This man’s brilliance, wide knowledge base (including a rare expertise with psychical research), humility, and delightful disposition makes him one of my absolute favorites ❤ Wonderful guest! 👏🏻 I’m a neuroscientist and whole-heartedly agree with him on all of his major points. It’s actually been maddening for me that what he’s saying isn’t talked about/discussed/considered widely! It seems so obvious given the evidence he’s actually brave/unbiased enough to acknowledge.
Thank you! He is my absolute favourite scientist in our time. Humility and expertise is so valuable! He's going to join us for another discussion soon on the 28th of April.
I was amazed that Dr. Carr's initial presentation encapsulated pretty much all the conclusions I've come to in my 58 years of pondering these matters, but just as a rather insignificant local biology teacher (although with Dr. Carr's similar interests in psychical research and spirituality). I'm consoled that such a significant scientific mind, with much more hardcore scientific research behind him) has come to such similar views about these matters.
This is the point I always try and make. All physicalist ideas fail at explaining why we seem to be the individuals we are. The physicalists have a massive blind spot to this. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
That question has no meaning under a monist view, either "materialism" or "idealism," it only arises under dualism (which is actually blindly assumed in most forms of materialism). In any case, true materialism is just nonsensical because it denies the most direct and profound aknowledgement we have (denying itself in the process without even aknowledging it). So, as I see it, either you choose idealism or you choose dualism. If you choose dualism, then either you think that mind is somehow magically generated by the brain or whatever, or you think that mind is something else. In the first case, you can say that "you" are "you" and "I" am "me" just because that's our place in spacetime, no mystery at all. In the second case, it becomes impossible to answer, because, where does the mind come from? You should first know about its nature. If you choose idealism, then you cannot quantify mind, so the question doesn't even make sense, because everything is mind, so there's not "my mind" nor "your mind," not even "a mind," there's just mind. *Or maybe I should say there's just experiences and their "space" of relations (mind).* Here you can also see how "space" and "mind" are both very similar and very abstract concepts. So, I'll share my view, if you want. At the very core of existence, there's no mind, no matter, no space and no time, there's just, let's call it *will.* That will is just what is, we could say a lot of things about it but I would suggest that it is you when you are nothing, and there's actually no words to make it justice. It's an impetus of being, it's the manifesting force of life, it's consciousness, but it's consciousness in a sense in which consciousness is an active principle, not a passive one. So, that core is unbounded, because there's absolutely no space, no time, no nothing... How do you think it would end? Time is like space, an abstract conceptualization that we use to make sense of the order of events, and events are all derivative from that initial force. For us it's infinite, for it, it's instantaneous. So, back to the old question, why are you "you" and I am "me"? Because that's our place as micro-events inside the infinite event of life. "I" am a space, as "you" are, we're different spaces that coexist actually just as part of an infinite event that took place beyond space and time. Spaces that can be shaped, can grow, can shrink, can merge or split... as the events get from that primordial force to the infinity of what is. Something that already happened, in an instant, here and now, but we're in-between... *That core is us, but we are just parts of it.* *Ultimately, "you" and "me" are the same "I"*
Consciousness with a Big C, in this conception, would be that awareness who’s spacious present, is all of reality, including itself. Its spacious present, for all intents and purposes, would be infinite. Eyes and ears would be irrelevant at that level. For these are things within the space time paradigm, with bodies and ways of experiencing lower spacious presents. In another sense, Big C does have eyes and ears, because we would be still it, at lower dimensions of time. So yes and no. Consciousness with a Big C, is also equal to the tiniest 0 spacious moment. Meaning, the extremely small C, is particularly identical to the infinitely large C. Finally, hyperspace would be a lower spacious present of consciousness. It is when form begins to occur out of nothing. To put it more directly, it is quite literally nothing. Has no features except its spacious present being all space and time, from where relatively, it exists as Big C. Time itself.
