Arguing God from Consciousness | Episode 804 | Closer To Truth

  Рет қаралды 30,679

Closer To Truth

Closer To Truth

Күн бұрын

Some say that consciousness exists independent of brain, apart from the material world, and from this mystery some infer the existence of God. Featuring interviews with J.P. Moreland, Bede Rundle, Richard Swinburne, Quentin Smith, and Colin McGinn.
Season 8, Episode 4 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#God #Consciousness

Пікірлер: 758
@wingflanagan
@wingflanagan 3 жыл бұрын
"Consciousness as an illusion" is incoherent, because an illusion, by definition, requires an observer to be tricked by it. When you say "my consciousness is an illusion", who is the implied "I" perceiving the illusion? If "I" can perceive the illusion that I exist, then I must exist in order to appreciate the illusion. But if I exist, I cannot be an illusion, because I am conscious of the illusion I'm perceiving. It's another form of the "I am lying" paradox.
@ph9048
@ph9048 3 жыл бұрын
Wing Flanagan Well said.
@Darksaga28
@Darksaga28 3 жыл бұрын
But atheists won't accept facts like this one.
@waerlogauk
@waerlogauk 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness mat be an illusion not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but rather in the sense that it is not what it appears to be. There is no paradox here.
@wingflanagan
@wingflanagan 3 жыл бұрын
@@waerlogauk Good point, but I would respectfully disagree. Addressing the nature of consciousness (what it's made of) is what you are talking about. It may be correct to say that "it is an illusion that consciousness is non-physical", but it is incorrect (or paradoxical) to say it IS an illusion. I know I exist, i.e. my consciousness exists. It FEELS like something to exist. I experience qualia - the sensation of colors, sounds, of existence itself. What my senses report may be partly or entirely illusory, but my consciousness which experiences these things is most certainly real, whether it is constituted from patterns of electrical activity in my brain, a non-physical soul (unlikely!), or some as-yet-unidentified quantum field.
@leocmen
@leocmen 3 жыл бұрын
@@wingflanagan this is quickly becoming a discussion about the semantic meaning of the term "illusion".
@GhostLightPhilosophy
@GhostLightPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
I love how this show gives a balanced and fair view of the different views available. It’s the best way to get closer to truth
@ademjrad9994
@ademjrad9994 7 ай бұрын
No.u feel he’s more inclined to rejecting God..acting as if really wants God.
@garybalatennis
@garybalatennis 3 жыл бұрын
SUGGESTION. Dr. Kuhn, you should consider offering a ZOOM VIDEO CALL to your many viewers and supporters for 60-90 minutes. You can speak about a topic and give folks a chance to ask questions. It’d be great publicity for the further global growth of CTT!
@ufotv-viral
@ufotv-viral 3 жыл бұрын
👽👍.
@harrylen1688
@harrylen1688 3 жыл бұрын
After 50 years one evening had a very interesting moment I realize I was the solo creator off my life's confusion worries and lifes efforts. I laugh so hard on myself that feeling hasn't come back But Im so happy cause what happened was beyond me .
@allahgod298
@allahgod298 Жыл бұрын
Mr.Richard Swinburne broke it down very very well.👌
@karniskavva
@karniskavva 3 жыл бұрын
You are throwing out important content like no other Robert!
@glynemartin
@glynemartin 3 жыл бұрын
Lol!!
@gregdietrich57
@gregdietrich57 3 жыл бұрын
@6:50 "Cmon, J.P.!" LOL
@nim314159
@nim314159 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness is real, as Descartes stated. The problem is to explain why we perceive what we perceive.
@jamesruscheinski8602
@jamesruscheinski8602 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness connects the physical with the spiritual. Choice connects quantum possibilities to free will; language connects the human person to the mind of the universe; awareness connects physical reality to fullness. In so doing consciousness demonstrates human experience of God.
@tugboatriverengineerjourne2886
@tugboatriverengineerjourne2886 3 жыл бұрын
This is gold!!
@surendrakverma555
@surendrakverma555 3 жыл бұрын
God bless you. Great search Regards
@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084
@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 5 ай бұрын
These complex arguments for the existence of God are interesting but in my opinion just a consequence of the nature of our brain, as was mentioned. If there was evidence for God and he wanted us to know him, we would without exception. However we don't, at least many of us, but so many more think they do.
@robertthomas4234
@robertthomas4234 2 жыл бұрын
Four elements and five senses, and man a spirit in love...
@vernonthomasbrav9883
@vernonthomasbrav9883 3 жыл бұрын
I'd like to see this question being brought up with Dr. Donald Hoffman. Think his work is leading with the fundamental agent of conciousness
@dnyandeopatil6396
@dnyandeopatil6396 3 жыл бұрын
The Knowledge of Human consciousness given here is the experience, which we always get in deep Meditation and at this stage when we detach from the physical body and we see our self as eternal light sitting between Hypothalamus and Pituitary gland of Brain as Controller. In reality, we are not this mortal physical body but a point of metaphysical light energy i.e Consciousness Quantum Spiritual Energy (CQSE i.e. I soul an conscious observer), which is very subtle, immortal. We are "Consciousness energy" communicated with Human brain through quasi-crystal geometrical code frequency language in quantum space. Human brain has ability to “connect” and understand this quasi-crystal geometrical code frequency language through mechanism of Sacred Geometry field of "Shree Yantra". In scientific experiment consciousness acts as an observer. CQSE is itself consciousness creator and operates human body through its control circuit via brain and power circuit via subtle light body. In Short CQSE's basic frequencies acts on brain by creating vibrations through Aether energy (quantum vacuum energy) medium, which creates electromagnetic bio-photons through torsion waves and these acts on microtubules of brain as per quantum computing, which gives signals to neurons for transmission of vibrations under mechanism of unified sacred geometric field which collapse of quantum wave functions of CQSE's hyperplanck space which gives experience to us. CQSE with the help of 10-dimensional Strings which are connected to 16 Aethric energy points (as per pic), creates Aether energy in Planck's small space called Hilbert Space under Lagrangian mechanics and this Aetheric energy gives power to 37 trillion cells of our body with 7 major and 6 minor energy centers. and with the help of brain's Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Pineal gland and with 100 billion neurons, the CQSE control all the movements of our body. CQSE give program to DNA via morphogenetic field to build organs of body. We carry information of present Karmic account in quasi-crystal geometry code of Aether energy for next birth to create Human body as per our Karmic account. The Universe is Collective Dynamics Consciousness of GOD's Quantum Mind, Intellect and Resolves (Sanskars) in form of Aether energy neural network Cosmic grid, which he keep in form of storage of Aether frequencies as Akashic record in White hole and His Intellect acts as Gforce to create 16 forces i.e Gravity, Electromagnetic, Nuclear force etc though his divine virtues and power in super quantum gravity field which works on these Aether frequencies to create reality of universe through Resolves (Sanskars) i.e Cosmometry. The patterns of E8 lattice geometry which created from Star geometry of self bounding all matter of creation with Time as Cyclic Geometrical Conscious entity with infinite Sacred geometrical patters of Aether energies. This is the real Cosmic dance of Natraj... Akashic records are Quantum Mind of GOD, the sustenance of entire cosmic creation by one Gforce is Intellect of GOD and playing Cosmic dance in Cyclic Sacred Geometrical patterns (Cosmometry) are Resolves (Sanskars) of Almighty GOD. Cosmometry is describing the divine patterns of GOD for universe creation.
@jelanievillasenor814
@jelanievillasenor814 3 жыл бұрын
Damnnnn! Well fucking described! Give these people some DMT AND 5MEODMT!
@BarryMahfood
@BarryMahfood 3 жыл бұрын
I'd love it if you'd interview Bernardo Kastrup. Very well thought out ideas about consciousness, thanks!
@Mr.Hister
@Mr.Hister Жыл бұрын
“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself” - Carl Sagan This always struck me as a Christian listening to an atheist. A happy medium. But what is the cosmos, was it sacrificed to be able for us to enjoy it? Or is it still there knowing what we know about being present .
@bretnetherton9273
@bretnetherton9273 3 жыл бұрын
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
@bruceylwang
@bruceylwang 3 жыл бұрын
Linking consciousness with God is rather simple. God exists and God has consciousness, so God passes his consciousness to the world. Scientifically, when you “accept” the concept of “intangible mass-energy”, you would be able to construct an intangible structure and analyze the intangible world. Such as, Parent’s characters will pass on to the baby by Mental Gene. Intangible mass-energy, Mental Structure and Mental Gene are the keywords to approach the intangible world.
@PrestonPittman
@PrestonPittman 2 жыл бұрын
When my brain recalls inappropriate images, or negative thoughts,... my conciousness will bring my brains thoughts into obedience to what I would rather my brain think or remember.
@Arunava_Gupta
@Arunava_Gupta 5 ай бұрын
Consciousness is always associated with a conscious, experiencing personality so I didn't understand what is the problem (refer: Kuhn's doubt at the end of the JP Moreland segment). Or, am I missing something? Could someone please help me in this regard?🙏
@tyamada21
@tyamada21 3 жыл бұрын
A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice verse. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to between making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always to respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hLhld8eiz7Pcl3U.html Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo www.youtube.com
@patrickboudreau3846
@patrickboudreau3846 Жыл бұрын
I cant help but imagin men like these, some 2 thousand years ago, discussing what was the way to get closer to truth ! What God was the real one amongst numerous deities of that epoch. They, the jewish thinkers, decided on one God who has the powers of all the others, one great God. Today, we still beleive. Beleive that if we don’t we might be sent to hell by that same all loving great God. The story is adapted to people living thousands of years ago and yet, seemingly very intelligent people are still stuck in the hope the Daddy God might save us after we die.
@uremove
@uremove 3 жыл бұрын
I think the best argument from consciousness was Schrödinger’s... that consciousness is foundational (irreducible) and universal. In other words - we are one and the same process of consciousness living many seemingly separate existences in many different bodies. That Unity - of which we are all part, is what we call God. “Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity-the One of Parmenides-of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God-with a capital 'G'. Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we said, this is not astonishing. If its world-picture does not even contain blue, yellow, bitter, sweet-beauty, delight and sorrow-, if personality is cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to human mind?”
@uremove
@uremove 3 жыл бұрын
Pat Ehrenfeld Thank you Pat! Yes, I found and read your comment. Very interesting, though I didn’t understand some of what you were saying. I can’t see what YT could possibly object to!
@georgedoyle2487
@georgedoyle2487 Жыл бұрын
Well said! And great quote from Scrodinger
@marcosgalvao3182
@marcosgalvao3182 3 жыл бұрын
There is evidences of consciousness without a brain , near death experiences with reliable data about what was happening when the pacient was clinically death ( they describe every detail in emergency room )
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
Near dead experiences are exactly that, not dead yet.
@divertissementmonas
@divertissementmonas 3 жыл бұрын
You ought to look into what is meant by being pronouced 'clinically dead'... it will change your understanding. It did mine!
@marcosgalvao3182
@marcosgalvao3182 3 жыл бұрын
@@divertissementmonas no heart function , no brain function , flatline ..
@marcosgalvao3182
@marcosgalvao3182 3 жыл бұрын
@@divertissementmonas read about the neurologist Eben Alexander , he studied brains for years in Havard .
@marcosgalvao3182
@marcosgalvao3182 3 жыл бұрын
@@divertissementmonas it's clear that qualia have no physical properties , read the book of Bernardo kastrup ( why materialism is baloney ) .
@minormayor7899
@minormayor7899 3 жыл бұрын
I agree with JP
@huyhuynh9523
@huyhuynh9523 3 жыл бұрын
16:05 "My conviction swings wildly..." Strange, his conviction is not that convincing.
@tomashull9805
@tomashull9805 3 жыл бұрын
Too close to truth...
@dionysianapollomarx
@dionysianapollomarx 3 жыл бұрын
It should not be. He's an ightheist.
@tomashull9805
@tomashull9805 3 жыл бұрын
@@dionysianapollomarx His view, if that is really his view, is selfrefuting...
@dionysianapollomarx
@dionysianapollomarx 3 жыл бұрын
@@tomashull9805 it isn't a position of belief. It's not even disbelief. It isn't convincing because it isn't supposed to, as the fence keeps moving, because it is an explicitly anti-dogmatic position. The guy wants to be a theist to believe in God. But he's better off just being an ightheist, meaning he's reading justificatory arguments from anyone discussing theological positions of any kind. His main fault is to have convictions about religion at all, but if he's an ightheist, doesn't really matter if it is for or against. He should just treat both sides of the conversation like a seasoned spectator would, by looking at the rigor of arguments. Belief comes at the end of inquiry. As for religion and its assumptions about the universe, the end of inquiry for physics and metaphysics is still far. At this point, he's an unconscious ightheist because he even allows himself to move to and fro from one position to the other. It isn't a self-refuting position. It is saying you believe nothing about God or about arguments against God and you are also not agnostic that you doubt if God is knowable. Your interest is in following the trail of justificatory arguments, not in claiming a position of belief or disbelief in God. You're an academic, and your skin in the game isn't for or against religion or against the knowability of God, but in reading the trail of breadcrumbs wherever they fall on their own merit.
@tomashull9805
@tomashull9805 3 жыл бұрын
@@dionysianapollomarx Your argument is self-refuting, because disbelief is a form of belief, because nobody can be certain of God's non-existence, even the world's most prominent "atheist", Dawkins, conceded that he is actually an agnostic... Just like Dawkins confirmed, there are no true atheists, unless they are blindly driven by their fanatical belief... “In The God Delusion he outlines 7 stances toward the probability that God exists. He put himself into category 6, a strong atheist but less than 100% certain that God does not exist. He states he is less than 100% certain as a matter of principle - because a mere human cannot be 100% certain of anything. Only fanatical belief results in 100% metaphysical certitude..." There is a huge difference what someone wants to believe and what he can logically be certain of… kzfaq.info/get/bejne/msybateImZiddWg.html
@nikolamaretic8988
@nikolamaretic8988 3 жыл бұрын
Atheist here. It is surprising that all of the atheist philosophers are basically saying that consciousness is an example of so called strong emergence which itself needs explaining. It signals that we either do not fully understand how the constituting parts, neurons and/or their activity form the emergent phenomena, or simply that there is something else to it. That something might be anything and we just don't know. There is no example of real proven strong emergence and I don't see why counsiousness should be an exception. Also, saying that the lyon is clearly conscious if it is chasing me means ignoring the hard problem of consciousness. The presenter shows great patience with some of these philosophers. I can not understand how someone can be a philosopher and trivialize this question. I swear it puzzles me more than the question itself
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
If we become technologically sophisticated enough to build a Matrix that scans a brain and presents the brain 's owner a virtual environment that perfectly matches his imagination could we then say we have solved the hard problem?
@robertproffitt287
@robertproffitt287 3 жыл бұрын
SIGNATURE IN THE CELL..This book.& author not as only studiied all of Darwins nautural selections..but has proven that there is intelligent design in DNA. What a blow to athiest community
@kaumohlamonyane272
@kaumohlamonyane272 3 жыл бұрын
I believe morality is a better argument than consciousness
@Yameen200
@Yameen200 3 жыл бұрын
Yeah thats possible coz morality is the effects of consiousness and something we deal with on an everyday basis. The fact that consiousness is affected by the brains functioning prevents people from leaping to consiousness = immaterial soul
@cvsree
@cvsree 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness is not an illusion. First thought that arises from consciousness is the "I thought" This root thought transforms into other thoughts like "I am this body" These evolving thoughts gives rise to the illusion we live in. Holding on to the root thought and finding it's source is the Goal of Yoga Once we reach it, there is no false identification and hence no death
@SandipChitale
@SandipChitale 3 жыл бұрын
The discussions of consciousness should first define the spectrum of simplest to complex states of consciousness. Part of the issue is the amorphous definition of consciousness. Smelling of garlic and stating that back to interrogator can be a simplest form of consciousness based on previously remembered named pattern. The complex end is the conscious entity thinking about and trying to understand what it is i.e. self reflection. BTW the former is easy to implement in machines these days and almost not mysterious. for example when a smelling machine is looking up the pattern of sensory input pattern of chemicals in garlic with the previously stored named smell perception patterns, comparing, matching (albeit fuzzily) one and preparing to report the match and also retrieving related patterns of related memory patterns in active processing cache - that process can be thought of as the machine experiencing that smell. Secondly the discussions should include not only when the consciousness is fully intact, but when it is diminished or completely absent because of corresponding changes to brain stucture (injury or surgery) or state (chemical induced - drugs, anesthesia or hypoxia in NDEs). Then talk about the degree of diminishing and corresponding degree of changes to brain structure and state. In diminished states the consciousness is more and more not interesting. Then honestly discuss is this because of correlations or causation - like any other scientific investigation. I know it is fashionable to say correlations is not causation. I am not sure until what degree correlation is not causation. Also how is it that a consciousness does not instantiate in more that one substrate as far as we know. Lastly starting from an assertion that consciousness is not physical is denying our agreement that there is no evidence of consciousness without a physical substrate. Just asserting does not make it so. We have to conduct observations to conclude that. As an aside: How come NDEs only happen when the brain structure and state is intact? Are there significant NDE cases that happen after say a month or even a week of declaration of death?
@thriceconcussed1
@thriceconcussed1 3 жыл бұрын
Your final premise is weak, I would have concluded with the prior premise. There is no way to investigate whether a subject persists after death to have an experience, let alone an NDE, but this fact does not entail that a subject of conscious experience having an NDE _does_ _not_ persist after death. If a subject survived bodily death, and had any experience, there would be no way to set up an experiment to verify it, b/c empirical methodologies could not extend beyond the physical universe (by definition). Your last premise tacitly makes the case that the natural world is the only thing that exists, because the physical sciences prove that to be the case; therefore, your final premise is a circular argument. If a non-physical world exists, then the physical sciences are improper tools to discover that realm (an uncontroversial logical possibility). Now, _ceteris_ _paribus_ , none of what I said is an argument in favor of a non-physical world. Rather, I am clarifying what is or is not the subject if scientific quantification. There could not be a non-physical world, and we would observe ther same things that we would if there was, and that is why the topic still always be debated.
@SandipChitale
@SandipChitale 3 жыл бұрын
@@thriceconcussed1 In a way I was trying to show that NDEs as they are often used as examples of disembodied consciousness or self are not correct examples of it. The point being the experience of being outside the body is not the same as the location where the experience instantiates. It instantiates in the brain. When I dream of skiing in alps, does not mean the experience was instantiating on the ski slopes of alps. it was still in my brain. the subject matter of the experience was me skiing on the ski slopes. This is a standard confusion between the subject matter of the experience and the instantiation of the experience. when people report fantastic spiritual experiences, no one denies that their experience was instantiated. The question is about the truth of the subject matter of the experience. BTW we routinely accept this about non religious or non spiritual experiences or dreams. But for some reason people conflate the truth of the subject matter of the experience and the instantiation of the experience/dream itself. People experience weird subject matters under influence of DMT (say), and then say that the subject matter of their experience is true as if it was same as the fact of their experience. To me those are two different things. Hope it makes sense.
@kasumiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
@kasumiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin 3 жыл бұрын
Leaving solipsism aside, I always wonder what kind of metaphysical process comes about that makes it possible for each and every person to have a first person perspective? Does each person take turns having awareness, and that consciousness jumps around from person to person througout history, one at a time? Or is there some "parallel processing" going on that makes it possible for everyone to have their own consciousness simultaneously? I'd think that God would sort of be an grand "administrator" that ensures that billions of people would have their own perspective, and to help prevent one's consciousness from seeping into another person.
@conciousnessconscious4653
@conciousnessconscious4653 2 жыл бұрын
Agreed (:
@richardmasters8424
@richardmasters8424 3 жыл бұрын
As I am a Problacist (see Problacism.com) I believe the universe guides me in what It wants me to do and how I should make it happen. I consider myself to be one of the most blessed on this planet and I do not care whether anybody believes me or not.
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
So, the universe has a plan for you huh ? What if you don't like that plan ? :)
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Than we should sing, dance and shoot guns, like in Bollywood movies.
@richardmasters8424
@richardmasters8424 3 жыл бұрын
ioioiotu - I have to like it, I have no other option.
@ferdinandkraft857
@ferdinandkraft857 3 жыл бұрын
Problabullshit.
@richardmasters8424
@richardmasters8424 3 жыл бұрын
Ferdinand Kraft - isn’t it obvious the universe was conscious at the very beginning? - how else was the wavefunction collapsed without any observer to bring about evolution (by chance and probability) before human consciousnesses came along?
@jamesruscheinski8602
@jamesruscheinski8602 Жыл бұрын
God's free will sovereignty
@tedgrant2
@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын
My digital piano is not conscious and doesn't require fine-tuning. Dare I say the obvious, it's good enough for Jehovah
@faisal4455357
@faisal4455357 2 жыл бұрын
If you take out language from the context, where consciousness goes? As experiment; we bring up a human without letting him learn any language, will consciousness be still there 🤔
@faisal4455357
@faisal4455357 2 жыл бұрын
I wish , it could read by dr Lawrence , and answered some day
@moisesdumape3768
@moisesdumape3768 3 жыл бұрын
God lead to consciousness.all of us have.but how to be conscious?.if we use our ❤️ the will give information to our subconscious to become conscious.
@mortymcfry7944
@mortymcfry7944 Жыл бұрын
Science is a miracle
@alriktyrving5051
@alriktyrving5051 3 жыл бұрын
Time to look up and speak to Bernardo Kastrup.
@warrenmodoono905
@warrenmodoono905 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness is not created but creation is an act of consciousness.
@joymukherji2702
@joymukherji2702 3 жыл бұрын
Advaita Vedanta makes it very clear. Look up Sarvapriyananda on KZfaq for in-depth understanding of the Upanishads. Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi are great teachers too.
@micronda
@micronda 3 жыл бұрын
Something from 'The wave function of the universe' emerges in the brain. We call it consciousness. To see it fully requires 'A minds eye', 'Presence of mind' and a 'Soul' behind it. During sleep, presence of the conscious mind relinquishes duty to the subconscious mind, which peeks through the 'Minds eye', at the emergence, to do its thing (dream, get scared, give insight, solve problems, etc..). When the conscious mind wakes, it applies rationale to the subconscious's visions to gain knowledge. When the conscious mind becomes super-conscious, it sees deeper into the emergence and experiences something enlightening. But why?
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps because particles of brain radiate energetic potentials in all directions, so those plains are flat from information point of reference. It's like some same physical value exist everywhere on surface of a planet, on a plane at same distance from gravity center. Problem is, we can't imagine planes and fields, we think stuff can exist only in localized area, like only here and now, not all around the plane at once like gravity strength does.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
Isn't it more likely that, because it's impossible for unconscious people to build civilizations to support billions of us, evolution invented the conscious process so that we could better organize ourselves to more adequately fill our ecological niche?
@jungatheart6359
@jungatheart6359 3 жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL This evolution which 'invents' and has moral and social intention and the desire for everything to fulfil the place it has designated for it in some kind of...design? You hear about it from scientists a lot and they seem completely unaware of what they're doing. I call it "theovolution".
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
@@jungatheart6359 I was thinking that everyone would understand that when evolution 'invents' it does so through the mechanisms of evolution only. Guess I was wrong to write in poetic fashion. So, to be clear, evolution is not a conscious process and there is no thought or moral consideration or intention or desire involved and no designation of a 'space' for a species to fit into. 'Ecological niche' is a metaphor for the particular complex environmental circumstance/dynamics that define/constrain/influence/affect the being of a species. Now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up, doesn't it seem more likely that it was the evolutionary process that spawned the conscious process as a means to transform civilizations from populations of unconscious millions into ones of conscious billions thereby stuffing our ecological niche to bursting and enabling us to carve new niches (Agent Smith said it best, "Like cancer")? Doesn't that seem more likely than that some nebulous, intangible, disinterested, mystical 'force' is responsible for our extraordinarily fecund success? If we are suffused with this magic then why not all the other billions of species living on this planet and with whom we have so much in common?
@fins59
@fins59 29 күн бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Well said.
@SB-vw1wb
@SB-vw1wb 3 жыл бұрын
Robert Lawrence I personally invite you to discuss consciousness with me. Just think what could be the idea of consciousness from a common man's perspective who is not having any expertise in that field. Perhaps you may find it or in your words you may reach one step closer to truth.
@DavidSmith-wp2zb
@DavidSmith-wp2zb 3 жыл бұрын
@11:31 Richard Swinbern has such an unusual way of speaking english that you could either be perplexed or convinced, simultaneously, by anything he said. Imagine reciting the weather report that way. Don't be fooled Larry.
@warrenpanabang3341
@warrenpanabang3341 3 жыл бұрын
According to spiritology, death is memory and consciousness is life. Life is composed of love and lite. Life is the father of existence while death is the mother. Death as a mother of existence is composed of time and space. In between death and life that connects is awareness. Awareness is intuition, time is instinct while space is information. Lite on the other hand is thought while love is feeling. While thought is in the mind and feeling is in the emotion, consciousness is in the conscience. Conscience is god. Mind, conscience and emotion compose the soul. This world creatures are in is the only child of life and death and it is awareness which is god that god is good and evil is bad. Let us evade sin.
@stancatalina8163
@stancatalina8163 Жыл бұрын
Having a key and searching for what it opens?
@Ndo01
@Ndo01 3 жыл бұрын
Quintin's argument only refutes the Abrahamic conception of god/cosmic consciousness that has some kind of goodness
@HomoVastans
@HomoVastans 3 жыл бұрын
There is an important aspect of consciousness that has been left unexamined here. Its relationship to memory. Science tells us that we dream, yet we often don't remember our dreams. Does this mean we were unconscious when we are dreaming?
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
Memory is being conscious of past conscious experience.
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Not sure about actual memories, but memory of experience definitely makes masturbation possible.
@glynemartin
@glynemartin 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Therefore consciousness precedes memory. No consciousness = no memory...
@ameerhamza4816
@ameerhamza4816 3 жыл бұрын
We forget other thing in life as well
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
@@glynemartin Exactly.
@weirdwilliam8500
@weirdwilliam8500 2 жыл бұрын
The guy at 16:15 really nailed it. All the evidence is that brain activity produces consciousness. Saying “but it’s just so amazing, though” isn’t a counter argument.
@fluentpiffle
@fluentpiffle 2 жыл бұрын
Truth is so unpopular though!
@georgedoyle2487
@georgedoyle2487 Жыл бұрын
“All the evidence is that brain activity produces consciousness” That is totally false and is a (Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence). That is the Cherry Picking Fallacy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence! The fact is that all the so called “evidence” from brain scans etc only explains the easy problem of consciousness not the (hard problem) of phenomenal consciousness. Sorry but you are either gullible, lying or are ignorant of the current situation. If this was factually true and supported by so much irrefutable “evidence” there wouldn’t even be any discussion and there wouldn’t be hundreds of books still being written in order to deal with this deep metaphysical problem. The irony is that it’s only a “hard problem” if you presuppose that this self refuting, strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system is the ultimate ground of reality, existence and experience. Even if we thought that we had “proven” this using the “natural sciences” so what? It’s still totally self refuting and the “natural sciences” can not “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer!! It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be!! “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) “Science progresses one funeral at a time” - (Max Planck) Sorry but the fact is that reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience are not made of the accidental arrangement, of blind, mindless meaningless “matter” they are made of (what matters). This is basic philosophy 101 and we are all clearly on equal footing at the very least under relativism, that is under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism!! Furthermore, I’m not making any appeals to authority but according to the award winning neuroscientist and philosopher Dr Raymond Tallis… “The assumption that ‘if science can’t see it, then it is isn’t real’ has nothing to do with science and everything to do with ‘scientism’-belief in the ‘omnicompetence of science’; more precisely, in the omnicompetence of a sub-set of sciences-the natural, rather than the social, sciences” Dr Tallis goes on to highlight the fact that… “There is something dodgy, of course, about the claim that an empirical science can address essentially metaphysical questions such as whether or not human freedom is real” “Let us begin by giving all proper respect to what neuroscience can tell us about ourselves: it reveals some of the most important conditions that are necessary for behavior and awareness. What neuroscience does not do, however, is provide a satisfactory account of the conditions that are sufficient for behavior and awareness. ... The pervasive yet mistaken idea that neuroscience does fully account for awareness and behavior is neuroscientism, an exercise in science-based faith. ... This confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions lies behind the encroachment of “neuroscientistic” discourse on academic work in the humanities...” Equally, I’m not making any appeals to authority but according to the Director of the Institute for Mind and Consciousness Professor David Chalmers… The qualities of experience are irreducible to the parameters of material arrangements - whatever the arrangement is - in the sense that it is impossible, even in principle, to de- duce those qualities from these parameters (David Chalmers). “Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.” (David Chalmers). I rest my case!! Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!!
@georgedoyle2487
@georgedoyle2487 Жыл бұрын
@@fluentpiffle “Truth is so unpopular though” Ho the irony!! Was that a rational claim or was it just determined by “matter”? Was that an absolute “truth” claim or was it just the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur and illusions of free will?, that is delusions of having the rational high ground lol!! Was that an absolute truth claim or was it just the delusions of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas? Your world view. your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! “Science progresses one funeral at a time” - (Max Planck) “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is truth, that is value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, objective morality, universals, the conscious agent, free will and with it rationality, truth, and science itself than to admit the soul/self. Once again, the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very (dogmatism) of which he accuses the religious believer, and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no religious believer has ever dreamed!! I rest my case!!
@weirdwilliam8500
@weirdwilliam8500 Жыл бұрын
@@georgedoyle2487 Cool quotes. They don’t really apply to what I said, though. And I never said if science can’t see something then it isn’t real. That would be an ontological claim, and I was talking about epistemology. Whatever the true fundamental state of affairs actually is, currently all of the good evidence that we have supports consciousness being a material process. Whether or not we have incomplete evidence is irrelevant, and not a fallacy. The fact remains that when confronted with two hypotheses, it rational for me to accept the one with good evidence over the one with no good evidence. If you want to change anyone’s mind, go get some evidence. By evidence, I mean anything that reliably differentiates imaginary things from real things. If certain theological traditions didn’t require a soul to exist, in order to allow for the various emotionally comforting beliefs surrounding an afterlife, then I don’t think this would even be up for debate. Calling consciousness a metaphysical issue is just begging the question, especially when all the evidence suggests it is a chemical, cellular, and neurological issue.
@georgedoyle2487
@georgedoyle2487 Жыл бұрын
“Brain activity produces consciousness” The is beyond ironic!! Sorry but the irony and the absurdity is that by attempting to banish the belief in the fundamental nature of [mind and consciousness/monotheism/rationality/logos/objective morality] strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists end up with what has been described as the ultimate in polytheism…the ultimate irony and absurdity, a universe in which every particle has god like capacities, and the ability to transcend inexplicably from insentient, blind, mindless, purposeless, meaningless senseless “matter” to intangible, inexplicable phenomenal consciousness. The ultimate irony and absurdity (Polytheism)! The belief that the parts are greater than the whole and have God like capabilities (Polytheism), apart from the ability to extend into an afterlife of course!! Now that would be going too far and would be irrational lol!! Polytheism/relativism: The ultimate self deconstruction and self contradiction!! The ultimate self own on multiple levels!!!
@lucianmaximus4741
@lucianmaximus4741 3 жыл бұрын
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
@tomjackson7755
@tomjackson7755 3 жыл бұрын
Why do you always post this nonsense?
@lucianmaximus4741
@lucianmaximus4741 3 жыл бұрын
@@tomjackson7755 It will make sense in the Far Future. Thanks for your GOoD observation.
@tomjackson7755
@tomjackson7755 3 жыл бұрын
@@lucianmaximus4741 Great "story". Why do you always post this nonsense?
@ligidaykurin9106
@ligidaykurin9106 3 жыл бұрын
Moreland is right
@gr33nDestiny
@gr33nDestiny 3 жыл бұрын
Can you summarise all different faiths ideas about animals and why humans are supposed different?
@johnbrzykcy3076
@johnbrzykcy3076 3 жыл бұрын
Hmmm... do you mean why humans are different from each other or from animals? To summarize the ideas of "all different faiths" regarding animals is quite a task. I can't do it... maybe someone else can tackle it. However I do believe the Creator created animals to inhabit the earth. Humans are created in the "image of God" which I believe includes imagination and Free Will, unlike most animals.
@gr33nDestiny
@gr33nDestiny 3 жыл бұрын
John Brzykcy Basically it’s that, why we think we are better, the Egyptians seemed to be into hybrids for instance
@leocmen
@leocmen 3 жыл бұрын
Nice material You should study the *TAO*
@Music_Creativity_Science
@Music_Creativity_Science 3 жыл бұрын
To me the best explanation is that it is built into matter in some way which we can not detect (in the same way as dark matter for example). And that it was built into matter and the evolutionary process by a natural transformer, natural intelligence which existed and itself had evolved in the "cosmic soup" prior to the Big Bang. If something never began to exist, changes in what has existed creates structures which forms natural intelligence, in the same way as clouds very seldom create 10 cm hail balls for example. In other words, we are not the first intelligent existence, but maybe the first with an existence in the form of matter. This is called evolutionary pandeism, there never has been a Creator, just a transformer which transformed itself in the Big Bang process, with an intent and vision. It wanted to experience itself in a richer way (with matter) than it could, just being a thinking entity/structure.
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
Do you think there can be an infinite past ?
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Yes, if universe is finite in size and light curve around edges of a sphere, radiating past back inside the structure.
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
@@xspotbox4400 If the past is infinite, doesn't that mean an infinite number of events must have happened before we got here ? So how did we get here ?
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Why not devise an experiement and find out. We could construct a sphere coated in reflecting material, so it would function like a mirror in all directions inside a ball. Than we must ignite some hydrogen plasma in it's center and just let process go on. Plasma would radiate light, potential will bounce from mirror coated walls and radiate back to plasma, until something must happen with waves of energy confined to that space. We could try all kinds of stuff with that device, like insert some pulses into plasma and see if shaped energy waves can produce lasting patterns or radiate some other other light waves from outside the sphere and such. Because this is how we should imagine infinity, relative to past infinity or infinite can't be consistent. If past can't influence infinite process, than infinite phenomena would be same as random chances or like nothing at all, since it wouldn't have any continuation. No past, no process and therefore no motion.
@Music_Creativity_Science
@Music_Creativity_Science 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu "If the past is infinite, doesn't that mean an infinite number of events must have happened before we got here ? So how did we get here ?" No, imo infinity is just a mathematical and/or abstract concept, it is never possible to reach any form of real infinity* even if a changing existence never began (prior to Big Bang). * Number of changes, number of atoms, number of universes, amount of energy, space volume etc. When you say "events", that is basically changes down to the lowest possible quantum level (whatever that is) and energy balancing. If one says that "something" began to exist, then what prevented it to begin to exist before it actually did? And that must have been a waiting principle with a potential (like a cloud forming a lightning), which itself ofc is existence.
@superduck97
@superduck97 3 жыл бұрын
I would like to know how self preservation was developed in single cell organisms.
@ferdinandkraft857
@ferdinandkraft857 3 жыл бұрын
The standard evolutionary explanation is that non-self-preservating organisms simply died and didn't pass their genes to future generations.
@2Worlds_and_InBetween
@2Worlds_and_InBetween 3 жыл бұрын
I'm starting to think Consciousness is a substrate, or field of a, the universe... and we be something of a fruit of that substrate, growing and evolving out of that
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
We know how forces are exchanged and charges are conserved, what an interesting notion from theist. I would very much like to know how charges are conserved. So there's that potential going in stuff and nothing happens until it suddenly does. And it's always the same, charge seems to build up until certain level, that it snap and jump somewhere else. This model sounds intuitive but it's really not that simple, because energy can't exist on it's own, potential is always related to potentials in it's environment. So there's that process going on where charges are streams of radiation, traveling in all directions. Those energies are discrete, but distances between particles are not, if they want to exchange charges, energy must flow over some shortest path of least resistance. And distance add time component to process, packets of energy might be discrete, but their frequency vary with motion over space. This might explain part of a problem, we perceive flow of thoughts because information is shaped inside a nervous tissue structure. Brains are like space, except distances are fixed, but not eternal and unmovable since molecules of brains are constantly replaced. It's like if we would observe stars, but they would vibrate in place slightly and fall apart, being replaced by a new, same kind of star. How would that kind of universe function, physics would work like Alzheimer illness, forgetting about conservation of charges here and then and just do something. But reality doesn't work this way, consciousness does, because approximation of a stable and coherent mental universe is good enough for all individual practical purposes. Phenomena of consciousness is teaching us how physics can work, this is why we can come up with all those non rational ideas and invent all kinds of tools, designed to manipulate physical flow. It's not because we're smart but because we're broken, just the opposite of pure logic and extreme determinism of material universe.
@oscarmcgill6446
@oscarmcgill6446 3 жыл бұрын
Please try and interview Richard Rohr!
@conciousnessconscious4653
@conciousnessconscious4653 2 жыл бұрын
I don't see consciousness as abstract noun and conscious as abstract verb as analogous to kindness as abstract noun and kind as abstract verb. We can express kindness (or uniqueness, or power, anger, awareness, alertness, etc.) and stop it at will, but we cannot create and suspend our own consciousness at will. Secondly, consciousness is also different from these qualities because it is the medium from which any of them are expressed. And so we require our parents to have created our own consciousness, who required their own parents to create theirs, on and on until the very first prokaryote. At that point, a demand is made upon something outside the natural world to turn the immaterial to material.
@dougg1075
@dougg1075 3 жыл бұрын
“ I am that I am.. tell them I am sent you “
@Mr96akaal
@Mr96akaal 3 жыл бұрын
I enjoy videos like theses! I’m a great pseudo intellectual. 💀
@Ploskkky
@Ploskkky 3 жыл бұрын
Yes.
@fins59
@fins59 29 күн бұрын
Perhaps write a pseudo intellectual book then, cover picture of you in robes smiling knowingly, plenty of others have, join the queue 😉
@librulcunspirisy
@librulcunspirisy 3 жыл бұрын
👍
@danielkammer3244
@danielkammer3244 2 жыл бұрын
We are all eyes on the same head
@wanderingthepeaks
@wanderingthepeaks 3 жыл бұрын
When is RLK going to get around to talking with Bernardo Kastrup? Surely his case for the primacy of consciousness is at least as cogent as any of these guests, however Divine it may or may not be.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
I understand the "primacy of consciousness" but I also understand how the coded gyrations of matter can make it. In this I see a strange loop that elevates matter into sharing primacy with the conscious process, like a marriage of yin and yang ish.
@jonnyyy9716
@jonnyyy9716 3 жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL wat
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
@@jonnyyy9716 Can u be more specific?
@jonnyyy9716
@jonnyyy9716 3 жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL What are coded gyrations of matter?
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
@@jonnyyy9716 Consider sense organs. When energies in the environment stimulate a sensor, it responds by proportionately changing the neural discharge frequencies of the axons which connect it to the brain. Thus the frequencies are the *encoded* form of the impinging environmental energy. Let's call these encoded frequencies *meaningful* *signals* . Every neuron in the brain emits *meaningful* *signals* according to the cumulative effect (faster/slower) of the signals received by all the synapses connected to its dendrites/cell body. Some of these synapses on some of these neurons are the terminal points of the axons connected to the sensors. (I read the average number of synapses on a brain neuron are about seven thousand. In this one can catch a glimmer of the subtlety with which a frequency can change. "The brain's 100 trillion or so interconnections... " also). The most significant material gyrations are the molecular movements and chemical reactions that constitute the neural discharges and synaptic actions. (And keep in mind, much of the ultimate purpose of these gyrations is to control a person's behavior (so the word 'potential' is important to keep in mind during your deliberations on the topic)). Does that answer your question?
@alemartinezrojas5285
@alemartinezrojas5285 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness can't come from an unconscious cause. Mind precedes matter. You can't give what you don't have. The cause must contain some features of the effect, whether formally or imminently. A mindless and unconscious "cause" cannot provide what it does not have, therefore, this case must be a conscious-mind.
@Darksaga28
@Darksaga28 3 жыл бұрын
Are you ready to get bashed by internet atheists?
@thomasridley8675
@thomasridley8675 3 жыл бұрын
Too bad i can't ask my cat what consciousness feels like.
@thomasridley8675
@thomasridley8675 3 жыл бұрын
@Mark Coleman That would be an interesting conversation. I might find out why she won't eat tuna. Only chicken or beef.
@joegibbskins
@joegibbskins 3 жыл бұрын
I mean who says we can’t get consciousness from an unconscious cause? It’s not like we can test that
@publiusovidius7386
@publiusovidius7386 3 жыл бұрын
lol. Too bad you have no credible evidence to back up that assertion. Merely wishful thinking. Typical of the mythologcial set.
@mbpoto
@mbpoto 3 жыл бұрын
Does anyone contest the idea that thinking, aka, the 'mind' or consciousness, is a process of a brain? If so, what evidence does one have for one's contention?
@weirdwilliam8500
@weirdwilliam8500 2 жыл бұрын
Literally all the evidence from neuroscience, anatomy, neurology, psychology, chemistry, and computer science supports consciousness being a physical process in brains. A materialist model accurately predicted all the experimental data we’ve seen. Immaterial models for consciousness have made no accurate predictions and are in fact untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. There is no evidence that it’s supernatural or immaterial, only fallacious arguments like the argument from ignorance, which failed as an argument when pre-scientific people claimed diseases and lightning must be supernatural. “I don’t understand how it could be physical, so god must have done it” is textbook fallacious reasoning. Some religious people seem to have an emotional need to feel more than material. Unfortunately, your feelings have no bearing on what the evidence supports, or what is true.
@gregariousguru
@gregariousguru 3 ай бұрын
If there are pure immaterial consciousness' that indeed exist, how do we expect to use material science to observe this phenomenon? Isnt it peculiar that there are more books written in the name of science on consciousness, without a consensus? 🤔
@geraldvaughn8403
@geraldvaughn8403 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness doesn’t prove the existence of God but points in that direction. Close but no cigar.
@RogerBays
@RogerBays 3 жыл бұрын
As you say, "you probably cannot find examples of conscious states floating freely without a self." And: 1) I don't think you are going to find examples of consciousness states floating freely with a self either. This is because consciousness is an unproven and unprovable story, due to indirect realism. 2) You would not know how to look for them. 3) You cannot prove something does not exist.
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
Somehow the thought that nobody can prove my Porche 911 doesn't exist makes me feel a little better :)
@RogerBays
@RogerBays 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu It is probably just around the next corner. And the keys are in it.😂😂
@user-jt5ot4hy9q
@user-jt5ot4hy9q 3 жыл бұрын
It's a mute argument. Even if consciousness arises from brain, the fact that it would doesn't negate consciousness as a determined intrinsic aspect of the Universe. The fact that our consciousnesses center around a "self" (soul) would seem to reflect that Universal Consciousness is also centered around a Super-Soul we call God.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
I can see that being conscious, in groupish entities like civilizations, would make people better able to organize and cooperate for their mutual benefit and survival. If people were not conscious they'd be restricted to a herd or tribal existence because that is the limit of organization that instinct can accomplish, exactly what we see in the case of cows and wolves, etc. Galaxies are not living entities. What possible benefit could accrue to a galaxy by dint of its being conscious? It's a mute argument only if it's never spoken.
@robertthomas4234
@robertthomas4234 2 жыл бұрын
You meant moot. Thanks.
@fins59
@fins59 29 күн бұрын
@user-jt5ot4hy9q "Moot point" is the correct term. You're welcome.
@dheerajmalhotra7245
@dheerajmalhotra7245 3 жыл бұрын
GOD is always there for us, I think ''GOD" had created a system for us in which he cannot intervene directly otherwise this system he created will collapse. Sometimes he wanted to intervene directly to help us but he can't but indirectly GOD always try to help through messenger's or other means sometimes which we won't able to understand that GOD is helping us. GOD feel upset when we are in trouble & very happy when we are happy. We all are conscious beings our material body is mortal but consciousness is immortal. We all have to understand this, we can't ignore this reality.
@philipmcdonagh1094
@philipmcdonagh1094 3 жыл бұрын
If there was no concussions in the universe would it exist. Now there is something that will screw up your nights sleep.
@sahelanthropusbrensis
@sahelanthropusbrensis 3 жыл бұрын
Some men refuse to think as adults.
@Ploskkky
@Ploskkky 3 жыл бұрын
Moreland's and Swinburne's reasoning is so broken that we need a different word for it. I propose the word "theology".
@gr33nDestiny
@gr33nDestiny 3 жыл бұрын
Swinburne should release a rap album! 😂
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
Can consciousness exist without a gravity? Because only thing that bind entire universe besides God is gravity, those two principles must be correlated somehow.
@charleswoods2996
@charleswoods2996 3 жыл бұрын
At about 5 minutes, a thought occurred to me; "..trying to materialize something that is immaterial and outside of any ego. It - doesn't need to be bowed to or organized into something classical that lives in a guilt trip that's done nothing except drive people to madness and suicide. Thus I suppose "faith", whatever that is is still yet evolving from a jealous narcissist that lives above the clouds. Your physical body is the temple. Enslave it to no one of this physical world, or silly dogmas that are essentially a /He-man Woman Haters Club/, and control your emotions immersed in a stoicism so deep not even an evolved god can measure."
@mustafaelbahi7979
@mustafaelbahi7979 3 жыл бұрын
Awareness is also referring to God, as it is a clear sign for a person and not others ...
@waerlogauk
@waerlogauk 3 жыл бұрын
By his own argument at 6:20 consciousness is a property, a state, a process yet at 3:20 he states that consciousness is a thing that can't come from nothing. That consciousness cannot come from non consciousness is an assertion without foundation there is no rational argument here.
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
@Mark Coleman Imagine trying to convince someone that if you mix hydrogen with oxygen and light a spark you will get water. And their reply is "water cannot come from non water"
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
@Mark Coleman Yes, elements of pre-consciousness could come together to create consciousness. But it's not so obvious to me that this earth was made for organisms to live on for a reason. Sure, i might have a reason to live (or not) but somebody else might have a different reason.
@waerlogauk
@waerlogauk 3 жыл бұрын
@Mark Coleman apparently you have never heard of the puddle analogy; that a puddle finds it is an uncannily good fit for the hole it is in.
@georgedoyle7971
@georgedoyle7971 3 жыл бұрын
Mark Coleman Well said! Totally agree with you.
@georgedoyle7971
@georgedoyle7971 3 жыл бұрын
Gwallter Rixon “Apparently you have never heard of the puddle analogy” No offence intended but Its actually a myth that the puddle analogy by Douglas Adams is some kind of great defeater for fine tuning. Adams was clearly not aware that in order for a puddle to wake up and become conscious a vast number of interconnected and incredibly improbable events had to take place during the Big Bang and afterwards, hence the term fine tuning lol. This self refuting puddle analogy ignores the fact that science has demonstrated that our universe is actually unbelievably fine-tuned for life, misrepresenting the essence of the hypothesis and completely over-simplifying it with a fallacy of false analogy. The general consensus is that 13.7 billion years is not enough time for a universe such as ours that is clearly fine tuned for life to happen by chance. Not to mention the fact that the recent discovery of dark matter also adds another constant to the fine tuning picture highlighting the fact we are completely on the knife edge of existence and are clearly scratching at the surface of knowledge given the finite amount of time we have been conscious. Who knows what other constants we may discover in the next thousand years. We may even eventually discover that the constants for fine tuning are infinite like the multiverse hypothesis. Nevertheless if the Puddle analogy was such a great defeater for fine tuning no one would have bothered trying to use the multiverse hypothesis as a defeater for the appearance of fine tuning as the multiverse hypothesis is supposed to create infinite universes, time and more chance for a perfectly fine tuned universe such as ours to eventually come into existence. Nevertheless, the multiverse is unfalsifiable so it is actually unscientific which is why some theorists have resorted to the anthropic principle. However, the anthropic principle isn’t much better than the puddle analogy as most scientists hate the strong version of the hypothesis and view it as a tautology that has the potential to stifle scientific endeavour. Ironically, if the multiverse turns out to be true and you turn a blind eye to the inverse gamblers fallacy it actually creates infinite chance of life elsewhere and infinite time for more and more advanced consciousness’s including different states of consciousness to evolve or even something analogous to a consciousness that could be described as a divine mind.
@AAaxxxxxx84
@AAaxxxxxx84 3 жыл бұрын
When Adam & Eve knew they were naked that's the time consciousness started in Theological perspective... consciousness enables us to know what's wrong & right, reasoning, etc. I find one more thing so misterious, when God said humans should stay away from the fruit of eternity otherwise they will not die and live forever like God...
@ferdinandkraft857
@ferdinandkraft857 3 жыл бұрын
Yikes, makes me feel like we are back in the Dark Ages...
@johnbrzykcy3076
@johnbrzykcy3076 3 жыл бұрын
I always wondered why Adam and Eve were naked on those famous paintings from the Middle Ages. Maybe the painter wanted to illustrate the origin of consciousness,
@HumblyQuestioning
@HumblyQuestioning 3 жыл бұрын
The theistic argument from consciousness sounds like this to me: "Physics can't explain the phenomenal experience of wine. The Bible clearly states that we would expect there to be a phenomenal experience of wine if God is real. There is a phenomenal experience of wine, therefore God is real." If anything is going to convince me of theism, that kind of ethnocentric, ex post facto garbage reasoning most certainly is not.
@AlmostEthical
@AlmostEthical 3 жыл бұрын
Through the trial and error of natural selection, human consciousness involves a sense that is much stronger than those of other animals - a sense of time passing - past and future, and the ability to recall the past and project future outcomes. However, we are limited because we have a singular perspective - our own. Our limited individual consciousnesses are part of the larger consciousness of humanity in particular and the biosphere in general. Societies' "nervous systems" are the internet. So, when one part hurts badly, e.g. 9/11, the pain reverberates around many societies as if they were single super-organisms. I think this larger consciousness is still quite primitive, hence wars (as Quentin Smith hilariously noted). There is far to go yet. Richard Swinbourne may laugh at the idea of God creating robots, but that's what's happening. In the next century, machines will help (a small minority of) humans achieve extraordinary feats of mind by today's standards.
@johnbrzykcy3076
@johnbrzykcy3076 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing your observations. I found the idea that "machines will help ( a small minority of ) humans achieve extraordinary feats of mind..." interesting. Why just a "small minority"?
@AlmostEthical
@AlmostEthical 3 жыл бұрын
Cheers John. The short answer is inequality, which is always increasing.
@johnbrzykcy3076
@johnbrzykcy3076 3 жыл бұрын
@@AlmostEthical Thanks for the reply. John in Florida
@DavidSmith-wp2zb
@DavidSmith-wp2zb 3 жыл бұрын
Also, if you want to explore consciousness as a path to religious enlightenment, you have to explore animal consciousness and how that may impact your view of the existence of a god.
@freesatellite3204
@freesatellite3204 3 жыл бұрын
George Carlin hits it right. See video: George Carlin - Saving the Planet.
@freesatellite3204
@freesatellite3204 3 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bb1jZquDyJelZpc.html
@johnbrzykcy3076
@johnbrzykcy3076 3 жыл бұрын
@@freesatellite3204 Thanks for sharing that video. I do tend to take life way too serious, maybe that's why I have bad gastritis.
@freesatellite3204
@freesatellite3204 3 жыл бұрын
@@johnbrzykcy3076 , You welcome..
@essardaudinett6934
@essardaudinett6934 3 жыл бұрын
Since consciousness was created by God?
@waerlogauk
@waerlogauk 3 жыл бұрын
Well spotted this is a circular argument.
@glynemartin
@glynemartin 3 жыл бұрын
It's the most asinine thing uttered in any video...
@philipmcdonagh1094
@philipmcdonagh1094 3 жыл бұрын
What if consciousness is a frequency in the universe that brains are able to tune into just like a radio needs certain frequencies to work. Why doesn't consciousness evolve like our intellect. If that doesn't keep you awake nothing will.
@factsoverfeelings2707
@factsoverfeelings2707 3 жыл бұрын
God is the creator of our conciousness and Yes He is invisible ... you will not see Him with your eyes but rather with your heart.., The eyes of your soul... the same way you feel the air you never see.. or your thughts you never see or the breath you breath.... God says if you say there is no God You are a fool... Dont be a fool! God is coming back...
@philipmcdonagh1094
@philipmcdonagh1094 3 жыл бұрын
I love this channel but Ill have to stop watching before bed.
@DavidSmith-wp2zb
@DavidSmith-wp2zb 3 жыл бұрын
PLEASE PRODUCE MIT TRANSCRIPTS
@Maggsgolf
@Maggsgolf 2 жыл бұрын
It’s not that God created consciousness, it is that God is consciousness and consciousness is God. There is only consciousness. It is also aware of it’s Self and it’s Self is awareness :-) Some may have noticed that there is one paradox after another…. Fewer will realize that paradox is amazingly the perpetual motion machine of the universe. This is why everything in the universe there’s an ocean from Atoms to galaxies. it’s Infinitely beautiful, you can experience it for yourself ---- 5 M E O 👀
@tomashull9805
@tomashull9805 3 жыл бұрын
If God didn't create conscious minds, why would mindless processes create conscious minds? How?
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
We know it is the fundamental nature of atoms to clump together and for the clumps to interact with each other in ways beyond enumeration not the least of which is that they too can clump together according to circumstances and energy available... this knowledge summarized quite nicely by physics, chemistry, biology, etc. How could mindless processes create conscious people? Evolution made people conscious. Why? So that we can better work together for our mutual survival & multiplication. Hard to work together if we are all unconscious, right? I see something wrong with the phrase "conscious minds". Does a mind exist if it isn't conscious? Of what possible use could a non conscious mind be? Wouldn't a non conscious mind simply be some kind of mechanism? I AM conscious. (And I must assume you are too. Please keep that in mind in what follows...) I don't own a consciousness as though it were a thing. Conscious is what I am. When I am not conscious I am nothing. When I am conscious I am conscious for a while, not for just an instant. This implies that being conscious is a process. Right now I am conscious of things like this keyboard for instance. Sometimes I am conscious of memories or desires or pleasure or pain. When there is nothing of which I am conscious, i.e. when my mind is empty, I am conscious of nothing, i.e. I am not conscious, I have ceased to be conscious, I am nothing. All this to illustrate that being conscious has at least two components, the thoughts of objects like keyboards, memories, etc, and the whatever it is that contains them, what I call me (and I assume what you too call me). If either of these are absent them I cease to be. I mentioned up above... "When I am conscious I am conscious for a while, not for just an instant. This implies that being conscious is a process." Now I have a better grasp of my true nature, I AM a conscious process. Now consider the existential status of 'process'. Immediately you see that the status of process is quite different from the existential status of matter. Matter 'exists' but 'process' isn't like that. Process is an idea that encapsulates some complex behavior of matter. Thus I, a conscious process, am an immaterial, abstract kind of being. And that is why we feel our minds are aethereal.
@tomashull9805
@tomashull9805 3 жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL It seems "evolution" is an excuse word for "we don't know" for materialists... 'we don't know why, or how mindless processes created conscious minds, but the alternative doesn't fit our paradigm... ' . The best explanation for the mechanism of consciousness, so far, is the quantum consciousness, as quantum vibrations have been experimentally identified in microtubules of brain neurons... For natural selection to evolve consciousness, it would have to be able to select particles in superposition... Of course, selecting particles in superposition is a piece of cake for the follower of Darwin, but until a realistic explanation is available how natural selection acted upon a particle in all possible places at the same time, I'd say Darwinian theory of evolution for consciousness is dead as well...
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
Why can't blind people navigate a ski slope as well as anyone if they are, thanks to quantum vibrations, as conscious of their environment as sighted people?
@tomashull9805
@tomashull9805 3 жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You are obviously confused about the fundamentals of human perceptions, getting the faculties, such sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing confused with consciousness, which is self-awareness needed to process those senses... Once you educate yourself about the basics, I'd advise to look into what microtubules and quantum vibrations are... so that you don't embarrass yourself in public again…
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3 жыл бұрын
@@tomashull9805 When I was young and simple minded, I believed I was my body. I was also utterly convinced that there was something like a magic spark of life within that was responsible for my persistence. After learning the details of photosynthesis, Krebs cycle, ATP, Brownian motion, etc., I stood corrected. Then I was amazed, appalled and concerned by the absurd strength with which I had held my preceding misconception. If you think the extraordinarily complex behavior of eighty billion neurons and a hundred trillion synapses is a mere substrate for quantum buzz then you are making a most egregious violation of Ockham's razor. Can't help thinking you are in the same simple minded condition in which I delighted many years ago.
@nim314159
@nim314159 3 жыл бұрын
But why distinguish between the "world of consciousness" and the "physical world"? I perceive both of them throw consciousness . There is nothing outside consciousness.
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't you have to be outside consciousness to see there is nothing there ? :)
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu It's easy, just close you eyes, clap your hills 3 times and you're outside.
@marcosgalvao3182
@marcosgalvao3182 3 жыл бұрын
Brain is a quantum computer and consciousness collapses it , consciousness is more than than quantum process , it uses quantum processes in the brain . So consciousness is the base of all reality . God
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
If brain is a quantum computer, than you exist in all states at once. Do you feel like a woman sometimes?
@marcosgalvao3182
@marcosgalvao3182 3 жыл бұрын
@@xspotbox4400 read about quantum biology ! And the microtubules in the brain .
@xspotbox4400
@xspotbox4400 3 жыл бұрын
@@marcosgalvao3182 That's even better, so man can feel like a woman and like an animal sometimes.
@RogerBays
@RogerBays 3 жыл бұрын
Start with qualia, then wonder what stories could exist besides consciousness!
@dixsusu
@dixsusu 3 жыл бұрын
First dude forgot evolution's action upon material .
@ufotv-viral
@ufotv-viral 3 жыл бұрын
👌👽
@rep3e4
@rep3e4 3 жыл бұрын
I think its clear there is much more going on than in this material world and I firmly believe conscieness (since it has NEVER been observed to come from non-consciousness) points to a conscious creator, certainly ....... believing that consciousness comes from absolutely nothing would be a huge leap of “faith”
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
Or maybe every sub-atomic particle is conscious, and because our brains are made by many sub-atomic particles our consciousness is just the collective consciousness of those particles.
@johnbrzykcy3076
@johnbrzykcy3076 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Hey.. .that's excellent. I like your observations.
@HighPeakVideo
@HighPeakVideo 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu Very many particles compose brain states and processes -- the problem is how to get from their functional representations (the content of consciousness) to a unified conscious experience. How does the consciousness of particles become conscious of the functional state/process of the taste of chocolate?
@glynemartin
@glynemartin 3 жыл бұрын
@@ioioiotu therefore since atoms are conscious a rock a marble or a sidewalk must also have awareness since they're 100% made of subatomic particles right???...smh!
@ioioiotu
@ioioiotu 3 жыл бұрын
@@glynemartin We can argue that the subatomic particles in rocks and a marble are not unified in a coherent enough system to create a unified consciousness. So only the subatomic particles in the rocks have consciousness
@antoniopioavallone1137
@antoniopioavallone1137 2 жыл бұрын
Mr Kuhn if your brain can deceive you about consciousness, why can't it deceive you about that exact thought you had and about everything else? Not only this position is doomed to self-refutation, but you are always doomed to absolute skepticism.
@Bannockburn111
@Bannockburn111 3 жыл бұрын
I would suggest that studies of diseased and damaged brains, which show a clear change in the thoughts and beliefs of the individuals, would be a strong argument against any kind of consciousness that is independent of a brain.
@glenemma1
@glenemma1 3 жыл бұрын
Yes the ''thoughts and beliefs'' of someone with a damaged brain may change. The thoughts and beliefs of all of us change over a lifetime regardless of damage or no damage to our brains. But consciousness remains unaffected, looking on through all the perceptions, thoughts and ideas.
@borderlands6606
@borderlands6606 3 жыл бұрын
If you throw a rock at a TV receiver your picture will disappear. It doesn't mean the studio has stopped broadcasting. Then there's the phenomenon of terminal lucidity, where people who have suffered dementia for years speak coherently shortly before death.
@Xenosaurian
@Xenosaurian 2 жыл бұрын
You should consider the conscious argument for God as presented by Inspiring Philosophy. It shouldn't be so difficult to come to such an inherently rational conclusion as God. Particularly considering the idea that God "does not exist" is inherently irrational and could not explain the creation of our cosmos to any degree.
@georgedoyle2487
@georgedoyle2487 Жыл бұрын
Well said!! According to Scrodinger… “The scientific world-picture vouchsafe a very complete understanding of all that happens-it makes it just a little too understandable. It allows you to imagine the total display as that of a mechanical clock-work, which for all that science knows could go on just the same as it does, without there being consciousness, will, endeavour, pain and delight and responsibility connected with it-though they actually are. And the reason for this disconcerting situation is just this, that, for the purpose of constructing the picture of the external world, we have used the greatly simplifying device of cutting our own personality out, removing it; hence it it gone, it has evaporated, it is ostensibly not needed. In particular, and most importantly, this is the reason why the scientific world-view contains of itself no ethical values, no aesthetical values, not a word about our own ultimate scope or destination, and no God, if you please. Whence came I, whither go I? Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, of why and how an old song can move us to tears. Science, we believe, can, in principle, describe in full detail all that happens in the latter case in our sensorium and 'motorium' from the moment the waves of compression and dilation reach our ear to the moment when certain glands secrete a salty fluid that emerges from our eyes. But of the feelings of delight and sorrow that accompany the process science is completely ignorant-and therefore reticent. Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity-the One of Parmenides-of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God-with a capital 'G'. Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we said, this is not astonishing. If its world-picture does not even contain blue, yellow, bitter, sweet-beauty, delight and sorrow-, if personality is cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to human mind? (Erwin Schrödinger)
Fallacies in Proving God Exists | Episode 901 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 133 М.
Is consciousness an illusion? 5 experts explain
43:53
Big Think
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН
Тяжелые будни жены
00:46
К-Media
Рет қаралды 5 МЛН
ONE MORE SUBSCRIBER FOR 6 MILLION!
00:38
Horror Skunx
Рет қаралды 13 МЛН
Como ela fez isso? 😲
00:12
Los Wagners
Рет қаралды 27 МЛН
Arguing God from Design | Episode 109 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 16 М.
The Dreaming Mind: Waking the Mysteries of Sleep
1:21:58
World Science Festival
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Can Dualism Explain Consciousness? | Episode 1512 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Are There Things Not Material? | Episode 811 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 156 М.
Does Consciousness Have Meaning? | Episode 703 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 53 М.
Hard Questions on God, the Bible, and Ethics (ft. Craig/Moreland)
1:03:37
What's Beyond Physics? | Episode 802 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 195 М.
J. P.  Moreland - Loving God With All Your Mind
1:02:17
Apologetics Canada
Рет қаралды 46 М.
How To Think About God's Existence | Episode 701 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Do Persons Have Souls? | Episode 108 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 66 М.
Тяжелые будни жены
00:46
К-Media
Рет қаралды 5 МЛН