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.

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

@@tylermoore4429 Sometimes in live discussions, it can be challenging to organize your thoughts.

@@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.

@@tylermoore4429 i talk a little bit about my own psychedelic experiences (some of them) in my book Being You

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

@@moesypittounikos thank you!

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.

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.

@@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."

​@@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.

@@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

@@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

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.

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

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.

​@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.

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.

@@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

@@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.

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.

Any publication you can point me to his work? I would really love that. Thanks

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.

👍

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!

@@philosophybabble Guy just canceled Quantum Mechanics because it does not fit his narrative 🙃

@@amartinakis right! 😆

Right

😃😃