I'm curious - has this dialog been distilled into some form of article?
@reginaldmolehurst4592 күн бұрын
Worth looking at this from the other side of waking experiences. What happens just before the onset of sleep? Quote:- In the interval between wakefulness and sleep, there is a gray zone during which rich and dynamic changes occur. Brain activity slows down, muscles relax, heart rate lowers, consciousness and responsiveness to the environment fluctuate, and rich perceptual experiences emerge Quote - Vivid hypnagogic hallucinations are associated with SOREMPs or with patterns at sleep onset that are intermediate between wakefulness and REM sleep. They appear to represent the intrusion of REM sleep dreaming into wakefulness. Similar hallucinations may be present upon awakening from REM sleep (vivid hypnopompic hallucinations).
@a13xdunlop4 күн бұрын
Fantastic discussion, wish these two would meet for another discussion soon.
@KiviK-d7w7 күн бұрын
Rinpoche is the only one who knows anything about anything.
@premakau7 күн бұрын
This subject is an. eel..the more effort you put in to try to catch ir it is more slippery because the eel produces the saliva all through its body.. consciousness is an eel.. you know and see the eel..the trouble is we cannot see the consciousness not even feel..its allover yourself its all over in the world and spread in all over the universe. It may not appeal to our simple , very temporary life ,now here then not ...we are not even sure if the brains are doing the job of the consciousness.. Consciousness is a spark that part of light which is in turn is part of sound.. SOUND is the primordial creation and basis for all maaya..sound is maaya, very slippery and volatile and never ending in creation.. there is nothing here with out sound ..the universes are all creation of sound..when a child is born we do not see any light but we hear its cry.. I wonder if ever the west would be able to understand the cosmos.... .
@hydrorix19 күн бұрын
We are the entertainment and the entertained! Consciousness is all that actually exists. We experience Perception In Consciousness. Perceptions are as if from a feed, like cable television, from Source. That Source is a Consciousness Singularity, of which we are partitioned bits.
@anandaurora9 күн бұрын
How about this, you don't recreate the self from memory, it's just there, as a dynamic agglomeration, it's like, when we "know" something you don't need to keep reconstructing it with first principles
@laika575710 күн бұрын
Two of my Heroes. God bless you both..🙏🙏🙏
@cloudlessrainvisions326411 күн бұрын
Two of my very favorite modern thinkers!
@pamelaj122611 күн бұрын
Are Bernardo’s hands tied because of having to work in the scientific method? How much does he discard because it doesn’t meet academic standards? Does a scientist throw anything away? How big a part does intuition play in developing hypotheses? It’s fun watching Bernardo Kastrup explain his positions. A great conversation. Thanks 🙏🏽
@No2AI15 күн бұрын
We are complicating reality - consciousness evolved from a higher level of curiosity which in turn motivated creativity. Here we are !If left to die it would die .... advanced technology is responsible for this 'survival'.
@emilynguyen625919 күн бұрын
We are conscious on several layers simultaneously . If knowledge is he ability to interact, as we do with the visual field with and without consciousness , is that in anyway related to our abilities r the time of waking up from sleep.? Also playing music ior driving without conscious awareness, these involving a series through time....
@bernardofitzpatrick540319 күн бұрын
Bernardo Kastrup is The G.O.A.T. 🎉. Love Schopenhauer as well! I resonate with Christof’s views. Great discussion.
@yuvalkaplan307421 күн бұрын
did Christof become idealist?
@philosophybabble21 күн бұрын
It seems that Koch is still investigating and learning from these perspectives, suggesting that he is open to exploring alternative explanations for consciousness but hasn't fully committed to idealism. This approach reflects his ongoing commitment to understanding consciousness from multiple angles, acknowledging that current scientific models may not fully capture its nature.
@legend_ai_art21 күн бұрын
The titles of their books provide a beautiful summary of their perspectives. "Being You" by Anıl looks from a third-person perspective(just the title) and aims to find a place for a subjective phenomenon like consciousness within the internally consistent world of physicalism. On the other hand, "Then I Am Myself the World" is entirely about how a subjective experience can change the perspective of someone well-versed in the consistent world of physicalism and expresses a different firsthand experience. Then we say that experiences can be misleading. They are just situations caused by certain problems or perception confusions in that consistent physicalist world. On the surface, I could really see it that way too. However, if you seriously examine the arguments and counter-arguments from both sides regarding near-death experiences, and read or listen to hundreds of such experiences, not just one or three or five, you will realize how far these experiences are from the explanations provided by physicalists and how they can change your entire perspective. We are something much different than we thought, and the science we currently have is incredibly inadequate in explaining the magnitude of what exists.
@philosophybabble21 күн бұрын
I believe we're moving toward a new paradigm that, while it will take time to refine, must remain grounded in the reality of our physical world. These new approaches should be applicable not only to social structures, education, and existential questions but also to ethics, mental health, and our relationship with the environment. Theories and philosophies should extend beyond abstract thought and be practical and relevant to our daily lives.
@woodcabinasmr526622 күн бұрын
this page blocks user coments, im out... sya
@philosophybabble21 күн бұрын
It might be an issue on your end. I haven't blocked anyone, unless they were vulgar or obnoxiously rude. If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to comment at all.
@mmc57722 күн бұрын
I had total ego death similar to Kochs story. But mine differed in that i kept looping the same two questions. 1. Am I alone? Yes I am… 2. Is it forever? Oh no! It is Back to 1. Each time I answered 2, the oh no got scarier and scarier as I started to remember being here before
@philosophybabble21 күн бұрын
If someone is experiencing genuine ego death, the ability to ask self-referential questions like "Am I alone?" would generally not be possible because the typical "I" thought process would be dissolved. If you can still ask such questions, it suggests you are not in a full state of ego death, but in a state where the ego is significantly weakened or altered.
@mmc57721 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble these were the first thoughts coming back from ego death I meant. The more I started to remember the scarier it got. I could think 2 or three thoughts whereas I wasn’t thinking previously . I knew a sense of I, but suddenly alone, (so now I’m coming back , correct) and sense of time ie eternity, but still unaware I had a body/mind in physical reality. Finally Irealised I was on psychedelics, was a person, in a house, on a planet with others. Which felt like heaven relative to that confused in-between realm. Mundane everyday experience seemed basically perfect.
@tylermoore442922 күн бұрын
Have not heard the whole thing, but does Dr. Seth speak anywhere on whether he has taken psychedelics himself, and if not, why not?
@philosophybabble22 күн бұрын
Yes, Anil Seth has discussed his experiences with psychedelics, which he has used as part of his exploration into consciousness. He believes that psychedelics can provide valuable insights into how the brain constructs reality.
@tylermoore442922 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble Thanks! I do see he briefly mentions his own experience at approximately 4:20, but moves the discussion immediately back to Christof's experience. Strange. Addendum: Dr. Seth also throughout uses the words "your experience", "why does your experience prove x", etc., never "my experience", thus always placing himself in the place of the dispassionate observer and Christof and his experience in the place of the observed. Scientific objectivity assumes the observer and never gives it a second thought after that. This is not to say I am on Christof's side. Not everyone who has a psychedelic trip can become a sage of consciousness, and he has no recourse but to appeal to Kastrup's work a lot of times. Ideally, there should be a debate between Dr. Seth and Kastrup, but the two probably will not get along.
@philosophybabble22 күн бұрын
@@tylermoore4429 Sometimes in live discussions, it can be challenging to organize your thoughts.
@tylermoore442922 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble Could be. To me it looks like he prioritizes attitudes of scientific rigor and objectivity over the anecdotal and the experiential, so dwelling on his experiences would be a solecism in that context.
@AnilSethNeuroscientist19 күн бұрын
@@tylermoore4429 i talk a little bit about my own psychedelic experiences (some of them) in my book Being You
@saberier222 күн бұрын
Whats the difference in saying its all mental and its all God? Is mental its own substrate?
@philosophybabble22 күн бұрын
The difference between saying "it's all mental" and "it's all God" lies in the nature of the substrate that each philosophy proposes as the foundation of reality. Idealism centers on consciousness or mind as the core of existence, while theism or pantheism places God or the divine at the heart of all reality.
@saberier222 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble I guess I lump anything that isnt material into one big group of make believe. Its hard to imagine that I am really just a structure of mindless 'atoms of Space" , but it seems most realistic to me. Trying to get a happy feeling about being the universe, not a temporary structure subset.
@philosophybabble22 күн бұрын
@@saberier2 It’s understandable to lean toward materialism, but it’s worth considering that finding meaning doesn’t always have to conflict with a materialist view. Many find inspiration in the idea that we’re all part of the same universe, made of the same "star-stuff," as Carl Sagan put it. Sometimes, it’s about how we choose to frame our existence within that reality.
@saberier222 күн бұрын
Would be nice to know how the physical brain creates "maps", representations of the outer world. Damasio talks about how consciousness could arise in the interplay of the total "map" being upgraded and as they compare to each other, we experience consciousness.
@willbri977322 күн бұрын
I have great sympathy for idealism and William James work in varieties of religious experience, but I think Seth is simply right here that no mystical experience is a valid argument for an ontology. If it were I could argue for the existence of dream experiences just as easily which is plainly absurd.
@ashvoj22 күн бұрын
Why does Koch write a book about something that he still is learning about? All these people keep dashing out books about topics that they don't even know what they're talking about. That old chap Deepak Chopra has written 100 books on these things, yet he admits he's even now more clueless than ever.
@philosophybabble22 күн бұрын
Thinkers like Christof and Deepak write books on complex subjects like consciousness to share their evolving insights, engage with the public, and contribute to ongoing discussions. These books are not definitive answers but are steps along the path of discovery, encouraging further exploration and understanding.
@playpaltalk23 күн бұрын
Interesting and I wonder if an out of body experience in a dream can be real.
@robertvann734923 күн бұрын
Conscious intelligent being argument, easily understood. p is non p impossible contradiction. 1>, non p is, non conscious caused the p is non p effect of 2>, p is, consciousness in the universe Lady, p is non p, a conscious intelligent being had to exist to cause the non contradiction effect of consciousness in the universe. Sad you're not wise to use simple logic.🎉🎉
@philosophybabble23 күн бұрын
Your argument contains an anthropomorphic fallacy and a false dichotomy. You assume that consciousness must be caused by a conscious intelligent being, projecting human-like qualities onto the universe. This is an anthropomorphic fallacy. Additionally, your argument presents a false dichotomy by implying that consciousness must come from either non-conscious entities (impossible) or a conscious creator.
@newparadigmfish23 күн бұрын
I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. It keeps going round in circles. One has to look through the phenomenological lens if they want beyond this primitive, half developed monkey head paradigm but who’s really ready for that path. If you want to understand the modes - KZfaq - new paradigm fish by Yap. Stripping it right back. Alternatively- read my work for free on medium. New paradigm fish Yap.
@MeRetroGamer23 күн бұрын
There's no unconscious, because for it being possible to be an "unconscious" there must be something, a self, a subject, who has the property of being conscious. Consciousness is not a property, consciousness is a fact of phenomena. Simply as it is, *if there's no self, there cannot be an unconscious.* We make a totally artificial distinction between an inner space (mind) and an outer space (physical world), but such a distinction is an artifact of there being an identity with a specific form (plus a bunch of layers of reflection and abstraction). There's just phenomena.
@moesypittounikos23 күн бұрын
This conversion demonstrated jnana versus an academic understanding. Koch has had the experience but Anil Seth is the blind man acting like he is the authority on what Koch experienced. And you can tell by Anils body language, well hand position, hand held high and sometimes waving when he makes a statement in front of the camera like he is conjuring truths out of his palm
@philosophybabble23 күн бұрын
While it's true that Anil Seth’s approach is grounded in cognitive neuroscience, he also draws on personal insights and experiences in his work. In "Being You," Seth incorporates personal anecdotes alongside scientific analysis, showing that his understanding of consciousness isn’t just academic. Focusing on Seth’s body language and perceived attitude rather than his arguments is an ad hominem attack, which undermines the substance of his contributions by attacking his character or presentation style.
@moesypittounikos22 күн бұрын
You are right. I was just commenting on his outer person from the interview. This is the impression I took away. I will read the man's book for a deeper understanding.@@philosophybabble
@AnilSethNeuroscientist19 күн бұрын
@@moesypittounikos thank you!
@BLSFL_HAZE23 күн бұрын
Self-evidently, we are nothing more than highly coordinated, goal-driven organisms. From the inside, the objective aspect of the perpetual physical processing at the centre of our physiology is inaccessible, even though the subjective aspect is present. From the outside, the objective aspect of that same physical processing is accessible, even though the subjective aspect is absent. In contrast with all other physical processes we observe in nature, our uniquely dichotomous central processing seems to be an ontological anomaly. Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label it for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly reify its subjective aspect (often labelled "subjectivity", "consciousness", "awareness", "cognition", "sentience", "mind", etc) into seeming as though it is, in fact, ontologically different from (and caused by) its objective aspect. Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains unsuccessful in observing the mechanism/s responsible for this causation, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness". Practically speaking, all there is to find is the highly coordinated, goal-driven organism, along with its own central processing, and all that it physically entails. Other than the subjective aspect of this central processing, there is no reason why it feels like anything to be these organisms that we are. Being naturally occurring entities, there is no reason why such organisms emerge in the universe. This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".
@mattikangaskoski354416 күн бұрын
Or, with respect, it may the other way around. We unwittingly postulate the physical and this seems to create another ontological substance. In reality, there is only mental stuff, and this realisation solves the hard problem. Additionally, now you have direct access to the stuff that the world is made of.
@bastianmichiel52823 күн бұрын
It seems to me this discussion was a bit unfair to analytic idealism because most of the arguments by Anil against the fundamental reality being mental or consciousness, had a hidden materialistic assumption. If the universe is fundamentally mental, it means every object is an appearance to it. This means not only the body but also the world and let us not forget the brain which is the external representation of the personal mind which in turn is an object (or in Kastrup’s words a dissociative border) to universal consciousness. Therefor general anesthesia shuts down the personal mind but it can’t ever touch universal consciousness in the same way as bumping your head in a dream will never give the dreamer a bruised head. In analytic idealism (as I understand it) the physical world is an appearance. It is what reality looks like from across such a dissociative border or point of perspective.
@woodcabinasmr526624 күн бұрын
Among all physicalist views, Anil manages to adopt the most ridiculously stupid one: illusionism. It is astonishing that someone can look at their own complexity and believe that it is all just an illusory sensation created by the brain. I don’t even know why he is still invited to such refined discussions about consciousness; his position is the most primitive of all...
@philosophybabble23 күн бұрын
An illusion is understood as a phenomenon that exists in one way, but presents itself in a different manner. Something that is entirely non-existent still holds a mode of existence, yet this mode contrasts significantly with its mode of appearance, creating a discrepancy between the two. Anil Seth's position on illusionism in consciousness is indeed controversial, but it shares interesting parallels with Buddhist philosophy. Both suggest that our perceptions and sense of self are constructed illusions. Despite the different goals-Seth's being scientific understanding and Buddhism's being spiritual liberation-both views challenge our intuitive notions of self and reality. While you may disagree with his views, diversity in perspectives is crucial for advancing our understanding of consciousness. Anil's work, including his research on perception and his book "Being You," contributes significantly to this ongoing dialogue.
@woodcabinasmr526623 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble "Anil brings more of the same... We brought together people like Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, and Christof to try to find new avenues for understanding consciousness. Bringing someone who adds nothing but old paradigms (which are obviously not useful) still seems pointless to me. In fact, as Ananda Coomaraswamy would say, 'Buddhism today is famous for everything it has never been.' In any case, I continue to say that I respect Anil's work as a professional. He and anyone else have the right to believe what they want, but including him in conversations like this about understanding consciousness is like inviting Dawkins to try to find a new theological insight."
@philosophybabble23 күн бұрын
@@woodcabinasmr5266 While you favour perspectives from Bernardo, Michael, and Christof, practical applications are also crucial. Analytic Idealism posits the universe as fundamentally mental, which is philosophically intriguing but less clear in addressing daily life, ethical dilemmas, and psychological challenges. In contrast, Anil’s work shows that the self is an illusion and perceptions are brain constructs, offering tangible benefits in improving mental health, addressing existential crises, and fostering empathy. His approach bridges cognitive science and practical psychology, providing tools for dealing with life’s challenges. Respecting diverse viewpoints is essential for understanding consciousness. Both metaphysical questions and practical applications matter, and Anil’s contributions are valuable for their real-world relevance in mental health and ethics.
@woodcabinasmr526623 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble Okay, let's be practical here. If someone believes that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon (like Anil does), it's all over. Do you understand that this is called nihilism? Take an apple juice and go to the beach to watch the sunset-nothing matters, nothing has meaning anymore, not even studying neuroscience. Whatever you’re trying to become or do will last a few years, facing difficulties and challenges that will vanish in the blink of a cosmic eye. Don’t waste time working 8 hours a day, taking crap from your boss to pay off your debts and sleep under a roof for the next 80 years. Just kill your self and end this bs we call life now. Or if you prefer, do only what you enjoy, whenever and however you want, instead of staying in a lab trying to understand mathematical calculations. There are no secrets in the universe for you; you are just a conscious cosmic accident. I am not inclined towards the views of Bernardo, Buddha, or anything like that. I am inclined towards people who sit down to discuss the extent of consciousness, and all of them strongly believe (with arguments a thousand times better than those of materialists) that consciousness transcends and is fundamental. In fact, to look into your child's eyes and believe that the love you are feeling is, in the end, just a chemical illusion generated by the brain-a kind of material prank-is a degree of psychopathy. Actually, it requires a level beyond that, as the psychopath does not feel this love at any moment, which is worse than feeling it and still having the strength to devalue its substantiality. The point is simple: if you believe that consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain, there’s nothing you can add to this journey into the unknown. Take the apple juice and go to the beach. If one day it is indeed PROVEN that nothing of us remains, nothing transcends or is fundamental, we will have to face our insubstantiality with our heads held high. Until then, defending this idea is just existential masochism. Dawkins, Anil, and others don’t even deeply understand the implications of their beliefs-I am sure of it. Nihilism is incompatible with existence
@woodcabinasmr526623 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble Okay, let's be practical here. If someone believes that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon (like Anil does), it's all over. Do you understand that this is called nihilism? Take an apple juice and go to the beach to watch the sunset-nothing matters, nothing has meaning anymore, not even studying neuroscience. Whatever you’re trying to become or do will last a few years, facing difficulties and challenges that will vanish in the blink of a cosmic eye. Don’t waste time working 8 hours a day, taking crap from your boss to pay off your debts and sleep under a roof for the next 80 years. Just kill your self and end this bs we call life now. Or if you prefer, do only what you enjoy, whenever and however you want, instead of staying in a lab trying to understand mathematical calculations. There are no secrets in the universe for you; you are just a conscious cosmic accident. I am not inclined towards the views of Bernardo, Buddha, or anything like that. I am inclined towards people who sit down to discuss the extent of consciousness, and all of them strongly believe (with arguments a thousand times better than those of materialists) that consciousness transcends and is fundamental. In fact, to look into your child's eyes and believe that the love you are feeling is, in the end, just a chemical illusion generated by the brain-a kind of material prank-is a degree of psychopathy. Actually, it requires a level beyond that, as the psychopath does not feel this love at any moment, which is worse than feeling it and still having the strength to devalue its substantiality. The point is simple: if you believe that consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain, there’s nothing you can add to this journey into the unknown. Take the apple juice and go to the beach. If one day it is indeed PROVEN that nothing of us remains, nothing transcends or is fundamental, we will have to face our insubstantiality with our heads held high. Until then, defending this idea is just existential masochism. Dawkins, Anil, and others don’t even deeply understand the implications of their beliefs-I am sure of it. Nihilism is incompatible with existence
@waynelewis42524 күн бұрын
Even the statement that matter is a manifestation of energy isn’t very good. No physicists I know of have ever said anything about what energy is, only what it does. One formulation due to Terrence Deacon which yields some very powerful conclusions is that energy is the capacity to do work, where work is defined as the constrained release of energy against the second law. That is, energy is any asymmetry that has the capacity ,if properly constrained to do work.
@JDTherrien24 күн бұрын
At 26:50 there is an assumption made. When regarding anesthesia, it's common for materialists to say that anesthesia makes someone unconscious. Or it makes their consciousness go away. But what if it's more like this: Imagine consciousness as a person sitting in a room. Within that room, they have speakers that produce noise, they have optics which produce vision, and they have a computer that performs calculations. These are all ran by electricity. If the electricity powering these goes out, does that mean that the person within that room stops existing? Or do they no longer have any inputs providing feedback? I'm drawing a separation between the sensory inputs and consciousness. The sensory inputs can be turned off, but we don't have any evidence that consciousness is ever turned off.
@philosophybabble24 күн бұрын
There have been multiple studies on this phenomenon, often referred to as "anesthesia awareness." it is relatively rare, it does occur in about 1 to 2 out of every 1,000 cases involving general anesthesia. I can relate personally, as I have been aware of slight sensations and conversations during anesthesia, even if I couldn't recall them until much later. My experience was during a cesarean section for my son's birth. This suggests that consciousness might persist even when sensory inputs are disrupted. There isn't definitive evidence that consciousness is ever completely turned off; rather, it appears that sensory inputs are merely suppressed.
@mmc57722 күн бұрын
Even if it anaesthesia makes consciousness go away to a deep sleep like state or even if a some tablet makes consciousness change, it doesn’t mean the tablet is made of matter, that exists out there in the world mind-independently or outside consciousness The Hindus considered the deep sleep state the third aspect of the self, the other two being the waking state and dream world. In the deep sleep state Without brain activity, the potential for awareness still exists. So it’s not the true self. Our true self is neither of the three states..it’s the fourth ie Turiya or the 1st, the only
@mattikangaskoski354416 күн бұрын
Not to mention the difference between metacognitive experience which you can report having and experience that you are not metacognitively aware of or experience that you can't report on afterwards.
@kenm889115 күн бұрын
@philosophybabble I think even under idealism the answer might simply be 'yes', a person can quite literally go unconscious in the sense that the person's thoughts or phenomenal experiences are not being evoked. Because remember: conscious is the ground of existence in analytic idealism. It's the capacity for experience. So me going unconscious really may just mean no excitations are being evoked in my dissociative boundary.
@milanberghout985424 күн бұрын
Amazing conversation
@george546424 күн бұрын
Anil doesn’t quite grok idealism or it’s implications for science. Science is not predicated on nor has progressed due to physicalism. It has progressed due to the scientific method
@thismindofours24 күн бұрын
Christof Koch intellect is just staggering, it’s like a beautiful mountain range
@mafaromapiye53924 күн бұрын
l can reflect his perception, resonates...
@robotaholic24 күн бұрын
If someone changes their view enough times, eventually they'll get it right. On the other hand, you don't want someone to stay continuously stubbornly wrong if it has been proven they are wrong. The fact is the longer the amount of time passes, the less you will believe your spiritual experience. I had a heroic dose mushroom and zillions of times lsd and mdma and hash etc...I'm a staunch atheist to this day. Before you doubt my shroom trip it was of an angry screaming entity through moving honeycomb etc...proves nothing. It is really just your subconscious imo
@SeiroosFardipour-wf4bi24 күн бұрын
It is surely that but it is so unconscience to describe it because the essential is afterward once you come back true experience brings back a new being where the old ego tries to gets back inside and new challenge get started and not everyone could handle it,it pushes one to the limits of madness...
@philosophybabble24 күн бұрын
It’s important to recognize that both spiritual experiences and psychosis can involve significant changes in perception and thought, but there are key distinctions between the two.
@SeiroosFardipour-wf4bi24 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble sure I talk of my personal experiences once I got back I had to go not rough changes however challenging,the plus had to rewrite the experience layer by layers and each time I got deeper to new facts twenty years and yet remains certain unexplored prediction now I am 64 and not very good health though I was born with but through time they became handicappant,what you should know is that the experience itself might last an hour or less or more but the knowledge requis is so deep that three entire life times of studying ten hours a day will still seems nothing to it so that when I at first didn't know and gave my point of view on any subject to people and they said I am mad I say that because one vision is so original that better to keep quiet
@philosophybabble24 күн бұрын
@@SeiroosFardipour-wf4bi The complexity of what you've described suggests that these experiences could be more psychological or existential rather than purely spiritual. It's clear that your experiences have had an impact on you and have been challenging to comprehend and articulate over many years. Given the challenges and depth of your experiences, it might be helpful to talk to someone who can offer support and guidance.
@premakau24 күн бұрын
All you scientists are failing to remember that a human being is only half of both sexes put in one piece .. each half in the form of seed and other half the womb or soil ..A seed needs soil to come into existence.. you scientists are conveniently forgetting this TRUTH of creation.. you think you are discussing , theoretically but what is practical in nature..is THE TRUTH.. Truth is as thin as the sprout and as heavy like soil.. Soul is soil ...that meets the spark of life in the womb when injected...to realise this truth You need a third eye, not lense scopes of different orders... That is what Shivas third eye teaches us..beyond the Quantum mechanics... You western scientists keep beating around the bush....just a time pass....
@philosophybabble24 күн бұрын
While you attempt to discuss spiritual concepts and criticize the scientific approach, the tone of your comment comes across as absolutist and arrogant. This can make your message seem more like an incoherent or disorganized rant rather than a reasoned critique. Your approach lacks the compassion and humility that are typically valued in spiritual traditions, making it difficult for your message to resonate positively with others.
@backwardthoughts102224 күн бұрын
images and the knowing of them are not physical functions/properties. if this is the case then the only method of establishing this is through the rigorous observation of this phenomenon, as has occured. this also means studying the biological correlates will keep you grasping at straws.
@5piles24 күн бұрын
clumsy discussion, get up to date... eminent neuroscientist prof. richard davidson's work on 40+ scientifically tested tukdam events have already dismantled modern physicalism and biology. these studies will are soon to be fully published. the tukdam in taipei 2020 fully monitored and tested by taipei neuro labs already measured things such as spontaneous brain activity activation weeks post clinical d3ath. get with the times.
@philosophybabble24 күн бұрын
Any publication you can point me to his work? I would really love that. Thanks
@projectmalus25 күн бұрын
Great show, thanks.
@gustafa217025 күн бұрын
You can be mistaken about thr contents of consciousness, but you can't be mistaken about consciousness itself. It's a brute fact, and no amount of illusionist talk will get around it.
@clivejenkins403325 күн бұрын
Is ego the meta conscious?
@philosophybabble25 күн бұрын
The ego is a part of meta-consciousness due to its role in self-awareness and regulation, but meta-consciousness encompasses a broader capacity for self-reflection and awareness of mental states.
@clivejenkins403325 күн бұрын
👍
@SciD125 күн бұрын
I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness! And how it led to so much quantum woo, and ridiculous quantum consciousness quackery. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. They just couldn't figure it out, so they had to resort to magic. And a light wave that somehow knows it's being observed, in which case it collapses into a particle... Oh boy! 🤦 Is there any hope for humanity? 🙄 All they had to do was to question the original assumption made by Young... Well, some of us actually did... Better late than never, I guess...
@philosophybabble25 күн бұрын
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’d like to address some of the points you raised: Concepts like wave-particle duality and entanglement are counterintuitive but well-supported by experimental evidence. Speculative interpretations like quantum consciousness lack rigorous empirical support and are not endorsed by mainstream physics. Quantum mechanics’ probabilistic framework accurately describes inherent uncertainties at the quantum level, validated by experiments like the double-slit experiment. Superposition, where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously, is well-supported by experiments, including quantum interference and quantum computing. Observation affecting quantum systems is a key aspect of quantum mechanics, demonstrated by numerous experiments. This implies a deeper understanding of measurement, not "magic." The double-slit experiment and subsequent developments in quantum mechanics have been foundational and extensively tested. The scientific community continuously refines its theories based on new evidence. I would also appreciate if we could maintain a respectful tone in our discussion. Being condescending can hinder productive dialogue and mutual understanding. If you have specific scientific critiques backed by empirical evidence, they would be valuable to the scientific community!
@amartinakis23 күн бұрын
@@philosophybabble Guy just canceled Quantum Mechanics because it does not fit his narrative 🙃
@philosophybabble23 күн бұрын
@@amartinakis right! 😆
@kw28025 күн бұрын
Christof.., Dean Radin did the experiment with the Double Split, which changed the result
@williamkerr513225 күн бұрын
The excerpt from the Book that Christof Koch read says about the dissolution of the Ego that happens after surpassing the Astral Plane and entering the Spiritual Plane and the Atman dissolves in Brahman. How something Unmanifested, as coming from the Infinite Primordial Source of All Consciousness and equally Infinite probabilities cross to the Plane of Existence where everything is Manifested and this question is interconnected with the Axiom of Kybalion which reads:The All is Mind.Is the Universe Mental?My intuition seems to know but it is difficult to put into words. Then I will use metaphors such as from the Primordial Source of Infinite Consciousness Layers of Subtle Aeons will overlap and become entangled in Strange Geometries of Kaos until such Strange Geometries become the Contours of Platonic Polyhedra and normalize in juxtaposition of Fractals in Order from the Fundamental Monad, thus Energy, Electricity and Magnetism, and the Fohat of Theosophy gradually condense under exposure to cold and hot temperatures until they solidify in our Third Dimension functioning as Vessels and Forms and Receptacles for certain Quotas , Quantities of Consciousness of the ABSOLUTE. This is all considering that Kant's Phenomenon and Noumenon and Bernado Kastrup's Idealism. This is all considering that Kant's Phenomenon and Noumenon and Bernado Kastrup's Idealism with the Wave Function Collapse done by the sum of All Sentient Beings in the Universe, remembering that H. P. Blavatsky stated that there is no mathematical point in the Universe that is not Conscious, which Hyman Schipper explains very well with his Interpretation of Panpsychism in Kabbalah.
@joeolson608518 күн бұрын
Right
@kw28025 күн бұрын
Anil.., Life Isen't solved. Please inform yourself a second time. Thank you
@lau-guerreiro25 күн бұрын
Great conversation. If everyone could disagree as cordially as these two do, the world would be a much better place!
@noahghost447625 күн бұрын
Koch has a little bit of a Liam Neeson thing going on, looks like he should be disarming an intruder or something. Respect!