum mechanics cannot be the absolute "truth". That is the problem, why the general relativity theory and quantum mechanics seem not to fit to each other, but work both extraordinary.
The nature of truth lives in a world, where our logical thinking has no access to..
Difficult to explain, but "true", so to speak. 😌
@@LuisHernandez-sf5hf it is not made out of particles, it is made out of quantum fields
You should read the books of an independent scholar called Graham Smetham, who in fact dedicated his entire life to researching on quantum physics and Buddhism. In fact, he has been self-publishing all his books in the last decade or so. I came across him while watching a movie on David Bohm called Infinite Potential. It is a must watch if you’re interested in the topic.
@@llin3223 will do, thank you for the recommendation!
asia
some of the notable books written around 05 AD by nativs of India are
Aryabhattahi - maths physics
Sushrut samhita - Medicine
Shatakatreyam - Poetry philosophy
Also, much older, Veda.
nice
Wonderful! We should have more dialogues and fewer debates.
The physicist surprised me a great deal with his philosophical relativism! Most people who study physics tend to describe the world in an ,,objective" manner, without understanding the shortcomings of such a rigid epistemology!
Most physicists have taken philosophy courses. You’d be surprised how related the two can be.
That’s not been my experience. Physicists are among the most philosophical people I’ve ever met. Think about it: people drawn to these studies are the ones who are so fixated on the big questions they turn it into a career. How did we get here? What happens to the universe? What is reality? Scientists often get pegged as “too objective,” because people only interact with them in a classroom or a lab or on a TV. And scientists are different from the philosophers and religious scholars who also attempt to answer these questions. Scientists have chosen to explore these big questions while being bound by the scientific method, which is rooted in objectivity. Others may explore them spiritually, and some take several approaches. I know many scientists who explore these questions scientifically during the week, and on the weekends explore them in a religious, philosophical, and/or meditative setting instead.
@@ebrennie Thank You for your perspective! 💗🌷
He is philosophy professor too
Not really. Its usually the biologists who are objective.
I was fairly delighted when Alan Wallace quoted Wolfgang Pauli saying: "It isn't even wrong."
@Dirk Knight Great Argument, Good points. Buddhism is a genuine path to liberation and the truth of the universe. Of course, if one is stuck in close mindedness and his conceptual mind, he/she wouldn‘t understand because he/she loves his/her ego, similar to you. :)
@Andreaz-64 He never said that he isn't. By the way, "the ego" is not the same as "arrogance". The ego is a layer of the conscious mind, described by Freud, that deals with problem-solving within your experience of reality. It's clear that you just wanted to insult the guy, because you don't like his way of talking, but you haven't really understood what he said.
@@pierrolunar8561 how very ironic of you.
I am just starting to listen to this and I know I have waited my whole life to hear Allan Wallace. Will be looking for him
I want more of this everywhere
Alan's point is that the organization and interaction of neurons and other physical elements are simply correlates, not causes, to thoughts and behavior. You can study the brain all you like, you can arrive at the ultimate laws of physics, but you'll never understand deeper truths such as what it means to love by that method. Science is wonderful, and limited.
I wish somebody asked a question regarding consciousness being subjective. Why am I a conscious being separate from others? Why am I not you? are we simply all one spit consciousness that keeps budding off with each iteration of life? So what are we budding from?
th-cam.com/video/h6fcK_fRYaI/w-d-xo.html
not say this is true it's a short story but it gets you thinking.
I think Sean tried to ask that when he asked him about the minds - being one mind or individuals, I feel like he was going in that direction with that question he popped up, but I may be wrong.
DO instead of Talk, Test it for yourself!!! that was powerful !
Meditation, in my experience calms your mind and body, causing me to relax and achieve the best whole body relaxation - which in turn heals the mind and body. Thanks for the presentation.
When Alan Wallace talks of mind / consciousness, it is (I think) of the immediate awareness of sensations, feelings, memories, thoughts - whatever you are aware of. His point is that your mind is highly complex and dynamic and you would be advised to spend time trying to understand how it works! Consciousness is not a direct experience of reality. What we know of "reality" is a model our mind creates and that we are aware of. We all agree on the basics; there is no question it is out there, as Sean Carrol clearly explained. And over hundreds of millions of years, the processes inherent in that reality have generated life and human brains and - consciousness. "Material reality" and consciousness are not exclusive, nor should either be considered primary. However, if you do not understand how your "mind works", you can be led to false beliefs, such as that the earth is the center of the solar system. Science eschews dualistic thinking - hence the "idolization" of mathematics. But mathematics is a tool to represent and explore reality. Wallace notes regarding the "scientific view" of consciousness that "Mind doesn't matter, because it's not matter. However, our brain function, and hence our thinking, is fundamentally dualistic. Asian teaching recognizes this - the "yin-yang" principle. This is the origin of the "mind-body" problem, panpsychism, and other misguided beliefs. Mind and body (physical material reality) are one; our dualistic thinking prevents us from knowing that. Here is how to cross that bridge. Uh oh sorry gotta go walk my dog.
@@mo2119 yeah, never underestimate the consciousness-expanding properties of a bottle of corn schnapps. if you felt it, it must be true.
@@stefanb6539 not necessarily an actual experience with the eyes or sensations lmao I’m referring more to just a realization of the oneness of everything.
As a person who values both philosophy and science, I would have wanted to ask certain questions that were never answered. Questions about how the mind could be the fundamental base to everything. I do believe everything is a subjective experience too, and that I can't experience anything else but a subjective world. Relativism, in a sense. However, I'd want to question this:
- If the conscious and subjective experience is NOT directly linked to the brain, then why is the system a closed loop? For example, if I stimulate certain regions of the brain correctly, a corresponding experience will arise. Furthermore, if the same corresponding experience is percieved indirectly through stimuli, the same region of the brain will light up as well. To me, this indicates a closed, self-dictating and responsive system.
I would imagine a counter-argument would be that we are, through both cases of this thought-experiment, conscious. That consciousness is therefore the foundation. However, bundles of nerves have been found that makes you unconscious when inactivated, which to me indicates that consciousness, like any other perception, is just a part of this closed subjective system of brain-environment interactions.
I invite you to discuss this with me in the comment section. It would be most interesting.
Larri my response is that instead of focusing on the physical difference between conscious and biological processes we should acknowledge that conscious is binded by and determined by the processes occurring in neuron interactions and from there trying to integrate the building blocks of consciousness that are these biological reactions into an understanding of the consciousness it creates. They are separate just as brick and mortar is not a house, but they are made up of the same material and only exist separately because we choose to say that at a certain point that brick and mortar creates what we know as a house, and once the house is created, it extends to a level of meaning above the mere brick and mortar. Mind and biology really are the same, but we have to look at the complex biological processes of mind to try to understand that which mind is just as you can study every brick to begin understanding each room of the house before finally you tie the rooms together to understand the house. So let’s not get caught up in semantics because ultimately yes bricks and house are same, but because we want to understand mind as the house and not the bricks, we must try to piece the bricks together until we arrive at the functioning of the house.
I love the dialogue between Buddhism and modern science, whether it's physics or neuroscience, there is such overlap. I do think there was a bit of discussion at the very beginning where Alan and Sean were talking about different things when discussing "consciousness".
was it buddah who hid in his own mind when his father couldnt shelter him from lifes cruelty when he saw people suffering and growing old?
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
Very thought provoking discussion. One of the best I have experienced. I tend to agree with Mr. Wallace that there is an intrinsic Western bias in regards to how science sees the mind/ consciousness. What I strive to know is; what METHODS can be used to empirically begin to understand what consciousness really is. Perhaps what Alan suggests in his Tuscany Institute idea of intensive study to develop a methodology is what we are missing in trying to answer this question. We must develop better TOOLS to define all these concepts and incorporate them in our search for the truth.
Wow. The yogis of Tibet are talking about their experiences, this is information we’ve never had privy to until very recently. (Long story that I’ll skip). These people have spent years meditating in isolation. They claim to remember previous lives, even back to being animals. The U of Virginia has researched reincarnation. The information they have gathered is incredible! The discussions about Near death experiences… our consciousness is not what we’ve been led to believe.
Both are really good speakers and very eloquent with their point of view and respectable at the same time. I liked both of them. However, my views are more aligned towards the Buddhist perspective eventho knowledge of Physics is very important to our everyday life. Probably my experience with meditation had influenced my view.
Well done also the interviewer. Thanks for this thought provoking interview.
I read somewhere that the difference between science and religion - one is outwardly looking,the other.inwardly looking ?
I am honestly having difficulty finding the point in which they disagree other than that “consciousness” is the underlying principle of reality.
It seems like consciousness could fit into the physical model
as ability for the observation of the interaction of Particles and forces inside of the brain which is presented to our “mind” by our thoughts. I think Alan’s point is that there actually are methods in which we could observe our consciousness by turning attention inward with introspection and meditation.