🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
This was tough topic. Glad you took it by the horns. Regarding the development of consciousness from simple to complex organisms, my opinion as a microbiologist is that no line can be drawn. Microbial chemotaxis is where microbes can move with their flagella on a chemical or light gradient. It feels eerily conscious to me. The movement of ants is fundamentally no different either, it simply moves on pheromone gradient and makes random movements in its absence (just as a microbe would wiggle about in the absence of a gradient). I think Daniel Dennet is a proponent of this. Perhaps the monkey mind wandering about in thoughts is a similar but but more complex version of the same.
Thank you, for this carefully polished gem for the ages! Since YT inexplicably shadow banned ''Westside Smitty'', I have just been quietly appreciating. Western psychology spends so much time on ''personality'' theories, while the paths of liberation all go straight to consciousness, and then awareness of consciousness, as the focus. Your channel remains my preferred after dinner delicacy. Metta!
Brilliant and clear lecture, as always, Doug. Also, i finally finished the Handbook...well done! I was truly struck by the piercing yet approachable and practical wisdom of your writing and interpretation of the sutta's verses. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with our little virtual sangha! 🙏
Thanks Doug for another great discussion about consciousness. Keep up the good work. We are all the better for it. Is consciousness and the other four aggregates, A priori, or conditional and how much will I (or anyone else) win and from whom, if I (we) get the answer correct beyond a doubt? Our five aggregates are, as they say, our skin in the game. That's the way it feels at least! You can be assured that I will stay tuned.
There's definitely something to be said about the concepts of realization and understanding. Non-sentient things can understand something and replicate comprehension of a concept, but much like color, to realize it is wholely different.
Unravelling the Many-Layered Enigmas Tied to Our Awareness Dharma by Doug: A Lighthouse in the Fog of Ignorance Harbouring a diverse group of 98,000 inquisitive souls - our family is expanding! Leap and embark on this thrilling odyssey with us.
This reminds me of an online material I read that said upon attaining Nirvana the fire that burns the fuel woods known as the Skandhas is extinguished. I also remember that it stated that the stream of consciousness ceases upon the attainment of Nirvana
Very insightful something that a lot of people are talking about these days I am currently reading the book 'Galileo's Error' by Philip Goff who introduces the Panpsychicism view on consciousness I am finding it very interesting he also mentions the Mary black and white experiment. Basically Panpsychicism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality, essentially that consciousness is fundamental, this does not necessarily things like your socks are consciousness but possibly the particles that make it up are and that when these conscious particles are arranged in a certain way they can give rise to higher forms of consciousness. Still reading the book so still trying to understand it fully, but the author seems to think this could be the answer at some point to the hard problem of consciousness.
Yes this is also something David Chalmers discusses, though I'm not sure how committed he is to it. In historical terms, panpsychism is more akin to Jainism than Buddhism.
There are different gradients of consciousness. The cat or dog can dream feel emotions like shame guilt jealousy gratitude. Whales dolphins and numerous other species are clearly conscious to a certain degree. Fish are less conscious than chickens, who are less conscious than a horse and so on. Good job on articulating the hard problem of consciousness and explaining it clearly. Consciousness is the result of brain activity of social animals.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my experience reading the early texts, I have always had the idea that consciousness in buddhism as a concept is closely tied to the mental experience of awareness. This idea came from the differenciation that is made regarding the source of consciousness in the texts (eye, ear, tongue, body, mind). So it would seem that consciousness, as you pointed out in the video, is the subjective experience of awareness which arrises when one experiences the other aggregrates. Since the aggregates are transient and impermanent, then it would be the logical conclusion to make would be that consciousness is also transient and impermanent, since it depends on them. In my opinion, it could be that consciousness is universal, but I think it would be more correct to say that there is some universal property which are missing and that consciousness is the manisfestation of that property when certain conditions are met (name and form)
Through Vipassana insight meditation the deep interactions of the mind are revealed. From a past (subconscious) self-sourced identification 'I am' conceit gives way to compelling karmic intentions to act out; a present craved after urgency arises to fulfill a self-notion linking these self instances; leading to future transgressing self-charged suffering consequences. Only understanding and penetrating the Four Noble Truths can overcoming self-charged suffering: 1. Impermanence and dissatisfaction a part of life, specifically mistaking the Five Groups of Self-Attached Identification (body, feelings, perception, mental reactions and conscious attention) as individual and self-sourced is suffering. The recognition is a Signless Deliverance or non-self. 2. Played out as a Conditions Arising causes and effects history, the craved after urgency seeking to fulfill a self-notion links together a past to present to future suffering cycle. The recognition is a Desireless Deliverance or craving's role realized. 3. Eliminating the craved after urgency to fulfill a self-notion, the self-charged suffering cycle is brought to an end. Nirvana as suffering's cessation, the self-charged suffering flame is extinguished (without self-reference or self-promotion). The recognition is an Emptiness Deliverance or liberation from the self-tormenting ordeal. 4. The way to realizing craving’s elimination ending the self-charged suffering ordeal is the Middle Way Noble Eightfold Path guidance. The recognition is an Unshakable Deliverance of Mind uprooting self-referenced misunderstanding or ignorance, realizing true knowledge and wisdom ending suffering.
In the West, this is usually traced back to Descartes, and his distinction between the material body and the immaterial mind or soul. This dichotomy is usually dismissed because of the inability to describe how an immaterial mind could control or interact with a material body. I would argue that instead of a binary distinction, consciousness should be thought of as a journey along a continuum, as we gradually release the increasingly immaterial scaffolding that supports our limited understanding. Moving from the self as a material “thing” to patterns of energy, to patterns of information, to causal networks of control etc. Consciousness may ultimately be like the mathematics of infinity, which we can only know in the asymptotic limit of our increasingly immaterial scaffolding of understanding. In Buddhism this is reminiscent of the expression -- This is not mine, I am not this, This is not myself. Repeated over and over like the opening of an infinite sequence of Russian dolls.
Outwardly, we observe that Mass shapes SpaceTime. Inwardly, the same phenomena occurs. The relationship between Mass and SpaceTime is described as Mass tells SpaceTime how to bend, SpaceTime tells Mass how to move. Our consciousness is shaped by our body (mass) and tells it how to move.
Consciuousnass as Sat cit ananda. Advaita vedanta gives an interesting point of view with duality vs non duality. See Swami Sarvapryananda for better explanations.
When we know how to ride a bicycle, we are aware that we have knowledge of 'how to ride a bicycle,' but we do not consciously know distinctly/definitively HOW to ride the bicycle - we just 'go with the flow whilst balancing' - the same as when we surf. We are aware of various fluctuating conditions all coming together in one unified experience, and we then do it somehow 'miraculously.' As far as I have fathomed, this kind of miraculous, unified flow that we are aware of - a kind of 'wise knowing beyond conscious knowledge' is Prajna. And when that knowing is analysed and defined, and thus known conceptually, then it becomes something we more consciously know - just like we can know that we have eyes that see, and ears that hear, and so on. But Prajna Paramita Sutta, for example, says, "no ear, no eye, no taste,.." etc. - because Prajna is one unified flow of awareness that lacks such self-conscious notions. So I think such explicit conscious knowing is the 5th aggregate of consciousness that is described as 'empty of any true self-nature'. However, there is selfless awareness - during flow - when moving along "the great course of wisdom" - when going with the unified, selfless flow whilst balancing. It's just there's no self-CONSCIOUSNESS during a flow state... In this respect residing in pure awareness - where object and subject are the same, is Prajna/wise knowing, and consciousness requires a sense of selfhood to qualify "being conscious OF" salient subjects independent from the greater flow of the universe - a separate self-ness (just like "I" am a separate subject observing). Pure awareness, meanwhile is always all-embracing and inclusive - infinitely spacious, boundless, and so on - so that it is different from being conscious. Because when immersed in that pure flow of cognition, there's no self - just complete, pure acceptance of seamless 'what is.'
Isn’t a possible problem with viewing consciousness on its own cause an issue with the teachings of the 4 Seals? Consciousness would be the wagon and we are just talking about parts, wagon wheels etc?? Love your videos. Your channel has helped me a lot 🙏
Of course in the suttas, consciousness arises from conditions, though not just physical ones. It arises conditioned by senses and their objects. It is also said to be conditioned by, and condition, nama-rupa, which one might say covers both meaningful forms, and the sentient body. But then consciousness is also the 6th of the 6 dhatus or elements, along with the earth/solidity, water/cohesion, fire/temperature and wind/air/motion, and space. A living body is these first 5 plus the subtle rupa (eg sensitivity of the senses) dependent on the first 4, and the mind is consciousness plus feeling, perception and volitional activities whi h depend on it. And ... I have argued that Nibbana is consciousness without any object or support, unconditioned...
Thank you for your comments, Peter. Indeed, consciousness may be an element in Buddhist tradition along with the others, but the elements themselves are impermanent, as Sāriputta argues in MN 28. I did a video on this strange claim awhile back: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pJ4ekG0F8HM.html . Personally, I don't see nibbāna as involving consciousness of any kind, though I know it's a matter of some debate!
@@DougsDharma Yes, of course all the elemens, or elemental processes are impermanent, as they are part of a network of fluctuating conditions. I know my suggestion, based on various suttas, that Nibbana is objectless consciousness (The Selfless Mind, 1995) is controversial, but then 'it' would not be what one normnaloly means by consciousness, even that in the deepest jhana or formless state. I will have a watch of your video. Peter
@@peterharvey845 🙏 I will be coming out with a video on the conditionality and ending of consciousness in a couple of weeks. I'll be interested in your thoughts.
Great lecture. Sir we had recently been approached by muslim radicals in our country, they try to decieve us by saying that there are no manuscripts and scriptures of Buddhism( they claim that Muhammad is the last messenger). Thanks for ur videos, it really helps a lot. Can u pls make a video about the manuscripts of Buddhism??
I suppose the biggest problem I have with this conscious/not conscious concern with AI, is in regard to our tendency to possibly be too keen to judge an entity's Ethical Value. Wouldn't you say that one of the corner stones of Buddhism is to realize how our actions directly affect ourselves? For example, if, in some future time we had an encounter with an entity which was was very 'human like' , (but clearly AI ), and it did something which was helpful for us, would it hurt to say "Thank You" ? 🙂🙏🙏
Can we contemplate that the Buddhist basic tenet of “Desire is Suffering” as an insight to the explanation of the Duality of Consciousness Energy? …if so…Consciousness Energy IS the Nirvana of Universal Reality?
If we can understand ourselves through the lense of Nagarjuna's emptiness, then surely we can understand consciousness in the same fashion. We broke the limits of the category we called "self" once we understood it was us who constructed this term "self", therefore we can also ignore the limits we constructed "consciousness" to have as well, to get a better understanding. The "zombie" does not help here, as it still makes the distinction of there being "real" consciousness and "illusory" consciousness. But as an observer meeting a zombie person and a conscious person, you could not tell the difference between the two, so who's to say there is a distinction at all? Lastly, if we use progression, think up a "scale of consciousness" starting with humans, going over mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, ending on the thermostat and similar, then anything responding to its surrounding can have some level of consciousness ... but I would argue that makes the term "consciousness" useless.
Usually they are understood to be the same thing. Tathāgatagarbha is a concept that arose with the Mahāyāna, basically reifying our potential to become Buddhas.
For me, consciousness is an issue because, if something is conscious, then I ought to act ethically towards it. If it is capable of feeling pleasure or pain, then I ought to act ethically towards it, having its well-being in mind. I can hammer a nail or eat vegetables at peace because there is no evil required to do those tasks. The fear of doing something evil or wrong or harmful to another is what paralyzes me on this issue. And perhaps the great concern I can have over this is delusion, moha. For, as Chalmer's hard problem "solution" points out, there is no answer, no solution; what is experienced is experienced, and to go beyond that while retaining the general quality of experience, of consciousness, it just can't be. What can one wisely do here but hold in their heart the wish that all beings may be happy?
Its my speculative opinion that simple consciousness (that is, awareness of or witness to experiences) is almost like a property of space. By this i dont mean that objects have minds and know what they are. We are like that because we have physical structures that create experiences of self, memory, thought etc that the space around it merely witnesses.
Understanding as little as we do about the brain, I definitely don't think there's ground to assume that the particular chemical processes that take place in it generate simple consciousness, but that no others do. Maybe there's nothing that it's "like" to be a rock, since those processes aren't integrating and storing information about any experiences across time, but that doesn't necessarily mean no experience is happening.
I still don't understand what consciousness is. It is one of the aggregates, yet it is also said to be mutually dependent on nama-rupa in the sequence of dependent origination. If so, then how is it possible to exist before attaches to name and form? Before birth and conception. Sorry, I still don't get it. Haha.
Ah yes, well as a secular practitioner I leave such questions aside. They are of historical interest, but speculative. FWIW, there are different versions of the chain of dependent origination, and only in a couple is this mutual dependence expressed. So ... it's a bit strange.
Here's the objection I've always had with the so-called "hard problem", Searle's Chinese Room and every other variation thereof. What evidence have I that other humans are "really" conscious in this sense? All I can (or ever will) witness is their communication, behaviour, physiology and earnestness in persuading me. What right have I to favour meat-based persons and discriminate against silicon-based ones, if both are indistinguishable to me in behaviour, speech, reactions etc.?
Yes exactly. We can and do naturally assume that other humans like us have experiences like our own. But that is based on their outward behaviors, which is all we have to go on. (We don't assume that humans without behavior necessarily have experiences, like those who we take to be in comas).
Using Buddha's early teachings of consciousness we can see that the easy problem of consciousness is the only question and hard problem is a false question, in the girls example she didn't know redness before because she simply lacked mental consciousness associated with redness . This also makes sense scientifically, if you consider the brain as a machine that follows laws of physics, there can be no such extra information that is left out , in girls it's because of lacking an input which is mental consciousness associated with redness .
imo, there has to be some sort of thinking for there to be consciousness. A thermostat doesn't think.Maybe the word consciousness has a very very broad meaning, multiple meanings because the type of conscioisness that a human being has is vastly different than the type of consciousness that AI may have. I mean just calling it ARTIFICIAL means that it's quite different.
Right, something has to be going on for there to be consciousness. True, in the higher jhānas discursive thought ceases but there is perception, which is a kind of mental activity. Indeed, the progressive quieting of mental activity is why the jhānas aren't considered as pleasurable as the formless attainments.
This topic is too complicated for me to slightly understand 😅😅 I'm thinking about Citta. I heard Citta arises and disappears like all the times at a very fast speed, faster than the speed of light and one Citta at a time, no 2 Cittas arise at the same time. I imagine like when one sees a picture it's not a stationary or kind of permanent Citta but Citta that arises and disappears at a very high speed (I might add... a lot of citta.... arises and disappears one by one by one....) Cetasika arises and disappears with Citta. Cetasikas are like phassa, vedana, etc. 🤯 so confusing!
The idea that color blindness is "black and white" is a myth. I've seen descriptions and images of different types of color blindness, it's more of a way of seeing much less colors than we usually do. Greens, orange, and yellows, for example, are seen as the same yellow color and bleed into each other.
There are different sorts of colorblindness. Monochromacy is the sort I was referring to. www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and-diseases/color-blindness/types-color-blindness
Thanks for raising up such a worthy topic. However, I am afraid the terms in modern psychology and Buddhism do not have the same meaning. In Buddhism, the term consciousness means to cognize. In suttas, the meaning of self-consciousness is termed Myself, for example, in the context of: not I, not Mine, and not Myself. It is also termed Birth or Rebirth. Birth is not necessarily referring to a person with a body. But more profoundly, it refers to a self-consciousness of identity, i.e., Myself. This could be tested by Mirror Self-recognition, which infants could pass at the age of around 18 months. Some animals also pass the test. When they face a mirror, they behave differently, e.g., looking at hidden parts of their bodies. Thermometers don’t.
Recognition in Buddhism comes through perception rather than consciousness: it is perception that cognizes the world, and perception that recognizes oneself in a mirror.
@@DougsDharma My point is: not to take psychological terms literally, as Buddhist terms may be different from the current usage. Rather, those terms should be put in due context. For example, the term “Mirror Self-recognition” is just for layman’s reference, and the term “recognition” is not for technical analysis. The due context would be the objectives of the experiment: Who gets self-consciousness? And when does he get it? Mirror test is fit to answer these questions. I saw David Chalmers’ presentation in the Ted talk. I am not sure he was correct, but he mentioned Daniel Dennett. Daniel’s point I guess is quite in line with Buddhism, as both of them say self-consciousness (Myself) is merely an illusion and does not actually exist. Those are truly radical thinking (according to David’s expectation.)
I don't understand the function argument for determining if something is conscious. Doesn't function depend on the other elements of a system interacting with that object? A thermostat has a function according to humans, but not to a rock. And a rock has a function as a tool if someone hits a shell in order to open it? So can some things be conscious at some times but not others?
Well functions are objective phenomena: if something functions as a thermostat for example it won't depend on human opinions to do so; it might be human-created, it might not. But yes, that function might depend at times on a thing's context, which might include humans. For Chalmers the relevant function is one of information processing: does the thing process information or not? And then my understanding is that virtually everything can be seen as processing information to some degree. So you end up with a kind of panpsychism. Though to be fair that's only his approach, and there are other options out there for restricting the function.
It is very good that you address these deep topics, but let's not forget that the mind does not know what it does not know. What do I mean by this! I will make an analogy and I hope to express myself correctly because I am not a native English speaker. In the 19th century, the greatest physicists and astrophysicists debated the problem of the sun's combustion. They all came to the conclusion that the sun must be made of a material similar to coal, but much denser because it could not burn for billions of years. In all the hypotheses, they failed to reach correct results after calculating the combustion temperature over time. Regardless of mass, there is nothing that radiates thousands of degrees for 5 billion years. This is because nuclear fusion had not yet been discovered. Now things are clearer thanks to new scientific data. Just as even the most intelligent detective cannot solve a case without enough evidence, so are those who assume things only with the help of logic. Now let me give you some extra very important hints. In my personal experience in tantric practice, then from the experience of many acquaintances who practice, I have drawn the irrefutable conclusion that certain spiritual siddhis exist. Me personally, but also other advanced practitioners, after years of practice, began to manifest these siddhis. From common energy senses to telepathy, many serious practitioners were beginning to manifest them. For me it is something normal now after years of being around such people and I personally have some less spectacular manifestations (siddhis). ---If consciousness is in the brain, how can these siddhis exist? ---How can a man who cannot focus his mind for even 5 minutes draw any pertinent conclusions about what consciousness is? Isn't the saint who has reached the deepest stages of samadhi more credible!? -----How can we measure consciousness in the absence of a device? In conclusion, any pseudo-scientific attempt to explain what consciousness is is doomed to failure. Until he studies all possible aspects, not only a bacterium or an insect, but also the mind of the great yogis.
Thanks, siddhis can also be tested. If they are manifest, they should be verified. There are significant prizes available to people who could do such things that have yet to be claimed.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for the reply. I have common siddhis, those who have stronger ones are very modest people and I don't think they want to stand out with it. If you want to show them in public, you can still lose them. I know the case of a Russian, Serghei, who had such strong telepathy that he told us what we were thinking when we were on our way to him. He always did this with many people, but recently I heard that he lost his powers. But if someone is interested in siddhi, they can be done. In a maximum of 1 year they can be obtained with certain practices. Even those who practice reiki in a maximum of 6 months get to feel the energies with their palms. To be honest, in the West I don't really think there are many talented people in this kind of thing. The West is inclined towards material knowledge and the East towards spiritual knowledge.
Consciousness is just a continuous calculation that couples the inputs from the senses as well as memory and imagination with information processing and output producing components of the brain. There's nothing special about it, and nothing really interesting. It's not even necessary, eg; sleepwalking. It's a lot more interesting to research the behavior of individual neurons and the networks responsible for those individual processes mentioned above. Coupling them to become 'conscious' is just a cherry on top of something obvious and magnificent.
@@DougsDharma The only difference is that during sleepwalking some of the processes are decoupled to allow for maintenance and learning of the brain since the space between the neurons needs to open to allow for waste removal, and neurons tend to be unreliable while forming new connections which could lead to erratic and dangerous behavior without paralysis. That's the evolutionary incentive for sleep. It's entirely possible that "consciousness" itself can be decoupled while all the other processes are functioning, and we simply couldn't tell that the human we are talking to isn't "conscious" because they'd respond the exact same way regardless. In fact, that would explain a whole lot of things happening in this world. Isn't the idea that there's really not much going on up there at the very core of buddhism? That's what annata means. Take away your arms, your legs, your eyes, your tongue, your ears, your sensation, your memory, your imagination, eventually instincts and emotions as separate process, and what's left? The process that is supposed to tie all those things together, with nothing to do, no suffering, no awareness. And the other way around, take away the consciousness and leave everything else intact - the remaining process can perfectly well adapt and communicate in a circular rather than centralized fashion and it suddenly makes no difference.
A rock has no consciousness; but, the Earth has consciousness? Rocks are a good meditation aid. Rocks interact with people. The rock is part of a system, like a blood cell. Does a red blood cell have consciousness? There is a lymphatic system we only begin to understand.
I don’t believe a definition of consciousness based solely on actions or behavior is a good definition to begin with. So to me the artificial intelligence analogy is a rather inaccurate one as machines and other formations are just tools and modified objects. And like all “created” objects yes a consciousness or “will” is required in their formation but by no means is that consciousness “bound” to that object or necessarily localized. In the same way you could say that both statements can be true in the fact that all forms have consciousness because all forms known or that exists is touched by consciousness of an observer (living being) of that object be it through its senses or imagination. So in that same way consciousness is shared. The very same way that being interact with each other based on their actions or interpretations of those actions like your parents raising you and instilling their values or that of society that if one domino didn’t fall or even exists no reaction could be made in the first place. In the same way you could say that you and the universe share the same atoms that if the planet or universe didn’t exist neither could your body that you use to observe it all in it’s own way share it’s “conscious”.
He fails to address the question of What IS Consciousness "In-Itself"? Great Sages of the past have already answered the question. It's the "Good" of Plato, Aristotle's "Being-In-Itself", The Ground of Being of Meister Eckhart, the "One" of Plotinus, the Substance of Spinoza, the Tao of Lao Tzi, and so on. Consciousness "In-Itself" is experiential but only in the nondual state of awareness when the mind has been transcended in the state of Samadhi/Satori. Consciousness is "Rigpa", the Essence of mind, the Transcendental Absolute. Everything in the universe is Consciousness.
I Think, Consciousness is a Human concept. An ant is Consciousness, my dog is Consciousness, a sponge in certain way is Consciousness. There are levels of Consciousness, until Human Consciousness. We can develop our Consciousness, reborn as a deva or Bhrama. Or even Enlightment, wich is the highest level of Consciousness.
The so-called problem of consciousness is an "imponderable"-which is an imprecise translation of how what the Buddha used to.term issues brought to him that were variously either: a waste of time, a chicken/egg non-question, besides the point, or simply un-answerable from one's current perspective-and impossible to convey. BTW, Chalmers is a ludicrously non self-aware con artist, like so many others face-planting their way across the gee-whiz wow mind o-sphere.
No language is perfect. Certainly there is no human language that can fully deliver the Buddha's transcendental wisdom. "Consciousness" is just a word in human language that we think may capture what the Buddha meant. However, it appears that what the Buddha meant may have a much wider scope and more layers of meaning than what we are used to. For instance, consciousness of the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body are all biological processes that cause us to be aware of something with no interpretation. On the other hand, the consciousness of the mind is mental and it is this consciousness that interprets and determines what we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, think, and act. Furthermore, in the Mahayana sector, there are also the manas consciousness and the alayavijnana consciousness that may not be explained through any language. Although language is instrumental in helping us to gain knowledge, however, as the Buddha often pointed out, we should not cling onto anything including language, for any attachment confines us and keeps us from seeing anything outside of their scopes. With persistent contemplation of the Buddha's teachings without clinging onto anything, we may gradually and eventually understand the Buddha's real meanings.
