Shaun was the only one who didn't clap for allan

We know it all we know everything but a few things just give us one miracle and we can explain everything. They Know so little. Amusing children trying to get attention from the group

No matter how hard science tries to duplicate and make a live organism from not copying another live. Life by itself is a mystery, and it is not something science cal understands because it's nothing to do with matter or material

actual problem is Abrahamic monotheism that means jewish, Islam and Chrsitianity, are those who baught the Plato's Noble Lie Concocted in Library of Alexandria by the Ptolemic greeks as Scripture and later Derivatives of it called hebrew bible. destroy theas three, you will not get Communism,Fascism,Colnialism and Capitalism.

Does cloning create conditions for consciousness?

Can man create an emotion or thought outside of a human being?

To address Alan Wallace's question, I know of at least one scientist, Dr. Donald Hoffman, who is rigorously studying the hard problem of consciousness from a very broad and interdisciplinary perspective. In his fascinating 20-minute TED talk, Hoffman shows how Darwinian natural selection actually strongly favors a very limited *perception* of reality over a more accurate, detailed and expansive (objective) one. He cites an impressive list of colleagues and gives many concrete examples to back up his controversial claim that we all "reconstruct" our highly subjective and necessarily false versions of reality via trillions of synapses in our brains. There are many prominent researchers looking into the mind/body problem, but I haven't found any with ideas as compelling and empirically rigid as Hoffman's.

Actually Sean Carol was trolling the Buddhist guy... 😂

A fundamental point that was entirely overlooked in this discussion is this: What is Science other than the search for Truth? What is Truth other than the largest consensus of agreement about the nature of the reality we are able to perceive? Given this proposition, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a wide consensus on personal, introspective experiences, no matter how valid they are to the experiencer. The closest the Science has come to dealing with this conundrum is the Observer Effect in Quantum Mechanics.

Reality has nothing to do with those minds sitting there. Reality has nothing to do with being surrounded by minds. Reality is nature. And you must be alone in it to actually learn anything. Minds are nothing but distractions that impose on that.

Ofcourse there are people who can move matter with mind

go into cosmology if you have short attention span. bravo, engaging

Levels of reality layers: 1. Material- a chair wood, particles, atom, physical energies waves frequency etc… 2. Emotions- collections of emotions from all living organisms 3. Thoughts- Imagination, perception, dreams, etc.. 4. Actions- responses act or react to stimulus or non stimulus 5. Consciousness- experience from actions inactions response no response etc.. 6. Beyond consciousness of material and immaterial. At any levels all are considered reality.

Reality is both material and immaterial. The rationals and the irrationals. It is incomplete to discuss one side of reality and only based on a limited field of science. Reality is a cycle where the irrationality dictates the rationality in which return to cause the dynamic of continuous affect. The physical reality we all seeing is the effect our emotional nature ( motives of ideas, desires, love, hate, etc…) the processes them to take actions (the rational side). The our physical reality today can provide an understanding of our past emotional nature. An example such as the idea of survival of the fittest which was misunderstood that leads to colonialism imperialism wwi wwii and eventually all collapsed these are all based on humanity’s emotions of fear and greed and the needs for balance and human based free freedom that leads to our world of today. So the assessment of reality without the emotional (irrational nature) is incomplete.

Dark matters are 混元气。 You can loosen the bonds between the molecules of the spoon, then effortlessly bend it with your hands. You may find a spoon you can't bend to do the experiment by yourself, everybody can do it. The only condition is when your mind is quiet and can focus. If you can't, find another time, or you meditate for 5 minutes before you do it. Consciousness is not central to the universe, it's 心包太虚/wrapping and throughout the universe, because the universe is projected from the unified consciousness. 无上正等正觉 is true!

What about the Monroe institute and the data with remote viewing as well as the importance of the observer and the part his conscious plays even to the affect of a single photon

👍

No brain, no mind. don’t talk like you know about you understand Buddha. You don’t his mind.

Why don't you invite to a Buddhist monk? There are a lot of them in Sri Lanka. You will teach a lot of things

I am a Sri Lankan and i am a Buddhist. Really proud to be a Buddhist. Our teaching is very special. It is teach us many thing about our mind. Warmly welcome who is going to study about the budhdha and Buddhism. You will be luckiest and you are special ❤❤❤❤🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰

Alan Wallace should be debate with dan dannett.

Why not just send out an audio file - what kind of "instruction" or method of "teaching" is this?? Human robotics, a sign of tomorrow/today.

Sean is right about the description of the world and the human. But the other guy is right about the buddhists having created subjective tools that can lead to powerful phenomenological insights, but to think that you're going to be able to draw correct conclusions about cosmology seems misguided. I study physics and mediate every day. We can and should do both. But if you want knowledge about the objective world, ask a physicist. If you want knowledge about the subjective world, ask a buddhist. If you want both, do it yourself.

CIAO CIANCIO!

I loved this🤍 I definitely don’t agree with the fact that there’s no life after death. I’ve died twice and I worked hospice. I also understand what he has never experienced he will never understand.

I ran it past Occam...non-relative infinitude being absolute absence of limitations...therefore THIS IS. No inside or outside to THIS. ...no matter how it seems to the emergent characteristics.

It appears that all we can know are the principles of math and the objects of our senses, including the micro and macro stuff we observe with our instruments. Anything else we talk about probably is forever unknown or unreal. The stuff that is unreal would include unicorns, gremlins, the soul, angels, gods and devils, and related concepts that are actually in the realm of literature. Humans will make a great leap forward when we can all readily distinguish between real objects and imaginary objects. Someday we will end the child abuse that is religious education and the adult turmoil that is political affiliation. But not in my lifetime as I am 70 and if my genes are any indication I have 20 good years left. What my young grandchildren will encounter is anybody's guess.

Harris Paul Clark George Garcia Melissa

It was utmost pleasure to listen this decent intellectual dialogue.

Sean Carroll is not telling a story.What he is telling is based upon mathematics.And that's not a story that's something.This guy who wants to make word salads does not understand

God is the first cause. Genesis 1:1

At 52:56, I see why the Buddhist laughed. This straight and narrow view of the world is exactly why physicist haven’t gotten much of anywhere in their interpretation of the world. At the end of the day one cannot exist without the other. But what I like to say is that we are souls living a human experience. We are infinite. Our consciousness makes us aware and intellectual. Our consciousness is what lets us study these planes and fields that the physicists mentions to begin with.

To be absolutely honest, beyond the title of this video, I am not quite sure what the "dialogue" or "debate" is really about. What I hear is one man saying what physicists know, or think they know, and another man saying there must be something else, such as mind or consciousness, with the occasional nod to Buddhism. In the end, the conversation is neither deep or revealing, in any way. Maybe they are not the best two speakers to meaningfully or thoughtfully articulate the views they are to represent. As someone who studied physics and math, but also is very familiar with the Buddha's teachings or Buddhist philosophy, in my humble opinion, the conversation falls way short. From the Buddhist perspective, there is no talk of "dependent origination" (which is the Buddhist causal theory, "With the arising of this, that arises; with the ceasing of this, that ceases"); no mention of "non-self" or "anything belonging to self" (which is the Buddhist theory of essencelessness -- that the universe is not composed or consisted of "things" but "processes"); and no deep dive into "non-duality" -- that there is no separation between "subject" and "object" (no "perceiver" behind the "perception", no "actor" behind the "action", no "feeler" behind the "feeling", or even no "sufferer" behind the "suffering", which would all connect with the quantum observer effect quite well); all this missing, is quite disappointing. From the physics perspective, there is no reflection on "determinism" and "free-will" (which I think is a false dichotomy, and which can be answered by the Buddha's "middle way"); no consideration of anything beyond "materialism" or "physicalism", that the universe just came into being forming all these distinct "objects", i.e. "particles"; and no mention whatsoever of how from "materialism" arise "consciousness"; all this missing, is quite disappointing, and lacking humility. [As an aside, as I am reviewing or rereading quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, Sean's mentioning of how the Higgs arise from the mathematics, and the experimental conditions set forth, reminded me of Nagarjuna's Buddhist philosophical treatise on causes and conditions.]

I was really hoping for this to be more of a real conversation when I opened it. I find it difficult to call what happened here a conversation

This is a really incredible lecture. I wish I could afford his books, but they are expensive.

I wish his voice didn't annoy me so much. Can't listen

Alan really went off the deep end towards the finish. That was utter nonsense.

I do love Wallace's voice, he could narrate me to sleep every night

*2017:* guys science will never understand consciousness because it dismisses spiritualism for real *2024:* actually it's quantum mechanics *quantum spiritualists in 2024:* yes but spiritualism im super serial

Philosophers and theologians should tell us what personhood consists of because courts can define it arbitrarily. During a graduate seminar about abortion, my professor taught us that human personhood depended on brain development. She thought that a living, breathing, talking huan with an underdeveloped brain would be a nonperson. That suggests that if I shot another human in cold blood, I coroner would need to determine whether I murdered my victim. When does a person begin to live? That's for philosophers and theologians to discover. It's not a question for natural science to answer. As a biochemist acquaintance of mine, Dr. Michael Behe, says, scientistists don't tend to philosophize well. What would today's natural scientists do if an international court ruled that Jews were nonpersons?

Sean was brilliant…. Too brilliant

What is the confusion….? The mind is just the brain - period

this guy sounds like deepak chopra

"There's something we left out...Us!" Brilliant.

Oh man, the physicist is doing exactly what they did before Einstein came along and told them everything they thought they knew, they actually didn't. Even modern physicists are starting to catch on that consciousness is more fundamental than spacetime.

20:00 he said there’s no life after death! So rich in his words but so poor in his wisdom

Honestly the physist took a clear position on what he believes reality is made of, according to his studies, whereas the bhuddist has passed his time counter argumenting, refusing in order to deny Sean's perspective. The time the spiritual perspective may start.

Reality creates reality now this is a good question.

Anyone thinking about dark matter and dark energy being involved?

All the wisdom and knowledge in all the eons of time, and we have still yet to enact now to end poverty and hunger and homelessness around the world. When you're afluent and healthy, you have more time, opportunity, and other supportive resources at your disposal to inspect, infer and test theories, etc, all you want. Socioeconomic is a reality for most citizens. Paying taxes and not making rent some months can end up as a prison sentence. Corrupt bankers did not go on trial for causing financial crashes affecting millions of people, spontaneously driving them all into homelessness within days after the crash. Suffering? We all suffer, but some of us certainly suffer way, way, less. We now have the ability to see the brain in action. But our soncalled democracy is less and less transparent. Becoming more and more out of touch with compassion and humanity. All the books and knowledge. We still have come nowhere close to solving poverty around the world. We have no will to change the world in a dramatic way for the better. All the experts and manpower crunching numbers and sorting through facts. We still debate about whether some people should eat while others should starve? We think so much, we think we are so civilized and so intelligent, so compassionate. But there are millions of working poor who are criminalized for sleep. Sleeping in their cars. Poverty and homelessness are criminalized. But thinking science people allow open-air drug use. While allowing corrupt bankers to carry on business as usual. Deep think. But still no real-world action to end poverty, hunger, and the houselessness epidemic. It's a shame.