Are you a Christian?

Genius description of the eternal problem

He's a lot like me in that regard 😆🤣

😂

LOL

It's megadeth

Dead lmao

A fucking ROACH is concious!. Have you ever stared at a roach and the moment that you DECIDE to kill it......the moment you resolved to do it the roach someehow sensed it and ran away? It was conscious of the intention to kill it before a threatening move was ever made THAT is not an illusion... that thing understands that you want to kill it and it has to run away if it values it's life... Which it does

He would absolutely love this characterization, I suspect.

+fiveredpears Ha ha, absolutely.

bahaha

He also reminds me of a young Richard Wright from Pink Floyd.

fiveredpears yet you have no intellectual input for the topic of consciousness. Funny none the less.

True, however we didn’t make ourselves right ? Hard questions

After 7 years I can tell you your mind also created this guy that’s why he speaks your mind.

@@bitkurd sup us?

@@bitkurd yikes, this truth is unsettling

***** well said. sad but true!

@Castlegrad I've read António Damásio a Portuguese neuro-scientist, the books Decartes mistake (O Erro de Decartes) and Meeting Espinosa (Ao Encontro de Espinosa). I must say to me it seems like consciousness is an illusion, although a fundamental one to explain reality.

@@landervast I've watched so many of these videos about consciousness and I think I figured out what they are saying. People are dualists in that they think that there is a brain and consciousness. Basically two different things, maybe even different levels of reality. When they say that consciousness is an illusion, they mean the second thing. I think that is why I was always confused since I am not a dualist. I believe that my consciousness is what my brain is doing, so I would agree that the separate consciousness is not real, but I am nonetheless conscious. Does this make sense to you, or is this the illusion you are talking about?

@@caricue it seems to me that consciousness and also personality are illusions, they seem to me like emergent of something else, like they have a kind of heuristic nature, and there for would seem without definite or defined form, If that makes any sense.

@@landervast Haha, no, I did not get anything from that, but it is not any less reasonable than anyone else's ideas. It is interesting that you add personality to the mix. For me, personality is kind of obviously physical and based on experience and genetic predisposition, but who knows.

There must be a gradient, some people are clearly more conscious than others.

Yes we are conscious of our consciousness.

Lol! I'd use a straightener on his hair.

Nice haha

But can he crank his amplifier up to 11?

That's funny 😂

this 👆

Good point

Wow yes! Krishnamurti! Also Bernardo Kalstrup. Also Swami Vivekananda and Nikola Tessler. Also like others u mention. Boom and Krishnamurti were collaborators and friends. Eastern traditions def have edge when it comes to negating western materialist assumptions about consciousness.

@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 I am yet to learn views of Bernardo Kalstrup and Nikola Tesla, I have added to my to-do list. Thanks for sharing names.

@@kamesh7818 sorry there is no l in Kastrup. He has been interviewed by a number of you tube hosts.

Local memory versus streaming for prime field.

I know it's an old comment, but for anyone reading... we have been forced into the materialist worldview by militant atheists, our schools, universities, tv and everything is engaged in the process, it was not the case for the majority of human history. @Brain Richards, you feel this way because it's been ingrained into us by our culture, don't get sucked into it. It's pretty astonishing how far bad philosophy can take people that they start to think the one thing they should be most certain is true and is the foundation of all science and knowledge doesn't exist.

​@@Pietrosavr Analyse the sentence "I don't believe in consciousness." That "I," the thing which believes or disbelieves, cannot be understood as anything other than a conscious subject. If it isn't, than what is it? And belief-- what could belief or disbelief be other than a sort of attitude taken by that same conscious subject towards external reality? The sentence "I don't believe in consciousness" is therefore unintelligible if consciousness does not exist. But materialism says consciousness (by any honest definition of the word) doesn't really exist. So yes, materialism is absurd. Most philosophers have abandoned it by this point.

@@lukeabbott3591 Depends how you define consciousness but mostly yes. 'I' also requires a will, it's not just experiencing the external world but also what we want to do with it, desires. The product of consciousness and will which is emotions. Belief is basically the desire to accept some conscious observation as true, so it also requires your will. Together consciousness and free will create the feedback loop necessary for life. I see the world, I desire a better world, I change the world and go back to observing it. But I'm aware some definitions of consciousness includes free will, though I prefer to refer to them separately, and call their combination the soul.

No consciousness is the prime state of all existence. Adepts trained to subdue local memory to stream from the prime field. Three in one state of con'ss. mind, matter, information. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Rishi, Devata, Chhandas

No consciousness is the prime state of all existence. Adepts trained to subdue local memory to stream from the prime field. Three in one state of con'ss. mind, matter, information. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Rishi, Devata, Chhandas

@@drawingroomart5017 You don't consider that a religious position? Just out of curiosity, if adepts have access to some higher plane, what knowledge or insight is gained?

@@caricue We have 3 brains. Local reptilian inherited memory. Local learned mammalian / tribal memory. + non local prime field (religions call the kingdom within) Adepts train to subdue local memory, so that they stream from the prime field of solutions. They publish, almost no one gets it, and their thesis on Consciousness is turned into local memory based rituals. Add money, property power, and they have truly lost the plot. Scientists tell us, we can perceive about 1 - 5 % of what is out there. Material science is limited to that. Many top scientists especially quantum, physicists admit there is a connection between matter and mind. Brain as transceiver. We can train to stream from the infinite field of potential that is Consciousness. So no this notion is not religion, but individual metaphysical practice. I have many statement from scientists saying, consciousness IS the prime field.

David Bidgood As stated in the video, we cannot know if another being is conscious, only that the subject (you) is.

Your dog has consciousness.

It's the *measurement* problem and has nothing to do with consciousness.

As I become more conscious and aware of the Cosmos...is this the reason the Cosmos is running away from me?

@@davidinmossy The latest Nobel prize proved that with no observer there’s nothing to be measured.

One eternal consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, we get back to religious language at the root of being.

I think this thought has a great life-enhancing effect. It is disillusioning in that it frees us from the stressful compulsion of having to have an answer to every question we can ask ourselves.

@@karlschmied6218 It also breaks materialism, which breaks determinism.

We forget how unbelievable it all is. Our brains are designed to habituate or we would die from astonishment.

And he looks the way many imagine Jesus to look.

Which of his statements make you think that?

@@karlschmied6218 Hahaha ... probably his hair style.

Or maybe Descartes...

Mohammed Eldehairy But you'd have to be conscious to be fooled by that.

Organ Farm or may be the electric impulses from your five senses along with the chemical reactions in your brain all those collectively IS the "conscious" , or whatever name we use , i have no problem at all with names , i am just materialising conscious , conscious definition doesn't imply unseen , un materialised nature i guess .

Mohammed Eldehairy Oh right. That's pretty much how I tentatively regard consciousness - as a somewhat illusory emergent property of the outworkings of an internal management process informed by needs and senses. I guess if you believe that most people regard it as a mysterious spiritual thing then those are the people you are addressing.

I would say, not the illusion but the effect. Consciousness is real - you can think about it. (Think about it.) But I agree, it does seem really, really likely that it's a result of brains not woo.

Its so you know he is the real one or vice versa

9:10 I watched for awhile xD

Consciousness is the prime state of all existence. Adepts trained to subdue local memory to stream from the prime field. Three in one state of con'ss. mind, matter, information. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Rishi, Devata, Chhandas

Among the best comments I've ever read.

no he doesn't. he basically disproves the necessity of "consciousness" with his "Zombie" discussion. if there is no evidence that makes the existence for something necessary, then we must assume it does not exist. frankly, he is an idiot, and I'm sad to see him given the same credit as Dennett ans Susskind.

shinjirigged As he explained, conscious experiences are a quite fundamental part of our lives - that is immediate evidence more direct than everything we perceive in the outside world. And while I don't agree with his arguments, I don't see a reason to call him an idiot. Srsly, get a grip. oO

Jason Barr _"Chalmers is actually a good philosopher, Dennett is a no good hack and his arguments are self-refuting. Regardless, you need to brush up on your philosophy, because your comment is EMBARRASSING!"_ Ironically, of the two, Dennett is the only one who has actually contributed in useful ways to the cognitive sciences. Chalmers really has done very little beyond drone on and on about his "hard problem" which nobody cares about but him and various cultists who take it to be evidence for magic. Now that the cognitive sciences are about to run the last lap up to full brain simulation on the molecular level it's become almost certain that the empirical investigation is what will produce the final answers here and not philosophy though. Essentially everyone in the field expect an embodied computational theory to be the end result, which is what Dennett has been arguing for all along. Although there are details of his hypothesis that have turned out to be wrong, he's had a clear and useful direction the entire time, focusing on testable claims instead of mental masturbation about hard problems and zombies which seems to have been Chalmer's area of expertise.

Gnomefro Sure, practical science is important in terms of making our everyday lives better but the yet non-practical science or philosophy could open us to a whole another worlds. If people would have been as mind numbingly narrow minded to believe everything that the "mainstream" science is telling them we would still think that sickness is caused by evil spirits, earth is flat and sun circles around it. I dont mean we have to question mainstream science for the sake of it but when we have a good case against it. Being consciouss has always baffled the human mind, only the modern idiots were able to "explain it away" by trying to reduce it to bits and pieces and then noticing that on the face of the current paradigm it cannot exist, its nothing but an illusion. To even theorize consciousness being an illusion takes such a mental acrobatia that with the same kind of logic you should be able to put your hand to a boiling water and then convince yourself you are not feeling any pain since actually there shouldnt be anyone actually feeling the pain. Just because we dont have answers doesnt mean the problem doesnt exist, it just shows how little we know about anything, especially the most fundamental things of existence itself. By saying that Chalmers is explaining the hard problem being evidence of somekind of magical nature of consciousness is just showing how little you actually understood what he was saying.

Not imho. He just keeps being unable to doubt his own consciousness over and over. Deep!

+porcupineracer2 He's making a claim you'd see more in nondualism, for that's focused on the unity of reality. The best way I can describe it is as awareness/consciousness, even in your experience, exists prior to thoughts, emotions, and the arriving of contents that appear in it. That's the first thing to grasp about consciousness itself. At the very least, this means the separate self you define yourself to be - all images of self are ideas and concepts, not actual things - are all false. You can be awareness in a body, yes, but you are aware of its contents, which is a coming and going state of feelings and perceptions; what is prior to those arisings in consciousness is the mystery here. Couple this with how consciousness is selfless - there's no "I" we tend to make as a separate subject - and you have a very confusing arrangement here. I would imagine very little of this makes very much experiential sense, after all, we "confront" an external world, so there must be billions of outsiders to nature confronting it. This is a delusional view most of people on Earth have today, and it stands no scientific view. Sam Harris makes similar claims, but he goes so far as to simply state "there's just the world". We have so many attitudes, beliefs, and conditions that get in the way that make many of these things confusing. The first thing I would tell you regarding consciousness is to study and realize there is no separate "me" in there somehow dualistically divided from the body, and how there's no free will because such a subject, in addition to phenomena, is just not there. It'd be best to grasp a perspective of non separateness to reality before one starts making deeper claims about consciousness, or you'd be quick to fall into New Age positions. Harris is a great resource if you're a very secular, pointed person, but if you also don't might lightheartedness, Alan Watts digests it extremely well from a philosophers point of view.

ShakinJamacian Thank you for your well-thought out reply. I wouldn't have gathered that from what Dr. Chalmers was saying. It sounded very borderline "woo." I am familiar with Sam Harris, and I am familiar with a pre-processing of sensory information before it reaches what we perceive as consciousness. But are you also saying there is a stage between the processing of sensory information and what we regard as consciousness? I am also familiar with Daniel Dennett and am currently learning about his multiple drafts model. I am wondering what your opinion on that is.

porcupineracer2 It sounds woo because on the surface, reality and the claims we make here are very weird. I'm sure you have heard the "everything is One" kind of phrasing, which on one hand sounds absurd, but on another is in fact true, because there's no "outsider" added in addition to reality, be it God or a self, soul, or ego. Oneness, in a real sense, doesn't mean everything is a haze, but that we're really in the ocean of this cosmos, and nothing is taken or added to it; just change. We don't grasp this experientially, even if almost all elementary sciences tell us this as data. As for stages of the mind, I don't grasp it experientially myself, but Harris would make the argument that awareness exists prior to thought and emotion that appear in it. Rupert Spira, a teacher of Vedanta, uses the example of a screen (consciousness) and the contents that appear on it (emotions/thoughts/perceptions/etc). We confuse the contents that appear in consciousness as "I", failing to realize they are appearing in consciousness. How can that really be you if it appears in your awareness as a coming and going, as if you got invested into a film but forgot the projector it came from? I assume this a state more realized in meditation, for that's one avenue where one can experience the selfless nature of conscious itself, without that peering additional subject we identify ourselves to be. Intellectually, this will hit a dead end, hence why experience and self-inquiry is in order. I have actually recently heard of Dennett's multiple drafts theory, and I feel it is still assuming there's a separate self. We can agree there's no final copy, as it's all works in progress, but free will can only be applied to a self, something that is beyond innate conditioning, influence, and experience, which is all one ever is. While he may be true in that there's no final draft regarding information and processing, it's also important to realize there's no person carrying the copies forward. Free will, on some base level, infers an agent or even just an ability that can act beyond a present moment and the amalgamation of prior causes. Even on paper that seems implausible to what we know the mind. If you never decide to decide, how can you drop beyond influences, if not driven by other present influences? Where is the freedom in that it's still an amalgamation of prior causes and influences, which you as a self, are never an author of? To bring it back to the draft example, there's no author to the script; that's an illusion. There's no free choice and no determinism, for there is no self that is free or being determined. It is perhaps more in the middle, where what emerges and goes on is just what emerges and goes on; choice or being predetermined sound too inferred onto reality. Compatibilism, Dennett's arguments stemming from there, seems like an attempt in the middle, but still tend to have some prevalence of there being a self, a doer of deeds, even if he equates it more to a biological level. I feel it's out of date and very semantical. I feel much of Western thought has fallen deeply into the assumption that "I think, therefore I am (a separate agent)" and would have done well to digest a good deal of Eastern thought that talks about not-self, a state that shows one is no such thing. In fact, you're more likely to have views and experiences supporting the neuroscience if you engaged in nondual efforts like Vipassana, Zen, and Vedanta efforts, though we in the West throw them under the same bus as the dated philosophies of the trinity of monotheism. I feel Dennett's arguments still fall upon the separate agent illusion, though he at least concedes it has nothing to do with spooky magic.

ShakinJamacian Thank you for taking the time to explain the distinction between the woo and the science, where the two seem to overlap. I'm afraid I have nothing more to contribute to the conversation, but I wanted to give you a nod for making this effort. It really helped me out. I even saved a copy on my desktop to look over. Cheers, man.

He has a very simple question. Why do certain material objects have consciousness (subjective feelings, pains etc...). Nobody has an answer yet.

Totally agree. The study of consciousness has long moved on from conceivability arguments. Chalmer’s zombie fantasy is akin to imagining “an atom for atom copy of a cat which is not actually alive but only seems to be alive from the outside” and then concluding that life must not be reducible to physics because there are no apparent contradictions in that imagination. As with the cat, it seems much more likely that the source of the claimed conceivability of zombies is a mere conceptual error rather than a deep insight. The simple fact that we can and do talk about consciousness shows that *something* functional must be going on after all, and this should be telling. Chalmers knows this, of course, but for some reason he doesn’t seem to make anything of it. I think the central issue with Chalmers’ philosophy is that he takes the cartesian theater as his indubitable starting point. He thinks that there must be an inner witness to whom all the contents of consciousness get presented as if he were watching a multimedia show, and somehow that witness cannot be wrong about what is being presented to him because he enjoys some kind of privileged access. I think this is just a bad idea which isn’t backed up by anything other than a strong gut intuition which Chalmers unfortunately seems to have succumbed to.

Because it's not a scientific problem, it's a mathematical/philosophical problem. First of all, what makes anyone think that consciousness is materialistic? Everyone acts as if it's something special, our politics is centred around it, we directly experience consciousness as being different from all the matter surrounding us, why should we think it's the same if there is no theory? If anything the baseline should be that it's different and saying that it's made of matter is the thing that should be questioned. And like I said it's a case of philosophy, it doesn't matter how complex a computational process gets, it simply cannot produce qualia, it's a category error. Materialistic computational/logical processes are abstract of qualia by definition. I can make a transistor out of silicon or out of wood, it doesn't matter what element I use, it's the geometry and cause and effect that matters. Qualia is fundamental experience, empiricism is founded on qualia, it simply is what it is, it cannot be produced by any combination of abstract particles.

Thank you. Im going to check that out because I love this series.

Jacob Hohn cool, I'm sure you will like it. They interview so many amazing people.

Caligula138 I've looked at a few. Really excellent. Anyone who likes this series should heck out Thinking Allowed.

In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

He sounds and kind of looks like the band's manager. Ian?

So, what is the weakness?

@zempath So you should be able to tell me what consciousness is? or what it's made of?

Because you haven't thought about it long enough.

zempath It’s worth pointing out here that you couldn’t answer either of my questions which I think you have to admit to at least to some degree does suggest that some aspects of consciousness are mysterious.

@zempath that doesnt even begin to explain subjective experience. we can imagine say a computer that learns information and acts independently on that information. but there would be no reason to believe it was conscious. The problem with the discussion is that most people take consciousness to mean a being that is awake and acts on its own volition, but the philosopher's use of the word consciousness relates to subjective experience, which is a seperate issue from a being that acts and behaves, as shown by the p-zombie thought experiment.

In the sense that axioms are taken to be self-evident truths, you don't prove axioms. Axioms are your starting point.