John Leslie - Is Consciousness Irreducible? 

My goat fr

Waiting for your genius to solve all of these problems

What is the title/ subject of your book?

It’s a great channel and RLK is a superb interviewer. I encourage you to write your book as writing your ideas down and structuring them brings clarity. The world needs more clarity.

What you said is fine in terms of reductionism being a mental exercise, but these people believe that reductionism is an organizing principle of nature. They think that everything that matters happens in the particle interactions and this bubbles up into the macro-world. This is one of the pillars of the holy doctrine of determinism. All of their ideas are based on these weird paradigms that are so wrong that they cannot be corrected.

consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).

Excellent original post. This is the most clear explanation I have seen on this sort of worldview. Question: Does the fact that everything you “see” is merely a mental model, and not actuality, bother you at all, or does it make you doubt your worldview? Also, I am wondering about neurons being assumed in your model. Perhaps you can elaborate on the justification for that.

It’s assumed we already know the definition. I shouldn’t have to define pizza every time I place an order.

I completely agree with you. I'm a retired evolutionary biologist with a background in philosophy and mathematics. I think that too few people are aware that defining one's terms is essential, and needs to be done at the outset, or else discussing virtually any topic of any complexity can result in just talking past each other. I'm currently writing about "mind", "consciousness", and related matters like AI, intelligence, awareness, and so on. My very first task was to define each of the subjects I wanted to talk about, because I found far too many discussions, including videos, of these topics were operating with what seemed to be implicit definitions, and the assumption that everyone knows what they mean and uses them in the exact same way. I think this is wildly incorrect, and sabotages discussion before it even gets off the ground.

Everyone knows what consciousness is, perhaps better than they know anything else. The standard dictionary definition suffices. In my experience the people who are clamouring for us to "define what we mean by consciousness" usually want an objective definition which they can fit into the scientific framework. Obviously this is impossible due to the well understood nature of consciousness as subjective awareness. What should be equally obvious is that what we define as "objective" is in fact just subjective experience that can be communicated clearly between individual consciousnesses such that collectively they can agree they're all subjectively experiencing the same thing. So you can't get consciousness (as per dictionary definition) out of the scientific system no matter what you do. It's in there right at the base of it.

I'd say it's the other way, consciousness without reality has no way of expressing itself. I believe that life evolves in a way helping consciousness to express itself and that reality exists to help living conscious beings, get to know themselves.

That's a good point, the vibes on materialism have changed in the 2020s

Can you explain how your so called "primitive awareness" mutated to evolve into a non-primitive awareness ?

@@evaadam3635The theory of evolution is pretty well documented, there are a wealth of resources available that explain it at whatever level of depth you’re interested in. It’s worth knowing because it’s rapidly becoming crucial in how our most important new technologies are engineered.

can single cell animals be conscious? do viruses have consciousness? or its nested feedback loops or go home?

@@evaadam3635 im guessing the answer is multicellular complexity allowing for networked activity (ie. nested feedback loops). the transition from single cell to multicellular life meant cells could communicate with each other. for animals that leads to specialised communication cells (neurons) and then to brains. some people think plants are sentient too. they dont have brains but they have networked bioelectrical activity between cells. single cell animals have no networked activity and are pretty basic in what they do and how they can respond to stuff.

@@simonhibbs887 if you can not explain how awareness mutates, pls do not pretend that you understand evolution... ....and documentation is not evidence of validity because stupidity can be documented too...

Definitely,it is a real world not a ideal world.Getting fragnented while through nature something real come into being, loses much of its aura.To be more precise, human beings getting shaped without images and imagery,never, happen to be real or meaningful. But supermental or higher consciousness ir inevitable lot,today or tomorrow,since, evolution in mental level is going on.

consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Chapter 05 of my Holy Scripture). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri). sentience: the capacity to experience feelings or sensations, as distinguished from perceptions and cognition. The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin “sentientem” (a feeling), in order to distinguish it from the ability to think/reason. Therefore, sentience ought not be confused with consciousness, though the two are closely related. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. In animal life, there are up to five sensory organs which can detect external stimulants or percepts. ADDITIONALLY, many forms of metazoans have acquired a degree of consciousness, in which a subject-object polarity is established. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too” upon being confronted with vegan ideology, they may be correct (at least in a rather diffuse sense of the term “feelings”), so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely without sentience, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. If Homo sapiens were naturally omnivores or carnivores, then no sane person would promote veganism. In summary, all forms of organic life are, by definition, sentient, yet TRUE consciousness is found in those animal species that have a certain level of intelligence (that is, as a general rule, vertebrates, though there are a couple of notable exceptions to this general rule). Cf. “conscious".

You wish.

Tell that to an Alzheimer’s patient.

Consciousness is your window to reality. Reality exists independently of it.

@@anteodedi8937 No, that's just your thought / theory. Reality is what it is, and it is consciousness.

@@AdrianSlo Lol ok pal. Good luck with that subjectivist idealistic crap.

@NotSoGullible Well, the way in which your brain interprets reality is wrong. It's just an illusion.

@NotSoGullible Out of arguments, are you? There is no evidence for anything other than consciousness. It's just the limit of the human brain which cannot comprehend it. The human brain assumes a reality outside of consciousness, but has no evidence for it.

Good point!

Simple, you share that some consciousness with others. What you refer to as the "I" or the "Self" is the same self as the one I refer to. Not just figuratively, but literally. Therefore, consciousness is the only thing there is. Reality itself exist inside this container of consciousness. Without it, there would be no experience.

Consciousness involves awareness of things in the present through your senses while at the same time being able to think about things that exist in the past, present and future using words.

yes that is the standard response given by all 8yos.

@@backwardthoughts1022and yet you can’t understand it. Irony.

@@dr_shrinker consciousness is not part of physics models. this means that at best youre conducting magical thinking, or at a little bit worse are completely intellectually dishonest and delusional spouting nonsense that cannot be tested and which top neuroscientists like koch and top quantum physicists like zeilinger now oppose. either way keep functioning on the level of an 8yo 🤡

Faith is the belief in something without evidence. I'm sure that at points in your life you were exposed to information or concepts you never dreamed of which increased you levels of understanding, especially those things you initially thought as counterintuitive. I strongly doubt that all you now understand is the product of just your own mind.

@@thecarman3693blind faith is believing in something without any evidence

@@markreed2563 And the difference is ....... ?? Evidence can come in various forms. It can come from direct measurement (observation) or deduced from logical arguments. Either way it is more than just that which cannot be measured by some means. It (belief) can even be wrong, but if one is open to new evidence their world view will change. Also the word 'faith' is sometimes misused. It is many times conflated with 'confidence'. Having faith in scientific procedures really means having confidence in them, usually because they have repeatedly resulted in better understandings of how things behave. The results are repeatable, measurable and make predictions.

>”[for some reason]” I highly recommend finding out how the process of evolution works. It’s becoming more and more important in how the technology we rely on is engineered, and the world we live in is being built, all the time.

@@simonhibbs887 Hi there, I take by your reply that you already understand how the process of evolution creates a conscious complex 3lbs of meat? Possibly there is still some question as to how any of that could actually happen? If not, please do tell... 🙂

@@steve_____K307 Your ‘for some reason’ was with respect to the natural processes that formed a complex brain. It’s pretty clear how evolution produced complex brains. Consciousness were still working on, but the process of evolution itself is beyond being an observation, it’s a critical part of some of our engineering disciplines. The creation of sophisticated high functioning information processing systems through evolution isn’t something we speculate or guess about, it’s something we actually do.

Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain?

@@dr_shrinker Have you ever seen a brain type at a computer without consciousness?

You just finished watching Dune didn’t you? 😅

those people who say consciousness is an illusion are in utter ignorance

Consciousness is not illusion but, Observable phenomenal i. e. Our universe can be illusion. This has discussed very deeply in advaita vedanta and it is known as ' Adhyas' ( Superimpostion ) . It has answer to your question why you do not need real experience ( in your ex. Water ) to superimpose it on something else.

@@rishabhthakur8773 *"Our universe can be illusion."* ... Then what is the illusion?

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC acc. To advait vedant, Consciousness is only reality and it appears as our universe, mind, body, etc.

@@rishabhthakur8773 *"Consciousness is only reality and it appears as our universe, mind, body, etc."* ... As stated in my opening comment, in order for there to be an "illusion," two things must exist: (1) What something actually is, (2) what the illusion tricks you into thinking it is. ... I know of no "illusions" where one of the two components doesn't exist (or is not represented by something else that does exist). *Example 2:* A magician creates the "illusion" of sawing his beautiful assistant in half only to magically rejoin her moments later to the sound of gratuitous applause. The magician exists, the saw exists, his beautiful assistant exists, and "halves of people" do exist. So, every part of the illusion "exists." The illusion is sawing his assistant (that "exists") in half and not having her be harmed. So, for your proposition to actually qualify as an "illusion," then both "consciousness" and "the universe" would have to exist.

Not proven

@@mowglycdb its evident

What properties and haracteristics does math have?

Or what we call a car one piece at a time. Either way you get to a point where you have a bolt and not a car. Yes, we can argue when that point will occur, but you WILL get to it.

What?

@@S3RAVA3LM Yours are usually a big LOL.

🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS: The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time. When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent. MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so. There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so? Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors. So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors! The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter. As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to. Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack. So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”. So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves. It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes. There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”. Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious. Cont...

no if consciousness is not a property of one or more atoms then objective morality exists as a function of the mind ie. the cause and effects of the mind.

I am not sure if you are actually saying anything. Apologies. There are objective moral truths or values. Every individual, by the time they are an adult, will carry an internal moral framework which is some version of this. Ethics then is the degree to which an individual acts in accordance with their underlying internal moral framework.

@@emergencymedicine Internal means subjective, not objective.

No God morality is totally Subjective