Dennet was such a genius. I've studied magic for over 5 decades, along with other sciences, and his statements of our reality being "real" "stage" is epiphany to me. We as humans won't even come close to figuring this out until we shed our want of the supernatural. The concept pollutes most minds at some level, and even the least "belief" destroys advancement in this area. Intelligence is part and pair of this subject, and these days AI is only a branding name, and not the God people tell of the sky falling. How are we ever to grow up in this world of childish thinkers and portrayers? Daniel is one of the few adults that have ever lived. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
Indian Rope Trick: In a group of friends the story is told,, and not wanting to be left out, one of the friends "fibs" that he/she has seen it.. wanting easy acceptance into the group. Later, not being want of being "caught in a lie" there is subsequent storytelling and made-up excuses of where and when... how and why... but still just a lie. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I was distraught to know that my favorite philosopher passed away 😢 got some consolation that his lectures will be here forever and I can watch them over and over again 55:00
I am a Cartesian by inclination, though I think we tend to "over-define" the hard problem of consciousness to a great extent. For one thing, we do not seem to know where it is advisable to fix a boundary for where the "body" terminates, and where the "mind" begins, or the inverse; and this is not the occasion for asking the one question in a more exacting way, than to achieve any stage of technical sophistication in ultimately assigning one sort of "experienced body" to a particular region or set of functions in a brain mass "itself" physical, or to achieve or realize any more sophistication in assigning, re-cognizing, one sort of "experienced mind" to a particular emotional or memorial set or quality of perceptions "themselves" conscious. We do not make such fine distinctions, and do not possess even a rudimentary vocabulary for going about the first order business of addressing what in essence was, and still is, the Cartesian problem as such: That one is a "Sum res cogitans", a being that is thinking, in order to propose that one is a "Cogito ergo Sum", a thinking being only. The first is obvious to an unlettered peasant. The latter is a familiar enough problem to an educated mind. And the "mind" is more of a social construct than an alternative name for conscious experience, far less anything that a brain mass conceivably does or can be conceived to do. Wherein, one suspects, is at least one possible answer to the "necessity" for a conscious existence.
Right, Consciousness can't be "explained" as an operation to tap into IT. The traditional Indian rope trick isn't what he says. It's "Maya", seeing a rope and mistaking it for a snake. This implies that the true Reality of nature is some Substance (Spinoza's term) that is more fundamental than the superficial veneer of existence that we see in an ordinary state of awareness. To tap into and merge with Pure Consciousness, no problem. Access Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Scounds Choir, and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. In due time you will transcend the mind and all realms of relative existence. The entire universe is Pure Consciousness, Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Brahman.
Regarding that Bellotto painting, I think that artist knew his painting would be up on a wall, so spending the extra time to fill in all kinds of detail that would not be visible from several feet away would just be a waste of effort. Because any person seeing this scene in reality would have to be far enough away from those figures crossing the bridge that they, in fact, would not see any more detail than he's put into his painting.
The point is that what we call 'consciousness' is mostly an illusion as well. There isn't quite as much to explain as people like you desperately want to believe.
This was brilliant. But I'm puzzled why he tends not to explicitly apply the logic he used for explaining deja vu to the problem of the Subject. The mind tells a story about its own functioning using the characters of "subject" and things the subject "does" or "experiences". I experience deja vu because some process in my mind concluded that "it happened before". The same way, I experience "having a self" because some part of my mind (brain) creates a description which features the concept of "self" and things that the "self does" or "experiences". Put it another way, the introspective sense of being in a Cartesian theater is the form in which the mind describes itself. We are a simulation created by the brain.
He had some good shit as always, but he simply threw the "subject" aside with the wave of his hand "That is not my department". There is a subject. You won't find it anywhere in the brain, but it's there. He hasn't explained how that happens. Everything in is talk is about subjective experience. He never talked about pain. There is not little man in my head, but "I" feel pain. The only way we know that, is that we are sentient beings. How do you get from trillions of registers doing their thing to "Ouch!, that freaking hurts like a mofo"?
Here we go again. Dennett takes almost an hour to demonstrate various Optical Illusions and Magician Illusions and then says that this proves that the Conscious Experience in and of itself is an Illusion. The conclusion is Incoherent with the premise. I think he can so easily dismiss Conscious Experience because he does not have Conscious Experiences like I do and like a lot of other people do. It is incomprehensible how his mind can get to the place where he thinks things like Redness and the Salty Taste are just Illusions that don't exist. I have always assumed that all normally functioning Human Minds would have at least similar kinds of Conscious Experiences. I have thought this for decades. But after many years of discussions about this with people it has finally become clear to me that some people actually must not have Conscious Experiences or Qualia. I limit this observation to things like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste and so on. The Experience of Colors and especially the Experience of Redness has been a major target for my discussions with people on the various Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness Forums. There are people that flat out deny the Existence of the Experience of Redness. I think they give it their best shot at understanding it but they always fall back to just dismissing the Experience of something like Redness as pure Fantasy, Superstition, Magic, and Illusion. I have become convinced that their denials of Conscious Experience, their very words, show that they truly and simply do not perceive Redness as a kind of Experience. There is no Redness Experience. They are not Color blind so they can Detect Red in their Visual Field in some way but it seems to be more at the level of the Neural Activity. They can somehow sense that their Neurons are Firing for Red and indicate that there is Red in their Field of View but there seems to be no Experience of Redness in their Field of View. They deny any such extra Consciousness Phenomenon is happening. I used to think they were just messing with me, and I was hoping that after all these years that they would get tired of continuing their Fraud. But they are not messing with me, they truly do not have Conscious Experiences or Qualia. In fact they say that Qualia was invented by Idiot Philosophers. They are usually nasty and arrogant like that and I wonder if that is a symptom of their lack of Qualia. It is interesting that their lack of Qualia would make them living examples of the P-Zombies from Philosophy. One thing I can say is that if they really never have had an Experience of something like Redness then I can completely understand how they would think it was something Magical, and Illusory. These people simply deny the Existence of Qualia and are completely stymied by talk of Qualia, which naturally results in their complete inability to understand the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience. I have been astounded by the possibility that some people (mostly the Physicalists) actually might not Experience the Color Qualia. It is a mystery to me what their Inner Experience of Color could be like. I have always tried to use the Experience of Redness as a discussion point for talking about Conscious Experiences. These people literally will say that there is no such thing as Redness and they always try to compare descriptions of Experiences of Redness to Religious Experiences. I have tried for a long time to get them to describe what the Experience of Redness means to them. After receiving mostly insults, one of them gave me a description of what the Experience of Redness was from their own point of view. He dismissively said that his Experience was the same as everybody else. He described the multitude of Emotions and Memories that were Experienced while Seeing Red. He went on to describe particular Emotions and Memories. I noticed that there was no recognition of the Experience of the Redness itself, but rather it seemed like his Experience of Redness wholly consisted of Associations to other things. This seemed a little odd, but telling. So I then asked him to strip away all the Emotions, Memories, and other Associations from his Experience of Redness and tell me if there was anything still remaining in the Experience. Here is his reply: "How the {!#%@} would I know? It isn't possible for me to 'strip out all the Emotions, Memories, and any other Associations'. Further, I don't believe for a moment that you can either, Steve. This is navel-gazing, pure and simple." This person obviously does not Experience the Redness, but rather Experiences all these other things in place of the Redness Experience. He literally can not figure out what I am talking about. Notice the reference to Navel-Gazing. He still thinks that the Redness is a Religious Experience. After some further conversations I now understand what an Experience of Redness is for these Physicalists. When they think about Experiencing Redness they always branch off into talking about Emotions and Memories. For them, it appears that the actual Experience of Redness is an Experience of Emotions and an Experience of Memories. That is the Experience for them and there is nothing else for them to report. This is of course why they hate the word Qualia, because it does indeed imply that there is something else happening with the Experience of Redness. I can fully see how they would think that the concept of Qualia is Redundant to their Experience. I can fully now understand why they would think that Qualia and the Experience of Redness are different things. For the Physicalists the Experience of Redness is not what I expected. It is something different than my Experience of Redness. I Experience Redness as a Quale and they Experience Redness as associated Emotions and Memories. In fact I can say I really don't even Experience Redness as Emotions and Memories at all. I just simply Experience Redness as a Thing In Itself. Another discussion thread I have participated in where the people denied the Existence of Qualia was one where the people were convinced that we cannot see a Color until we have a Word for the Color. This seems like a very strange thing to believe. I tried in vain to convince them that the Word for the Color does not make the Color real but that the direct Experience of the Color is real. They could not understand what I was talking about. This can only make sense if you consider that they might never have Experienced a Color Quale. They instead receive some kind of Signals from their Neurons that give them some type of Indications about the different Colors, but without any actual Conscious Experience of the Colors. I can see how the Words might be of prime importance to them. But yet another example of People that probably have no Conscious Experiences or Qualia are the people that don't understand the difference between a Computer detecting Red and a Human detecting Red. They probably also just Detect Red in some way but have never had an actual Experience of Redness. The evidence for this lack of Conscious Experience in some people is continuing to grow. It explains the endless arguments about Conscious Experience and Qualia. These people simply do not have Qualia. The Lights are out in their Minds.
My line to all materialists is, in a universe of nothing but matter, nothing matters. It doesn't matter that you convince us of your argument. It doesn't matter if you have an argument. It doesn't matter if you stop being a materialist.
"all the brain has to do is create a judgment" . . . . this statement is followed by: "it's all just machinery. that's gotta be the case. if your theory does not have that feature, it's gotta be wrong." amazing how Dennet creates his judgment about reality and assumes it is correct. of course he spent the first 1/2 hour absolving himself of having to prove any philosophical assertion by simply stating that PROOF is not my job. smdh.
If you look at words we use for "consciousness" in English and other languages, they even have Dennet's ideas in them etymological or overtly. "Knowledge" is one translation from the Spanish "conocimiento" and the word "conscience" is also in the same family again meaning knowledge or "data" in Dennet's terms. "Aware" in English is of Germanic origin and it means "to be on guard" and is related to "be wary of" - indicating an observer and some (potential) threat. "Awareness" in Spanish is " darse cuenta" - literally "give yourself an account of", as if you're formulating a database or excel spreadsheet in your head. These language roots precede Descartes dualism and are quite mechanical and input-output in their tone. They include an internal observer or witness, yes, but always in the context of external threats or information which of course is one of the brain's main functions - assess the external environment, sometimes against memory data, for opportunities to survive. I think this is Dennet's ultimate point - we are instinctual beings endowed with incredible computational brain capacity and ingenuity which we have used to make tools, build shelters, hunt animals, farm, elaborate our thoughts and memories into language - in short survive and thrive in a world where we are the apex predator; predators who were self-reflexive enough to paint their thoughts and stories on cave walls 30,000 years ago. We tell stories to ourselves and to others and we have a vivid internal imaginary world that can be hugely elaborate; we have conflated this internal idea of "consciousness" with the traditional idea of "soul", which in is an ancient idea related to words for "vitality", "breath" - life itself. I believe Dennet himself has gone deeper and found some mystery there. You'd have to because there are plenty of questions about our universe our great brains have not answered in the slightest. And don't forget that we with our great lump of grey matter with all our knowledge and ingenuity are still a material part of that still fully unknown universe.
I think that there is one trick behind the argument that Dennett makes with respect to the analogy of The Tuned Deck...that there is a equivalent intelligence behind the manifestation of the trick who is altering the trick in response to the magicians who are checking for the secret behind the trick. Indeed "The" is the trick in this case with much lesser tricks being the actual trick. But who in the the context of consciousness, is intelligently altering the way the trick of consciousness is done when scientists try to determine how the trick is done? I believe that the answer to this is that we are inextricably enmeshed in the trick ourselves because we are attempting to get past the problem of self-reference. Since we are, ourselves, a part of the reality of which we are also observers, we cannot be, in the final analysis, untrickable. Our sense of truth is always, like some Godelian magician, always trickable. We have the many visual-perceptual examples that Dennett provides for example. We also have, on a level that Hofstadter has explored, a problem with language in that its virtues are also its vices and we cannot pin down our subjectivity through an objective description. One way I have of expressing this is that the "eye cannot see itself seeing"...this is to say that the eye, as a physical reality, cannot through any sort of mirrors or technology, become detached from the reality that it is in order to perceive, with perfect objectivity that act of seeing itself without, instead, actually performing an act of seeing not centered on some "other object". So we are left with is to identify the magician in the case of consciousness as an objective phenomenon. Either we go in for a Trickster God who always responds to our inquiries with a baffling move like Edshu and his red and blue hat...or we assign to the very most abstract and comprehensive level of description the sort of perpetual rule defining yet rule subverting dynamic character to the Universe itself without also assigning some sort of separate agency to that Universe. This latter option is precisely that which is being raised by the science of complexity.
Does "consciousness" exist ? It has the appearance of a noun (a thing), but really it's just an adjective with "ness" on the end. Take the adjective "funny" then stick "ness" on the end giving the noun "funnyness". So now ask the question:- Does "funnyness" exist ? No ! I just made it up !
Dennett is not really seeking truth or engaging in science or following reason; rather, he's a complex arrangement of neural networks, or perhaps a by-product of neural firings. So what happens is determined by those arrangements, those firings, at any given time. One thing to bear in mind is that consciousness needn't involve sensations, feelings, and thoughts; those constitute a rather superficial layer. Consciousness of the purest variety, or proto-consciousness if you will, may abide at the quantum level (the Planck scale, to be precise) which is non-material and non-local. To say that consciousness is an activity of the brain only is an assumption; it may stretch beyond the human body. If you want a deeper, more sophisticated theory of consciousness, you may want to check out Rupert Sheldrake's work on Morphic Resonance and the collaborative work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. I predict that Dennett's views, in less than 50 years, will seem simplistic, crude, and antiquated. In some sense, pure or proto-consciousness is dreaming all this that we call material.
Personal Conclusions from various sources "We Are All One Consciousness" for the following reasons: 1. In this world everything must have a cause, so that something exists because of something else, as well as ourselves. 2. It will be very saturating / boring if we have only one physical form in this world. 3. It will be very saturating / boring if all human beings have the exact same physical form / behavior. 4. Try to imagine emptying all the physical things around us only the remnants of humanity, then eliminating all human beings leaving only their memories, then removing all their memories leaving only their consciousness, then connecting that consciousness, feel who we are ??. 5. Body, mind, feelings, emotions and everything in this world is always changing, so what never changes ??, that is our true self, which is true consciousness. If everything changes2 / moves who observes, there must be something fixed to be able to observe. 6. All human beings communicate with each other is the beginning of the beginning / the future of human beings unite, only electronic devices today can unite all human beings, one day the device is implanted in the human mind and eventually man will open all access to his mind. 7. Our body is a group / accumulation of memory accumulated brought from the beginning of the birth of the first human in the world through continuous DNA binding. 8. Twins are born at the same time, what if all human beings are born at the same time ??. What happens if the birth of all human beings is not influenced by the dimensions of space and time ?? 9. The twins are identical to A and B, if the whole memory of A is copied to B, what is the difference ?? 10. The law of attraction (law of attraction) that our minds will attract whatever we think, because we are all like one part of the body. 11. Like some of the video recordings of ourselves there is a video as a vocalist, a video as a violinist, as a pianist, as a drummer, etc. The video2 is made into one in one video then it will produce a more interesting orchestra, something new and more productive. our world. 12. Man's greatest enemy is himself, at this time man is fighting against himself. By believing that we are all one, then the ego will fade because there is no difference between us. 13. That is why the teachings of religion command us to be grateful and beneficial to many, If you are hurting others you are actually hurting yourself, just as if you are doing good to others you are actually doing good to yourself. 14. Could it be that we are all dreaming and our dreams meet each other at the same frequency in parallel. Have you ever, when sleeping dreamed of moving roles as someone else, it is because we are all one. 15. We are not immortal as human beings so that we have time for us to scroll through all of life. 16. "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience" ~ Stephen Covey, Have you ever felt that our age is too short, could our consciousness be immortal ?. 17. We are one, only the role is different, the memory block between life is what makes people feel different / separate. Just by brainwashing / erasing his memory then someone will be a different person but his consciousness actually remains the same. 18. The lucky thing for us is ... awareness is always towards / seeking / having intentions / desires towards good / positive / happiness despite experiencing various mistakes. 19. When we die the body and memory are destroyed, how can we remember ever being dead. 20. Why do we have to die? ", When we are told to die, later this eternal question will be asked again and we will always be there." The world is a sustainable life "~ Bruce Lipton 21. In the beginning we were one, but split through a big explosion or bigbang to become different and separate as it is now, but we are provided with a sense of love for us to be able to be reunited later. 22. There is only us and the mirror of ourselves in this world, yet there is another world out there. 23. We will always smile happily seeing each other as ourselves "How beautiful I am" seeing a different self. 24. If all consciousness is told now that they are all one if the experience gained is enough, the consciousness designed from the beginning is so different that there is so much intrigue, consciousness is created differently so that when it comes together it has an incredible consciousness experience. 25. We are indeed alone in this universe, but there are still many other universes with their own laws of nature. 26. Have you ever felt to come to a place that has never been visited but feel familiar with that place, as if we have lived in that place sometime. 27. The world is like a script of a story that is being written by the author, sometimes changed at the beginning, sometimes changed in the middle, sometimes changed at the end it all depends on us as writers, and every story has wisdom that can be taken as a lesson. 28. Hair grows on its own, heart beats on its own, blood flows on its own, ideas emerge on its own, etc., are we involved ??. 29. Imagine today there was an event that caused only you to live in this world, then who are all the people yesterday ??. 30. "If Quantum Mechanism cannot surprise you, then you do not yet understand Quantum Physics. Everything we have considered real all this time, turns out to be unreal." ~ Niels Bohr. 31. In the scale of quantum physics we are all connected to each other, even in double gap experiments proving that particles change when observed or in other words awareness is able to change reality, this has been repeatedly proven by Nobel laureate in Physics. 32. Everything we experience by our senses will eventually only be an electrical impulse in the brain, is it all real ??. We are beings who realize that we are conscious. 33. We are closer than the veins of his neck. He breathes some of His spirit on you. Knowing oneself means knowing one's God. Indeed, we will return to HIM. You are far I am far, you are near I am near. I am everywhere. Before the existence of this world there was no material other than Him. The True Spirit is only One, the Creator. I agree with your prejudice. 34. Whether the Creator is only tasked with creating, is it possible that the creator does not want to try the results of his creation through another perspective. 35. There is no reincarnation, it is possible that our consciousness is synchronizing, our consciousness is divided by the speed of light so that consciousness can move and divide quickly through energy, and that is why we need sleep, that is why we often do not realize something, that is why the size of the earth is reached by the speed of light so that consciousness is divided quickly and evenly, we are like some chess pawns played by a player, that is why if we move at the speed of light, then we can penetrate the dimensions of space and time, when we die we wake up and regain consciousness as long as there are human beings living in this world. 36. Have we ever had a problem and suddenly someone came to provide a solution to the problem we are experiencing, as if someone was sent by the universe to help us in solving the problem, which is actually our own awareness that sends that person to us. 37. A thousand years ago did human beings see, hear and be trapped in their hearts about current technological advances ??. If we all tend to sin (damage) then it will be the world of hell, if we all tend to do good then it will be the world of heaven. 38. Knowledge learns objects, God who created our consciousness, does not allow God to be objects of knowledge. 39. It is not possible for human creation which is only in the form of words / symbols to represent true truth.uyty 40. Is there a meaning of being without consciousness ?? then we are adventurers of this existence. Sy 41. The life of the world is just a game and a joke, the one who wins the game of the world is the one who finds his true self. 42. When the existence of the world ends we will know everything. 43. My consciousness undergoes a very extraordinary life experience, feeling life experience with different forms and different places even though in fact my consciousness is always the same, wow .. I was surprised !! how wide I am. 44. Consciousness in fact does not know the concept of time, consciousness can experience / undergo into another physical form because the dimension of time can be penetrated by consciousness, as when we imagine we can act as anyone without time bound, because in this universe time can in fact materialize free, time can move straight, curved, rotate, etc. Our time travel is when our consciousness moves to a new physical experience. 45. We are an awareness, a concept that is able to answer various things. 46. Remember when you were going to leave, you were worried about losing me ??, calm down .. I was everywhere and we would always be able to meet again, believe me. 47. Without searching what is the difference between us in this world and us in a dream while sleeping just passing by without meaning 48. In conclusion, whatever role we play, it is all our own design, so just enjoy. 49. God created us to be Happy, so do not disappoint God. 50. Understand it and be Shining source: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LtT8pWIYL4Q.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-h6fcK_fRYaI.html
I like the idea that consciousness is excrement to the brain as piss is to the kidney. its computational waste, but the theory doesn't really explain anything
Dennet offers nothing in the way of an argument. What he does instead is simply assume a priori that consciousness is merely an illusion, that it has all the appearances of being something real but is in fact not real in the least. To "prove" this, he presents us with some rather entertaining, even startling optical illusions. They look real enough, but they are only illusions. Having done so, he then says," see, that's what consciousness is too: nothing more than an illusion." It's all rather entertaining, but to assume in your premises what you seek in your conclusion does not amount to an valid argument. Nowhere in his presentation is to be found anything resembling in the least an argument. His book, consciousness explained, is no different: it explains nothing at all. It poses no argument, just a kind of elaborate show and tell long-windedly elaborated.
I thought the argument was pretty clear. There is no I experiencing consciousness. There is only a collection of trillions of registers interacting from stimuli to create stimuli upon each other and the body. The stimuli come in from the senses, and the registers do what they do with that information for the organism to survive, but the construction in the brain we label consciousness is simply that--a construction--which may or may not be an accurate portrayal of the reality the organism is in. Consciousness is simply a brain function. The fact that it's a constructed illusion is most apparent by the existence of a consciousness called dreams and the consciousness of hallucinations. Both are constructed consciousnesses built on registers firing dissociated from the reality of the environment and yet still have the quality of consciousness. The registers need not have actual external stimuli to perform their usual function. The overwhelming phenomenon of consciousness and the sense of a self witnessing reality is simply the product of the incredible amount of registers--perhaps in the trillions--performing all at the same time--something like the pixels in a 100 terabyte jpeg image. Our consciousness is that jpeg. Turn off the display device--the trillion registers which generate the trillion pixels--and the jpeg--our consciousness--no longer exists. But there is no viewer of the jpeg. The jpeg simply organizes stimuli and reaction. The construction called consciousness is only present to perform that function. You don't exist, kiddo.
It's a perfectly fine PHILOSOPHICAL argument. It's not intended to "prove" anything, but to get people thinking. That's why he's invited to speak at cognitive science conferences. He helps us to get unstuck.
I think it's a viewpoint worth considering, despite it being counterintuitive. People used to believe the universe revolved around the Earth. Any idea saying otherwise would've taken away the special meaning of importance. Now we know the truth about planets, and despite no longer having that feeling of importance we found it elsewhere.
Ah, the typical atheist obsession with the idea that we are nothing but a collection of unconscious cells and that consciousness is just brain electrical activity. Such a self-defeating narrow viewpoint. As an MD, over 40 years I have pondered life and consciousness. I'll never forget a man, about 40 years ago. He was brought to hospital in a coma, and we sustained him for about 3 days with IV fluids but he did not need a ventilator. He was absolutely in clinical coma, what we call decerebrate coma. Amazingly, in about 3 days, he came back to full consciousness. He looked at me and said, doctor, I have been aware of you and the staff around me all the time, but I could not move a muscle or say a word! Those days we did not have MRI or even CT so I could only shrug my shoulders and tell him I'm glad he recovered. I think he had a brain stem TIA which means transient ischemic attack. That's a transient stroke without permanent brain damage. Then there's the great mystery of NDEs, or Near Death Experience. Look up the amazing book "Dying To Be Me" by Anita Moorjani. Wayne Dyer introduced her to the world. You can also look up videos about her experience. Good article: www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/
I find that this completely dodges the hard problem of consciousness. Whether or not the objects that appear within consciousness amount to a bag of tricks - that's not the central issue here. The central issue is the question of why ANYTHING at all appears in consciousness. Where does this dimension of consciousness come from? It seems like Dennett just totally avoids the real problem, probably because like everyone else, he has no answer to it.
Exactly, I mean taking his analogy further, let's say part of our brain convinces itself that consciousness exists, and that's the 'magic trick'. Just like part of our brain convinces us we're seeing the red on the flag, when it's not there. We would still have to explain why this brain, convinced of consciousness and convinced it experiences sound, taste, touch, etc, is actually experiencing anything at all. Because we could just as well have a brain convinced of all these things, but not actually experiencing anything, and operating in the dark. The only answer that seems like it even could be the real solution to me is Russellian monism, a form of panpsychism. It's motivated by a huge gap at the heart of physics: physics explains how fundamental particles like electrons move. But we've never accounted for what the electron actually is; physics leaves out any explanation about its intrinsic nature. i.e. beyond how it moves, what actually 'is' this thing that's moving around? If fundamental entities in physics are actually bits of consciousness, then we'll have solved this intrinsic nature problem and the hard problem of consciousness as well.
@@Mablak200 Yeah, I don't see how anywhere in the standard materialist understanding of the universe there arises any need for a conscious observer to be witnessing anything. Everything that is happening could just as well be happening unconsciously. The human brain takes in various inputs, performs some calculations, and outputs behaviors. No matter how complex this input-output dynamic becomes, I don't see how it ever necessitates a field of consciousness to appear which witnesses the calculation going on. Computers do something similar, but as far as we know there is no subjective consciousness which observes that process. I think consciousness must be some fundamental property of the universe. To me it seems just as fundamental as matter. We just don't understand it or have any good explanation for it. If we lack even the most basic understanding of it, I don't see how we can possibly explain it away as confidently as Dennett does. Why should it ever appear at all? I don't see anything in our materialist outlook which explains why it should, or in fact must, appear. This is a huge gap in our understanding of reality.
We could consider that consciousness might come as a mere byproduct of brain activity and is in all actuality not necessary. Rather a phenomena that arises naturally with no apparent benefit. (Or maybe even the goal of the universe/evolution set by our creator or previous cycles) In favor of this argument is that when the brain loses certain functions, you no longer are apparently conscious. If consciousness was fundamental, why does it seemingly go away when I pass out or a doctor pokes a part of my brain?
so he shows how we are susceptible to illusions. But he doesn't show anything in relation to the actual sensations of consciousness themselves. Only that they don't necessarily fully represent the real world.
@@teryylotus1995 You think and believe as you were indoctrinated that God is good and that God is Love. For every, if any, bible script you can give me that God is good I can give you 10 to prove the opposite straight from the Bible. Therefore my statement that you do not know your biblical god for how he truly portrayed himself. This is why you believe all the preachings of a good and caring god.
Dr. Joe Dispenza's explanation of conscious and the mechanics of the mind and brain is more sophisticated and simple then, what this person is relaying.
you are spot on. the good man still have a dust from establishment, where you have to get A** to be admitted for study, and meanwhile like Dr Joe Dispenza is selling us of it in a bottled water, freely available on youtube with hundreds men and women , pursuing us with advert to buy their bottle of water is even much more drinkable and satisfying :)
