Mr. Chalmers is spot on. The question for me is: What is the root cause that ties and bundles together our separate experiences (seeing, hearing, thinking, feeling, etc.) into s single experience, which we call consciousness?
Experience is continuous from awakening to slumber. Sensory input, processing and muscular output are parts of experience and varying. Thus we see experience is a process and complex. But there is self evidently the experiencer and what is experienced. The experiencer is what we call the self. The experienced is what we call thoughts. In order for a self to have commerce with thoughts it seems to me most likely that the self must also be a thought. The question then becomes, what is a thought? I have an answer but to understand it one needs to have a knowledge of the fundamentals of neurology.
That is the question. The (start of the) answer is: the physical basis in the brain must be quantum, because there are no irreducible wholes in classical physics.
As someone who has experienced what is termed an "out of body experience", as well as different levels of awareness during meditation and sleep state, I have come to the conclusion that consciousness is a sort of energy field which cannot be destroyed and which changes in ways we don't understand and which becomes "non-local" during certain situations, namely panic, or a meditative state, or indeed cardiac arrest.
Even energy cannot be it, since, at its core, it is that which perceives all of the different energy vibrations such as thought, emotion, sensation, intention, feeling, etc. It is what's "doing" the perceiving.
Experiences through 'conscious subjects'!! Reminds me of 'conscious agents' mentioned by Nassim Haramein. Chalmers stayed to his experiential realty instead expecting a logical reason!! Respects!!
Very interesting discussion. The subject of multiple personality or "split personalities" is particularly interesting - as it being fairly unusual, a type of borderline case when it comes to consciousness, can also provide unusual clues that can lead to a greater understanding of "What is Consciousness?" Frederic Myers (1843-1901) and his academic colleagues wrote about the scientific research in this area of consciousness, in chapter two "Disintegrations of Personality", in his book "Human Personality" (which is the title he wanted, not the posthumuous title assigned to it) he wrote: "I have already indicated my general view of the nature of human personality. I regard each man as at once profoundly unitary and almost infinitely composite ..." The chapter then goes into some detail on different symptoms of "disintegrated personality" including citing Dr. Pierre Janet's "L'Etat Mental des Hysteriques" (Paris, 1893). The chapter also discusses the case of Miss Lucy R. - cases that Drs. Beuer and Freud elucidated in "Studien uber Hysterie, Leipsig, 1895. Needless to say, there has been a good amount of scientific study regarding cases of hysteria (or disintegration of personality) and in my opinion, the best theoretical underpinnings (so far) explaining these breakdowns (and the unity of consciousness itself) was originally provided by Frederic Myers, and then expanded upon by Freud and Carl Jung.
@@milannesic5718 There actually have been some recorded cases where this does appear to be the case. Obscure and off the beaten track. I wouldn't say the idea is "rejected" as much as has been hypothesized - given the nature of what "consciousness" actually is remains an open question (to this day).
I think of consciousness as analogous to a wave in the ocean. There are multiple waves but only one water. The ocean of being expressed by billions of beings moving like waves, but the water is the source of all waves. When the ocean is still all water is at one level.
@@buzzwordy9951 You sound just like Alan Watts! I do think monism is more likely the case than dualism - but I also don't believe inert/random particles could have brought about consciousness itself. So I suspect (I do not know) that consciousness really is fundamental to it all - but that it has many levels to it - similar to matter, which both Einstein and Carl Jung (who often lunched together) believed that matter and consciousness were probably two sides of the same monism coin.
I tend to agree. Whether you call it spiritual or a unity of components the differences start to disappear. I tend to think in only scientific terms but I don’t think scientific and spiritual are mutually exclusive. I don’t think that consciousness is an illusion as some scientists say but I don’t know enough to say that something outside of my body is ultimately causing this experience of consciousness. I don’t rule it out, and in the end it may be that both science and spirituality are approaching the same thing from different directions. I do like the idea that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe like quarks, electrons and photons. I also believe that humans aren’t the only creatures that have a conscious experience. It may be the experience with the most complex cognitive component but other components, emotional, senses, etc are probably the same in other animals.
@@willo7734 i agree in many parts with you ... i see as "intelligence" as a fundamental presence (and first cause) for this reality and consciousness a product of it. Surely down (basic intelligence in matter) to up and maybe up (God) to down ...
The best I can describe it is that, yes, consciousness is logical but it is also illogical... it is everything and nothing... it both is and isnt... and this is why it is so difficult to pin because its so unpinnable... I do believe that the more we attempt at it, the more we think we'll understand and we have developed interesting concepts that are true concepts but only in the frame or against a certain contrast of other concepts. So consciousness can be both true and untrue... personally I think the brain has a lot to do with it... in the sense of... the brain is used for processing and thinking and turning wholeness into bits to chew on for understanding... the only thing that understands is the brain... consciousness isn't understanding... it just is... and anything trying to understand it is immediately making a duality. I think the best practice it just to feel it... which in turn feels whole and unity because that's all there is... figuring that out is difficult but can be done... a great quote and point from one of my more favorite philosophers, Alan Watts, once said... " isnt it so interesting that the whole universe seems to fit right inside your head, but it's also more interesting that your head is also inside the universe and so there's this funny loop happening" or at least something along those lines.
Nothing new here. Adi Shankara articulated this via his terminology of aparoksha (non-personal citta or consciousness) and paroksha (illusory, sensory, self)
After considerable reflection I have come to the conclusion that my self is a thought. Since all thoughts are representations (i.e. a thought is 'about' something (and quite separate from the 'thing' it is about)) I had to ask my self, what does my self thought represent? My answer was and still is... my self thought must be about my self thought. This makes my self thought unique among thoughts. When I was young I was certain my self was my body and I put my hand on my chest to emphasize the fact and the feeling feedback loop between my hand and my chest seemed to verify it. Only later, when asked hypothetically to choose between losing my body or my mind, did I realize that without my mind my body would be irrelevant and there would be only absolute nothing. So then it came down to whether or not a body is able to have/create/maintain a thought. Since something as simple as a painting is able to represent and somewhat more complex computers are able to present representations on screen, I asked, were neurons in brains able to support representations? From what I knew of neurology I had to answer yes, definitely. Compressing a whole lot of logic and information into a single statement... The process in which 'other' type thoughts modulate my self thought constitutes the very essence of my self being conscious. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that someone has already written a book exploring this idea. What I like most about this idea is that it provides a clear and understandable explanation of how matter and mind are related, it renders 'the hard problem' solved.
I always wonder about people who are blind or deaf?! Also those who lose a sense, does their consciousness evolve or change in some way? Interesting video.
Consciousness never changes. If you close your eyes and wear ear plugs you are still aware of the blackness. Whatever senses you have is just like a dashboard of sensors giving you info.Our info can change but awareness remains.
Chalmer's wrongly dismissed nonunified consciousness saying it was possible but then there is no feeling of "it is like something to be me". Makes absolutely no sense nor does it logically follow. If consciousness were nonunified, first, you wouldn't know it because you are only conscious of what you are conscious of, and second, it would feel exactly the way you do now which is that your attention is focused on one thing at a time that you can quickly switch between. what ground does he stand on here?
The “ground” is “I have no idea” … I have watched many of these videos and conclude that these conversations sound intelligent but lead to the same problems. I have been working on my own idea of what constitutes consciousness and it is not what most scholars believe or think consciousness is.
OK! This conversation has just shifted my perception. We talk or think of consciousness without ever talking of the soul. I always placed the soul as the detached aspect of the self or conscious self. Placing the soul as the conduit between the conscious self and soul connection. Your conversation has realined this idea. The soul now takes the place of consciousness and what I understood as the soul is now the connection or conduit of self to the God force or matrix. So what does all this mean: It is interesting because now consciousness is not within it is held outside of self which makes all the bits fit much better and it now explains things we could not understand before. Suddenly I can explain everything to myself about consciousness. It all now makes perfect sense. It also now alignes with the creator. Let me explain: How we understand the words used to explain a problem is very important to understand the bigger picture. Our DNA is the internal program of the meat sack we live in. Our SOUL is an acronym for the software of the meat sack that creates the overall character we call self. This I historically thought of as the consciousness of self. However now see clearly is the soul force of our unique character. These two things minus the memory are the whole persona. Separate from consciousness which is outside of the Body once historically understood as soul. However now clearly understood as consciousness. DNA can be unlocked by scientists through interpretation of cells. SOUL can be unlocked by interpretation of words. (discribe your character in words to capture your essence of being) So the full character of a person can be rebuilt through programming. For this personality to be reborn into a conscious persona we need to connect to consciousness through the code of a name. This name is you! Each name is allocated to a unique identification code that is your consciousness to God or the matrix. At birth you are allocated this code much like a Bitcoin is allocated its first code of existence. Then every transaction is recorded from that point forward. Trying to copy a token that is not part of the record is not that persona. If you die it is like being lost. So the moment of death is like loosing your seed key to the wallet that holds you. You never die just get lost. Your consciousness is detached from self however you are still recorded in the book of life. This picture can only work when you understand that life is within the matrix and we are subjects of the code of the matrix. We can of course create a fork within this system and create a separate chain. However in the code there is a rule if ever there is a dispute as to which chain is real, you default to the longest chain. God is the dog star of our existence and the longest chain goes back to the copyright holder of the original thought. We call that copyright holder GOD. The chain goes somthing like this GOD - God - god - Humanity Humainty. The fractal of live evil. Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Jesus returned to earth to help humanity understand that at any moment you can exchange all you believe you are worth by selling your sole understanding through the Jesus exchange and join the longest chain and original thought. This way your off spring are under the umbrella of humanity. B
ENERGY of CONSCIOUSNESS: Mountains, trees, wind, light, emotions, thought, and even mathematics and information are all forms of energy. In which we have different senses (physical & mental) for. As human beings, we sense and differentiate these different forms and patterns of energy, over and in time. Then we additionally have convergent thought (creativity) that we observe from the minds eye, along with short & long term memory, which can provide the naming (language & science) of these different forms of energies and their patterns (unlike other species). this is what I sense human consciousness is for human beings.
Consciousness should only be read in ones understanding about God and how that empowers everything else eventually leading to oneness with the UNIVERSE.
He’s absolutely correct that the unity of consciousness is essential. It also implies the physical basis must be quantum, because there is no irreducible unity in classical physics.
Chalmers is right, phemonal consciousness is the experience of what it is like to be me, a dog, or any experiencing subject. I do think that manifests as a unified field of consciousness where all our senses, thoughts, emotions, etc seem to contemporaneously fit together as one ongoing experience. Tho we have glitches and anomalies, and also the ability to focus attention. All this makes sense in functional evolutionary terms, it gives us the ability to model the world from moment to moment as we move through it. I'm not so sure that a person's ongoing identity as a specific subject is any more than this. We are what we are experiencing at any given moment I think, nothing more. And that is individuated by genetics and past experiences which have created patterns in our neurological connections which keep a certain stability in place, as well as memory of our past. In other words, our self is no more than our sense of who we are at any particular moment of experience.
"Chalmers is right, phemonal consciousness is the experience of what it is like to be me, a dog, or any experiencing subject. " In that statement, "me" and "subject" are what we mean by 'self' as in 'It is my self that is conscious'. (Another way to say the same thing is, 'I am conscious' (and truer words were never spoke)). Nouns are words that refer to things. Some of those things are 'concrete' while others are 'abstract'. 'Self' is a word that refers to an abstraction. The abstraction is the thought or conception that refers to itself. The 'self' thought is unique in its' being self referential. The modulation of this thought by ordinary thoughts *is* the being conscious process. (The self is the 'subject' that receives info from the senses and is the source of the signals that move the voluntary muscles. Much is known about how sense organs and muscles work but on the topic of the self, the leap from physiology to the abstract realm has often lead to confusion). We must exclude from selfhood any entity that is incapable of acquiring and maintaining the concept of the self. Insofar as the concept of the self arises in consequence of the acquisition of a language, organisms without language lack the means to form the self concept. Without a self they lack the conscious element and so they are not. Of course this is not an assertion since the only self one can be sure of is one's own, although, it's not really much of a stretch to imagine that most people we speak with are selfs and conscious also. Not so much with dogs and cats who are reactive and instinct driven. Reactivity and instinct have been and are responsible for the ofttimes very complex behavior of all evolving organism's ever since the dawn of life on this planet. But reactive, instinctive and conscious are emphatically distinct and it is a mistake to confuse them.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL '' “Chalmers is right, phemonal consciousness is the experience of what it is like to be me, a dog, or any experiencing subject. ” In that statement, "me" and "subject" are what we mean by 'self' as in 'It is my self that is conscious'. (Another way to say the same thing is, 'I am conscious' (and truer words were never spoke)). Nouns are words that refer to things. Some of those things are 'concrete' while others are 'abstract'. 'Self' is a word that refers to an abstraction. The abstraction is the thought or conception that refers to itself. The 'self' thought is unique in its' being self referential. '' As I said, phenomenal consciousness, which is what Chalmers is discussing, is the experience of ''what it is like'' (see Nagel) to be a subject. To see red, feel sad, remember a memory, experience thoughts and sensations, etc. I wouldn't call these things abstract, as they are real and directly known, if perhaps not physical. My contention is that a self is no more than the having of such conscious experiences. Which for humans at least, includes the sense of ''me, here, now''. In this body, located in space and time, with a specific first person pov. ''The modulation of this thought by ordinary thoughts is the being conscious process. (The self is the 'subject' that receives info from the senses and is the source of the signals that move the voluntary muscles. Much is known about how sense organs and muscles work but on the topic of the self, the leap from physiology to the abstract realm has often lead to confusion). '' I agree that the mind-body relationship is not understood. ''We must exclude from selfhood any entity that is incapable of acquiring and maintaining the concept of the self. Insofar as the concept of the self arises in consequence of the acquisition of a language, organisms without language lack the means to form the self concept. Without a self they lack the conscious element and so they are not.'' The ability to abstractly conceptualise or linguistically articulate a sense of being a self is other species can't do. But why does that matter? They are still experiencing subjects having ''what it is like to be me'' experiences. If you believe they can't have ANY conscious experience without the ability to conceptualise and articulate the notion of being a self, then you believe your cat doesn't get hungry, your dog yelps for no reason if you tread on its tail? A baby crying for milk isn't really hungry? Even though they share many similar brain functions associated with those experiences. That seems unlikely to me. ''Of course this is not an assertion since the only self one can be sure of is one's own, although, it's not really much of a stretch to imagine that most people we speak with are selfs and conscious also. Not so much with dogs and cats who are reactive and instinct driven. Reactivity and instinct have been and are responsible for the ofttimes very complex behavior of all evolving organism's ever since the dawn of life on this planet. But reactive, instinctive and conscious are emphatically distinct and it is a mistake to confuse them.'' Phenomenal conscious experience can be reactive and instinctive. As a human if I accidentally stick my hand in a fire I reactively feel pain and instinctively withdraw it. That pain is conscious experience for me, like it presumably is for you and is for a dog. The experience of pain for example, doesn't seem to rely on the ability to conceptualise or articulate the notion of self. Such conceptualisation is a sophisticated type of thought, but thought is just one type of conscious experience. My dog still has a brain apparently capable of some sense of Me Here Now, evidenced by its apparent ability to navigate the world, have a desire to feed, be happy to see you, respond to commands, etc. The Cambridge Declaration in 2012 reports on the state of knowledge re animal conscious experience of various species regarding some of this fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
We didn't learned in school, that We and our Consciousness are Eternal, but We know all the Basics of our Consciousness, from the daily life. Most of the functions in our body is Instictive, (Red) All and any Ability-building is Instinct-borne. Gravity, (Orange) is power/physical power. With out Feeling, (Yellow) No one would Never have Felt anything, Contrast-Principle and Perspective-Principle, make Feeling into Sensing. Intelligence, (Green) is the Ability for Logic and Order, and together with the Perspective-Principle, it becomes Mathematic. Intuition, (Blue) is the most dynamic of the Basic-Energies, but at our position in the actual Developing-Circuit, it is at its lowest performance-level. It needs much space, but short, it is the Ability to see through the Stuff-side, read the result or idea. When Feeling and Intelligence is developed to a certain level, and is in balance, then the Intuitive impulses and Cosmic glimpses gradually begin to come, and growing in force. Memory, (Indigo) is the Highest Ability in the Circuit, it bring us from word to word, from day to day, from life to life. (From Circuit to Circuit) These six Eternal Abilities, holds the Under-Consciousness, as holds the Day-Consciousness and the Night-Consciousness. They is seated in the Over-Consciousness, (Purple) (Mother-Energy/Eternity-Body) So, as the rainbow reflects the Eternal World Picture, it is in every thing, in different composisions, in every thought, grain of dust, or any stuff. Devices as can do mental functions, must copy the way Consciousness function, in our digital reality, We do recognize specific four of our eternal abilities, Automatic/Instinct, - Power/Gravity, - Intelligence/Logic-Order, - Hard-disc/Memory, Sensors/(techical)Feeling. We know these Abilities as Organic, they can be technical, programmed, but they can Never be 'artificial'. (>Intelligence) (So, 'AI' is Doomed)
Both men are sitting in the exact same environment how they each react to or respond to that same moment will be different. It is the individual consciousness of each that will determine their perception of the experience . Of course it is based on the life long memories stored in the possibly quantum brain.
All of those "elements" of consciousness seem to me to be beside the point. All of those elements occur to the subject of that experience, the experiencer. The who. That is a single unitary center of consciousness that is a being.
The idea that your position of observation has a location in space and time or in relation to the self who seems to be conscious of a me as observer are all positions which are yet observed. There is no cause in the effect. The human body and its parts are a unity, interdependently functioning, automatically. We can see a body sleeping, likely dreaming etc. and the conscious awareness that is present then is less involved. It's like a step back behind the lens of perception takes place. So as one introspects as to what the true position in awareness is, fundamentally, the question will remain: who or what sees this? And in the waking state, there is this same awareness, largely taken up by an inner voice which most people will say is the real them. But it isn't. That is a construct of every bit of learning one has taken in to create the conditioned sense of a person living in this world, having a life in a body, eventually dying in this form. Yet, the original, unconditioned self or awareness, has never changed or became an object of perception or retained any permanence that one can say is their true self objectively. When you were 2, your were you. When you were 5,10, 20 on up to your death, you are you. You, who will eventually witness the passing of this body, shall not pass. Because what people assume to be their life has been nothing but change. Everything changes except the witness of change, the witness of all that passes. Even within the person with multiple personalities is a watching of the multiple points of ephemeral experiences from a position that does not change. This is a fact and is not disputable, although it is often missed. The only way to understand this is to look for your self, inside your self. It cannot be learned or understood intellectually as you are trying to do here. It must be experienced to be understood or known. Focused introspection is one way, But often there ends up being a seeker in search of a self, that itself already is. What your are looking for is already who you are looking from.
After considerable reflection I have come to the conclusion that my self is a thought. Since all thoughts are representations (i.e. a thought is 'about' something (and quite separate from the 'thing' it is about)) I had to ask my self, what does my self thought represent? My answer was and still is... my self thought must be about my self thought. This makes my self thought unique among thoughts. When I was young I was certain my self was my body and I put my hand on my chest to emphasize the fact and the feeling feedback loop between my hand and my chest seemed to verify it. Only later, when asked hypothetically to choose between losing my body or my mind, did I realize that without my mind my body would be irrelevant and there would be only absolute nothing. So then it came down to whether or not a body is able to have/create/maintain a thought. Since something as simple as a painting is able to represent and somewhat more complex computers are able to present representations on screen, I asked, were neurons in brains able to support representations? From what I knew of neurology I had to answer yes, definitely. Compressing a whole lot of logic and information into a single statement... The process in which 'other' type thoughts modulate my self thought constitutes the very essence of my self being conscious. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that someone has already written a book exploring this idea. What I like most about this idea is that it provides a clear and understandable explanation of how matter and mind are related, it renders 'the hard problem' solved.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Your ability to watch thoughts, this idea of a self or no self appears in front of that which cannot be objective or known as such. Yet, undifferentiated seeing takes place as its own reality. And even this is seen. So the idea of a self that sees is illusory by an awareness that isn't caught up in the specter of objectivity. This is within everyone to see. It is what is and there is no way around it. So what does that mean, practically for a human being who is looking within or without for answers? This seeker will never find a suitable answer by trying to solve the riddle by looking for logical answers. Because the one who would learn an answer is only an illusion as seen by the self which has no form. Yet all forms are seen. Essentially, you without the story of you sees from you.
_"What is Consciousness?"_ Something that cannot adequately be described in words. It is that which perceives, experiences, knows. For example, it perceives the explanations and descriptions given to it or about it. The observer of all content.
“Unity” is just an idea, whereas consciousness is dynamic, moment to moment. Therefore they cannot be the same. It’s not appropriate to think of consciousness that way. What are you conscious of? You have a model of the world in your brain, thanks to all the synaptic connections formed over years of experience that represnt mountains, people, trees, buildings, rocks, etc. Most of the time you don’t notice when those representations in your brain are activated. Think of what a wave looks like. You can watch waves for hours, and they mostly look the same; you recognize a wave “instantly” - yet you will never see the same wave twice! But if you see a surfer or a dolphin riding a wave, you focus on that immediately! That’s “unity” of consciousness - 99% background fuzz, and 1% novelty. You are only conscious of the novelty, but it “seems” - whether it’s a surfer, an idea, or whatever, - unified with everything else. The problem with “what it’s like…” is this. It is shorthand for “That experience which it is like to be xyz”. What is implied is reflection on some past experience, which invokes memory, and comparison to some previous experience. So “what it is like …” is a misleading representation of consciousness, because it impliies both immediate experience and comparison to some past experience, which is ok if you understand that, but it’s not the same as simply being “one” with some perception without comparison to the past. The latter would be like a Zen experience; immediate without reflection or reaction or analysis or comparison. Your mind is like a lens that focuses on what your brain circuits deem important for whatever reason - whether internal (thoughts) or external (percetions). In that sense, you don’t have free will. When you focus on a problem or issue, information comes to mind, and then various choices, and then you choose one based on pre-established preferences. You consciously observe this, but your consciousness plays no part in the decision making.
After all these years, I would really like to hear Roberts own conclusions about everything. After so much talk and insights, does he lean more towards physical only world or he thinks there is more to it. What he thinks about consciousness today. Just a brain/evolution creation? Does he believe there is a free will? Did anyone actually tried hard to beat those brain scanners that recognize brain activity before we make a decision? For example, trying to not have any thoughts prior to moving. Just moving a hand extremely fast and suddenly. Needs someone very skilled and cold as a rock
@@irfanmehmud63 That is also the standard answer that cosmologist give as well. Every cosmologist would say there is more Cosmos than our current science has discovered.
In some videos, interspersed with his interviews - he does present some of his own thoughts. From what I can glean: he claims he leans toward consciousness as fundamental but remains undecided. Some of the people he selects to interview, especially Skeptics like Daniel Dennett I find personally repulsive - as I no longer take these people seriously - but that is my own particular bias. But I also believe Robert has his own biases as well, as he does often marginalize and dismiss the research in Psi (and/or Near-Death research) - and he says this himself when he is interviewing scientists who are researching both these areas of "phenomena" or whatever you want to label the categories. I find this is intellectually biased on his part, as I think substantial research by credible scientists have been published in both Psi and NDEs - and to just dismiss either category by claiming they are all mere anecdotes (say) is an unexamined blind spot of Robert's, or claiming the science practiced for Psi has not been sufficient or stringent enough - is a level of bias not fair to the researchers and their scientific studies and conclusions.
@@jamenta2 From all of his videos I glean that Robert leans towards both mater and consciousness being fundamental. It more in line with conceptualism rather than idealism or physicalism. Robert also demand evidence for claims which is in line with conceptualism which looks at statements based on their usefulness.
@@kos-mos1127 I'm just going by his own words KOS-MOS. In fact, in one of his more recent videos he even states he leans toward consciousness as fundamental. Apparently, you are as sloppy watching "Closer to the Truth" as you are sloppy with your comments here.
Having just read Mark Solms' powerful new book The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness, I'm eager to learn how other thinkers about the subject---especially David Chalmers---have reacted to it. I'm hoping Closer to Truth will do an episode on that book, and perhaps interview some of the show's previous guests about their impressions of Solms' work. Has he really solved the hard problem, and if not, where and how does his solution run aground? Thanks.
I don't know. From what I gather so far, I have no reason to believe consciousness is a thing at all. Every now and then I do some light reading, listening to experts, watching videos like these, and nothing is clicking.
by the way: not all the destructive irrational meanness of the apes are the same, something like the difference between the irrational meanness of foxes, ewes, dogs, .... etc. each group of apes has different type of irrational meanness probably related to different environments !
The unifying factor is the need perceptions caused by particles generated by the center of the earth and the corresponding satisfaction perceptions caused by particles generated at its reference centers (that I call Astrocenters, of which the sun is among the closest), towards which the earth generates its particles, consideration of both of which possibilities the currently believed Copernican ASSUMPTION of earth moving around the sun prohibits. As sense perceptions only represent particles generated by the centers (that I call Ecocenters) other than the above two, most important for survival of life, particles, The Experimental and Observational Science, by trying to derive all reality based only on the single sense perception (sight~photon), does an enormous disservice to sustenance of life on this earth. We MUST quantize Need perceptions and Satisfaction perceptions and fork all our observations in the search for knowledge between the two, instead of analyzing the whole universe to find out what we SHOULD do? A system of knowledge that prevents even considering a real possibility, which E&O S does at present as clarified above, is a very destructive enterprise. This possibility unites particle physics with astronomy automatically and enables deriving growth of plants as a function of particle interactions inside the earth. Note: what needs unification is the sustenance of LIFE FUNCTION on this earth and NOT QFT and RT, both of which completely ignore need and satisfaction perceptions, plants and animals and concentrate only on a single sense perception (sight) to explain phenomena in the nonliving parts of the earth and (more importantly, or rather, more extravagantly) in the sky, thus diverting attention from the urgent problems we face.
About the unity of consciousness: Why even speak about it because in practise one doesn't need to be conscious about all possible things that can be sensed and that happen inside the skull. One can be conscious, wantingly or not, about many or only a few things simultaneously. Being consciouss of all possible things at the same time is impossible and not usefull.
Great conversation, but a fundamental assumption underlies the entire conversation -- Chalmers is equating the experience of consciousness with consciousness itself.
Gravity molded our consciousness. To what it is. So we can navigate a closed system of high entropy. Called earth. Our minds work to fast to precieve what is there. All around us. Our thoughts are not limited to the individual. Everything that is. Is a thought.
The seat of consciousness is the skin, it's what separates the exterior universe with virtually infinite information and the internal world with a lower fidelity model of this universe. The skin is this interface that translates the infinite into finite. Consciousness is just what it feels like to have a skin, or a membrane...
Consciousness is NOT experience. You are conscious OF experience. You canNOT be conscious of CONSCIOUSNESS. It is like LIGHT. We can see things that are ILLUMINATED. But we don't actually see the LIGHT. Just so with CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness brings experience to LIGHT. Anyone out there? Jesus.
@@johnrainmcmanus6319 Based on your original comment, I interpret it as such; “You are conscious OF experience” in other words, you are aware of experience. Being 'aware of experience' entails that one is aware of the fact that she is experiencing. This ‘fact’ is a thought, in which one comes to an understanding of the experience they are having. A thought occurs, experience is present, therefore one can be ‘aware of experience’. In order to be aware of experience, you need to be aware of, and experience the thought in which entails your understanding of experience. This is the process of metacognition. Please tell me if and why I am wrong.
When we pluck a flower or dissect, for the benefits of us, it's unconsciousness, there is no genuine beauty. When we love ❤ the whole natural flower as it is, it's consciousness pattern of perspective, enjoying the beauty 😍.
If life and consciousness really is so rare, it could mean the real basis for consciousness is everywhere and it's life which is a very rare, unstable fringe phenomenon, all too soon bound to decay.(?)
Literally hand waving! We need to go an engineering route to understanding and implementing consciousness, then we can double back and fill in the philosophical blanks. Philosophical discussion in words doesn't work very well for getting to grips with looping, recursive, self referencing control systems.
No matter how much consciousness we have, it can never be the complete picture, as there is so much more that is outside of consciousness that is still a part of who we are ie our psyche. Eg Who makes the blood flow, hair grow, causes dreams? Consciousness is still a weak part of our total system as it's job is just to adapt and navigate around the world. Maybe we should pay more attention to the unconscious, does it have unlimited space? did it begin in time? is it effected by causality or is it free? instead of doing its correlative and spending billions trying to investigate external space and it's contents while billions starve. For every dollar spent a person starves to death. Hasn't NASA worked out yet that space exploration is really an attempt to understand the unconscious.
@@buzzwordy9951 Consciousness has no memory . It just is. It always has been and it always will be. The Tao is the infinite common source eternally present.
3:40 split brain and multiple personalities: there is a difference between personal identity and self concept, they do not differentiate between them ! both consciousness type one and personal identity are generated in complex process, it is useless to talk about that, because it is hard to understand and that could cause misinterpretations especially among thieves. to concise: so-called multiple personalities is related to the destruction of generating personal identity process.
This Interview can Not be taken Completely Seriously. The reason is :- They Mention Split Brain Personalities and Multiple Personalities. But No Mention of Multiple Behaviours. But No Mention of Pretending. Is this because there is a Hidden Agenda here ?. Of Course Multiple Behaviours and Pretending is Commonplace Amongst the General Population. For Example, We have Paid Actors in the Arts Sector who Practice Multiple Behaviours for a Living. Our Political Leaders will Often Utilise the Methods of Multiple Behaviours. So Who Decides the Difference between Multiple Behaviours, Pretending and Split Personalities ???. Who Indeed ?.
The problem is, Kuhn does very short interviews that don't allow any real depth, which would be a huge disservice to Bernardo. Curt Jaimungal or Lex Fridman will do 3 or 4 hour interviews which are more appropriate
David Chalmers is one the those precious exports from Australia along with Iron ore, coal, gas and Vegemite. He is 2400 years after his time and would have been ideally suited in Athens.
Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3levels 1.gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul.Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.
Yes agree. But let me give you a different take to this. Watch videos of Jim Tucker on children who recall past lives and see whether you can put two and two together. I.e. Consciousness seem to be able to move from one life to another at least in some cases. The implications of this is mind-boggling.
If a person was born with no physical senses…sight, sound, smell, touch, taste, etc,,,none of them. Would this person be conscious still. And if so, of what? If the answer is no. Then isn’t consciousness nothing more than a product of our physical senses. And not some sort of fundamental other. Hope not.
Yeah, it is so-called politics “the destructive irrational meanness of the apes “ All the apes on the planet of the apes are the same “there is no real difference „ the dominant apes transferred their sick irrational characteristics to the rest of the apes! so among some thief apes, theft became normal behaviour! the dominant apes Caused infection to the rest of the apes, that is why they lost all human characteristics. It is abnormal because morals, values, …. Principles, … are human characteristics, they are essential for mankind survive, they are not a luxury matter as some apes think.
once upon a time, there was a village inhabited by foxes, ewes, donkeys, dogs, .... the type of the irrational meanness of foxes was different because they recognized that science makes power and money, the irrational meanness of the ewes, donkeys, dogs, was so weak comparing to foxes! the ewes had many natural resources those triggered the greed of the foxes, the foxes don't destroy their houses unlike the dominant ewes, and the concept of homeland of the ewes didn't consolidate yet ! the foxes worked hard to keep the ewes in chaos so they can keep control and put some ewes as servants to steal the revenue of the natural resources of their homeland. the funny part is that the dominant ewes think that they became like foxes just by imitating the foxes ! bu in realty they are just a kind of pimps have weak minds and traitors ! at the end all of them are just an animals, so there is no real difference.
Come on it's not really that hard. What you are experiencing as a subjective consciousness is just part of the one and only consciousness, in fact the only thing that has ever existed and will ever existed. This temporarily split of part of the whole is experiencing the rest of it and is under the illusion of being something apart of it while it really isn't. Plain and simple. 😄
I am not conscious of what you are conscious of and you are not conscious of what I am conscious of. If there were a "one and only consciousness" then that could not be. Imposing a 'subjectivity' encapsulation concept destroys the very "one and only" concept that you assert. We are all one only in the fact that we all share the concept of the conscious. You write as though you believe 'consciousness' were a something. It is definitely not. Being conscious is a process (an assertion that should strike you as self evident). Process is an abstract notion and abstract notions are not elements of actuality (despite the fact that they all require a material substrate without which they'd be non existent, absolute nothing and could not be a thought (i.e. the movement of an object is not a property of it (because movement is relative))). There is no such 'thing' as consciousness but there is the being-conscious-process. The process of my self and the being-conscious-process are so indistinguishable from each other we might as well consider them to be one.
The worst thing you can do in life is to keep asking endless questions without getting to anything. Mr Kuhn is like someone who spent 60 years of his life asking whether he should go to school to get educated. At the age of 60 still not able to find out if a god exists. This series is one of the worst you can watch on RU-vid because it teaches how to fail to get simple answers for simple questions.
What about ugly or fat or diseased people did they choose to be that way or genetics. Likely not. Consciousness likely is physical and u le genetics r luck of the draw
When there are all sorts of weird things going on like split personality that is malfunction, the human is not operating within healthy parameters. One should be careful drawing conclusions from that.
