Oh boy.

Makes perfect sense if you look at our evolution as primates. Our brain evolved under so called "material" (I don't like this term) circumstances. We are driven by our vital needs. Most of our functions are not conscious. It has turned out that a consciousness as a self-reflection loop (should I or shouldn't I, what are the advantages and disadvantages of my actions, did it go wrong last time, etc.) offers enormous advantages in improving the probability of survival (at least) in the short term. In the longer term, this can go wrong. We are already aware of that too.

I like this explanation!

Panpsychism is religion!

Not wrong, and gets at why consciousness is so hard to solve. We think of it as generative, but it's reductive. Think of the default state of the world as "everything all at once" and consciousness a filtered down version of that, instead of "nothing" and trying to build consciousness from that. The mystery then becomes how is there everything all at once, but I can retort with - how is there nothing at all, when we know for a fact we exist? How could you ever get something from nothing? The other way around at least lets you explore further - though the ultimate answer is still unknown.

Not required. But a part of, none the less.

@@softlikesilk right, he himself contradict at few moments. Anyway, the emergence of 'I-ness' separate it from you with rest and your consciousness with other's. forget the 'I' and u will be the part of universal consciousness..

@@user-gp1zy3up7yugh, ok Deepok.

Even if you try to imagine what the universe would be without you in it you are still placing your imagination at the center of the question. You are always the unacknowledged background against which everything is projected. You see the world not as it is but as you are.

@@jeromehorwitz2460 Yes i agree. Especially your use of the new word " Backgroynd. " As a youth i always had trouble with my back - groynd.

Interesting in the sense that otherwise rational people can be lured into irrationality so easily.

Yes, but only in search for words for something that is undescribable.

Sanskrit cit and Greek nous Mind

cit is not mind. go away neo-vedantin. Vivekananda is not relevant here.@@S3RAVA3LM

It means "Woooooo"

He explains what he means in the video. Quantum mechanics shows that there are non-material information structures underlying material reality. Classically that is how we would describe mind - a theater of non-material information structures (thoughts/feelings/etc). Thus, mind-like. He is not committed to the idea that there is a cosmic mind, but he is saying there is something mind-like about deep reality, so he is not ruling it out either. To me he is suggesting that we get past the terminology of mind vs matter and look at the phenomena itself without presuppositions and baggage.

@@oldrusty6527 One can easily argue this to apply to all of Reality itself since everything one can perceive and/or know (or even think one knows) is filtered through the prism of mentality itself. Outside of simply presuming it to be, there's no way to know whether there's a world outside Mind.

whether there is interaction or not

@matthewa9273 Right, but isn't all of our reality fundamentally just one big wave function in some higher dimensional quantum reality ultimately?

@@PrescottValleyyea

A wave function describes (the probabilities of the locations of) a single thing, and a thing's environment (call it x₁'s environment) is made up of many other things (call them x₂...ₙ).

😂yes, hilarious. He is not able to differ clearly between science and his faith.

@softlikesilk No he doesn't. Watch again. It's a bit difficult for a simpleton to grasp.

​@@Thomas-gk42 You're talking out of your "ss.

@@Consrignrant ??? Insulting is more difficult?

@@Thomas-gk42 Shut up.

He’s dead my friend

@@SaltyDraws Indeed he is.

@@slowmutant They could simply state that in the description. To your point, I'd still view it.

He passed away from, of all things, Alzheimer’s.

you said what most materialists/physicalists would ever grasp!

Platonic idealism is patently unscientific and without any evidential support. In fact it lead to many years of wrong headed ideas and religious insanity. It took the enlightenment to recover from his stories.

He is not describing Platonic Forms but neutral monism, and Platonic Forms are not emergent productions from the receptacle of matter.

@@thejimmymeister you brought Platonic idealism into this not me. What he is doing, you are correct, is describing, telling a story, not presenting any evidence our convincing logic.

@@ihatespam2 ? I think you're confused.

He even gazed before saying that is information and that is human mind like !

It's incredible how much of our own mental activity is unconscious. For example consider when we talk or write at full speed, do you actually know what you're going to say even a few seconds before it comes out? Yet we can speak in whole, fully formed, grammatically well structured sentences that can take a big chunk of a minute to say. How on earth does that happen? Sometimes I have a new idea, I'm excited to put it into words, but I struggle to do so. I have the idea, I know it solves the problem, but it takes me a while and maybe several tries to figure out how to say or write it. Surely that's not just me? So I'm conscious that I have the idea, but am I actually consciously aware of what the idea is? A lot of people say that thought is linguistic, but when you analyse how we actually generate speech that's clearly just not true.

👍🏻 I agree with most of that, but I don’t think we are in synch. Whales are in synch. Whales are in harmony with their environment, while we struggle. Without processed food and drywall, we’d be lousy stewards of planet Earth.

@@dr_shrinker We are in sync with the universe since the laws of nature still apply to us. So unconcious processes in the universe apply to everything in that universe..we ar not magically excluded from that..

There can be no consciousness when it has nothing to interact with, because consciousness needs itself to exist, but this self is not a singular particle like a lonely electron, but a multitude of atoms.

​@@joha4574 I don't follow your logic, nor do I believe that consciousness is a multitude of atoms. I do however agree that there can be no consciousness without an object to be conscious of. A particle or atoms are knowable phenomena, while the ability of consciousness is what knows, the subject side of the subject/object interaction that produces an event of consciousness or knowledge. Tactile consciousness occurs when the sense instrument of the skin comes in contact with a texture or temperature (the object of knowledge). In the absence of the object there is no tactile consciousness nor is the instrument of that particular kind of consciousness discernable. The same idea applies to the other 4 sense consciousnesses, as well as the over all field of consciousness. When there is no object (and here I also mean subtle objects of knowledge like thoughts, emotions and self-sense) there is no consciousness, or conscious self, discernable. In the state of deep meditation, known as Samadhi, all these objects of consciousness are removed.

Nice stories, zero evidence.

Perfectly said. Without consciousness, how would the Universe know it existed?

Yep one look in a microscope or telescope it's easy to say "It all just Happens" but that a deception

Why would you assume the Universe has a purpose of any kind? Only individual living human beings have purpose or a reason.

@@Resmith18SRwhy assume it doesn’t? Surely both options are still on the table at this point, unless someone is ready to present empirical evidence that proves one or the other.

@@wmpx34 Because the physical Universe has been scientifically proven to have preceded the existence of life. By billions of years. Are you denying that?

True , both are different and part of the same.

Any evidence for non-animal consciousness? Sounds like story telling, not science.

So "the universe" (as we perceive it) is just as delusional and self-centered as we are. In other words, we project ourselves onto everything. That's kind of ridiculous.

@@karlschmied6218 Anthropocentric also which assumes that the creation of the entire Universe revolves around humanity. The more we study the Universe, the more we realize that we are not the center of the universe.

He's talking about decoherence. Imagine the wave function of a quantum system as it entangles with it's environment. As it does to we take the wave functions of these additional quantum systems it becomes entangled with and we put them all together, so we have a wave function with an ever increasing scope, but it's still a wave function. It's still a quantum system. However let's consider what happens to the QM description of our original system, now entangled into this broader system, so we can consider it a subset of this broader system. It's state undergoes what we call decoherence, where it's state more and more closely approximates to that of a classical system. In a 'fully decohered' state it's quantum description approximates to that of a classical description.

IF the Universe is 14 billion years old, how come we can see through our advanced telescopes the part of the universe that is 95 Billion years old?! )))))

Kastrup is unbearable.

And if there is, we would never know.

I think consciousness is fundamental personally. I think Max Plank & Donald Hoffman are right.

The possibility of interaction with the environment without collapse does not mean that collapse must be the result of consciousness. All it means is that interaction with the environment _in general_ is not sufficient for collapse. _Specific_ interactions of certain types _are_ sufficient even if interaction in general isn't. If the environment has little enough going on (e.g. if it's very cold), as in quantum computers, there's no decoherence, but as soon as that threshold is passed, there is decoherence whether there's a conscious observer or not.

@@thejimmymeister Thank you for your thoughtful response. However it appears you are using decoherence as a synonym for collapse of the wave function. These are not the same thing. Decoherence happens when there is, as you say, "enough going on" to leak information out of the system. But this does not collapse the wave function. It simply means that difference parts of the wave function can no longer interfere with each other. This is best illustrated by the thought experiment known as Schrodinger's cat. That thought experiment describes how you could get a wave function that contains a cat that is simultaneously both dead and alive. Surely those two parts of the wave function have decohered, but the wave function does not collapse until a conscious observer looks at it.

@Curious112233 Thanks for your response, too. My point is that a general enough class of situations being insufficient for x does not entail a more specific class of situations being insufficient for x. If your argument ( _environmental interaction in general is insufficient, so all specific environmental interactions are insufficient_ ) holds for wave function collapse, why doesn't it hold for decoherence? I think the situations are analogous even if they aren't synonymous. For what it's worth, I, like Schrödinger, believe that the cat thought experiment shows not that there is a real wave function collapse upon observation but that the wave function is an imperfect epistemological model.

That’s because the empirical results of observing trees fall wouldn’t be possible without consciousness

@@orishadray That statement is ambiguous. The observation by a conscious being wouldn't be possible, but would the tree falling not have been possible?

Well, I think that our collective subconsciousness creates reality. If you consider Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and then advance that concept of continual struggle so that it is not just happening outside ourselves but also in our minds. A continual conflict between our conscious and subconscious which results in random thoughts manifesting themselves in a spontaneous, uncontrollable way which emanate out and create solid reality. We are all in conflict with each other at a subconscious level and that conflict makes reality. Our instincts for self preservation ensures that the subconscious mind does not destroy itself. Anyway these are some of my thoughts on the subject of a cosmic consciousness. Thank you for the video.

Do you mind if I ask a hypothetical. If half of the conscious beings in existence were wiped out by Thanos, would the universe still exist? If so it seems the existence of the universe didn't depend on them. If the other half were wiped out instead, would the universe still exist? If so, again it seems like the universe can exist without them. Therefore it seems neither group of conscious beings is necessary to the existence of the universe. If both halves, all of conscious beings were wiped out, would the universe exist then? If your answer in the last case is different from the first two, why?

I create all kinds of universes with all sorts of rules and physics along with every single thing and person in them when I dream. These worlds have all sorts of rules and physics that I'm not even aware of until I discover them. And even then, I never figure out completely how everything works before I wake up. Doesn't mean that I didn't make them up myself. Or have my dreams and all things in them always been there?

@@PrescottValley How quaint.

​@@NothingMasterRight. So you have nothing. Got it.

Your observation is akin to the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. While I might agree that existence precedes essence, if Divine Consciousness does exist, it becomes the Designer of all that is, and man becomes a reflector of the Divine Template.

@@questor5189 This sounds like a tortuously faithful argument to me. It’s essentially a circular theological assertion, dressed as a kinder gentler philosophical contention. Why prevaricate, if you’re intent on saying that God created it all?!

I can't speak for him directly of course, only my interpretation of what he said. However he seems to think that the descriptions we have of the physical processes we observe in the world are accurate (or accurate enough anyway) and describe everything going on around us, including in our brains. That would mean that things like thoughts, experiences, decisions, etc are all a result of sophisticated assemblies of these observable processes for which we already have descriptions. SO if we were to look into the brain and atoms and molecules moving around, it would all conform to what we expect from physics. In that sense I think he's saying he's a physicalist, and doesn't think that any non-physical mental causation or such is moving things around and making things happen in the brain in ways we have never observed. On the other hand he seems to think that quantum fields themselves at the low level are somehow mind-like and that quantum behaviour relates somehow to a cosmic consciousness. The way he talks about it makes it seem this is independent of our own consciousness. However I'm not entirely clear how he things that works. I'm trying not to project my own opinions on to that, but it's hard because he was a bit vague about some of it. I largely write that to try and clarify my understanding of what he said, prompted by your question. I hope you don't mind.

Where do you find this universal consciousness that you claim, we find? Do you mean, that we imagine, or make up or find in a book where someone claims it with no evidence?

Amazing how they cannot accept something self evident such as this. They are prisoners of the scientific method and thus they are holding us back from progress

What I mean is: nothing can exist without being. It's so obvious

​@@cmdrf.ravelli1405Why on earth is that?

​@@maxhagenauer24 simply because for anything to exist there must be a more elemental block to build upon. The deeper we go into the nature of reality, the more subtle and elusive it gets, but yet there seems to always be something that existed before. In the end, there is an infinite nothingness or void that simply is and in that isness there is a basic degree of consciousness that grows and expands through its own material and non-material manifestations.

@@jupavero Are you talking about causation? And we try to find the first uncaused thing assuming there isn't an infinite regression? Are you saying there was nothingness before everything exists? I'm not understanding.

I hear they go good with Kool-Aide

With zero rational evidence.

@@ihatespam2what are your credentials?

@@ihatespam2 perhaps you over estimate what “mind-like” would mean in this context.

@@jimjormy3575 you need credentials, to ask for evidence of a claim. That explains a lot.

@@ihatespam2 you didn’t ask for evidence, you stated unequivocally there was none.

@LifesInsight the brain is more than two hemispheres and human beings use the different regions of their brain. We have our own mind/consciousness so we don't rely on a cosmic mind for everything. What would be the point in that for an autonomous intelligent being.

Because you are opened minded you might like Kim Michaels channel lots of good videos on cosmology , pyschology .

@@johnbowen4442 thanks maybe I will check it out.

@LifesInsight you can only observe your reality. There are different levels of consciousness which affects sight/understanding/experience/etc.

@LifesInsight I think you will observe your capacity outside the universe too.