I just finished The Elephant and The Blind and cant help but wonder about a discussion between Donald Hoffmann and Metzinger. Seems like both are going to the same destination through different paths.
Great observation! They explore similar questions but build on entirely different premises, which could make for an intriguing contrast rather than a complementary dialogue.
I think that the often-used term "resting in non-dual awareness" reveals something about non-dual awareness, related to what Karl talks about around 54:40, that to control an epistemic agent requires the assumption of a specific perspective. Personally, the closest I get to experiencing this kind of difference is when walking to a well-known destination. If I can get into the right mindset, I have a feeling of having the intention of getting there, but I don't have a sense of controlling my body-it moves on its own, as it were-and I am "resting" in the awareness of phenomena flowing through me. So, I am gathering evidence that walking is achieving the goal of reaching the destination, and I can chill and look around, notice and appreciate my environment, etc.
First, you get from the "me | the world" dualism to a sort of "Iness" (like a transparent or invisible subject sitting on the backseat contemplating the world and the personal agent as part of the world). Then, you get from the "Iness" to a sort of "isness" (no subject at all, the subject becomes the entirety of experience, there's no distinction between a subject and objects whatsoever, there's no privileged point of view, everything is agency-like). Then, if there's a knowing of the state of "isness", and a reasoning about consciousness unfolds, consciousness "dissapears", because you clearly see it's nothing, there's no consciousness, there's just phenomenality, there's just a being of the entire world. But if you make the same reasoning from the "Iness" withouth there being a knowing of the "isness". Consciousness is reasoned still as something, and that's very tricky (and I think that's what Thomas is stuck with). So that's the nature of consciousness, it's not phenomenal and it's not a thing. What is it then? Wrong question, but yes. And that leads to a very uncomfortable position, because either you assume that there's something beyond phenomenality or you accept the phenomenality itself as the main reality. Or you just accept that there's nothing to really know about true reality, unless you accept phenomenality, as it is, as a true reality, regardless of whatever else might be (which I think is the best option). After all that, you start to function in a better way, and you may also get the ability to learn faster or to be emotionally more open and humorous, because you understand everything as a model which is constructed and reconstructed as the world unfolds, even if you've never thought about that. So honesty also becomes a prominent quality of such state of being.
@@MeRetroGamer Alex Jones (yes, that Alex Jones 😅) made an interesting point about honesty in a conversation with Tucker Carlson. He said that unless you always tell the truth, the mind-constructed reality that you inhabit will become a lie. So, once you see the Dhamma in action, honesty becomes a prominent quality because it is good for you. The way I think of the Dhamma is an objective meta-function. Over time, I have acquired a perspective similar to Buddha's on the nature of reality and consciousness. We have very precise models of various aspects of reality, and I collect those, building an object in my mind of greater and greater explanatory power, but I do not attach to any particular view. Adherence to own view is a fetter, after all. If you see enough cross-sections of a cone, you can infer the shape of the higher-dimensional object that these cross-sections represent. The fundamental reality is that kind of object.
@@krzysztofwos1856 That's a really good point. I understand the Dhamma as the way in which knowledge goes into meta-knowledge, and meta-knowledge into meta-meta-knowledge, and so on. It's a way in which consciousness (or maybe I'd say "the universe" or just "nature") gets perspective on itself step by step. So the awakening (or enlightenment) isn't actually a "final state", it's the unfolding of the principles that create order and lucidity.
Worth looking at this from the other side of waking experiences. What happens just before the onset of sleep? Quote:- In the interval between wakefulness and sleep, there is a gray zone during which rich and dynamic changes occur. Brain activity slows down, muscles relax, heart rate lowers, consciousness and responsiveness to the environment fluctuate, and rich perceptual experiences emerge Quote - Vivid hypnagogic hallucinations are associated with SOREMPs or with patterns at sleep onset that are intermediate between wakefulness and REM sleep. They appear to represent the intrusion of REM sleep dreaming into wakefulness. Similar hallucinations may be present upon awakening from REM sleep (vivid hypnopompic hallucinations).
There is deep thought about the question of what consciousness is, and rightly so, but strangely enough, humans do not know who and/or what they are as a life form. That question is actually never asked so explicitly, although if you know the answer to it, many other things will become clearer.
A great discussion I'll have to give a deeper run. Thomas does speak of meditation an awful lot, without too much on the qualities such a presence of mind brings. I very much see us a creative species, one that exploits needs and conditions. I didnt find a compelling reason to meditate. Perhaps its a small vanity around meditation, a title of pure consciousness. Why not raw consciousness first? Or a basis of consciousness, in terms of building blocks? Karl is a fantastic individual, I contacted him regarding some ideas on brain functions. I had the great pleasure of meeting him and a small research group at UCL a few months later.
Meditation could open up avenues in our understanding of consciousness and how different states or practices might fundamentally alter our interaction with the world around us.
@philosophybabble yes! Thank you for your added thoughts. Indeed, I believe meditation can educate us in the temporal now and the nature of reality. Certainly, the stillness required to perceive our smallest interactions within environments. I do hope you're enjoying yours on a Saturday night! Especially with Christmas round the corner, it calls for wine 🍷 😏
@@AquariusGate Indeed, there's a clarity and insight to be found in those quiet moments of stillness, where we truly connect with our surroundings. As for Saturday night, absolutely! With the festive season upon us, the allure of an cozy evening with a glass of wine is indeed tempting - a little indulgence to complement the meditative stillness, wouldn't you say? 😊
To offer some insight, try not to think about meditation as offering a presence of mind. Mindfulness is only one method of mediation, and at its core, it is also the most basic. You could think of it as a Meditation 101 course for the busy person with a busy mind. There are 112 classical meditation techniques. Most are no-mind meditations (in their advanced applications). 'Pure consciousness' or 'raw consciousness' are misnomers, because they have an inbuilt assumption that there is more than one consciousness. It has been the understanding of practitioners of meditation throughout the millennia that there is only one consciousness (or cosmic consciousness), but that we are not aware of the one consciousness. We do not realize it. We do not recognize it. We do not live it. Instead, we perceive a self within that is different from other selves. This perceived separation is the illusion. Regular meditation and harnessing the natural geometry of the human body can help to dissolve the illusion. The rate of dissolution is directly proportional to the amount of effort expended towards cultivating awareness and the accuracy of geometric alignment of the spine. The primary goal is to cultivate an awareness of how mind works and how to break through the boundaries of a limited experience of life toward a cosmically inclusive experience of life. This can only be achieved through no-mind states, but before such states can be achieved, one must first observe one's thoughts and emotions as they rise. Meditation, or simply closing one's eyes, centering one's attention on a single point, and paying full attention to thoughts and emotions that arise (as if watching a film or listening to an audiobook). As one observes these thoughts and emotions frequently, eventually, they dissolve, opening up the surface of mind, and allowing one to access the subconscious directly. Here, the imaginal awaits, or the 'arbiter of truth', the gatekeeper to the unconscious. As one continues to observe the subconscious thoughts, they too eventually dissolve. What is left is the unconscious, or the final illusion of self. The unconscious speaks only in truths that are in seed form. Short and mysterious statements that sound like they are spoken by another voice than your own. Make no mistake, though, this is the deepest inner voice of your illusory separate constitution. It is the voice that is filtered and interpreted by the subconscious for you without your own awareness, delivering thoughts and emotions on the surface conscious level. It is the primordial evolutionary mind that is in communion with the whole of life on earth and the whole of the cosmos simultaneously. The unconscious mind filters truths from the collective unconscious, and delivers what Jung called Archetypes. These archetypes animate the unconscious mind and trickle down into awareness largely filtered into micro-thoughts and micro-actions. When the unconscious mind is still, all illusions of self dissipate. This is the moment of 'enlightenment'. Contrary to what is proposed here, I do not believe that this is a mis-translation. There is a clear parallel between an experience of a "light body" and the state of bliss that accompanies the total stillness of all generated illusion within the mind. Beyond this state, one can access the cosmic mind directly. We are not separate from the cosmic mind. We are simply under the illusion that we are separate from the cosmic mind, hence we are incapable of accessing it. The cosmic mind has 3 "layers" like the human mind, because they are representations of one another: the cosmic unconscious, the cosmic subconscious, and the cosmic conscious. They are mirrored relative to the human mind's structure with regard to our ability to access them, but identical in their relative structures. The only difference is breadth (ie. spatial scale). Essentially, the typically perceived human mind is temporally bound, and the cosmic mind is spatially bound. When one goes from a sense of separate self to a sense of cosmic union, all temporality dissolves. The cosmic mind is where all intelligence comes from. It is a boundless library for the avid learner, a timeless symphony for the avid listener, and an endless theatre for the attentive observer. Within its layers hide the secrets to all that can be known. Here there are no thoughts. Here there is awareness of all that is. Beyond cosmic consciousness, there is cosmic stillness. It is not a place. There is no spacetime in cosmic stillness, hence it is not spatially or temporally bound. There are no waves here. There are no ripples here. There is only awareness, and there is nothing for awareness to observe but itself. This is the ultimate realization of all that can be realized: no cosmic mind; no state. There is no-thing, and there is no-you. There is that is. I hope this provides some insights into the areas that may have been a bit too intensive for this particular talk.
I have experienced lucid dreamless sleep many times. It can be experienced via meta-awareness, ie. awareness of awareness of the act of sleeping. It is not a "falling" asleep, which is what happens when one slips out of consciousness. It is a stillness of thought and emotion in a continuous state of meta-awareness, or observing the awareness in a state of sleep. It is not about knowing. For there to be knowing, there must be a knower, a thinker, a rememberer. There is no knower. There is no thinker. There is no one to do the remembering. From the seat of awareness, there is no self. When there is no-self in constant awareness, the mind becomes bodily, or takes on the aspects of a body of its own. This body maps onto the full body via the nervous system. This body remembers details of everything your entire genetic lineage had mapped onto their mind bodies, as well as all impressions you have gathered epi-genetically and psychologically. This process has fluctuated generationally between unconsciousness and consciousness, or seed form awareness and flowering awareness, so humanity as a whole is largely asleep, dormant in seed form. To experience sleep, one must first be fully awake. Humanity is largely asleep throughout the day. In their sleep, they dream thoughts and emotions and act on their dreaming always. They do observe the thoughts and emotions on the front-end of attention, but they are inhibited by recursive thoughts and emotions, compulsions, attachments, and beliefs. They enact the recursive echoing directly, as in a dream. When there is meta-awareness every moment, words come without thought, emotions come without feeling. Instead, they flower of their own accord as is necessary. As such, there is no stumbling on thoughts, no unnecessary modulation of emotion. Your thoughts and emotions are components of your mind because they are tools for communication with other minds, but more fundamentally, they are the tools necessary for internal dialog. Their primary function is to facilitate the bringing about of no-self via contradiction (duality to non-duality), so that the body and the mind can function at their best, without interruption from an imagined self. This is the flowering of the mind. There is anger and hate because there is the illusion of separation: duality. These phenomena arise because of unconsciousness, not consciousness. They arise because of rampant imagination stimulated by an endless stream of external stimuli competing for the attention, constantly breaking down and constraining your ability to perceive. This has happened at an exponential rate in recent history. Now there is a distraction every second if one falls into the trap. When we use intellect, memory, and identity to understand the world, these attributes of mind act as filters that define the geometry of our thoughts. These geometries are an imperfect match with situational awareness, so the thoughts are in conflict with the existential reality. Because we are no longer paying attention to the internality of our own existential reality, we are not aware of our own seat of awareness, hence we get up off this seat and participate in the drama of life without ever knowing a thing about how we are existentially capable of thought and emoting to begin with. We are beings with a great heritage, a wonderous library of knowledge at our disposal, ready to be shared with one another, with the ultimate goal of experiencing oneness together. To access these inner dimensions where the oneness can be existentially perceived, meta-awareness is the key.
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience. However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world. This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective. For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action. Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment. The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience. Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
Beautifully written I must say. I would like to add something: The third-person perspective should be (or become) the consensus of the first-person perspectives. However, this only applies if you assume that the ultimate truth exists, if the ultimate truth does not exist then the third-person perspective is not relevant.
There’s a lot talk about the hard problem of consciousness but little discussion about hardest problem of all - our seeming individuality. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
As I understand it, our genetics wires our basic connections re. neurons but our experiences adds connections between neuron paths. So we are all going to have basically different connections and action potentials. No Expert.
I agree with you 100%. I've patiently been listening to Metzingers point of view, read ego tunnel also. While I really respect is academic acumen, I think his fundamental bias of materialist reductionism has limited him from exploring other avenues to explore consciousness as I found Anaka Harris to have articulated so well. She too doesrmt have the answers to mystery of consciousness, obviously. But she's not as emphatic as Metzingers that consciousness is not subjective.
"Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness"? The "electricity" is the means by which timing based 'representation' encoding is accomplished. (Representations may originate in the senses, in memory or in the thinking process). Representations are essential elements of the being conscious process. Your self is an instance of the being conscious process. My self is also an instance of the being conscious process. Although our being conscious processes are identical, that is to say, both of us are conscious, the representations in each of them are different. Yes?
Interestingly, when we find that we agree on some particular topic, we say we are of one mind. I suspect that if we agreed precisely on every topic, we would be one mind, literally. Easy to see why governments, religions and some corporations are interested in making one mind of us. How irritating the many schisms would be for them if they were conscious.
59:55 Active sampling can be translated as conditioning effects and conditioning patterns (of information). Karl goes on to describe a distinction of predictive processing, habits in familiar terms. Neatly distinguishing between other patterns that hold space for unexpected consequences. The Markov blanket I discussed at UCL was a boundary of sensory expression, betwen a mind and the environment it moves through. The mixing of predicted and unexpected may harmonise the whole conversation...? What if meditation and certain expressions move a mind toward an ecocentric perspective, a little more remote from an egocentric awareness? Sorry if I'm rambling. 😂
In MN 152, Buddha provides an interesting description of a disciple in higher training: And how, Ananda, is one a disciple in higher training, one who has entered upon the way? Here, Ananda, when a Bhikkhu sees a form with the eye, hears a sound with the ear, smells an odor with the nose, tastes a flavor with the tongue, touches a tangible with the body, cognizes a mind-object with the mind, there arises in him what is agreeable, there arises what is disagreeable, there arises what is both agreeable and disagreeable. He is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by the agreeable that arose, by the disagreeable that arose, and by the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose. That is how one is a disciple in higher training, one who has entered upon the way. One of the key characteristics of a disciple in higher training is the ability to be "repelled, humiliated, and disgusted" by things we'd typically find agreeable. If you see Majjhima Nikaya through the lens of the Free Energy Principle, most teachings involve building recognition and generative models and, in higher training, the ability to tune the precision parameters. At some point, a disciple can choose to feel one way or another about anything. This realization that we can choose how we relate to experience, that this relationship is arbitrary in some way, is one of the keys to liberation. Buddhism (or at least the teachings of the Buddha) is not a religion. Buddha rebelled against the religion of his time. He constantly admonished his disciples not to believe in what he has to say (beyond belief in the teacher, a belief that the teacher has something worthwhile to teach), but to see for themselves. If you put the supramundane bits of the teachings of the Buddha aside, at least until you become an arahant and see for yourself as it actually is, then the rest is an incredibly precise instruction manual. The teachings of the Buddha ⨯ the FEP provide a powerful framework because the FEP makes the teachings transparent at the meta level. The FEP not only allows to decipher the meaning of the teachings better, but provides the structure for understanding why Buddha taught the way he did, and to appreciate how intricate the structures of the Suttas are.
We are conscious on several layers simultaneously . If knowledge is he ability to interact, as we do with the visual field with and without consciousness , is that in anyway related to our abilities r the time of waking up from sleep.? Also playing music ior driving without conscious awareness, these involving a series through time....
I am wondering if highly functioning autistic people (such as myself) have greater hierarchical depth than neurotypical individuals. I've never had much of a sense of self or ego naturally. Having been both a practicing meditator for years and having gone through several bouts of major depression, the "step back" from feeling a self has increased even further. There isn't much research out there to that effect. I found an interesting paper called "The Lost Neural Hierarchy of the Autistic Self-Locked-Out of the Mental Self and Its Default-Mode Network" in Brain Sci. 2021 May; 11(5): 574. But papers like that are few and far between. If anyone has any leads on this, please comment.
I’m autistic as well, and I resonate with your observations about the sense of self. The Default Mode Network (DMN) is crucial in self-referential thinking, and research indicates that its activity is often different in autistic individuals. This altered activity could contribute to the reduced sense of self or ego that many autistic people report. Interestingly, the DMN can be deactivated through meditation, as well as during orgasm, which can significantly impact one's sense of self. Your experience of a reduced sense of self aligns with principles in non-dual philosophy, particularly in Mahayana Buddhism, which emphasizes the dissolution of the ego and the realization of interconnectedness and emptiness (śūnyatā). Look into Prof. Jay Garfield's interpretation. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s work can provide profound insights into the nature of thought and the self. His teachings emphasize the importance of understanding the psychological structures that contribute to the sense of self and suffering. His approach encourages direct observation and understanding of the mind, which can resonate deeply with both meditation practice and the autistic experience of self. The works of David Hume, Ned Block, and Thomas Metzinger also offer valuable perspectives on the nature of the self and consciousness, providing further insights into the dynamic and constructed aspects of our sense of self.
@@philosophybabble Thank you. Yes, I was a long time practitioner of Diamondway Buddhism in my 20s and 30s, have reviewed Krishnamurti's work and am currently reviewing Metzingers Ego Tunnel. Great to get your confirmation about this. It is something I want to keep researching further. Thank you for your work and your channel 🙏
@@philosophybabble I am in contact with T. Metzinger now. One question that popped up is whether there is any evidence for a propensity of high functioning ASD individuals to live in a sort of non-self or lessened ego-based state. You wouldn't happen to know of any recent papers targeting this question, would you? Also, if you don't mind my asking, were you originally diagnosed with Aspergers? I believe the DSM was just recently altered so that we only apeak of ASD going forward.
@@autisticalchemist I am diagnosed with Aspergers. I was diagnosed in the UK, and we used ICD-11. Look into Prof. Anil Seth. Baron-Cohen et al. (1985), Capps et al. (1995), Barnhill et al. (2000), Solomon et al. (2011), Yoshimura and Toichi (2014), Elmose (2016). You can search based on those papers. Have Thomas reply?
1:03:50 Thomas pronounces "enactivism" as "inactivism". (TH-cam closed captioning hears "inactivism" like I do, no doubt a consequence of first language being German). (The contradiction in the word "inactivism" tripped me up).
@@philosophybabble No apology is in order and for other viewers, glad to be of service. I don't know if you're the one to ask but... do you see redundancy in the phrase "conscious self"? I mean, doesn't 'self' necessitate being conscious, i.e. no self... no being conscious and no being conscious... no self?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Great question! The phrase 'conscious self' might seem redundant because 'self' generally implies consciousness. However, in philosophical and psychological discussions, these terms can have nuanced meanings. In some contexts, 'conscious self' is used to emphasize awareness and reflective thinking, distinguishing from automatic or unconscious aspects of the self. In Buddhist philosophy, which often denies a permanent 'self,' the phrase could be seen as conceptually inaccurate. So, whether it's redundant really depends on the context and the philosophical perspective involved.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Fluctuations in consciousness are universal, not exclusively Buddhist. However, 'No-Self' or 'Anatta' is unique to Buddhist, suggest there is no permanent, unchanging self. Does't imply there is 'no being conscious'; rather, it points to the absence of an enduring personal identity behind our experiences. ➡Zero person perspective!
For example: Colors cannot be explained with quantum mechanics. What if consciousness cannot be explained with quantum mechanics? Then consciousness falls beyond the reach of science, it can only be reasoned. What if the questions are not asked properly, so the question is not what causes colors, or what causes consciousness, or what is consciousness. But the question is: Why do colors exist? Why does consciousness exist? I have two answers to that question: Because it is possible, obviously. And, because without colors and without consciousness it cannot work, and by that I mean the completion of evolution. What is the meaning of existence? There can only be one answer to that: Completing evolution. What else could it be?
I always reference the waking up moment except I say ..."it followed me out of the dream". Can i ask if the priests and mystic nuns were apart of your study? Because seperate from the notion of religion or religious traditional active practice, there are living and work relationships with God, Jesus, Mother Mary and Holy Spirit. There are meditations for deeper understanding about the world, but they also offer a rich sensorial learning to be with other culturally diverse deities, gods, and nature.
@@philosophybabble yes, that could unfortunately be true, which is a pity because they are both such clear and deep thinkers. The challenge would be to get to the deep axiomatic assumptions of materialism and have a friendly debate which could be enriching for both e.g. check out the conversation between Anil Seth and Donald Hoffman. Unfortunately it seems to me that Metzinger doesnt see the need to question the materialistic assumptions (yet) unlike Christoph Koch, who really seemed to have opened up to Bernardo s perspectives... anyhow, it would be so nice see Thomas enter the wonderland of analytic idealism, afterall its so clear and rational, the way Bernardo explains it. I don't see how an unbiased thinker would not be at least extremely curious about it.
@@Atmasai You’re right; Metzinger’s focus on empirical data and naturalism does make him less inclined toward idealism. He sees the physical universe as real and the self as a construct of the brain, similar to Buddhist ideas. It would be interesting to see him engage with Kastrup, but his commitment to a naturalistic approach might keep him from exploring idealism deeply.
@@philosophybabble I am not sure that this is the common Buddhist view...after all what we call brain is part of the perception we call "physical universe"...so what is this "brain", the perception of which is produced by the "brain"... would be great to have Metzinger explain this in more detail...by the way thank you so much for your quality content channel...we need this!!
A thermometer when it wants to know another thermometer how will it know ?....by measuring its temperature just like it measures everything elses temperature. Its got only one sensory system Similarly we humans see other human and even ourselves through the sense organs we are given.....in other words we dont even see what we really are.
Self realized "Enlightened" Buddha", understood the entire universal phenomena on how conscious energies behave, designs with help of universal elements, which human six sensory aggregates perceptions , eye, ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), & mind feeling senses. call subjects physical universes as objects, amalgamate & generate to a energy which will produce a " thought" become a life energies ( kamma } as conscious in 31 realms of existence in this solar system. Within " qualities " of kamma (conscious ) energy forms. According to Lord Buddha, Human form is unique of all other forms, because of completed "Human Brain" which capable to enlightenment . In this very Human life. In Theravada Buddhism. 1000000 to one Second chance is very minimum and rare to gain a Human life. Factor of ." Kammic " phenomena Abhidhamma, Thrirpitaka, dipendent origination ( patichcha-samuppada ) scriptures explains in authentic Buddhas' teachings.
Exactly. Metzinger doesn't understand what he's talking about to the full extent, only partially. He uses terms very imprecisely, which is detrimental not only to the audience but to himself too. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." I think it would be fair to call Metzinger "Mr. Almost numero 2", the first Mr. Almost being Derek Parfit, of course.
@SrikanthlyerTheMariner If you think that they solved it in the Upanishads, I would urge you to think a bit more deeply about what is the problem, and what would an appropriate solution look like....
Yes I agree that the western scientists are simply reinterpreting Buddhism ect. It's important for the west to bring the Indian tradition into western philosphy a growth into one for us. It needs to go through the scholars rigours to become main stream 😊
I want only repeat: "Two of my favorite intellectuals in conversation. What a delight! Thanks for bringing them together."
Two of my favorite intellectuals in conversation. What a delight! Thanks for bringing them together.
omfg, two of greatest mind on discussion free available online!
Wow, what a great conversation, thanks for arranging this and thanks to the guests for their good faith inquiries.
Thank you so much for your response! It was truly our pleasure.
Complimentary to Friston’s Free Energy Principle and Bayesian predictive framework is Thomas Metzinger’s work as well!
Consciousness: the closer you look for it, the further away you get.
An informative, hair-raising, and most of all, enjoyable session!
Thank you.
Our pleasure!
Absolutely brilliant!!!
🤩
I just finished The Elephant and The Blind and cant help but wonder about a discussion between Donald Hoffmann and Metzinger. Seems like both are going to the same destination through different paths.
Great observation! They explore similar questions but build on entirely different premises, which could make for an intriguing contrast rather than a complementary dialogue.
Snap!
Dan Denett and the issue of Reality/Consciousness…
Interesting conversation
Thank you. This was very insightful!
I think that the often-used term "resting in non-dual awareness" reveals something about non-dual awareness, related to what Karl talks about around 54:40, that to control an epistemic agent requires the assumption of a specific perspective.
Personally, the closest I get to experiencing this kind of difference is when walking to a well-known destination. If I can get into the right mindset, I have a feeling of having the intention of getting there, but I don't have a sense of controlling my body-it moves on its own, as it were-and I am "resting" in the awareness of phenomena flowing through me. So, I am gathering evidence that walking is achieving the goal of reaching the destination, and I can chill and look around, notice and appreciate my environment, etc.
First, you get from the "me | the world" dualism to a sort of "Iness" (like a transparent or invisible subject sitting on the backseat contemplating the world and the personal agent as part of the world).
Then, you get from the "Iness" to a sort of "isness" (no subject at all, the subject becomes the entirety of experience, there's no distinction between a subject and objects whatsoever, there's no privileged point of view, everything is agency-like).
Then, if there's a knowing of the state of "isness", and a reasoning about consciousness unfolds, consciousness "dissapears", because you clearly see it's nothing, there's no consciousness, there's just phenomenality, there's just a being of the entire world.
But if you make the same reasoning from the "Iness" withouth there being a knowing of the "isness". Consciousness is reasoned still as something, and that's very tricky (and I think that's what Thomas is stuck with).
So that's the nature of consciousness, it's not phenomenal and it's not a thing. What is it then? Wrong question, but yes.
And that leads to a very uncomfortable position, because either you assume that there's something beyond phenomenality or you accept the phenomenality itself as the main reality. Or you just accept that there's nothing to really know about true reality, unless you accept phenomenality, as it is, as a true reality, regardless of whatever else might be (which I think is the best option).
After all that, you start to function in a better way, and you may also get the ability to learn faster or to be emotionally more open and humorous, because you understand everything as a model which is constructed and reconstructed as the world unfolds, even if you've never thought about that. So honesty also becomes a prominent quality of such state of being.
@@MeRetroGamer Alex Jones (yes, that Alex Jones 😅) made an interesting point about honesty in a conversation with Tucker Carlson. He said that unless you always tell the truth, the mind-constructed reality that you inhabit will become a lie. So, once you see the Dhamma in action, honesty becomes a prominent quality because it is good for you. The way I think of the Dhamma is an objective meta-function.
Over time, I have acquired a perspective similar to Buddha's on the nature of reality and consciousness. We have very precise models of various aspects of reality, and I collect those, building an object in my mind of greater and greater explanatory power, but I do not attach to any particular view. Adherence to own view is a fetter, after all.
If you see enough cross-sections of a cone, you can infer the shape of the higher-dimensional object that these cross-sections represent. The fundamental reality is that kind of object.
@@krzysztofwos1856 That's a really good point. I understand the Dhamma as the way in which knowledge goes into meta-knowledge, and meta-knowledge into meta-meta-knowledge, and so on. It's a way in which consciousness (or maybe I'd say "the universe" or just "nature") gets perspective on itself step by step.
So the awakening (or enlightenment) isn't actually a "final state", it's the unfolding of the principles that create order and lucidity.
Worth looking at this from the other side of waking experiences. What happens just before the onset of sleep? Quote:- In the interval between wakefulness and sleep, there is a gray zone during which rich and dynamic changes occur. Brain activity slows down, muscles relax, heart rate lowers, consciousness and responsiveness to the environment fluctuate, and rich perceptual experiences emerge
Quote - Vivid hypnagogic hallucinations are associated with SOREMPs or with patterns at sleep onset that are intermediate between wakefulness and REM sleep. They appear to represent the intrusion of REM sleep dreaming into wakefulness. Similar hallucinations may be present upon awakening from REM sleep (vivid hypnopompic hallucinations).
Thomas Metzinger should talk to John Vervaeke and Mark Miller about Awakening and Predictive Processing.
There is deep thought about the question of what consciousness is, and rightly so, but strangely enough, humans do not know who and/or what they are as a life form. That question is actually never asked so explicitly, although if you know the answer to it, many other things will become clearer.
A great discussion I'll have to give a deeper run. Thomas does speak of meditation an awful lot, without too much on the qualities such a presence of mind brings. I very much see us a creative species, one that exploits needs and conditions. I didnt find a compelling reason to meditate.
Perhaps its a small vanity around meditation, a title of pure consciousness. Why not raw consciousness first? Or a basis of consciousness, in terms of building blocks?
Karl is a fantastic individual, I contacted him regarding some ideas on brain functions. I had the great pleasure of meeting him and a small research group at UCL a few months later.
Meditation could open up avenues in our understanding of consciousness and how different states or practices might fundamentally alter our interaction with the world around us.
@philosophybabble yes! Thank you for your added thoughts. Indeed, I believe meditation can educate us in the temporal now and the nature of reality. Certainly, the stillness required to perceive our smallest interactions within environments. I do hope you're enjoying yours on a Saturday night! Especially with Christmas round the corner, it calls for wine 🍷 😏
@@AquariusGate Indeed, there's a clarity and insight to be found in those quiet moments of stillness, where we truly connect with our surroundings.
As for Saturday night, absolutely! With the festive season upon us, the allure of an cozy evening with a glass of wine is indeed tempting - a little indulgence to complement the meditative stillness, wouldn't you say? 😊
To offer some insight, try not to think about meditation as offering a presence of mind. Mindfulness is only one method of mediation, and at its core, it is also the most basic. You could think of it as a Meditation 101 course for the busy person with a busy mind. There are 112 classical meditation techniques. Most are no-mind meditations (in their advanced applications).
'Pure consciousness' or 'raw consciousness' are misnomers, because they have an inbuilt assumption that there is more than one consciousness. It has been the understanding of practitioners of meditation throughout the millennia that there is only one consciousness (or cosmic consciousness), but that we are not aware of the one consciousness. We do not realize it. We do not recognize it. We do not live it. Instead, we perceive a self within that is different from other selves. This perceived separation is the illusion. Regular meditation and harnessing the natural geometry of the human body can help to dissolve the illusion. The rate of dissolution is directly proportional to the amount of effort expended towards cultivating awareness and the accuracy of geometric alignment of the spine.
The primary goal is to cultivate an awareness of how mind works and how to break through the boundaries of a limited experience of life toward a cosmically inclusive experience of life. This can only be achieved through no-mind states, but before such states can be achieved, one must first observe one's thoughts and emotions as they rise. Meditation, or simply closing one's eyes, centering one's attention on a single point, and paying full attention to thoughts and emotions that arise (as if watching a film or listening to an audiobook). As one observes these thoughts and emotions frequently, eventually, they dissolve, opening up the surface of mind, and allowing one to access the subconscious directly. Here, the imaginal awaits, or the 'arbiter of truth', the gatekeeper to the unconscious. As one continues to observe the subconscious thoughts, they too eventually dissolve. What is left is the unconscious, or the final illusion of self.
The unconscious speaks only in truths that are in seed form. Short and mysterious statements that sound like they are spoken by another voice than your own. Make no mistake, though, this is the deepest inner voice of your illusory separate constitution. It is the voice that is filtered and interpreted by the subconscious for you without your own awareness, delivering thoughts and emotions on the surface conscious level. It is the primordial evolutionary mind that is in communion with the whole of life on earth and the whole of the cosmos simultaneously. The unconscious mind filters truths from the collective unconscious, and delivers what Jung called Archetypes. These archetypes animate the unconscious mind and trickle down into awareness largely filtered into micro-thoughts and micro-actions. When the unconscious mind is still, all illusions of self dissipate. This is the moment of 'enlightenment'. Contrary to what is proposed here, I do not believe that this is a mis-translation. There is a clear parallel between an experience of a "light body" and the state of bliss that accompanies the total stillness of all generated illusion within the mind.
Beyond this state, one can access the cosmic mind directly. We are not separate from the cosmic mind. We are simply under the illusion that we are separate from the cosmic mind, hence we are incapable of accessing it. The cosmic mind has 3 "layers" like the human mind, because they are representations of one another: the cosmic unconscious, the cosmic subconscious, and the cosmic conscious. They are mirrored relative to the human mind's structure with regard to our ability to access them, but identical in their relative structures. The only difference is breadth (ie. spatial scale). Essentially, the typically perceived human mind is temporally bound, and the cosmic mind is spatially bound. When one goes from a sense of separate self to a sense of cosmic union, all temporality dissolves. The cosmic mind is where all intelligence comes from. It is a boundless library for the avid learner, a timeless symphony for the avid listener, and an endless theatre for the attentive observer. Within its layers hide the secrets to all that can be known. Here there are no thoughts. Here there is awareness of all that is.
Beyond cosmic consciousness, there is cosmic stillness. It is not a place. There is no spacetime in cosmic stillness, hence it is not spatially or temporally bound. There are no waves here. There are no ripples here. There is only awareness, and there is nothing for awareness to observe but itself. This is the ultimate realization of all that can be realized: no cosmic mind; no state. There is no-thing, and there is no-you. There is that is.
I hope this provides some insights into the areas that may have been a bit too intensive for this particular talk.
@@philosophybabble one glass is almost obligatory, this time of year! Enjoy the indulgence.
Thanks
I have experienced lucid dreamless sleep many times. It can be experienced via meta-awareness, ie. awareness of awareness of the act of sleeping. It is not a "falling" asleep, which is what happens when one slips out of consciousness. It is a stillness of thought and emotion in a continuous state of meta-awareness, or observing the awareness in a state of sleep. It is not about knowing. For there to be knowing, there must be a knower, a thinker, a rememberer. There is no knower. There is no thinker. There is no one to do the remembering. From the seat of awareness, there is no self. When there is no-self in constant awareness, the mind becomes bodily, or takes on the aspects of a body of its own. This body maps onto the full body via the nervous system. This body remembers details of everything your entire genetic lineage had mapped onto their mind bodies, as well as all impressions you have gathered epi-genetically and psychologically. This process has fluctuated generationally between unconsciousness and consciousness, or seed form awareness and flowering awareness, so humanity as a whole is largely asleep, dormant in seed form.
To experience sleep, one must first be fully awake. Humanity is largely asleep throughout the day. In their sleep, they dream thoughts and emotions and act on their dreaming always. They do observe the thoughts and emotions on the front-end of attention, but they are inhibited by recursive thoughts and emotions, compulsions, attachments, and beliefs. They enact the recursive echoing directly, as in a dream. When there is meta-awareness every moment, words come without thought, emotions come without feeling. Instead, they flower of their own accord as is necessary. As such, there is no stumbling on thoughts, no unnecessary modulation of emotion. Your thoughts and emotions are components of your mind because they are tools for communication with other minds, but more fundamentally, they are the tools necessary for internal dialog. Their primary function is to facilitate the bringing about of no-self via contradiction (duality to non-duality), so that the body and the mind can function at their best, without interruption from an imagined self. This is the flowering of the mind.
There is anger and hate because there is the illusion of separation: duality. These phenomena arise because of unconsciousness, not consciousness. They arise because of rampant imagination stimulated by an endless stream of external stimuli competing for the attention, constantly breaking down and constraining your ability to perceive. This has happened at an exponential rate in recent history. Now there is a distraction every second if one falls into the trap. When we use intellect, memory, and identity to understand the world, these attributes of mind act as filters that define the geometry of our thoughts. These geometries are an imperfect match with situational awareness, so the thoughts are in conflict with the existential reality. Because we are no longer paying attention to the internality of our own existential reality, we are not aware of our own seat of awareness, hence we get up off this seat and participate in the drama of life without ever knowing a thing about how we are existentially capable of thought and emoting to begin with. We are beings with a great heritage, a wonderous library of knowledge at our disposal, ready to be shared with one another, with the ultimate goal of experiencing oneness together. To access these inner dimensions where the oneness can be existentially perceived, meta-awareness is the key.
Wow, great beginning for the philosophy essay
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience.
However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world.
This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective.
For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action.
Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment.
The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience.
Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
Beautifully written I must say.
I would like to add something: The third-person perspective should be (or become) the consensus of the first-person perspectives. However, this only applies if you assume that the ultimate truth exists, if the ultimate truth does not exist then the third-person perspective is not relevant.
There is no soul. There is consciousnes. When you die in one dimension, another one opens up another door, that is why people who died go forever.
There’s a lot talk about the hard problem of consciousness but little discussion about hardest problem of all - our seeming individuality. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
As I understand it, our genetics wires our basic connections re. neurons but our experiences adds connections between neuron paths. So we are all going to have basically different connections and action potentials. No Expert.
Matter is the substrate of pattern which is immaterial.
Realize that 'you' are the pattern and you'll have your answer.
I agree with you 100%. I've patiently been listening to Metzingers point of view, read ego tunnel also. While I really respect is academic acumen, I think his fundamental bias of materialist reductionism has limited him from exploring other avenues to explore consciousness as I found Anaka Harris to have articulated so well. She too doesrmt have the answers to mystery of consciousness, obviously. But she's not as emphatic as Metzingers that consciousness is not subjective.
"Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness"?
The "electricity" is the means by which timing based 'representation' encoding is accomplished.
(Representations may originate in the senses, in memory or in the thinking process).
Representations are essential elements of the being conscious process.
Your self is an instance of the being conscious process.
My self is also an instance of the being conscious process.
Although our being conscious processes are identical,
that is to say, both of us are conscious,
the representations in each of them are different.
Yes?
Interestingly,
when we find that we agree on some particular topic,
we say we are of one mind.
I suspect that
if we agreed precisely on every topic,
we would be one mind, literally.
Easy to see why governments, religions and some corporations
are interested in making one mind of us.
How irritating the many schisms would be for them if they were conscious.
59:55
Active sampling can be translated as conditioning effects and conditioning patterns (of information).
Karl goes on to describe a distinction of predictive processing, habits in familiar terms. Neatly distinguishing between other patterns that hold space for unexpected consequences.
The Markov blanket I discussed at UCL was a boundary of sensory expression, betwen a mind and the environment it moves through. The mixing of predicted and unexpected may harmonise the whole conversation...?
What if meditation and certain expressions move a mind toward an ecocentric perspective, a little more remote from an egocentric awareness? Sorry if I'm rambling. 😂
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful reflections!
In MN 152, Buddha provides an interesting description of a disciple in higher training:
And how, Ananda, is one a disciple in higher training, one who has entered upon the way? Here, Ananda, when a Bhikkhu sees a form with the eye, hears a sound with the ear, smells an odor with the nose, tastes a flavor with the tongue, touches a tangible with the body, cognizes a mind-object with the mind, there arises in him what is agreeable, there arises what is disagreeable, there arises what is both agreeable and disagreeable. He is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by the agreeable that arose, by the disagreeable that arose, and by the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose. That is how one is a disciple in higher training, one who has entered upon the way.
One of the key characteristics of a disciple in higher training is the ability to be "repelled, humiliated, and disgusted" by things we'd typically find agreeable. If you see Majjhima Nikaya through the lens of the Free Energy Principle, most teachings involve building recognition and generative models and, in higher training, the ability to tune the precision parameters.
At some point, a disciple can choose to feel one way or another about anything. This realization that we can choose how we relate to experience, that this relationship is arbitrary in some way, is one of the keys to liberation.
Buddhism (or at least the teachings of the Buddha) is not a religion. Buddha rebelled against the religion of his time. He constantly admonished his disciples not to believe in what he has to say (beyond belief in the teacher, a belief that the teacher has something worthwhile to teach), but to see for themselves.
If you put the supramundane bits of the teachings of the Buddha aside, at least until you become an arahant and see for yourself as it actually is, then the rest is an incredibly precise instruction manual. The teachings of the Buddha ⨯ the FEP provide a powerful framework because the FEP makes the teachings transparent at the meta level. The FEP not only allows to decipher the meaning of the teachings better, but provides the structure for understanding why Buddha taught the way he did, and to appreciate how intricate the structures of the Suttas are.
The train is now approaching destination Philopause
Thanks for this, but I am getting an obnoxious amount of ads.
I understand
We are conscious on several layers simultaneously . If knowledge is he ability to interact, as we do with the visual field with and without consciousness , is that in anyway related to our abilities r the time of waking up from sleep.? Also playing music ior driving without conscious awareness, these involving a series through time....
I am wondering if highly functioning autistic people (such as myself) have greater hierarchical depth than neurotypical individuals. I've never had much of a sense of self or ego naturally. Having been both a practicing meditator for years and having gone through several bouts of major depression, the "step back" from feeling a self has increased even further. There isn't much research out there to that effect. I found an interesting paper called "The Lost Neural Hierarchy of the Autistic Self-Locked-Out of the Mental Self and Its Default-Mode Network" in Brain Sci. 2021 May; 11(5): 574. But papers like that are few and far between. If anyone has any leads on this, please comment.
I’m autistic as well, and I resonate with your observations about the sense of self.
The Default Mode Network (DMN) is crucial in self-referential thinking, and research indicates that its activity is often different in autistic individuals. This altered activity could contribute to the reduced sense of self or ego that many autistic people report. Interestingly, the DMN can be deactivated through meditation, as well as during orgasm, which can significantly impact one's sense of self.
Your experience of a reduced sense of self aligns with principles in non-dual philosophy, particularly in Mahayana Buddhism, which emphasizes the dissolution of the ego and the realization of interconnectedness and emptiness (śūnyatā). Look into Prof. Jay Garfield's interpretation.
Jiddu Krishnamurti’s work can provide profound insights into the nature of thought and the self. His teachings emphasize the importance of understanding the psychological structures that contribute to the sense of self and suffering. His approach encourages direct observation and understanding of the mind, which can resonate deeply with both meditation practice and the autistic experience of self.
The works of David Hume, Ned Block, and Thomas Metzinger also offer valuable perspectives on the nature of the self and consciousness, providing further insights into the dynamic and constructed aspects of our sense of self.
@@philosophybabble Thank you. Yes, I was a long time practitioner of Diamondway Buddhism in my 20s and 30s, have reviewed Krishnamurti's work and am currently reviewing Metzingers Ego Tunnel. Great to get your confirmation about this. It is something I want to keep researching further. Thank you for your work and your channel 🙏
@@autisticalchemist Being No One by Metzinger is a brilliant read as well!
@@philosophybabble I am in contact with T. Metzinger now. One question that popped up is whether there is any evidence for a propensity of high functioning ASD individuals to live in a sort of non-self or lessened ego-based state. You wouldn't happen to know of any recent papers targeting this question, would you? Also, if you don't mind my asking, were you originally diagnosed with Aspergers? I believe the DSM was just recently altered so that we only apeak of ASD going forward.
@@autisticalchemist I am diagnosed with Aspergers. I was diagnosed in the UK, and we used ICD-11. Look into Prof. Anil Seth. Baron-Cohen et al. (1985), Capps et al. (1995), Barnhill et al. (2000), Solomon et al. (2011), Yoshimura and Toichi (2014), Elmose (2016). You can search based on those papers. Have Thomas reply?
1:03:50 Thomas pronounces "enactivism" as "inactivism".
(TH-cam closed captioning hears "inactivism" like I do,
no doubt a consequence of first language being German).
(The contradiction in the word "inactivism" tripped me up).
Yes, apologies for any confusion, and thank you for providing that clarification for the benefit of other viewers.
@@philosophybabble No apology is in order and for other viewers, glad to be of service.
I don't know if you're the one to ask but...
do you see redundancy in the phrase "conscious self"?
I mean, doesn't 'self' necessitate being conscious,
i.e. no self... no being conscious and
no being conscious... no self?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Great question! The phrase 'conscious self' might seem redundant because 'self' generally implies consciousness. However, in philosophical and psychological discussions, these terms can have nuanced meanings. In some contexts, 'conscious self' is used to emphasize awareness and reflective thinking, distinguishing from automatic or unconscious aspects of the self. In Buddhist philosophy, which often denies a permanent 'self,' the phrase could be seen as conceptually inaccurate. So, whether it's redundant really depends on the context and the philosophical perspective involved.
@@philosophybabble
Does my self being sometimes conscious and sometimes not
mean that I am unknowingly a Buddhist?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Fluctuations in consciousness are universal, not exclusively Buddhist. However, 'No-Self' or 'Anatta' is unique to Buddhist, suggest there is no permanent, unchanging self. Does't imply there is 'no being conscious'; rather, it points to the absence of an enduring personal identity behind our experiences. ➡Zero person perspective!
For example: Colors cannot be explained with quantum mechanics. What if consciousness cannot be explained with quantum mechanics? Then consciousness falls beyond the reach of science, it can only be reasoned. What if the questions are not asked properly, so the question is not what causes colors, or what causes consciousness, or what is consciousness. But the question is: Why do colors exist? Why does consciousness exist? I have two answers to that question: Because it is possible, obviously. And, because without colors and without consciousness it cannot work, and by that I mean the completion of evolution. What is the meaning of existence? There can only be one answer to that: Completing evolution.
What else could it be?
I always reference the waking up moment except I say ..."it followed me out of the dream". Can i ask if the priests and mystic nuns were apart of your study? Because seperate from the notion of religion or religious traditional active practice, there are living and work relationships with God, Jesus, Mother Mary and Holy Spirit. There are meditations for deeper understanding about the world, but they also offer a rich sensorial learning to be with other culturally diverse deities, gods, and nature.
Please please connect Thomas Metzinger with Bernardo Kastrup
What conversation you want from them? It might not be of Thomas interest.
@@philosophybabble yes, that could unfortunately be true, which is a pity because they are both such clear and deep thinkers. The challenge would be to get to the deep axiomatic assumptions of materialism and have a friendly debate which could be enriching for both e.g. check out the conversation between Anil Seth and Donald Hoffman. Unfortunately it seems to me that Metzinger doesnt see the need to question the materialistic assumptions (yet) unlike Christoph Koch, who really seemed to have opened up to Bernardo s perspectives... anyhow, it would be so nice see Thomas enter the wonderland of analytic idealism, afterall its so clear and rational, the way Bernardo explains it. I don't see how an unbiased thinker would not be at least extremely curious about it.
@@Atmasai You’re right; Metzinger’s focus on empirical data and naturalism does make him less inclined toward idealism. He sees the physical universe as real and the self as a construct of the brain, similar to Buddhist ideas. It would be interesting to see him engage with Kastrup, but his commitment to a naturalistic approach might keep him from exploring idealism deeply.
@@philosophybabble I am not sure that this is the common Buddhist view...after all what we call brain is part of the perception we call "physical universe"...so what is this "brain", the perception of which is produced by the "brain"... would be great to have Metzinger explain this in more detail...by the way thank you so much for your quality content channel...we need this!!
Two ledgends
A thermometer when it wants to know another thermometer how will it know ?....by measuring its temperature just like it measures everything elses temperature. Its got only one sensory system
Similarly we humans see other human and even ourselves through the sense organs we are given.....in other words we dont even see what we really are.
Self realized "Enlightened" Buddha", understood the entire universal phenomena on how conscious energies behave, designs with help of universal elements, which human six sensory aggregates perceptions , eye, ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), & mind feeling senses. call subjects physical universes as objects, amalgamate & generate to a energy which will produce a " thought" become a life energies ( kamma } as conscious in 31 realms of existence in this solar system. Within " qualities " of kamma (conscious ) energy forms. According to Lord Buddha, Human form is unique of all other forms, because of completed "Human Brain" which capable to enlightenment . In this very Human life. In Theravada Buddhism. 1000000 to one Second chance is very minimum and rare to gain a Human life. Factor of ." Kammic " phenomena Abhidhamma, Thrirpitaka, dipendent origination ( patichcha-samuppada ) scriptures explains in authentic Buddhas' teachings.
Friston says nondualism is nonsense?
The brain reads the hologram, awareness is not in the brain. 😂
are you not considering that WE are the robots?
There is no we or us 😂
:D
The Indians solved this problem in the Upanishads.
Exactly. Metzinger doesn't understand what he's talking about to the full extent, only partially. He uses terms very imprecisely, which is detrimental not only to the audience but to himself too. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
I think it would be fair to call Metzinger "Mr. Almost numero 2", the first Mr. Almost being Derek Parfit, of course.
@SrikanthlyerTheMariner If you think that they solved it in the Upanishads, I would urge you to think a bit more deeply about what is the problem, and what would an appropriate solution look like....
Yes I agree that the western scientists are simply reinterpreting Buddhism ect. It's important for the west to bring the Indian tradition into western philosphy a growth into one for us. It needs to go through the scholars rigours to become main stream 😊
@@nondualisticmahayanabuddhi8080😂 🤡
The Buddha did.
1:12:00 has to be out of his mind
Buddhism.