@@優さん-n7m Just trying to temper the excitement "insights are epic!". Hamzah is just restating what you'd see on the wikipedia page for the hard problem.
This is very easy for me to understand. I'm colour blind. My wife doesn't understand that I think the orange and red traffic signal lights are the same . She finds it hilarious.
If there is “consciousness” to explain by brain science then if you use only brain science terms as such then you eliminate the term ‘consciousness’ too. Hence any solution to the hard problem of consciousness must at least include the term ‘consciousness’ in the semantic equation and therefore complete elimination of the term consciousness in answer to the hard problem is a priori ridiculous. As such, it is impossible to provide a purely brain scientific answer to the question.❤
Brother Paul, based on this conversation, I think you would be interested in a conversation with Dr. Necati Aydın. He recognizes the inadequacy of epistemology and ontology in knowledge, and brings forward the phenomenological approach to knowledge. He talks about causality too. His book, “Said Nursi and Science in Islam” was a game changer for me and completely influenced the direction of my research. I think it would be intriguing for you too.
"Man's feeling of alienation has been intensified in the midst of a bureaucratized, impersonal mass society. The worst and final form of alienation is man's alienation from his own self. In a society that requires of man only that he perform competently his own particular social function, man becomes identified with this function, and the rest of his being is allowed to subsist as best it can - usually to be dropped below the surface of consciousness and forgotten" - William Barrett
“O you who have believed, fear Allāh. And let every soul look to what it has put forth for tomorrow - and fear Allāh. Indeed, Allāh is Aware of what you do. And be not like those who forgot Allāh, so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient.” - Quran 59:18-19
Sexist comment..in these sorts of discussions with men, I find it hard to get most intelligent secular men to consider a world beyond materiality. Quantum physics only confuses the issue more for them. But if you’re of an inclination to consider that all material phenomena has a correspondential spiritual source, (inexplicable to ‘science’) then the concept of the observer and the observed being interdependent is a lot easier to understand. Consciousness is the Divine, it is not some sort of material brain generated ‘reality’ or the sole purview of the human brain. Consciousness is a spiritual phenomena made manifest and I suspect is the source of myth and pantheistic belief.
What if you could map out every neurophysiological reaction in the brain (like code) and then trigger the same reactions in somebody else’s brain for any given activity? 🤔 then, if you cause a subjective experience using this process, wouldn’t that prove that these neurophysiological processes cause the subjective experience?
what if all the neurophysiological changes in the brain are simply representations of mental processes manifesting in the physical world (since we inhibit it) - this sounds like equating a beating heart with being alive - we can indeed puncture the heart and cause death, but we cannot do the opposite, make the heart beat on a dead person and bring him back to life by simply running blood in the body. Its not a direct metaphor but you might get the point, even if we did what you proposed, it still wouldnt "prove" that neurophysiological changes bring about subjective experience, it might as well be quite the opposite.
No, if you thinking deep or more you trying to know about something. you realises that stuff very complicated. And philosopher's , trying to answer those questions simply. Different philosophers gives different answer. That seems complicated. 😸
Youve got it all wrong. Objectively, Yes the green is green but your personal subjective observation of green is going to be totally different than mine.
@@azizsafudin But it would be the same green in the end isn't it?? It wouldn't be a totally different color. Anyway my question was whether this is true or not but how do you know in the first place? Maybe we're all same in subjective perception of the reality. Which then makes it an in terms of objective. Who knows!
@@azizsafudin Aren't we all equal in God's eye. When the reality is made for us to be objective inorder for us to perceive it. If our brain were to create things on it's own out of this objective reality then this objective reality wouldn't even need to exist in the first place.
Philosophy is about carefully defining things and discussing them. It might not make sense to the common person but this is the basis for all other fields like science of mathematics of today.
@@aacc5984 Not for atheists, materialism comes with the assumption that the world is a self contained physical box. No supernatural, nothing outside, everything has to be explained within.
@@aacc5984 That is why there are only few Chiefs and many Indians. So, Indian, this is not for you, your brain hasnt got the capacity to comprehend these things.
this needs to be explained in the light of current generative AI. becoz AI is doing things and it has the potential to cause some serious doubts. some think that these machines are conscious
Same problem with people. You can never be sure what a person is experiencing vs. what they are simply claiming that they are "experiencing". You can't ever put yourself in another "mind", whether person, animal, or AI.
@@iiddrrii6051 well we dbt know that, we said a lot about other stuff how AI wont be able to write a poem and how it wont be able to create art, but that's all in the dust now.
Not everyone can access undergrad philosophy lectures. Also, you’re taking delivery out of the equation. The way he explains it is fairly clear and ultimately memorable. Surely, more than a Wikipedia page.
Hamza fails to provide an alternative explanation to solve the outstanding problems of consciousness. There is no reason to believe that consciousness is anything more than the product of the actions of the neurons in our brains. He really doesn’t seem to have learned anything in all the years that he’s been debating religion.
Hamza can be eloquent with philosophical arguments against Atheism, but he is no scientist to disprove science. Let’s not forget that science is a branch of philosophy whether scientists would agree or not. There are semantic errors made by Hamza e.g. ‘elemental materialism.’ The word does not make sense because materialism is a philosophical term and elemental is a physical term. To conclude, God is God and man is man, yet God has not set any bars for measuring any physical phenomena around us.
Don't get me wrong. scientists have got nothing to prove that science is the truth and an only source of knowledge. Science have become a religion for some popularizer scientists. How can you say that they are not trying their best to defend their religion.
It's just a summary of the hard problem of consciousness. Philosophy and logic get very tricky and paradoxical when deep things are self-referential or reflective. There are paradoxes with set theory and the liar's paradox. Personal Experience, by definition, is impossible to demonstrate or formulate a comprehensive mechanism. For religious believers, it's a favorite topic that fits nicely in the "God of the Gaps" strategy.
@@midoevil7 I have a degree in Philosophy, politics and economics and I can understand what he is saying. A good debater debates without mentioning key words and convinces people and a bad debater debates without trivium but uses jargons.
@@FikrNaqdi I get your point, but i don't think he is "debating" anyone here, it is just a discussion about the "consciousness" problem, but i guess he went a bit in the academia mode here.
What are you even on about kid? What is the essence of your comment? Utterly useless, irrelevant, and plain ignorant. Continue coping though, it's cute.
"consciousness" as a general concept CAN be attributed to elecrtochemical processes, however the subjective experience of a particular consciousness, ie: the "thing" that observes that mind, can never be ... without a metaphysical explanation that is. That is the deliberately mistaken/forfeited concept by the so called "scientists".
![“อาร์ต พศุตม์” เกือบเอี่ยวทุกคดีดัง เอ๊ะไว้ก่อน ไม่มีอะไรได้มาง่ายๆ | แฉ 16 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0Gx-0-kUBv8/mqdefault.jpg)
Ustadh Dr. Hamza Andreas Tzortzis' insights are epic. Masha'Allah!
It's not a big deal. Undergrad philosophy students learn this every day.
@@iiddrrii6051 yes, but everyone is not undergraduate in philosophy
@@優さん-n7m Just trying to temper the excitement "insights are epic!".
Hamzah is just restating what you'd see on the wikipedia page for the hard problem.
In the last days many will fall to the logical deceiver
@@miscgar9663 that seems pernicious
Thank you brothers for offering a fantastic example and explanation.
Beautiful explanation. Alhamdulillah ❤
Thanks sir, important topic 👍🏻👍🏻,
Two brilliant brothers , may Allah reward you
thank you for opening my eyes to a new pov, this is really interesting masha-Allah
Consciousness is awareness . God has the pure consciousness. Awareness of every thing. Well explained . God bless both of you.❤✌🏽👍😘❤️
"God has the pure consciousness. "
- Explain why you think you know this.
That energy! Thank you both ❤
I love brother Hamza
they ask you about the Soul Say, ‘The Soul is part the domain of the unseen but You have only been given a little knowledge.’
This is very easy for me to understand. I'm colour blind. My wife doesn't understand that I think the orange and red traffic signal lights are the same . She finds it hilarious.
That woman got the color blind guy
МашаАллах, брат Хамза да хранит тебя Аллах
Откъде ли сте?
@@chesster5981 Чечня
Thank you, this was helpful!
Interesting discussion
Long live Brother Paul
Long live Brother Hamsa Ameen
Love from kerala India Pray for me and all
If there is “consciousness” to explain by brain science then if you use only brain science terms as such then you eliminate the term ‘consciousness’ too. Hence any solution to the hard problem of consciousness must at least include the term ‘consciousness’ in the semantic equation and therefore complete elimination of the term consciousness in answer to the hard problem is a priori ridiculous. As such, it is impossible to provide a purely brain scientific answer to the question.❤
good explanation of causality 👍
Brother Paul, based on this conversation, I think you would be interested in a conversation with Dr. Necati Aydın. He recognizes the inadequacy of epistemology and ontology in knowledge, and brings forward the phenomenological approach to knowledge. He talks about causality too. His book, “Said Nursi and Science in Islam” was a game changer for me and completely influenced the direction of my research. I think it would be intriguing for you too.
"Man's feeling of alienation has been intensified in the midst of a bureaucratized, impersonal mass society. The worst and final form of alienation is man's alienation from his own self. In a society that requires of man only that he perform competently his own particular social function, man becomes identified with this function, and the rest of his being is allowed to subsist as best it can - usually to be dropped below the surface of consciousness and forgotten"
- William Barrett
“O you who have believed, fear Allāh. And let every soul look to what it has put forth for tomorrow - and fear Allāh. Indeed, Allāh is Aware of what you do.
And be not like those who forgot Allāh, so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient.”
- Quran 59:18-19
Sounds Marxist
Masha Allah.
If you find yourself having difficulty following along. Get your vocabulary up to par!
No matter how much we know we still know that we don't know the knower 😊
Read Edmund Husserl. He'll explain it for you.
Mashallah , it might be easier to understand such a philosophical subject with a drawing 😁
Sexist comment..in these sorts of discussions with men, I find it hard to
get most intelligent secular men to consider a world beyond materiality. Quantum physics only confuses the issue more for them. But if you’re of an inclination to consider that all material phenomena has a correspondential spiritual source, (inexplicable to ‘science’) then the concept of the observer and the observed being interdependent is a lot easier to understand. Consciousness is the Divine, it is not some sort of material brain generated ‘reality’ or the sole purview of the human brain. Consciousness is a spiritual phenomena made manifest and I suspect is the source of myth and pantheistic belief.
No one knows what "conscoiusness" actually is.
What if you could map out every neurophysiological reaction in the brain (like code) and then trigger the same reactions in somebody else’s brain for any given activity? 🤔 then, if you cause a subjective experience using this process, wouldn’t that prove that these neurophysiological processes cause the subjective experience?
what if all the neurophysiological changes in the brain are simply representations of mental processes manifesting in the physical world (since we inhibit it) - this sounds like equating a beating heart with being alive - we can indeed puncture the heart and cause death, but we cannot do the opposite, make the heart beat on a dead person and bring him back to life by simply running blood in the body. Its not a direct metaphor but you might get the point, even if we did what you proposed, it still wouldnt "prove" that neurophysiological changes bring about subjective experience, it might as well be quite the opposite.
I'm hungry for mango now
Philosophy = Complicating the simplicity 😊. Allahu Akbar 😉☝🏻🕋 (With all my respect)
No, if you thinking deep or more you trying to know about something. you realises that stuff very complicated. And philosopher's , trying to answer those questions simply. Different philosophers gives different answer. That seems complicated. 😸
Some say it the spirit of God in Adam that made us self conscient.
This argument will only stand if there is more than one creator. We can assume that my green is your green too because of common creator
Youve got it all wrong. Objectively, Yes the green is green but your personal subjective observation of green is going to be totally different than mine.
@@xtendaustralia5169 How do you know?
@@oak7OO5the point is that you can’t assume it’s the same.
@@azizsafudin But it would be the same green in the end isn't it?? It wouldn't be a totally different color. Anyway my question was whether this is true or not but how do you know in the first place? Maybe we're all same in subjective perception of the reality. Which then makes it an in terms of objective. Who knows!
@@azizsafudin Aren't we all equal in God's eye. When the reality is made for us to be objective inorder for us to perceive it. If our brain were to create things on it's own out of this objective reality then this objective reality wouldn't even need to exist in the first place.
❤❤
How theses kind of topics practically can help humanity?
Philosophy is about carefully defining things and discussing them. It might not make sense to the common person but this is the basis for all other fields like science of mathematics of today.
He is trying to say that materialism is not enough to explain what we take for granted.
Our very self-realization and consciousness.
@@aacc5984
Not for atheists, materialism comes with the assumption that the world is a self contained physical box.
No supernatural, nothing outside, everything has to be explained within.
It is important to address the absurd position taken by the atheists.
@@aacc5984
That is why there are only few Chiefs and many Indians.
So, Indian, this is not for you, your brain hasnt got the capacity to comprehend these things.
🔥❤️
👍👍👍👍👍
❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹
Say what
Consciousness is the Soul created by Allah bestowed in every human being.
@summerhouse8205 it does make sense, but how would you explain the fitrah in humans.
U
this needs to be explained in the light of current generative AI. becoz AI is doing things and it has the potential to cause some serious doubts. some think that these machines are conscious
Same problem with people. You can never be sure what a person is experiencing vs. what they are simply claiming that they are "experiencing".
You can't ever put yourself in another "mind", whether person, animal, or AI.
@@iiddrrii6051 well we dbt know that, we said a lot about other stuff how AI wont be able to write a poem and how it wont be able to create art, but that's all in the dust now.
@@MODEST500 The issue is irrespective of AI or human or dog. The issue is that it's impossible to EXPERIENCE the "mind" other than our own.
ALL SUFFERING is from man not God!
"Imminent famine in northern Gaza is ‘entirely man-made disaster’: Guterres"
Sophists can argue anything
It's not a big deal. Undergrad philosophy students learn this every day.
Congrats, here's a cookie 🍪
@@snakejuce delicious, thanks 🙏
Not everyone can access undergrad philosophy lectures.
Also, you’re taking delivery out of the equation.
The way he explains it is fairly clear and ultimately memorable.
Surely, more than a Wikipedia page.
Animated but inane. Has no idea of what he’s trying to say. Long way to go buddy
Hamza fails to provide an alternative explanation to solve the outstanding problems of consciousness.
There is no reason to believe that consciousness is anything more than the product of the actions of the neurons in our brains.
He really doesn’t seem to have learned anything in all the years that he’s been debating religion.
Hamza can be eloquent with philosophical arguments against Atheism, but he is no scientist to disprove science. Let’s not forget that science is a branch of philosophy whether scientists would agree or not. There are semantic errors made by Hamza e.g. ‘elemental materialism.’ The word does not make sense because materialism is a philosophical term and elemental is a physical term. To conclude, God is God and man is man, yet God has not set any bars for measuring any physical phenomena around us.
Don't get me wrong.
scientists have got nothing to prove that science is the truth and an only source of knowledge.
Science have become a religion for some popularizer scientists. How can you say that they are not trying their best to defend their religion.
Hamza talks like a little kid
As well as mo hijab
And this whole conversation gets you nowhere.
You’re here though. Thanks for watching.
@@imldn8372 it was an interesting bit of navel gazing.
That is how Philosophy works. Its about carefulyl defining the most mundane things in a precise way.
@user-ww2lc1yo9c but in this case works out that you can't trust a B&Q paint chart. Something I already knew 😂
It's just a summary of the hard problem of consciousness. Philosophy and logic get very tricky and paradoxical when deep things are self-referential or reflective.
There are paradoxes with set theory and the liar's paradox.
Personal Experience, by definition, is impossible to demonstrate or formulate a comprehensive mechanism. For religious believers, it's a favorite topic that fits nicely in the "God of the Gaps" strategy.
Hamza uses a lot of key words but where is the essence? I'm muslim but if Hamza is the standard of our debaters, we are in trouble.
It is an argument against atheism.
He is basically saying atheism/materialism alone can't even explain our very basic essence as humans: consciousness
@@midoevil7 I have a degree in Philosophy, politics and economics and I can understand what he is saying. A good debater debates without mentioning key words and convinces people and a bad debater debates without trivium but uses jargons.
@@FikrNaqdi
I get your point, but i don't think he is "debating" anyone here, it is just a discussion about the "consciousness" problem, but i guess he went a bit in the academia mode here.
@@midoevil7 I appreciate the good will of Hamza but he's far away from having sophisticated academic discussion.
What are you even on about kid? What is the essence of your comment? Utterly useless, irrelevant, and plain ignorant.
Continue coping though, it's cute.
"consciousness" as a general concept CAN be attributed to elecrtochemical processes, however the subjective experience of a particular consciousness, ie: the "thing" that observes that mind, can never be ... without a metaphysical explanation that is. That is the deliberately mistaken/forfeited concept by the so called "scientists".