Yes. For all we know, material reality might be vastly greater than anything we consider to be physical, or directly measurable by physical scientific instruments. Perhaps physicality is but one of very many states of fundamental matter. And perhaps all matter is intrinsically conscious, in some form or other. This might allow us to take paranormal phenomena seriously with an open mind, while still staying critical, regarding them as material phenomena slightly outside ordinary physical reality, while still being accessible to human consciousness, which kind of consciousness in that case is "obviously" more than physical (though it IS partly physical), but nonetheless only concerned with material phenomena, consisting of some kind of matter, in whatever state, even if that would be a non-physical state of matter.
I am continually impressed and amazed by the dissection of extremely advanced concepts detailed by Robert and his guests. This site should be required or recommended viewing starting in high school and college science, math and philosophy classes. The range of topics and level of examination of them is unsurpassed in any readily available or accessable medium today. Thank you Robert Kuhn!
WOW. So happy to discover that intelligent conversation still exist. Thank you. The satisfaction of the "Haha!" is what motivates humans to learn more. Asking a good question is an art, answering it with intellectual honesty is what heaven is. IMO. Humbly.
Woah, didn't expect to enjoy that conversation this much! I really like Mogi's humble approach and how he really listens to Robert's questions. An actual honest conversation.
*"Everyone in the comments are claiming to know what consciousness is and everyone is claiming something entirely different from one another."* ... Yet all of these comments have one thing in common: they are all based on the assimilation and processing of information.
@@mrbwatson8081 *"is intuition based on the assimilation and processing Information…?"* ... Intuition is a future prediction that's based on specific degrees of probability which is derived from an assimilation of past and present information.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Assimilation of past and present information would be called reasoning. intuition “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.”
Been following this channel for years, and tbh I'm getting tired of the physicalist, dualist, idealist debate. Yet it does humble me to the core. We just do not know. And beyond this, is it computation, information, a higher dimension, many worlds, or a holographic projection? For now, all we can do is ask better questions. So take a step back, and be humble, because it starts right here with my favorite grandpa Kuhn, discussing the most difficult questions we face today.
Very interesting, especially where he says that are way of believing in god and reality influenced the way we did science and are ultimate understanding.
Yeah. I know Daniel Schmachtenberger, when talking about the agricultural revolution, mentions our discarding animism relating to our need to beat oxen to plow fields. What Ken is talking about is another one of those places where Darwinian game theory sets a 'fitness beats truth' model, a place where people who have this mentality would out-compete people who have something more like Pythagoras's theory of how not to inflict pain on the universe and which plants to eat or not to eat based on that. One group gets into aggressive metallurgy and forges weapons, Roman armies where they execute soldiers at random for fear, the person living in harmony with existence barely stands a chance.
We take something we can never know for sure exists (an external world of matter existing apart from consciousness) & use it to explain away the only thing we ever know for sure exists (our consciousness). Perfectly logical.
if matter produces consciousness, then a world of matter exist, whatever it is external or internal is just a point of reference, therefore irrelevant to the ontological claim
@@diegonicucs6954 And how would you go about proving a world of matter exists apart from consciousness? We only ever know life & the world through our own consciousness.
@@timjonesvideos Is long, but is call continued existence, is something that bertrand russell describe in his book the problems of philosophy, you can find more there
Yea it seems like the story that explains how matter is an emergent property of consciousness is far simpler and with a lot less "some kind of ways" than consciousness emerging from billions of years of extremely unlikely coincidences that we still continuously see in our everyday lives. Of course both seem totally impossible but here we appear to be.
Not sure why, but I got a lot out of this conversation. Seems different than all the others. Now I'm thinking about it perhaps in a new way. Now I'm asking, how and in what ways is my cultural baggage influencing my worldview and thus my conception of consciousness or _________ (fill in the blank)?
It's a beautiful thought you had. This conversation _was_ different than rest because the guest was brought up in completely different view. You can see the clash towards the end (the truth part). But that is important and necessary feature I think.
I think at the end of the day physicalism is about requesting sufficient causation, or at least sufficient as we can observe it. If that's the case someone like Andres Gomez Emilsson could suggest something like an idealist physicalism (ie. idealist universe with sufficient causation) and it still makes sense providing that we remove the 'dead matter' requirement behind the term physicalism. Another way to put that might be - physicalism is the carriage and it's logic but not what the carriage is made of.
How does experience process in physical brain? Are quantum fields needed for experience? In which case does human brain have something that processes quantum fields?
I am not sure why "produces" is not acceptable. Per wikipedia, there are 10^15 synapses in *three year old* . With that complexity, conciousness still definitely very special seems to be *inevitable* emergent property.
@@con.troller4183 lol. Ok let's see how they explain NDEs and mediumship or psychics abilities (without saying bullshit or "it's brain hallucination"). Can't wait to see the explanation XD
Funny thing is that root people and shamans we stupidly consider as "primitive", understand consciousness and more generally the universe better than our scientists with all their beautiful diplomas. but to understand immaterial stuff as mind or consciousness, materialistic science is useless by definition. You need to experience yourself and not use mathematic formulas or measuring tools. all scientists having a NDE or Ayahuasca trip change their mind...And by the way mindset will shift to more empathy, more love, and respect of the nature, which is nowadays the most important thing. Sadly materialism and more generally our occidental understanding of nature is killing us. We need more spirituality (I don't speak about religion, I have no religion and I love science, I just want it to evolve).
@@popeck27 "Ok let's see how they explain NDEs and mediumship or psychics abilities (without saying bullshit or "it's brain hallucination")." You claim to love science but you automatically dismiss a very credible category of explanations for supernatural claims. Where is your credible evidence that any supernatural/psychic events have ever occurred? Let's see it. As for NDE's, they are 100% survivable. Nobody who has an NDE actually dies. They all lived which means they were alive when they had their traumatic experience. That means the NDE's are an event in a LIVING BRAIN, not a dead one.
@@con.troller4183 always the same argument « they are not dead because they came back »… ok so problem solved? A dying brain can explain these experiences ? You see your body from above, you move instantly powered by your thoughts, you « ear » surrounding people thoughts, you encounter light beings (sometimes you recognise them), you have a life review at 360*, you see some moment of your future, you feel what you did to the others, you are asked if you want to stay or not, you feel unconditional love and oneness, your understand that everything is connected, everything is conscious etc etc. Your life and your mindset are totally changed (not the case with any other experience), you remember all the experience even 60years after it happened, some people are healed (from cancer for example) or developed psychic abilities. About 4% of the total population are concerned according to estimation! We are not lacking data. There is no « scientific explanation » not even the beginning of an explanation. Or may be « lack of oxygen in the brain »… what a joke. And what about mediumship? Death bed vision? Terminal lucidity and so on… there are so many evidences to me. All are saying the same thing. We are not our body. Btw many NDEs happens with flat EEG… so living brain hum…ok…
It seems like what Ken's stating is a bit like neutral monism. I still have a hard time finding hard boundaries neutral monism, panpsychism, and materialism other than to say that materialists are committed to the idea that matter is unconditionally unconscious and that it's somehow activity that makes consciousness, panpsychists tend in the opposite direction that all matter is at least protoconscious, and neutral monists would say that matter has conscious and unconscious attributes pinned to some third unobservable thing (it's Ken's seeming invocation of Russell as a solution to reductive materialism that suggests to me that he's in this camp although many panpsychists would agree with this as well).
Their discussion of ‘autonomous’ begs the question. That is, it assumes ‘autonomy’ as existent. We are a very long way from satisfying that conjecture, if it is even satisfiable. Currently, we only have the appearance of autonomy. The ‘problem’ of ‘consciousness’ is definitional. That is, we ascribe a constellation of traits as ‘consciousness’ and then ask how this constellation comes about/acts. Inherent in the concept is that it is a constellation. Removing some parts leaves us with something less than a consciousness, and each part, taken separately, does not carry an ether containing consciousness. Nor does the admixture develop a transcendent quality, just because we can’t explain it. Analogous to Bertrand Russell’s attempt to define a table, the ‘thing-in-itself’ is no-thing that merits a special essence just because we can’t explain it fully by physicalism - at this time. Even if physicalism may never explain it, transcendental explanations are not warranted. This is because transcendence is ALWAYS logically trivial. Why? Because transcendence may always be employed to explicate the unknown. It adds no novel quality or information.
Einstein - He was clearly awed by the laws of physics and grateful that they were mathematically decipherable. (“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility,” he said. “The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”) From all the tens of million species that had ever appeared on earth, we among all the brutes, are alone to to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, etc. What enables us to create great works of art, music, and literature? The human use of the mathematical disciplines ...are the works of that reason by which men surpass beasts, for brutes cannot number, weigh, and measure.
Repost of a now *twice-deleted* comment: (10:00) *RLK: **_"Personally, I hate compromise. What I like is the truth."_* ... And that is the way it should be. I have found that "truth" is always present and it doesn't require a sales pitch before being revealed. I argue that consciousness and information are all the same thing. Consciousness is just a trendy name we've assigned to a 13.8 billion year evolution of information that is now able to assimilate and analyze its own information. Self-aware humans emerged at the tail end of this cosmic evolution, and we are now charged with assimilating and processing all prior forms of information to establish what we believe represents the truth. While you consider the truthfulness of what I just wrote, also realize that you are assimilating and processing information in order to make that happen.
Well of course truth is always present, how could it possibly not be? All there _is_ is truth, as truth is all that exists! And, yes, the conventional wisdom currently holds that consciousness is merely another phenomenal example of informational combinatorialism. In fact this has been the populist view for some decades now. Moreover, whether one adheres to the materialistic-informational worldview or not, _absolutely nobody_ would claim that they are not, in some very literal sense, currently processing information in order to both understand, and reflect upon, these words. It simply stands to even the most banal reason. So, these former are as about as insightful as saying "I believe that humans developed languages in order to communicate with each other". In other words, there's no need to state the bleeding obvious! However, you also make three claims that _are_ controversial, unfortunately though, they are demonstrably wrong. First, humans have not "come along at the tail-end of this cosmic-evolution". At 13.8b years of age the world is still very much in it's infancy. You would need to add another 10¹²¹ years or so before getting to the end-game. And that's A REALLY, REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME. It's extremely unlikely that humanity will survive another 10³ years, let alone 10⁴. But still, that's a relatively minor point, what I _would_ strongly object to however, is your claim that we have have been "charged with...processing all prior information to establish...the truth". Charged by whom? When? Did I miss the memo? To assume that humans hold _any_ special place in the unfolding of the cosmic order is just bad science and philosophy 101! Earth is _not_ at the centre of the universe, and humans do _not_ occupy some special place upon it's stage, get over it! And, lastly, what the fuck do you mean by "processing all prior forms of information"? As human entities we are only dimly aware of some fractional percentage of the informational processing occuring within our own bodies, let alone "all prior forms of it"! That must be one of the most asinine things I've ever heard! Perhaps _the_ most asinine! Humans are a living (whatever the term means) system, of which for the most part functions without any control from, or even awareness of, our conscious selves (again, whatever that term means). 99.999999999999% of EVERYTHING that happens in 'your' body, including 'your' brain is, and will forever be, unknown to 'you'. Around half of all the cells in your body, including many in the gut that directly influence your thoughts, don't even carry your DNA. They are foreign life forms, bacteria, that live their own lives independently of you. So even getting to the first-step of the first-step of understanding the informational processing that comprises 'you' is a project doomed to failure. But beyond that, we are a living system that has evolved a multitude of mechanisms to _survive,_ and we have done so not because we accurately perceive the world around us, but specifically because we _don't!_ Humans are uniformly _terrible_ when it comes to seeing "the truth" (your term) of the world. There are no colors in the world, there are no scents in the world, there is no sound, we never even _touch_ anything - for electron shells around atomic nuclei repel each other. No human has ever, or will ever, even be able to see if the world really looks as it does in our imaginations. Shut, as they are, inside our skulls, our brains make up a picture of it's _best guess_ about the world surrounding it. It then references that guess against information arriving to it from our 'feelers', sight, sound, taste etc. But it's ALWAYS just _projecting_ its best guess of the world - and we can never know, in principle, if that guess should be either remarkably accurate, or hopelessly off-base. You probably don't believe me, though, because your brain is hard-wired to believe it's own narrative. Our brains lie to us. And they do it ALL THE TIME. Literally. You're brain is literally lying to you about what's going on every second of your conscious life. Try this, look over to the left of wherever you are, now look to the right. Everything seemed normal, right? Except your brain just invented EVERYTHING that you thought you saw when you looked around the room! The eye can't function when it's moving, only when it's still, but it would be disconcerting if the world went black whenever we moved, so the brain uses whatever information it can and just _fills in the gaps!_ It MAKES IT UP ON THE FLY! In familiar surroundings that construction _will_ be fairly accurate, because there will be a database of images for it to be able to use as references. But when you are out and about, looking at this and that? No, sorry, at least 90% of everything you observe is just a fantasy. Hold your thumb out at arm's length, your brain is only able to accurately process the visual area of your thumbnail. When your eyes aren't moving. That's it, everything else is a guess. The brain is amazing, yes, it's an amazing confabulist. I realize that this is now officially a rant, but so be it. I tell you these things because whenever I see people making arrogant claims about possessing some form of special knowledge, or some form of special understanding about the world, I instinctively cringe. Not that you did, you were mostly just stating the bleeding obvious, or affirming the current fads in popular physics. But, as to your statements about humanity being charged with comprehending the truth of the world, or whatever it actually was you were trying to convey, then no. I cringe. The human project _is_ a worthy one, I feel,but there's absolutely nothing special about us. And, in fact, both individually and as a species, we're extraordinary, egotistic, malevolent, selfish and deluded. Which isn't to say we aren't worth _anything,_ but just that we aren't worth as much as we think of ourselves. There is one insight that _does_ appear to hold, however, and that's whenever you do think you've discovered the truth about something, well, then you're almost certainly wrong. Have a good day.
@@simesaid *"Also, and this is just a thought, but how about not deleting your posts, you know, if you don't want them deleted? Idk, maybe?"* ... RU-vid or CTT is deleting my comments. It's happening to others as well. *"Well of course truth is always present, how could it possibly not be?"* ... Many argue that there is no truth or that truth can never be established. *"At 13.8b years of age the world is still very much in it's infancy. You would need to add another 10¹²¹ years or so before getting to the end-game."* ... The universe began at T=0 and we are currently existing at the tail end of this 13.8-billion-year-evolution. True, the universe will continue to age, but that does not change the fact that if you were to draw a timeline of the universe, we would be listed on the tail end of the timeline. *"Charged by whom? When?"* ... Charged by "Existence" roughly 300,000 years ago. Planets, stars, and prokaryotes cannot evaluate information. We can. *"Did I miss the memo? "* ... Yes. *"To assume that humans hold any special place in the unfolding of the cosmic order is just bad science and philosophy 101!"* ... So, you argue that the most highly evolved, most intelligent extant species in the known universe is _irrelevant._ Well, you just go right ahead and do that! Let me know how that works out for you. *"And, lastly, what the fuck do you mean by "processing all prior forms of information"?"* ... Well, you just processed a "prior form of information" (my original comment) and then issued an evaluation, did you not? When physicists evaluated the information produced by the CMB, was this not "evaluating prior information" as well? Did you really need this to be explained? The rest of your wall-of-text comment is too much to address, so I'll just stop here. I have 282 pages of even more information you can disagree with already written in my book titled "0" (see my channel's "about" page). That will save us both from suffering through a lengthy-but-fruitless comment thread. As I do with everyone, I'll give you the last word and move on.
In its simplest sense, autonomy is about a person's ability to act on his or her own values and interests. Taken from ancient Greek, the word means 'self-legislation' or 'self-governance. Autonomy is a societal construct that is more, or less relative to the individual idea of what they are specifically self governing. It's interesting to say materials produce consciousness. They only thing to know is to not.
so Robert thinks free will (autonomy? unless he was talking about autonomy as a way of finding solutions without external help which has no significance in this discussion )can exist without consciousness? that would be free will of what? Isn’t that the consciousness takes decisions independently of the material world what we call free will? Anyway we feel we have this free will but is it even possible in principle? Consciousness is still based on the material world so I don’t know how you can define free will in the first place. If not the what the heck the 86billion neurons are for?
If subjective idealism is true or if the computer simulation is true then the brain does not produce consciousness. Thus for a physicalist to claim as a given fact that the brain does produce consciousness is to beg the question.
What is circular or begging the question about whatever you mean by "consciousness" being contingent on a physical apparatus namely the brain?- Why is that circular or how is it circular?
Does human consciousness need an external observer (to physical brain), something similar to human brain being the extended mind of an external conscious observer?
Although I am not a materialist, Ken Mogi is a real mental giant. Within 20 seconds he can be recognized as a charismatic, eloquent, under-stander of these fundamental questions. I very much enjoyed this interview and Ken's point of view.
Interesting discussion. I can imagine an autonomous AI doing exactly as it chooses, but it chooses nonsense rather than feeling its environment in context with a deep inner drive to live. It seems to me that Robert is right to say it's more than autonomy.
Quite a good thing, the last thing we need are people running to religion and just going along so to fit in and feel like the belong somewheres. I see there is an expedition climbing the vast unknown so to understand, and it's a process of trial and error.
@@S3RAVA3LM I'm not saying we will never find the answer. But we definitely don't have it at the moment, although countless brilliant minds have been looking for it for centuries. However, the comment section is full of "geniuses" who think they already have it. And I find this laughable.
@@firstaidsack that's a beauty of life, diversity, contrast, uniqueness, individual, experience. If the only color was blue it would become boring and not very beautiful. If you go to start karate, you don't begin as a black belt. Allow people to learn and grow.
Materialism defeats itself, for it is a narrow and naive view of reality; does not provide explanations for a number of phenomena, at most beg the question. That's it 🤷♂️😅
@@hjvjccc You don't experience the truth. You experience an evolved representation of the external world. The world does not have color. Only the experience of the world has color.
@@hjvjccc No one can no what the thing is in itself. We have never seen anything come from anywhere. We have experience things changing form one state to another. Materialism is correct and explains everything.
@@kos-mos1127 you say no one can know... But that materialism explains it all perfectly. C'mon on man you're not even allowed on the playground with answers that useless. What are materials? Huh. Lets just start with that and we can annihilate your ignorance for all to see. Ill be waiting for your answer. Thanks
It seems to me self evident that being conscious is a process and consequently that matter and the being-conscious-process are mutually dependent. i.e. There can be no process in the absence of a substrate and no substrate can be apprehended in the absence of a being-conscious-process. (e.g. How does it feel to be dreamless sleeping? It doesn't feel like anything. The phrase 'absolute nothing' strives to convey the situation). (It is impossible for one (being-conscious-process) to imagine not being because, as one is making the effort one is unavoidably aware that the effort absolutely entails being in order for the effort to exist. This is what makes death and absolute cessation inconceivable for so many). Movement and matter are radically different concepts. Movement is not a property of matter (movement is relative). But movement cannot happen unless there are materially existent objects changing relative location. In other words, matter is the 'substrate' of the abstraction that is movement. No big leap then to grasp mind as a movement complex. (Though it may be a big leap for those in the lifelong grip of a culturally induced conceptual perspective).
Subjective conscious experience might make sense for organisms by enabling meaning for existence? Meaning can increase the chances of success for organisms?
I love the hard problem of consciousness and how it has brought atheists to an impasse; a chasm they cannot cross; an ingredient they can neither swallow nor spit out. If all is consciousness; mind vibrating at different rates through three forces, then the material world and its variety of forms and events is very much a part of consciousness and would not exist without it.
“How strange then it seems that man, notwithstanding his endowment with this ideal power, will descend to a level beneath him and declare himself no greater than that which is manifestly inferior to his real station. God has created such a conscious spirit within him that he is the most wonderful of all contingent beings. In ignoring these virtues he descends to the material plane, considers matter the ruler of existence and denies that which lies beyond. Is this virtue? ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 236”
Ken Mogi is awesome to listen to, one of my favorites at the moment who actually explores philosophical ideas and scientific pursuits, and is entirely rigorous with them while understanding that some things are just as they are.
This is circling back to idealism kind of in the way Bernardo Kastrup did, just a few steps behind. First we have to re-route the way we understand and think about "materials" to go in this direction which is what Kogi suggests, but he doesn't make the step to say it's all cosciousness but instead it goes the other way around kind of ancient stoics thought about metaphysics and call everything corporeal or material, but with different meang and intuitions. Basically it's the same move with different definitions.
There is no reason to say it is all consciousness. Material comes from the latin word materia "substance from which something is made. Materia is derived from the Mater form which we get the term matter which translates to origin, source and mother. Materialism affirms things are born and originate from the mother.
Could mathematics play a role in consciousness? When physical brain processes information, might the mathematics associated with that information have conscious content that a brain also picks up on and develops?
I don’t get how anyone could make the argument that consciousness isn’t physical You need a brain, a physical organ, to create consciousness. Also noticed an oddity of English that autonomy has almost opposite meanings in different contexts. Autonomic process means an automatic biological process like a heartbeat. But autonomous means under direct control / independent
@@vhawk1951kl hm, good question. I guess consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. But is difficult to define exactly what it is physically. There’s clear evidence consciousness is physically mediated. Take a psychoactive drug and consciousness changes. Damage to certain parts of brain reliably damage the functions that the area controls. But pure consciousness is seemingly ineffable by standards of scientific evidence. Best I can think currently is that it’s an emergent phenomenon, many factors in concert creating seamless experience
@@jbarkerhill92 If you please, but that is a description not a definition, but one approach might be have a look at the etymology of the word, which comes from the Latin infinitive sciere, to know, but I must be careful because for all I know you have more Latin I than I do, and I don't want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs However, one way to approach 'what is' questions is to ask yourself how you experience whatever it is, but you might also want to keep what is questions alive and not kill them with answers. If "what is consciousness" is a living question for you, it seems rather a shame to kill it or smother it with answers, rather than remain awake and attentive in front of what is for you a very real alive question - If it is for you a very real and alive question, but if it is only a head question, may be it is not very real and alive for you. Subject to your better view, sometimes words act as veils that conceal what lies behind them or their significance or meaning, and it is not always possible to go behind the veil or penetrate the veil and discover what actually lies behind them, and course that is only possible for an active and alive and awake -silent intelligence, but if all I am trying to do is replace alive questions with more words, then I will not discover what is behind that veil, but that is of course subject your better view. I could of course start with what is the exact opposite of consciousness, and what experience do I have of that - Could I possibly have an experience of a complete absence of consciousness - whatever I mean by consciousness?- Maybe have no very clear idea of what lies behind the veil of the word consciousness, So the next question is what is possible to discover of what lies behind that veil? - Is it just some vague generalisation or is it something rather specific? All of the above is of course subject your better view - I merely ask questions. I
@@vhawk1951kl interesting points. Seems like you’re taking an etymological (analyzing language) approach to defining consciousness. Just read a description of consciousness calling it ‘the hard problem’ as it’s near intractable to fully define. Could approach from many angles and disciplines. Think since is internal and subjective, is hard to apply evidence based science to defining consciousness. How can I know for sure how you perceive the color blue or taste of an apple? Think that response to environment is a key factor. Someone can be in a coma with low level brain activity but not conscious because they’re unresponsive to environment. I do think we can fully explain consciousness through materialism but neuroscience just isn’t advanced enough yet. Saying consciousness is special or ineffable by materialism is a cop out to me
@@jbarkerhill92 the position analytical idealists like kastrup hold dont undermine the notion that brains are intimately connected with our personal experice.
In the entire Universe there is presently only one force that can deviate anything from it's otherwise inevitable position. I see no reason to believe it has ever been any different. I notice sometimes when I'm drifting in and out of sleep that a scene will just appear and I see what I believe to be myself in it but am a totally different person and I have a feeling of where I am and the people who live around the are that I'm in. Imagine a beach and a beach will appear with all the fixings without any need to think of each thing that is required to make a beach setting. Keep seeing the beach and activities will evolve on that beach just as naturally as if you were actually there. E equals MC2 says energy is everything and this equates to one thing is everything di-vided by energy and we know everything is energy so one thing is energy divided by energy. What is the one thing? If there was any possible way to prove anything in this Universe language would really put the ball in the end zone as far as proving that consciousness is the foundation of the Universe. The fact that this can't be proven is further and in fact necessary evidence that this is true. Starting with biology which comes from the Greek bios meaning mode of Life and logos meaning word. Phospholipids can be translated to light bearer that gives form to the word that appears in the world, look up phosphorus, lips, id in the dictionary or memory, mem means mind btw. Cytoplasm is the word spoken across the waters or you could say the formless mother. El means God ment means mind. The inert elements are also called noble and don't react with other elements. Here's one that seems to suggest that past and future are now, the tempo is zero when the temperature of the temple is at absolute zero if we understand the temple as the body. It seems there are three categories of words spiritually correct which I think there would be a word for but I haven't found it yet, maybe someone knows as anyone can easily find these things it's not rocket science and there's plenty to find, inert or neutral like articles, conjunctions..., and profane which comes from the Latin before the temple. Asc words tell the story of Asclepius and Caduceus. Di words have much to do with physics and it's geometry. Reminds me 🎲 are very interesting as they relate to physics and seemingly to religions like there's a cube in Mecca and another relation that I would think was a contrivance so I won't mention. Anyway, I'm kinda tuckered out so I'm sure I probably was less followable than usual which probably can't be much helped because it takes so many words to explain word relationships which I guess is logical. I've deleted much longer comments for less reason but I'll leave this here cause it's days old and I'm writing under an alias. 👍
panpsychism lurks behind every corner... but that's an excellent point... if the brain - which is in fact material - can be associated in this way with consciousness which we believe is immaterial... then perhaps other materials exhibit the same property and we just have no idea.
You're thinking about consciousness as either on or off. I believe that the consciousness of an animal exists on a very wide spectrum. There is even a wide section of that spectrum dedicated to human beings. Not all humans are equally conscious. But all consciousness emerges from brains. Some people have stronger hearts, some people have more conscious brains.
@@BeardslapRadio it was an analogy to highlight people have body parts that are either superior or inferior to the next man. Brains also range in quality. Some brains are more intelligent, some are more aware, some have better memory recall. Awareness is a key component of consciousness
Materialism can be reduced to spacetime. What can knowledge be reduced to? For if knowledge can postulate a theory of spacetime what does materialism consist of? Materialism without space and time is...what?
Whatever ones view of materialism, it _has_ proved to be incredibly successful thus far. Moreover, there is now an understanding that as 'locality' and 'realism' cannot _both_ be true of the world, then *"spacetime is doomed".*
@@simesaid According to physics the difference between iron and oxygen is the difference in the number of protons, neutrons and electrons. These numbers, especially the number of electrons, effect chemical bonding between different elements. Chemical bonds coupled with the 4 forces of Nature produce the difference between rocks 🪨, plants 🪴, and turtles 🐢. Between living and inanimate forms of matter. Supposedly they also produce "thinking" in human beings. Thus thinking is something like a special type of chemical bonding combined with electricity. Smaller particles called photons, neutrinos and others produce in living matter the "awareness" that thinking beings call consciousness; and have honed, through evolutionary processes, into self-consciousness: thinking. Where matter in its basic form depends on the number of simple atoms ⚛️ and the 4 forces of Nature. Thought and, therefore, knowledge depend on smaller particles and possibly, other forces of Nature yet to be discovered - through consciousness. Throughout this exercise I have not mentioned space and time. But that is because they hide themselves in thoughts: words. Atoms such as protons, electrons etcetera are identifications. Identifications are produced by thinking matter that are aware: conscious. As such they are bounded: they differ from and are different to other identifications. This difference has its source, through consciousness, in the thoughts we call time and space. Without spacetime matter, in all its forms, could not be perceived and found to interact with other forms of matter. As thinking beings our only pathway to materialism is through consciousness. Thus through spacetime. It may well be that some other thoughts may occur to us, in the "future", that may supercede spacetime. Supercede it in such a way as to cause us to differentiate further the identifications we call matter. A whole new foundation besides spacetime/shape-number to the classification of matter.
When you live in a Computer Simulation you can only see the pixels of the world you live in and the rules set for interactions within the simulation. You can't see the mainframe behind it. You need a Red Pill for that.
Consciousness I equate to life because death or non being has no properties and i need a postulate; what's in life that is consciousness is the Intellect, 'being' itself, and from which all multiplicities of kinds of being derive from. Surely you cannot say that the cosmos is dead, it must be alive. The Aether is magnetism, and somehow there's hydrogen and... there's an Intellect without a doubt. Consciousness is life because the vastness of the cosmos is certainly not dead, because it is, rather than non existent, and everything within the cosmos is of the Intelligible realities, the image of that is Soul, and when cloaked in matter being comes into existence. What is consciousness: life. What is life: being. Negation might be the best method to come to some understanding because life isn't matter or from matter nor is matter form or place in which mass and magnitude is. When life of Soul is put into matter, the form is body it functions and interacts through organs and sense perception. Without life what would the functions be, without soul what form would matter become. Some say consciousness is experience, such as a human being, for had there not been life what experience would there be. Does the brain create life or consciousness? it certainly generates a human beings experience in relation to memory and body functions and sense preceptions. You could possibly say the brain produces a human beings experience, but does not create life or consciousness because this is prior to the brain, and is what gives the brain power. Regarding the question of title: the atomists believe everything is a particle, materialism defeats itself. They'll reference natural order but cannot prove that matter is the cause of what's natural. Some think discurive reasoning if properly done should have results, and if there's no logical result makes it nonsense, and that's quite correct, because the true answer is non sense, beyond the perceptible.
good brother . accept A computer does not know that it is aware of itself But we know we are If we look, our body is always evolving and progressing, but this awareness of ours, which is like seeing ourselves, is always constant actually should be changed some thing of consciousness but is stopped and never changed ( the look of consciousness )
This was word salad that said nothing. Consciousness is the inner model of the world that is fead to our senses from the brain. Without a brain one would not survive very long to be conscious of anything. Life and the soul does not come from anywhere. They are just different configurations of matter that give birth to life and the perception of the soul. Materialism affirms that things are born rather than spoken into existence using magic. Nature is the behavior of matter so matter causes what is natural.
On the basis of what particular direct immediate personal experience (as direct immediate and personal as pain) can you say Anything whatsoever about "Death"?Exactly how many times have you experience death as directly immediately personally as you experience pain? Yeah, right.
Materialism isnt a world view, it’s a reactive existential state. Consciousness is an emotional experience. Emotion is a social phenomenon relying on shared biochemical mechanisms. Deprived of social contact, beings tend towards automation. Automation is a purely reactive existence. Materialism adapts emotions to automation.
If consciousness were a field how would anyone directly detect it? Until you can do that you are just philosophizing. I could look at the brain as a headset that gateways into consciousness. I could look at the brain as the fundamental substrate from which consciousness and self emerges. Consciousness needs definitive definition first and foremost. Consciousness seems to be an organized system that has purposeful arrangement. I keep trying to see it as a mindless evolutionary advantage and that there are no goals to it but that seems lacking to me. Reality is under no obligation to fit into any scientific or philosophical paradigm.
Well, what I believe to be true, is true to me, I have my "special kind of truth" regardless of whether you think it's true or not. That's it, that's all, thank you and goodnight Novorogod!
Seems this conversation is the closes I've heard to Nature being underneath it all. Could Nature be Consciousness.. Keep in mind that I am not saying Nature is all physical aspects of reality.
@@robinmcclellan5254 Bravo, finally someone that can give a straight answer to a straight question. If that be right, the "physical" is entirely subjective because whether or not it is "physical" depends upon the experiencer of a particular experiencer
@@robinmcclellan5254 Quantum is merely the Latin for how much. How much what? I did not say observer, I said experiencer-whoever or whatever experiences, and on any view that blaub "consciousness" is an experience, which is contingent on the ability to experience, so the simple question is: What enables experiencers to experience? And the short answer to that is some form of apparatus, and you can determine whether or not experiences are contingent on such an apparatus by either switching it of or disabling it and then finding out whether or not those experiences cease, which they plainly do when a general anaesthetic is administered. It were better if beings did not use words or terms that they cannot even begin to define, or are simply indefinable, because unless they define their terms, they can have no way of determining whether or not they are discussing one and the same thing. It is futile to speak of experiences unless you define or identify whose experiences, and of What?
If material just naturally produces consciousness that seems to me to imply a form of panpsychism. I would be interested to know what you or your guest think is different about his views than the panpsychists.
You you "yearn" for the meaning of your life do you? Do you not understand that when you use the word "we" you are referring to yourself, because the word "we" indicates the user of the term - and that is you, and your immediate interlocutor and in the instant case you have no immediate interlocutor, so whenever you use the word "we you are in fact saying "I" - "we" is imaginary, and self-evidently imaginary.
@@grybnyx Really, how interesting, you do understand that all universals including your famous mankind are imaginary, do you not? Who elected you to speak on the behalf of the imaginary-that of which you do not have and could not possibly have any direct immediate personal experience, as direct immediate and personal as pain Self -evidently you have not-nor could possibly have, any direct immediate personal experience of several billions of beings, so that disposes of your -entirely imaginary" mankind", of which you you =neither have , nor could possibly ever have had, any direct immediate personal experience whatsoever. Mankind my arse!
Closer to the truth consciousness/MATRIX I walk past this string dangling from my ceiling every night I look at it in my periferal vision where I react in a way that immitates the matrix where I'm dodging this string in slow motion and doing my best not to creatively touch it. As if some life rose out of me to only repeat it the next night. Five fingers. Pointing finger is hear, middle finger is look, ring finger is touch, therefore these three fingers represent our senses. Thus the pinky is the experience. The thumb is known as the immitater. When we hear what is said, look at what is here and touch what is where makes the experience. The pinky holds another seperate name which is memory. Now it is through the experience where once it is done the one to immitate the experience is the one to reflect on one's memories as if it where a mirror and attempt to remind us of our own existence but it is through art represented through the swiggles on imaginary lines on our palms where we create, design and then intertwine all as art imitates life and it is through the repetitive nature of this cycle which gives rise to consciousness. Is that not consciousness? Cody Jones
7:50 "they just don't seem to be in the same category at all" They don't seem to be in the same category because they are not. There is matter and there is movement and they belong to different distinct categories of existence. Obviously. But movement does not and cannot exist except as an abstract notion derived from perception of the changing spatial relationships among material existents. No matter no movement. In other words, matter serves as the absolutely necessary prerequisite substrate for movement to exist. 'Process' belongs to the exact same existential category as does 'movement'. Being conscious is a process. I hope that assertion strikes you as self evident because, if it does, it should soon occur to you exactly how and why 'consciousness' is immaterial and that it is utterly dependent for its peculiar existence on a substrate that belongs to a very different existential category. Just like there is no movement unless there is something to do it.
are you saying consciousness and movement are properties on materialistic things, like color is a property, or is consciousness emergent? not really sure I understand the idea of an emergent property though
@@jakebrowning2373 You cannot understand my question because you seem to think that color is a property of matter. Color is NOT a property of matter. When you see the truth of that assertion you will be a huge step closer to understanding my original comment. If you want me to explain why color is not a property of matter I will but you can probably get there on your own if you start thinking about what happens to the color of a 'blue ball' when you take it into a room illuminated with 'red light' only.
Physical matter/energy is necessary for movement or any kind of change, time or space. Consciousness is dependent on physicality but the physical world is defined by consciousness, so they support each other, like two sticks balanced against one another to stand up.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Color is a property of matter because it is a wavelength of light and a response by the optic nerve and brain, all electromagnetic in nature.
Nonsense. Consciousness cannot exist without material to house and firm it. CONSCIOUSNESS is just sophisticated awareness. A cell evolving that is aware/conscious of light. That is the beginning of it.. 🤷♂️
Matter producing Conciousness!!! The hard problem. How can a 1.4 pound of piece of meat produce this incredible world of our inner experience. It’s time indeed that scientists look at other options. Conciousness is always present, matter isn’t. In deep sleep as well, we have an experience and that’s the reason, we say, I slept like a log!!! Maybe Conciousness is absolutely fundamental.
"Conciousness is always present, matter isn’t." What do you mean? Can you give an example? "Maybe Conciousness is absolutely fundamental." How would this work? Consciousness is not one thing but a huge number of experiences that are never the same. Which of them would be fundamental? Or do I misunderstand what you mean by consciousness?
Its deeper than just the world of our inner experience, its also the fact that we are able to have these type of discussions at all, proving there’s no way consciousness is produced from the brain. Because if anything that we deduce about the universe using our conscious minds turns out to be actually true, that means there is another property to existence: truth. Which is not physical at all. So it means there exists objective physicality but also objective truth, and both are equally real aspects of reality even if one isn’t tangible. ….And to take it even further it also means your self awareness or whenever you refer to yourself as “I” …that “I” is a very real but separate entity from the purely physical brain.. because it is that “I” that uncovered that intangible “truth” about the tangible/physical.
@@Scott777 As far as I understand you're just saying that there exist things that are true. I would say ideas and propositions are such things. Okay, but how does this prove that consciousness is not produced from the brain? Are you saying a brain would not be able to produce abstract thoughts?
How exactly do you define "matter? How exactly do you define "consciousness? What makes you think that you have any experience whatsoever of whatever you mean by "consciousness"? Consciousness of what and whose consciousness of what??
We already know undeniably that we are conscious before we know how or why we might be… what do you do when _knowing comes first_? (And undeniably first before the rational or empirical explanations?) Is this a kind of ‘knowing’ someone aiming to be objective can accept? Certainly, they can’t realistically deny it (holding out for proof and explanation). I like a kind of rule that says that what is empirically proven (or demonstrated by logic) must be true-this constitutes a very rigorous kind of knowledge. I wouldn’t be sold though on a rule that says that _everything_ not yet put on such a foundation shouldn’t be believed (or constitutes something like “unjustified knowledge”). I’m glad scales were in use and carts were rolled down hills long before Newton or Einstein could formalize a rigorous concept of gravity. We ‘knew’ about it in some imperfect, intuitive but very conversant way already (again, if imperfectly). There’s a definite flavour to the kind of rigorous proof we occasionally get in particular areas of human experience. I think though, that the “rigorously proven” / “unjustified knowledge” dichotomy is a pose more than a genuine position. It just isn’t real to the lives we live, the academic disciplines we need and the meaning we can’t live without.
Epistemology is not the same as ontology, knowing is about the subject, but existing is independent of it. The universe has existed independently of an agent that can know it.
@@diegonicucs6954 I agree with your statement. I didn’t mean to suggest that the universe does (or doesn’t exist) on the basis of our ‘knowing’ about it. I meant to comment on the ideal of believing/knowing only those things that we can prove empirically or demonstrate by logic. I was commenting on having a high bar for what we consider “justified knowledge”. It seems like a laudable ideal, but is it’s practical? As you point out, gravity, for example, exists and existed independently of our best and most rigorously logical and empirical conceptions of it. We knew ‘about it’ as a species (in an imprecise and intuitive way) long before a precise conceptual framework was in place… was the statement “apples seem to fall…” an irresponsible intuitive leap-was it ‘unjustified knowledge’ prior to Newton’s formulas? I don’t think so. My question is about the standards we adopt for what we are willing to consider ‘knowledge’. I was arguing that in the case of consciousness, we seem to “know about it” almost undeniably before we can make any final logical or empirical sense of it. To me, that’s an interesting case in relation to the question of what counts as knowledge. In this case what we know already seems direct and undoubtable (or so thought Descartes)-we know we are conscious-before logic or empiricism green-light it as “Justified Knowledge”. It’s not an argument against rigorous proof when we can get it but a question of whether all knowledge that doesn’t meet this high standard can realistically or should always be discarded.
@@fearitselfpinball8912 Sure, but the point of descartes or even bertrand russell was about certainty in that knowledge and not just knowing something with any degree of certainty or understanding of some relevant aspect of that phenomenon. Our experiences are about the phenomenon but not necessarily about the things that exist. We have experienced light without understanding almost anything about it for millennia. The topic of the video is mainly whether we can have a description of consciousness that only requires matter, but that is not a question about the phenomena (which is what we experience) it is a question about their nature, and to answer that question, a high level of certainty is relevant. So if I have experience X, and X is "strong" enough to be aware of it, then obviously I know I have experienced X, because when it comes to the experience of the subject, just being aware is enough, since the question is whether I have had that experience or not. An entirely different question is what X is, how X comes to be, what are the characteristics of X, etc., to which our experience is almost irrelevant.
@@diegonicucs6954 I think we agree but I'm under the impression that I'm saying something insightful which I think you view as obvious. I'm saying it's interaesting to me that "knowing" could come first (that is, before the rigorous proof or logical understanding of a thing) ... and that in the case of consciousness there's a peculiar certainty to this knowing that precedes it being logically or empirically supported. I think I understand your viewpoint to be: yeah, but all you "know" up front is that you experience some phenomenon as a subject (consciousness in this case). But that most phenomenon, as experienced (let's switch to light again for simplicity) have this 'as experienced side' and an 'as they really are' side, distinct from experience. The explanatory clarification of what it objectively is, how it works, etc is the place where rigour and certainty definitely apply. I am definitely digressing from the main topic of the relationship between materials and consciousness. What's on my mind really is the way in which we know (generally) without rigorously knowing why we know. I think you see this as conflating the phenomenon and the explanation of the object as it really is but I'm thinking very broadly about knowledge. You might find this tangential or imprecise but I'm interested in something like this. Imagine a Judge and a Detective. The Judge properly demands sufficient proof and strong evidence before he will swing the gavel to make a declaration. The Detective, before the case begins, must work to gather the evidence (but as yet has none). After a preliminary interview the Detective "knows" that one of the witnesses is lying. He doesn't know how he knows. He just knows! He's sure. Of course, that kind of "knowing" would be an absurd, unfounded and dismissable thing if brought before the Judge--it's not concrete, not evidential. Not certain. Despite this, by pursuing a series of such 'unjustifiable' hunches, the Detective gathers sufficient hard evidence for the Judge to make a conviction. In the above example I wouldn't want to deprive the Judge of his standard or the Detective of his method. I'm off the main topic. My idea here isn't about the distinction between phenomenon experienced subjectively and objective descriptions per se, instead, I'm trying to think through what constitutes "justifiable knowledge". Knowing I'm conscious is justifiable and certain (and a conclusion from subjective experience). It interests me that I can know that consciousness exists before I can prove it exists empirically and before I can rationally explain what it is. (Regarding materials and consciousness I have no ideas. It's like building clouds out of bricks to me. I find it totally baffling.)
@@fearitselfpinball8912 I think you are confusing knowledge with instinct, what motivates your actions is not necessarily knowledge, a baby demands milk not because he knows, but by instinct, in the same way that a plant has developed natural defenses or strategies to obtain what it needs. You keep jumping from being aware and knowing that you are aware, to something more valuable, but you don't provide a reason for it. A detective does not "just know" that a witness is lying, but has reason to believe that someone is lying, and those reasons can lead to the discovery of the truth or to complete failure, you are assuming the result of a process as part of the initial reasons, but that is obviously false. it may be the case that your intuition was right but it may also be the case that it was not, and that is not knowledge But not only that, we do not process information only consciously, most of the "processing of data" in brain happens without us been aware of it, so what appears to be "we just know" is actually much more complex and has an explanation, that is why I insist on the distinction between the phenomena with the particularities of the same
Do*you*"think there is a great mystery? Why are you so frightened of saying I think there is a great mystery? - Why do you hide behind some fantasy "we"? Do you not understand that the word "we" indicates the user of the term - and that he you, yes you, and his immediate interlocutor, which in the present instance can only possibly be imaginary since you are not speaking to anyone and therefore there is no "we" you can only say, "I think there is a great mystery"
Who and what is "we" and what experience have you of this fantasy "we"? From where do you creatures get this fantasy "we"? - Did you arrive atThe"We" fantasy of Your own motion or did somebody else put that fantasy into your Woody little heads
Materialism to me are the things of the world. Spiritual is when the mind is open. Materialism is finite, whereas spiritual is infinite. Things and times of the world are temporary anyway. Death imo is the gateway to the spiritual and better realm. It’s evolving consciously and spiritually beyond what the world can offer.
I believe rMr Mogi is cherry picking ancient religious traditions. However, every civilization's first religion has been Monotheism throughout history. A french / german? anthropologist published this finding.
"Understanding is outside of computation" - Sir Roger Penrose. Repeating tiles require understanding at the beginning of the pattern, but not after. Non-repeating tiles require understanding as the pattern expands within space/time, outside of that?
Roger Penrose are demonized conscieness because certain he Not consistence proof of conscieness. Science Not make sure conscieness exist because there are chain neuros are unpredicted with reality
I believe we are "Mind", and the brain is not mind. Mind /creation/consciousness /pineal gland. We are connected to mind through consciousness that resides in our brains pineal glad.
What exactly are you doing when you "believe"? It is simple enough ,destroy or seriously damage your brain and that is the end of you, but for some reason you are reluctant to accept what is staring you in the face, namely that if your brain is destroyed for ever, you are destroyed forever, for the screamingly obvious reason that if - for whatever reason, your brain is damaged or disabled you are unable to experience whatever you mean by "consciousness". Is that not self evident to you? You can only have associations in your associative apparatus or mind, because there is a brain which is able to receive and process information and your associations are the direct result or consequence of information processed by your brain, and you can only have associations all, if you have a brain and that is demonstrably true because itf you are given a general anaesthetic which completely stupefies the brain, you are wholly unable to experience anything - that is the whole point of a general anaesthetic. If you have ever been knocked unconscious you will know very well that while you unconscious you were unaware of anything, and the irresistible and inescapable of that is that any sort of psychic experience is contingent on a brain or rather on the brain being able to function. I am well aware that are some babies that dream about what they call death (which can only possibly be imaginary), and that is unconsciousness or being unable to experience anything, and since it has been demonstrated that being able to experience anything or just being able to experience, is entirely contingent on there being a functioning and extant brain, then it follows as the night the day that the possibility of experiencing is entirely and completely contingent on there being a functioning brain. When you are administered a general anaesthetic or knocked unconscious, you experience nothing whatsoever -which is to say that because whatever you mean by "consciousness is an experience, and the capacity or possibility of experiencing is entirely and completely contingent on a functioning brain, the inescapable inference or consequence is, in very simple terms, no brain, no you. When you are asleep you no you, because when you are asleep you are unaware of anything, and by exactly the same token when you are unconscious you are unaware of anything, because that is what unconscious *means*. The very second that your heart ceases to beat, the bacteria in your body consume the soft tissues and organs of the body, and of all the soft tissues and organs in the body, the brain is the softest, so the moment your heart ceases to beat and supply your brain with oxygen, the bacteria in your brain immediately start to decompose the brain, and the plain fact of the matter is no brain, no you, the colloquial term for which is death - you cease (for yourself) to exist, which means to say that you can experience nothing, which means that death is the end of all experience, and since you are no more experience, it follows as the night the day that when your heart/brain complex cease to function, you cease to exist which is to say that you cease experiencing or in simple language that is the end of you, and if I were you I'd be extremely grateful for that, because the prospect of continuing to experience without end is horrifying. In fact you tremble and frighten yourself unnecessarily because if you are dead and know you are dead you are not dead, while the other hand if you are dead and do not know that you are dead, you have no particular problem because there is nothing to experience a particular problem.
@@Beleaveinme That does not address my question which was: "What *exactly* (emphasis on *exactly*) are you doing when you "believe"? What in blue blazes is DMT ?- do you people never speak in anything but abbreviations? One of the reasons for not ending sentences with prepositions such as the truth of, is that they cry out for of what? That apart from it being ugly to have prepositions flapping pointlessly in the wind. What *exactly* do you mean by "feel"? Since you are a being of the passive sex, I suppose is not particularly surprising or unusual for you to be so passive as to accept without question or believe What exactly are you doing when you "believe"? What in blue blazes is a "flow of energy"? - Sounds like vague woolly bullshit to me, but passivity leads to a vague woolliness and a lack of the specific and clarity - perhaps because men (human beings) are unaccustomed to clarity, or rather it tends to frighten them because they are as timid as mice.
@@vhawk1951kl Abstract Psychedelic drugs are potent modulators of conscious states and therefore powerful tools for investigating their neurobiology. N,N, Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) can rapidly induce an extremely immersive state of consciousness characterized by vivid and elaborate visual imagery. Here, we investigated the electrophysiological correlates of the DMT-induced altered state from a pool of participants receiving DMT and (separately) placebo (saline) while instructed to keep their eyes closed. Consistent with our hypotheses, results revealed a spatio-temporal pattern of cortical activation (i.e. travelling waves) similar to that elicited by visual stimulation. Moreover, the typical top-down alpha-band rhythms of closed-eyes rest were significantly decreased, while the bottom-up forward wave was significantly increased. These results support a recent model proposing that psychedelics reduce the ‘precision-weighting of priors’, thus altering the balance of top-down versus bottom-up information passing. The robust hypothesis-confirming nature of these findings imply the discovery of an important mechanistic principle underpinning psychedelic-induced altered states.
In my studies in cognitive sciences, specifically cognitive neurobiology, I have been introduced to many theories of consciousness. But this year during my second masters I have had the pleasure to do courses on what I think is the most rational attempt of scientifically explaining consciousness. I’m talking about neurorepresentationalism, which has a great account on the biological reason behind consciousness, mainly creating a multimodal rich percept that is integrated through our senses to efficiently interact in the world of complex medium fast decision making. It has a great explanation how the emergent properties of consciousness could have come to be. And it even makes a great argument how we can go from physical neuronal spikes to phenomenal experience, in relation to the hard problem of consciousness. I would love to see a scientist defend the view of neurorepresentationalism on this RU-vid channel
The representations are also hierarchical. RLK mentioned "identity" theory. This seems to flatten things out. But based on the current definitions of "matter" (quantum mechanics, chemistry, molecular biology), one could say "matter", as we've defined it, is "necessary, but not sufficient" to explain consciousness. Most attempts to explain consciousness involves some form of systems theory. It's not simply the matter, but a particular configuration of matter, operating in a system, somewhat along the lines of the "functionalist" view, mentioned by KM. For biological systems, it is some version of "organism in environment". From the various cognitive capabilities of various species in evolution, "consciousness" seems closely related to perception, first in the external world, and later its own inner representations. What is often left out, is motor control. But this is also an important piece, in "learning the world", as witness in Karl Friston's "active learning", the Piaget's sensory-motor stage in developmental cognitive psychology. The objective function, is adaptation, and survival. Human beings seem to be much more flexible than this, have much more "play" in the epistemic space, more heavily biased towards the "exploration" side of the exploration vs. exploitation tradeoff.
@@mintakan003 I fully agree. Adding to your statement it is also interesting to add predictive coding elements such as the mesencephalic dopamine neurons into the learning and active inference of consciousness and sensory representation. Where abstractions of low level perception can function as sensory caused inferences in higher areas such as integration sites like the posterior parietal areas
All science is dependent on 3rd person observation. If it violates this methodology, it is pseudoscience. Consciousness is by definition 1st person and thus inaccessible. Hope this helps.
