I recognize it's been a decade since the no-legged man left this comment, but I'm gonna tackle this one... The issue is, there almost certainly is something "deeper" to the world that what we can typically perceive. Evolution by natural selection equipped us with only what was immediately pertinent to our survival: our ability to cognate within space and time, and our sensory organs which are inseparable from that. Sam at the end of the video: "Metaphysical statements also have to be justified." This statement, while not necessarily wrong- is missing some key nuance. From Kantian philosophy, we can understand that our phenomenal world of experience (via our senses), very well may be only a slice of a much broader noumenal existence (independent of our senses, also known as the 'thing-in-itself'). Sam and materialists/physicalists like him demand evidence for such claims of 'encountering the noumenal', as they see little reason to believe in such things. While I can sympathize with that view (I used to hold it in exclusivity), I think it's fundamentally flawed, both in terms of sociological side effects of such 'denial of spirit', and in terms of *empiricism*. Science does not float above a vacuum devoid of philosophy. Modern institutional science (as distinguished from the scientific method) makes a ontological claim. It has made this claim since it's advent in the 19th century... namely: it holds *matter* as fundamental rather than *consciousness*. This claim is not above criticism... Indeed, modern science (in physics) is hitting some very interesting walls which are making many re-think the entire 'culturally dominant' perspective of what reality is. Modern science is predicated on a very flawed starting point, because the only thing which we really know can be said to exist is our consciousness. It's the most empirical foundation. Consciousness exists; matter is theoretical. We likely do not perceive everything which *actually* exists, and there is a powerful argument (rooted in evidence, even) that we actually evolved a rare but important 'sixth sense', which allows us to tap into a greater aspect of our reality. Such a cognitive ability, would likely not be necessary to be rooted in a common level of sensory experience (which we all share)-- but evolution would deem it less important to immediate survival, and integrate it within 'closer' to our subjective experience. Personally, I believe we are currently undergoing a new Copernican revolution, and there is no shortage of evidence for it in the phenomenal world. There is even reproducible, empirical evidence for it... yet science under materialism can't make sense of it. The issue is not with the evidence, it's with the ontological assumptions of modern science. If anyone is interested, I recommend Dr. Bernardo Kastrup's work. He has a number of videos presenting a new "Analytic Idealism" in concise terms here on RU-vid.
The thing I most love about Sam is he never feels the need the raise his voice, interrupt or be rude or crass. The same can usually never be said for his opponents. Sam always remains the gentleman but still kicks their asses.
Fair enough. So it's not possible for me to change my brain state if I want to. Ok, what if I goto a psychologist for counselling or to get some kind of cognitive training to help me focus better in class? Or would it be up to my brain to "decide"?
When examining these questions we should consider the possibility that science is also a reflection of human ego and subjectivity because what is chosen to be studied is chosen by the interests of those studying them. Further, because humans create their perception of reality from the data available at the time, the data available, even data proven by science is not necessarily the entire reality. Science has never adequately measured that which is spiritual because while some aspects of the spiritual can be measured, science does not currently have the equipment nor the knowledge base to measure it. God is of the spiritual realm and God communicates with humanity through increments over large spans of time which coincide with humanities ability to comprehend. There is much humanity and science have yet to be able to comprehend.
See if you can comprehend this: * Ancient Indians explored consciousness and awareness extensively. * They wrote down their findings (we call these the vedas). * The vedas describe consciousness and awareness more precisely than any english definition (also pointing out their distinctions). * The vedas describe meditation as the main process by which to know consciousness and awareness. * Modern scientific research confirms much about what the vedas describe about meditation and consciousness.
There's no such thing as a "supernatural" explaination for consciousness. There's only two theories, (a) consciousness arises from brain & has no causal agency, or (b) consciousness arises independent of brain & has causal agency. Your job is to look at (1) the number of assumptions for each theory (2) whether they can derive everything known to be true already (3) what new answers/predictions can be derived from the theory, & (4) whether either theory can be shown to be correct experimentally.
knowing that one has to use the firing of neurons of the brain for it work does not mean that there might not be some non physical, non material form of existence that cannot be apprehended through the five senses so consciousnesses dependence on physical processes does not prove there is no metaphysical existence which is not proven by physical means but ideas and their teleology. In other words, one has to know something beyond the five senses and the material to prove metaphysical statements and have a knowledge beyond the physical sciences like philosophy, depth psychology, metaphysics etc. Some physicists tend to put down what they really don't know anything about because it is outside their knowledge base. Consciousness like the ultimate truth is not limited to the physical/material.
I was a materialist myself. That's how I was raised and educated. And as a result, I behaved accordingly. But it wasnt until I really began to question the so-called unquestionable assumptions of materialism that I started to see the flaws inherent in its logic.
I posted this elsewhere, but figured it's a useful to anyone stumbling around in search of how that logic might go... Sam at the end of the video: "Metaphysical statements also have to be justified." This statement, while not necessarily wrong- is missing some key nuance. From Kantian philosophy, we can understand that our phenomenal world of experience (via our senses), very well may be only a slice of a much broader noumenal existence (independent of our senses, also known as the 'thing-in-itself'). Sam and materialists/physicalists like him demand evidence for such claims of 'encountering the noumenal', as they see little reason to believe in such things. While I can sympathize with that view (I used to hold it in exclusivity), I think it's fundamentally flawed, both in terms of sociological side effects of such 'denial of spirit', and in terms of *empiricism*, logic, and reason. Science does not float above a vacuum devoid of philosophy. Modern institutional science (as distinguished from the scientific method) makes a ontological claim. It has made this claim since it's advent in the 19th century... namely: it holds *matter* as fundamental rather than *consciousness*. This claim is not above criticism... Indeed, modern science (in physics) is hitting some very interesting walls which are making many re-think the entire 'culturally dominant' perspective of what reality is. Modern science is predicated on a very flawed starting point, because the only thing which we really know can be said to exist is our consciousness. It's the most empirical foundation. Consciousness exists; matter is theoretical. We likely do not perceive everything which actually exists, and there is a powerful argument (rooted in evidence, even) that we actually evolved a rare but important 'sixth sense', which allows us to tap into a greater aspect of our reality. Such a cognitive ability, would likely not be necessary to be rooted in a common level of sensory experience (which we all share)-- but evolution would deem it less important to immediate survival, and integrate it within 'closer' to our subjective experience. Science (under a materialist assumption), created an unfalsifiable problem for itself to justify its space in the intellectual arena... This is called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Modern science was tasked with solving what gives rise to consciousness, but its philosophical progenitors already knew this was almost certainly an impossible task to solve. Why? Even if you can create a holistic model which describes consciousness (I'm very doubtful, even as someone who believes in the technological singularity), you can never know if what you are interfacing with (the brain) is simply just what correlates with some grander noumenal substrate which we exist in. It *might look* like synapses are driving consciousness, but you'd never actually know- because you only interface with a slice of reality. So it was very well understood that it might look like it gives rise to consciousness, but that doesn't make it true. They are just correlations in the same way that a computer GUI correlates to transistors on a silicon chip. The creators of the scientific method built a playground for us. They handed it over to us so that we could continue expanding it... they never intended for us to actually believe it was the *whole world*. We, being stupid and ignorant of our history- actually forgot this fact and started to actually believe it's all that exists. This is the doctrine and dogma of materialism. It's no different than the doctrine and dogma of religion. We have mistaken the map for the territory. Personally, I believe we are currently undergoing a new Copernican revolution, and there is no shortage of evidence for it in the phenomenal world. There is even reproducible, empirical evidence for it... yet science under materialism can't make sense of it. The issue is not with the evidence, it's with the ontological assumptions of modern science. If anyone is interested, I recommend Dr. Bernardo Kastrup's work. He has a number of videos presenting a new "Analytic Idealism" in concise terms here on RU-vid.
@@Archeidos-Arcana Very well put Mitchell! I couldn't have said it better myself. And Bernardo Kastrup is probably my all time favorite Idealist for his persistence in how clearly and logically precise he formulates his metaphysics. Keep up the good work of spreading the news!
Agreed. I used to be a staunch materialist myself not so long ago. Fortunately I had the good sense and good grace to let it all go once I become aware of the mounting evidence for the alternative paradigm. It was not an easy process, but I would like to think that my mind is free enough to follow the evidence, wherever it leads Not everyone on this thread, and in the scientific establishment in general, have the same balance of open-minded scepticism. But I am eternally optimistic for them
It seems youve lost the thread, once again. I have provided the links below for you to inspect. Once youve inspected them, you will be in a better position to refute or assimilate them into your own understanding.
"We know what consciousness is in biology" I have never heard a more dogmatic, incorrect and downright ludicrous statement. If you, as a Biologist, could today give a sensible & testable materialist explanation where Consciousness comes from then you would instantly be rewarded with the Nobel prize and Scientific immortality. Why are you trying to spout your emotionally based beliefs as facts? Jeez....
There's a difference between saying that I don't think your posts are worthy of a response, and saying that I won't respond to your posts. I thought that at least I would be considerate and give you a chance to express your views, but if I'm mistaken with expecting such a thing, then let me know.
I dont see what could possibly be wrong with what deepak chopra is saying here. If everything that i see is a synaptic firing then what am i? Harris tends to be very dismissive of this zero point.
Sriram Prasath being a zombie is OK for me, cause everybody else is one too. But when I meditate , I can choose what subject I want to fire my synapses on... That's when I give up being a zombie for a while.
materialism is an expression of consciousness, ..in itself materialism is false. like a pair of shoes, materialsm is the left shoe, consciousness is the right one..one without the other is usless..for the cycle of life.
Yes, there are different types of meditations where one could employ thought and/or emotion, but the first basic level of meditation that one is usually encouraged to achieve is the absence of thought/emotion. That gives stability of attention and duration of perception without the skittishness. When you can sustain awareness w/o subjective stimuli, it's a good place to start. "There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness." - Nisargadatta
The other thing that I find interesting too is that research at places like princeton pear and heartmath org have peer reviewed studies showing that consciousness can/does influence objectivity without direct physical interaction. Have you heard of the observer effect? The observer effect is what convinced Einstein that there was more going on than mere electrochemistry.
So do I. He's a smart guy and I have so much respect for the way he presents himself and speaks. People could learn a lot from him and the way he handles things. However, I just don't like some of his debate tactics. Especially when he's with Shermer and Deepak is here with his afterlife and spiritual belifs. That's a really hard battle to win coming from Deepaks side. No matter what way you look at it. People have a misunderstanding of Chopra. I think he's a very smart and aware person.
I've seen Sam Harris talking about meditation. But he doesnt go into the other aspects of it which are described in the traditions that he actual studied under - namely buddhism - which describes how one can/does exist separate from the brain/body (hence reincarnation). They actual go into this at some depth in their descriptions, but he seems to ignore this aspect of it.
@@CalmPug-ez4zx Upanishad is ot science . Believing in something which lacks concrete evidence is just superstition . You might as well start believing in Superman if you are at it.
"Neuroplasticity refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes," And changes in neural processes can self-initiated by the individual using specific mental processes, including meditation.
We cannot assume that we have no consciousness if we have no brain. We also cannot assume that atoms are conscious, if we don't know. That's why it's a debate.
Mr prospective, Sydney is saying that consciousness as we humans experience it cannot exist without a brain to provide it. To claim otherwise is to claim an independent 'soul' or what have you, which then has to be justified by evidence, of which there is none. Burden of proof is on the metaphysical claimant.
you can't just assume that consciousness is produced by the brain if there is no evidence for that either. Some people that flatlined but who got resuscitated, say they were unconscious the whole time, but other people who were flatlined and resuscitated say they saw the whole scene from a distant vantage point and got into another realm that felt more real than this earth plane. Both are anecdotical.
Sydney Prescott, exactly, I would add something else, no brain, no body and no society, no consciousness, because we are bio/psycho/social beings, not only psychological beings.
@@krisc6216 actually, many doctors and hospital staff have declared the resucitated person knew what they were doing and talking about during the time person was dead. So there is evidence for the metaphysical claim. There is a famous case about some women who died for about 48 minutes during brain surgery. You can find her on youtube.
I think we really need to dig at questions such as: -Is consciousness or subjectivity distinctive from brain? -What are the attributes of subjective phenomenon vs physical phenomenon? -Can changing mental phenomenon change brain? etc What would your opinion be if it was indeed shown that changing your mind can change the way your brain functions over the longterm?
What a load of drivel. Chopra seems incapable of defining the substance of his opinions in an intelligible way. Everytime he's asked to explain or justify something he says, his reply immediately sprouts wings and wafts off into la-la land. Perhaps a sharper moderator would be good here, one with a keen eye for speakers who aren't interested in explaining themselves to the people listening. Always be suspicious of people who don't seem to want you to understand what they're talking about. It's a metaphorical signpost that might as well read "I neither believe nor can justify what I am saying."
Modulating your own thoughts and emotions (i.e., subjectivity) affects your biology in profound ways. So consciousness can and does influence matter. It's top down, and bottom up. We see this most clearly with the placebo effect. There's also no solid evidence to show that brain is generating consciousness. That's just a fools dogma. lol
***** Exactly. There's no solid evidence that brain generates consciousness, yet the general consensus among people, esp. the scientific community, is that brain IS generating consciousness, despite the absence of solid, empirical evidence.
***** The question is, "How does an idea that has no evidence end up becoming the dominant belief among the scientific community and general populous?", and the answer is: "Through repetition." As the saying goes, repeat a lie enough times and sure enough it becomes a fact. But the other view that is equally valid -if not more so-, is the view that consciousness exists independently of the brain. And there's plenty of evidence for this view, unlike the dogmatic belief that brain is creating consciousness. You just have to be willing to examine all of the evidence without behaving like a dogmatic idiot who dismisses everything that doesnt fit his or her current world-view or belief system.
***** These are all great questions. What I propose is that we not make up our minds so soon, but that we keep exploring it and pushing for better answers than the ones that are being propagated as gospel by the establishment. Why? because there is ample evidence that consciousness is able to influence its biological host in significant ways, as well as possibly function in the absence of a bio host, suggesting that it is not a derivative of biological or neurological processes. This evidence is derived primarily from two sources: Empirical observations that demonstrate how modulating intention, thought, emotion can affect biological processes that are supposed to be hardwired into our physiology. We see this most evidently in the placebo effect, in the effects of psychological stress, and meditation, etc. For instance, heart rate is supposed to be a hardwired process, but research at Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, and other universities and institutes around the world are finding that just by changing your subjective processes (thinking, feeling) using intent, you can increase or decrease your heartrate and/or change neurological patterns, hence neuroplasticity. In other words, directly manipulating our consciousness affects our biology in measurable ways. So a pertinent question here might be 'If consciousness/mind/thought is a byproduct of neuro-electro-chemical processes, with no causal efficacy, then why does direct modulation of subjectivity/consciousness affect biology so profoundly?' There is also lots of evidence of OOBE's, where people describe leaving their body and witnessing events outside of their physical sensory range, or where people describe events while being diagnosed as clinically brain dead. Not to mention the observer effect, where mere observation influences the behavior of electrons. What we need to do is to do more research to probe these aspects at depth. One way this can be done is to set up experiments where we test to see if it's possible to separate consciousness from the body. To do this we can employ various meditative techniques (i.e., tibean buddhism, yoga,), psychdelics, floatation tanks, etc. The idea is to have people retrieve information at another location and recall it upon re-entry. Another good experiment would be to see if we can measure any type of energy leaving or re-entering the body during OOBE tests. This would require technologies that are able to detect extremely subtle forms of energy, subatomic particles, etc. Because if everything is energy, as Einstein said, then it's just a question of detection. And since we're always finding previously unknown types of energies (subatomic particles for instance), then there's no reason to assume that there's nothing more we can detect other than what we're already detecting with our current level of technology. We just need to keep probing. Some updates: watch?v=M_ACJB_HDxk (Dr Herbert Benson, Harvard) watch?v=tFbm3jL7CDI (Dr Norman Doidge, Columbia) watch?v=8GVwnxkWmSM (Dr Mark Williams, Oxford) watch?v=-dCpPxCbQ2Q (Dr Mario Beauregard, Montreal) watch?v=h93dLIn6rVc (Dr Prim van Lommel, Netherlands)
Sebastian Carlo in my style of spontaneous flow of energy vibrations, i do experience a sea of sound vibrations in my brain and it drowns my thought processes. from mumbai
Unless you can see it it don't exist right?. And jf you see it; then it must be all there is. Sams reasoning....loool. You can't see me so I don't exist. ..You tube wrote this post...
we just right now can't see you, but you can be find out easily actually, but god/angels can't be find out in this physical reality because he is not physical being but some kind of light nonsense
@@nicolasbascunan4013 Mathematics is a made-up abstraction that proves to be very convenient to us. Stemming from a set of axioms, Maths is logically airtight. The same cannot be said for God. Comparing God to Maths is just silly because they're not at all the same.
There's a vast difference between the technicality of measuring the em spectrum which actually exist irrespective of our ability to measure it which we can easily do now. Anything that interacts with us is open to scientific investigation. Claiming something exists but cannot be measured or studied begs the question of how one can claim that this "thing" exists, a contradiction.
How has Chopra sold so many books? He talks such shit. He's arguing for dualism while denying he's a dualist. What a tosser. Even if the mind/consciousness was separate (which is bloody well isn't), the separate mind/concsiousness seems very affected by levels of chemicals, brain damage, pathogens and brain structure in a very predictable way. In a way that leads us to believe it's the brain that is causing behaviour. So, even if the mind/consciousness is separate in some way (again, it isn't), then we might aswell study behaviour at the brain level, because that's the only variable we can study.
Just replace his word consciousness by Information about how to process Information (in short information ) what Chopra is saying will make sense. It what you call lost in translation. And yes brain works in very predictable sense the same way quantum mechanics is also predictable. That is if you know all the initial condition you still couldn't predict outcome with certainty only in probabilistic sense.And this is not like newtonian physics or relativity (Einstein ). Both kind physicist had a huge problem with quantum mechanics.
Replacing the word consciousness with anything still does nothing to the mind-body separation he is proposing by stealth. The sensation of mind we get is produced by the brain. We just are our brain. The outside world acts upon the brain, there is on inner agent acting upon the brain.
Ian Hargreaves Man Brain is nothing but neural network and it's does nothing if you don't provide it external input.The Inner agent is nothing more than the structure of neural network.
That's not an agent, that's a respondent. There is no such thing as agency in that sense. Agency in that sense is illusory. Now, I recognise we're trapped by the language we use so we can use the term agency in a colloquial sense, but agency as we THINK it exists does not. The agency we feel that exists is just a narrative that is brought forward by the brain that we delude our self to believing is a choice decision. it's a narrative about what the brain has already decided. This conscious experience of the world is the this narrative too. The brain has interpreted the world and narrated it. This is the brain's self awareness, it's a feedback loop.
Ian Hargreaves That depends on how deep you look with in yourself just like some of can control our anger other can't. Yes in day day action we works more like automatic fashion rather than taking decision but that doesn't mean you are completely forced by chemistry.If you look deep with in your self by devotion, meditation or through Knowledge you start to get better control over your thought process.And all of these I think are active choice rather than passive (that mean I personally have control over them ).
Yep, it's good to keep trying. This is a fascinating subject and all viewpoints can help us to learn more about it and ourselves. I myself was a staunch materialist atheist (very left brain) not so long ago. If I eventually managed to 'get it', there is hope for everyone.
This is essentially the same question as before. There is no 'me' separate from your physical brain. Your physical brain changes appreciably when you get counselling from a psychologist, or when you learn to focus better in class. These changes manifest as changes in your subjective experience.
cont. These are two of the most obvious and well documented examples that indicate that consciousness (subjectivity) can influence physical reality in significant/measureable ways that contradict the classical view that consciousness cannot influence objective reality in any measurable way.
It's a good place to start when 'you just dont know', because it allows you to insepct other paradigms and/or theories logically, objectively, scientifically, without feeling the need to take or defend a side. Note: 'taking sides' or 'us vs them' is a significant element in some major organized religions.
Agreed. But one of the main differences with meditation is that it can be a deliberately executed process that doesnt require any additional props. You can generate well being "internally," subjectively, and reduce your dependence on external forms of feel-good-therapy/consumer addiction. In addition, you can also create a "buffer" to mitigate the adverse effects of increased external stressors or circumstances.
"Ive admitted, many times now, that Im aware that materialism cannot explain consciousness. This doesn't make your position any more tenable." True. But in light of the positive evidence that is mounting for option (b) (downward causality), it does appear to be more tenable than option (a) (upward causality). It just comes down to whether youre prepared to examine the evidence for (b), or whether you will allow yourself to succumb to the materialist tendency to ignore the evidence for (b).
In the context in which I used it, yes, I do. 1. An abrupt change or step, especially in method, information, or knowledge: 2. a sudden highly significant advance; a breakthrough
"I said it is consistent with your supposed "point" that subjective states are correlated with certain physiological outcomes." Yes. But the most significant finding to date is that changing subjectivity changes neurophysiology. That's tantamount to a 100mph round-house kick to the head for materialists. There's just no getting back up from that. But in addition, the fact that the reverse is also true only yields more evidence that there is no underlying dualism between subject-object.
The placebo is showing that subjectivity is affecting physical reality. But the materialist view is that such a thing should not happen because subjectivity is supposed to be a result of electrochemical processes and should therefore have no causal efficacy on physical systems.
It seems to me that solipsism has nothing to do with the original question. The original comment said that there must be unproven metaphysical axioms in order for justification to begin. I don' t see the connection between that and other minds unless you're claiming that minds are metaphysical. The only axiom of thought I can think of is logic itself, which has nothing to do with metaphysics.
"Observer influence in physics experiments generally relates to how physical interference, to allow observation, impacts on the experiment. Neither is about 'the mind'." Here youre talking about the physicalist definition of the "observer effect," which relates to the interference of physical systems involved in the experiment itself, such as measurement devices. Again, this is not the same as the "observer effect," but is more to do with the impact of physical systems on the experiment.
Warrior of Writers I suggest you look back over the last few weeks of debate between myself & GerHitchman, because I have no wish to repeat myself. We disagreed about where Consciousness arises but at least he had the good sense and honesty to admit that science has no materialist explanation for where Consciousness comes from.
I'm not sure if I understand correctly what you are saying but if Harris is saying that people can take 'images' of their internal physiology and literally see it in their minds eye then that is already much further than mainstream science is prepared to go. From my experience I would say such a thing is indeed possible, and probably the basis of Shamanistic healing. I would be interested to read Harris' empirical test studies if you know where to find them.
If you demand the research, you should be prepared to look for it. I think someone has already mentioned before that there are plenty of links to be found in the "all comments" section of this video. Go ahead and take a look for yourself then get back to us about it.
Theyre only synonyms in English because English language is yet to produce a more precise definition. Of course, there are better languages to use when looking for a more precise understanding and/or definition for consciousness and awareness. It's just that some may not be much aware/conscious of this. But I'm trying to helping you out here. Help you get some updates.
Dan Harris sent out an SOS for most of the audience at the end of this clip. One basic problem of discussions like this one is the the degree to which terminology and meanings are shared between the participants. Words, words, words. This discussion is in English and one question I have is how much that dictates the possible exchange of ideas in that particular language framework. Other languages use different vocabularies and those develop from the mindset of their native cultures.
Another way to say it is that you should not be able to choose to experience subjectivity and consciously choose your brain states IF your brain states are causing your subjectivity. IF subjectivity is popping out of brain, then how is it that we initiate a change in subjectivity and observe a measureable change in brain state?
Ok let me try this way.... Do you agree that we can be aware of thoughts as distinctive from emotions, of emotions as distinctive from physical sensations, of physical sensations as distinctive from thoughts? And do you agree that mind, emotions, and physical sensations are distinctive forms of consciousness based phenomena (i.e., we are conscious of these three phenomena)? These things come and go, arise and disappear.. but what is the common feature of all of them?
I'd like to see. Given that neurology, neuropsychology and neurphysiology have shown our subject experience is the direct result of activity within the nervous system, I'd love to see some other research that says this is not the case. Let's start with WHERE is your consciousness and how does it connect to the neurons forming your brain. Of you go, links please.
If I choose to change my thoughts or feelings at any given moment, and if by making those changes to my thoughts we see a corresponding change in the way my neurophysiology responds to that subjective stimulus (e.g., brainwaves change to alpha/theta).. and if my scores in certain tasks improves as a result, then what initiated the changes? my ability to select my subjective experience, or chemicals in my brain choosing to change my subjective experience?
So what the vedas/buddhist texts etc describe, is that you can attain/evolve to a point where you can be aware even though your body is not receiving/processing any physical inputs. And theyre describing very precise methods for achieving this. One way of looking at it is that you evolve to the point where youre not dependent on the body to maintain awareness or to be conscious. Personally, I think that would be a great evolutionary advantage for our specie.
Tell me more about your belief in materialism.. where it came from, how you became a believer, why you think it's valid, etc I'd love to hear more about that.
Here's two to go.. 1. consciousness defies the principle of locality which is a fundamental part of materialist philosophy which states that something may only be directly influenced by something in its immediate environment 2. empirical observations of consciousness capacity to affect physical reality contradict the materialist assertion that consciousness is an epiphenomenon
In order to judge comparative validity, you have to leave the frame of materialism. As A.S. Eddington pointed out more than eighty years ago, you can't even say that the wrong answer to 6x7 is not as good as the right answer without leaving materialism. Materialists are always leaving their insisted on ideological confines to make pronouncements, that they don't realize they've done that even as they are doing it only proves the superficiality of their thinking.
The thing I find most revealing about these kind of debates is how people like Chopra automatically assume that if there is no transcendent element to the human mind, then art/music/love cease to have meaning. I think that says more about HIM, that he personally requires a supernatural realm to bring meaning to those things, than it does about the possibility of those things existing without it. TBC...
So what's your view on mindfulness practice? i.e., if you change your mental processes by using your attention only, you can change your brain function. Does this contradict materialist philosophy in your view, and if yes/no, why?
What is there to simplify? I've pointed out to you that if you change your thinking (your subjectivity), you can change your neurophysiological output (which is objectively measurable)... you mean to say youre still confused about that?
Interesting. So subjectivity can interact with the physical world even though not being physical itself? How is this possible? If you don't believe in a fundamental dualism, what exactly do you believe in?
So how is it possible? I dont know.. But I cant wait to find out. In the meantime, I'm happy to continue to explore, gather more evidence, perform my own experiments, and build on this new understanding of the nature of consciousness to the point where we have an vast array of practical technologies that are able to respond to human subjectivity without requiring neural or biological inputs.
I just need to clarify something. Observer effect is not about the 'conscious mind' influencing the experiment. There are two elements: 1. bias in the experiment (unconscious or conscious) and, 2. influence. Double blind testing helps reduce observer bias. There is no connection between 'their mind' and the event. Observer influence in physics experiments generally relates to how physical interference, to allow observation, impacts on the experiment. Neither is about 'the mind'.
I think Deepak came off too strong here, but that shouldn't negate what he has to say. I'm glad that he's more grounded during his discussion with Dan Harris during his latest conversations on the 10 Percent Happier podcast.
What is psychological stress? It's thoughts/feelings (subjectivity) in relation to subjective/objective events, resulting in objective changes such as increased heartrate, blood pressure, cortisol and adrenalin production, lowered heart-rate variability, reduced cognitive performance, etc. What is the placebo effect? It's having a thought, belief or expectation (subjectivity) about something that invokes a measurable change in biology in the absence of an objective medical agent.
I just shared with you in my other post several theoretical justifications that explain better than the materialist doctrine why consciousness is (1) independent of brain and (2) a causal agent. Something wrong with your eyes?
Well that's an interesting comparison. I don't see how my asking you to solidify your argument makes me a "demanding house-wife" but if ad hominems must be exchanged, then so be it. Back on the subject, you're saying that your 3 examples can be traced back in your previous posts? I searched and couldn't seem to find it. Mind PM'ing me with the list of examples?
You mean an explaination like 'mental processes (i.e., meditation or software adjustments) are coupled to brain (hardware), so if one invokes certain mental processes over time, measurable changes are observed at the level of brain/hardware..'? Ok, so who or what is doing the choosing of what mental processes are initiated in order to lead to xyz hardware changes?
I'm saying that consciousness/subjectivity has causal agency, and that that should not happen if it's merely a product of physical/material processes.. For instance, if you expect a pill to do something (though it may be inert), you can induce the "placebo effect". What is a placebo effect? It's a belief or thought (subjectivity) about something which changes the way your neurophysiology responds that deviates from the way that it should respond according to materialist views.
"Again, what positive evidence do you have for this mind-body dualism?" I provided some solid leads/links below for you to inspect. Take your time to review them carefully and then get back to me with your assessments/refutations etc.
"We know that, AT LEAST, there are correlations between brain states and subjective feelings." But that's not enough to then leap to the assumption that subjectivity (thoughts or feelings or sensations) are derived from/caused by brain, unless you can demonstrate the physical link.
Fair enough. So what youre saying is, youre open to the possibility that consciousness may not be emergent, but you want to ensure that all physicalist explainations have been ruled out first. I think that's a very logical way forward. That's why I'm interested that these studies continue and that we unearth everything we can about it. Having said that, I'm still leaning more toward consciousness being more fundamental, based on what I've seen. But I'm still open to learning more.
From a materialist perspective, how would I explain the results of studies involving mindfulness practice showing that subjective practices can bring about positive-measurable alterations in brain function & other physiological processes (i.e., neuroplasticity), and how do you reconcile that with a belief that mind cant do that according to materialist philosophy? /watch?v=sMsUGB_KV7s (bbc report) /watch?v=fStAfIVN0X0 (marines+mindfulness) /wiki/Mindfulness#Scientific_research
So what's your view on why the brain changes when I change my thoughts or feelings? If subjectivity is a product of the brain, then how is it that thoughts and feelings can affect neurophysiological functions?
Well, yeah, but your brain is still at work even when you *do* change your thoughts; the brain is always at work, even when you're asleep, and doesn't stop until you die. In other words, your brain still had to exist in order to even give rise to the *ability* to think different thoughts. After all, it still works the other way around, too; as Harris pointed out, if he were to give Chopra a shot of oxytocin, it would increase his trust. Thinking itself actually *is* a neurological process; that's why.
Actually, the first video is of Prof. Williams talking about the research theyve done at Oxford into mindfulness (a buddhist mental practice) and how it impacts the human brain/body. re/ Deepak Simply put, the discoveries being made at Harvard, Oxford, M.I.T, Caltech, Princeton, & other research institutes about mind are in support of Chopra's consistent assertion/teaching that mind/consciousness can cause or be used to bring about significant changes in health & well being.
All we know at present is that the evidence suggests subjectivity and objective reality are not really separate the way our senses tell us they are. We also have a number of models that provide a framework in which the types of phenomenon that have been observed can be better explained e.g., ancient vedic theory, Bohm's holographic model, Penrose, Tiller, Beauregard's quantum mind, etc. One thing is to find which of all the theories fits the evidence and cancel out everything else that doesnt.
So if someone claims that he can change his brain state at a future date, and when that date arrives he changes his brain state to the pre-chosen state, and have this monitored by neuroscientists, then what it means is that he consciously, subjectively willed it and it happened on the material level. That means that consciousness is definitely affecting physical reality in a way that materialism fails to account for.
So metaphysics stems from actualy physics developed from our most advanced knowledge. It's extended out for possibilities based on equations and problems that led to the "metaphysical statements". At what point does a metaphysical statement or theory detach itself from physical relation and become something of an unrelated nature?
Actually, neuroscience is showing that we are able to focus attention on and elicit certain feelings or thoughts, and by doing so, change numerous neurophysiological factors that would normally remain in unaffected if we did not conscious choose to initiate the process. That means the old view that consciousness is a product of brain has to be remodelled to incorporate the new findings that are slowly, but surely, being (re)discovered.
And while these discoveries that have been/and continue to be made about SUBJECTIVITY-MIND-THOUGHT & EMOTION have not confirmed Chopra's and others views that consciousness is the underlying reality, it does offer strong evidence to support Chopra's view that mind can influence health and well being in significant ways.
The first link has nothing to do with challenging whether the mind is an emergent phenomena of the activity of the brain. The problem for the person who has written the blog is that they have no indicated any 'relationship' to the mind or the experimenter (as opposed to the experiment) A simple double blind would indicate whether there was a link. Secondly: grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ The entangled particles appear to influence each other. Thus one influences the other in the experiment
The physical explanation would be that your brain state is actually changing your subjective experience, (and not the other way around) so your question is malformed. It's perfectly clear that physical brain states and physiological conditions are linked. You're just asserting that it's your consciousness acting as a causal agent, which is precisely what a materialist would say is an assertion without warrant.
@TWarrior: That's largely my point. B/c metaphysics rarely offers empirically falsifiable hypotheses, its claims tend to have the same (very low) value as any other unfalsifiable claim. Claiming to witness your own synapses runs afoul of the problems of any other dualistic claim. Who witnesses those synapses? Where is the witnessing entity? How does it interact with a physical system? Via the pineal gland? Most importantly, how could that claim be empirically falsified? (Prev. typo: "imagining")
Intuition is important because it allows you to appreciate or glimpse -subjectively- what is not yet entirely evident. But to make it stick, we must bring it from intuition/theory into materiality in the form of practical/hands on tech and tech that can facilitate the direct experience of being independent of the body. Then there's no more arguing and we can turn toward more productive endeavors.
No, I didn't mean that at all. I mean to say that when you write a Scientific paper you have to use a certain type of technical language. I certainly did during my academic life (One of my PHD friends wrote their papers in a more straightforward way, but this is very rare). Generally you can't use the word "Consciousness" like we can here. Gerhitchman, why don't you please state what YOU think the DCQE is telling us? I would honestly be intrigued to hear what you have to say.
What about using 'imaginings' to put the brain into specific, pre-chosen states? Like, for instance, if the scientist says "If you do this imagining for x amount of days, we can predict xyz brain state in so many weeks", or "If you do mindfulness practice for so many days, we predict a change in the frontal lobes etc". But by your logic, it's actually not my consciousness doing it, but my brain is doing it. So why cant brain do it without consciousness?
So we both accept that subjectivity, thoughts, emotions are an actual phenomenon that we can perceive. But we differ on whether it's a factor in creating future brain states or causing certain outcomes. I guess my question to you is HOW are chemicals making consciousness, and WHY is consciousness even here if it's not necessary for intelligent decision making.
So my point is that once downward causality is demonstrated (as with the two examples I gave), there is no longer any basis for the explaination that brain is doing it, because as ive explained, if brain was doing it (and subjectivity was popping out of the brain), your subjectivity wouldnt be able to change anything and everything would work according to materialist expectations and predictions. But that's already been contradicted.
Analogy of new born babies will help you understand the difference between consciousness and awareness . New born babies are conscious as they are alive .Awareness of their surrounding and environment grows as they grow over a period of life time . That's were I say , Consciousness in a baby leads it to steady growth in its awareness state of its surrounding/environment . Consciousness is " Sense of Presence" and Awareness is the power of "Now" -"present" moment. Pardon my English if you can..
Sorry. I meant the second link. All the experimenter is displaying is an 'I wonder' which has appealed to his all ready existing notions of the universe. He's highly equivocal (as he should be). Quantum entanglement and String theory are interesting but they don't show any 'intelligent' connection between people and 'the universe'.
Putting words in capitols doesn't make your assertion convincing. Please show me the peer-reviewed paper that shows that the act of observation (by a human being) is necessary in causing wave function collapse. There is no mention of 'observation causing collapse' in the 2000 paper by Kim et al. Have you read the paper?
As I've clarified, the fact that subjective experiences are correlated to physiological changes is also clearly consistent with materialism. I can repeat it if you'd like.
