Understanding is an interesting focus. We've all had (I hope) those "click" moments when something just suddenly makes sense - you "get it." I can tell you there is no correspondence to that in the operation of a computer.

when you're younger lecturing older academic people, you expect them to bring you back to desertion.

11:10

Ian, you are constantly referring to Desmond’s metaxology. Why don’t you spell it out?

Moore Deborah Thompson Donna Anderson Kenneth

Civil war could be imminent, unbelievable

The main problem is his stammering which prohibits clear understanding his lecture

Protection society. I’ve never experienced Sir Penrose sense of humor. So funny

Thankyou

Compiliato?compiliación in spanish

25:41 UNKNOWING

23:51-25:41 ACTIVE RECEPTIVITY!

23:03-23:51 Trump SAIT. (Left hemisphere: Knowledge) Biden CONNAIT. (Right hemisphere: Wisdom)

Dr. McGilchrist's description of the functions of the RIGHT and LEFT hemispheres of the human brain sheds much light on the perennial and currently rather vicious struggle between the RIGHT [left brain] and the LEFT [right brain] in our political arenas: a phenomenon which is particularly evident in the USA at the moment..

GRABBING & GETTING: Doesn't that perfectly describe Trump and the MAGA movement in the USA, and other similar figures and movements in many other nations on our planet?

Very helpful. Thank you. As I try to talk to a flow of twenty somethings that come through my youth Hostel about God, the central issue is usually about the exclusivity of Christianity, that is, the claim that in some way Jesus life, death, and the historical resurrection are unique, and that belief/trust in that uniqueness is requisite for being Christian. The Bible seems to support that view. If we are to be in conversation with the multitudes of these "spiritual but not religious" people, and with those who lean toward taking the exclusivity of Christianity seriously, we have to talk about how the Bible can be interpreted less exclusively, and the relationship bt christianity and world religions. Does anyone know of a good resource for that?

This has 50k views 😢

Tis' better to find "balance" between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Nevermind requiring one hemisphere to dominate the other. If anything, the right hemisphere is exceedingly deceitful. Beware of what you wish for.

GOD appears to Moses in the burning bush - not to Abraham.

Here Penrose holds that life and consciousness isn't computation. However Maldacena holds the whole universe is a QC function, implying life and consciousness must also be QC function. But this isn't normal computation, that cannot think.

❤

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: ‍ Colin McGinn, a philosopher with a wide range of interests, is giving a talk about "Mysterianism and the Mind of God". McGinn is known for embracing labels that others might use as insults, turning them into positive identities. Scruton is a visiting professor at the University of St Andrews and Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. ✍️ Scruton is a prolific writer with a wide range of interests, including the Church of England, beauty, pessimism, and green philosophy. Theology studies God, so why can't psychology explore the divine mind if God has plans and intentions? ️‍♀️ We can make inferences about God's mind based on the evidence He leaves behind. Even if God is fictional, we can study the psychology behind his character based on religious traditions. Our knowledge of anything, including God's mind, is never perfect. This means God's thoughts wouldn't have hidden meanings or ambiguities. God's thoughts likely follow the same logical form as described in standard predicate logic. His specific thoughts, like "the queen is good," would have a structure based on existing theories of descriptions. God's mastery of language suggests a complex psychology behind it, similar to human language. Even if God doesn't speak like us, his language of thought likely has structure and rules. This "divine language" would be similar to human language at an abstract level: rule-based and infinitely generative. God likely has consciousness, even if it's different from what we experience (like bats). God is probably self-conscious, with a unified sense of self, similar to how humans are. So, unlike us, God's consciousness wouldn't be a mystery arising from physical processes. God also has a will, makes decisions, and reasons, but the issue of free will applies to him too. God likely forms intentions by combining his beliefs and desires. He might even have varying degrees of desire, just like us. Unlike humans, God probably doesn't have an unconscious mind or dreams. This is opposite to empiricism, which says knowledge comes from senses. The video argues that God likely doesn't have a personality in the human sense. Analogy: some animals have minds but no personalities (sheep, snakes, fish). Despite desires different from the devil, God probably lacks a "sparkling" or "introverted" personality. The video will now discuss the relationship between God and the world, assuming both exist. This view also makes God seem separate from the world, which might not be ideal theologically. 🪐‍♂️ The video will next explore another view: God and the world somehow coincide. Even if God emerged, how would he interact with the world? This problem isn't solved. 🪐❓ There are external objects, but they are ideas in God's mind, not physical things. The video acknowledges these are complex philosophical ideas and none are without difficulties. The difficulty of uniting God and the world isn't a reason to deny God's existence, any more than mind-body problems deny minds. ‍♂️‍♂️ Some might use these difficulties to argue God or the world don't exist, but the video argues for a more moderate position. ⚖️ The video suggests similar logic applies to the mind-body problem - complex problems don't automatically deny existence. ⚖️ This problem is similar to the mind-body problem and challenges the idea of radical dualism. ↔️ Another difficulty is reconciling God's intervention with deterministic laws of nature. ⚖️ If everything is predetermined by laws, how can God or humans truly affect the world? ‍♂️ The video compares the problem of God intervening in the world to humans making free will decisions. ⚖️ If our decisions are just physical brain activity, free will seems like an illusion. Similarly, some say God's will could be physical (like magnetism), but that seems too simplistic for God. ✨ The video seeks a solution that avoids these problems, but admits none are perfect so far. ⚖️ The key is finding a way to fit free will/God's will into a deterministic or indeterministic physical world. 🪐 The video argues the problem of God intervening in the world is a general problem about causation, not unique to God. 🪐 Many people aren't worried about God acting in a world without broken physical laws. 🪐 The video uses suspending gravity as an example of a miracle (violating a natural law). ✨ The speaker doubts God ever intervenes in this way, and argues there's no evidence for it. The video finds the idea of God following natural laws while intervening a genuine problem. ⚖️✨ Again, this problem applies beyond just God - it applies to free will as well. ⚖️➡️ A radical separation of God and the world (dualism) makes this problem worse. ‍♀️✨ In this view, God would be inseparable from the universe but not identical to it, avoiding both extremes. ✨🪐 Scruton finds this view challenging due to existing problems with free will. He refers to Harry Frankfurt's definition of free will based on desires and self-control, not indeterminacy. Scruton says an intentional action is one where you can ask "why?" and expect a justification, not just a cause. ❓ Scruton acknowledges the difficulty of describing God - whether God is like us or completely unique. ⚖️ He mentions Islamic ideas of God's oneness and unknowability. ☪️ The video mentions Colin McGinn's mysterianism - the idea that the mind-body problem is beyond our understanding. Scruton suggests this mysterianism might apply to God's relation to the world as well. ✨🪐 Even if we can't understand how mind and body relate, Scruton argues we can still experience it. The speaker argues this might be a special case and most thinking involves propositions. ‍♂️ The questioner points out the verb "think" can sometimes have non-propositional uses (e.g. "I think it's raining"). ☔ The audience asks if the speaker's view of God is too focused on the left brain (logical, analytical) and neglects the right brain (creative, emotional). The speaker says God acting implies some way of influencing things, even without a physical body. ✨ Another audience member brings up Aquinas' view of the Trinity and the "word" in God (from John's Gospel). ✝️ The speaker acknowledges debate about how we know things about God's mind - revelation, tradition, or maybe we can't know anything. ❓ The speaker says if God uses language, it likely has a structure similar to human language (combinatorial, discrete infinity). Another audience member brings up the idea of God having intuitive knowledge (directly knowing truths). ✨ This type of knowledge would be different from propositional knowledge (knowledge based on reasoning). The speaker distinguishes between personality traits (like love) and having a full personality (psychological traits). The speaker says some find the God of the Old Testament has a "serious personality disorder" due to wrathful actions. A new audience member asks about McGinn's mysterianism view and mind-body dualism. ❓ McGinn clarifies his view is pluralism, where mind and body are distinct properties that can't be reduced to each other. They explain "post-atheist" similar to how most people are "post-polytheist" - it's not a belief they actively consider anymore. ‍♀️ A new question is posed: if something is mysterious (like the mind-body problem), does that mean we should stop asking questions about it? The speaker implies that the mind-body problem might also be solved someday through scientific progress. McGinn continues his explanation of mysterianism using the example of biological progress. He argues that consciousness might not be objectively complex because even simple creatures have some level of it. The speaker highlights the mismatch between what's difficult for us to understand (epistemological) and what's objectively complex (ontological). ≠❓ The video cuts off before McGinn can respond to another audience member. ✋ Scruton argues the Bible uses metaphorical language to talk about God because God is difficult to understand directly. Scruton argues against limiting God's thinking to human-like discursive thought. He suggests a more Platonic view of God's knowledge, where all ideas are present at once (timeless). ♾️ Scruton mentions another point: God's knowledge wouldn't involve the limitations of human thinking (foregrounding/backgrounding). Scruton agrees with the previous speaker that the Bible uses metaphorical language to describe God's thinking. He mentions Spinoza's view of ultimate truth existing in how God conceives of things. ✨ Scruton suggests that appreciating art (like Beethoven's quartets) is a model for how God understands us directly. He argues that the aesthetic experience is a way of knowing without needing language. The audience member quotes a philosopher saying they've reached the limits of what they can understand. ‍♂️ The moderator thanks the speakers and ends the discussion. Made with HARPA AI

Great insight! The Q and a ruins it!

“there’s no evidence” 🙄

Top down causation is BS. That was my insight on the topic. I didn't watch the video.

31:05

17:42 His criticism of the fine tuning argument.

A very great mind ! How inspiring for philosophers . He seems to renew the idea that actuality ( in the aristotelian language) is ontologically prior to potentiality : a decisive point !

Re: 18:50 "...the power that he has implanted in things": Could this be related to the question as to whether the universe was "front-loaded" in the Big Bang or whether God intervened along the way, as in the selection of essential amino acids and the creation of life from non-life? I think of the sport of curling, in which the stone is thrown, and then sweepers attempt to influence its course.

Best video on the internet

Dr. Ian, I am truly thankful for this lecture on the right and left hemisphere and the many frameworks for explaining these ways we think. Over the past two years. God has opened to me through the right hemisphere and allowing me to overcome the legalistic form of Preaching, and now allowing me to operate and function in this life with a total new way of being. This has helped me place into words and thoughts the often unexplained spiritual experiences along this new path. Thank you for your work.

We are all made of protoconsciousness ❤

This is really interesting, but really hard to follow if English is your second language. I need to listen with a thesaurus 😑

Talk tooooooo much

Great to hear these lectures ...

A Jewish woman once asked me if I prayed in toilet...I said you can pray anyware in the name of God ...to get the thilth out of you.

Obviously they Alienated Jesus with there arguments or theology between themselves

There can be two different languages...when science becomes witchcraft and religion perfected as science....I'm not talking about scientology or christian science I'm speaking about minipulation...and can be switched around...or agree to disagree with saudaces and pharaces.....

I just had this thought today that Nietzsche echoed many values of christianity while separating them from God. Doing a little online digging whether if im only one who had such idea i stumble upon this lecture. Perfect.

Terrible mistake to focus on Sir Penroses face all the time, lots of missing informations hance this perfect teacher

lets sum up our society in 2 words. cuteness and catastrophe.

Incredible

Ian is a brilliant mind on this three dimensional matter reality, trying to understand existence that can only be known on higher planes. When he passes onto the next plane, he will understand more. I hope so will us all.

I'm very grateful for the lecture format you've shared with us Iian, For it seemed to allow your unique soul to fly more freely, rising ever more true to your long sought vision that we were thereby blessed to glimpse. Thank you very much. I hope you'll share more with us soon.

I loved the book. I think Dostoevsky’s point is that the reductionists are wrong … we are not just tangled networks of neurons … we are not ants … the father acted that way … Rikitin acted that way … as though they were not free … as though they could never get beyond completely selfish behavior … and much of modern science tragically still denies that man can have freedom to choose … Smernikov and Ivan also intellectualized this way .. as did the scientist Bernard who had recently discovered neuronal tangles and was a reductionist … claiming that man is no more than that ..,, Elyosha (the hero) clearly despised this degrading paradigm. THE POINT IS THE SCIENTIFIC REDUCTIONISTS ARE WRONG AND THAT ALIYOSHA IS RIGHT … we are not ants. Our minds are more than neural computers. Much more. God grants us free choice … which transcends physics … and which makes moral choice the critical issue . The key then is TO ACT IN LOVING WAYS … TO ACT IN MORAL WAYS … as the children did when they rallied to be emotionally supportive of the dying Eliosha at the end of the book. THAT ACT OF LOVE IS WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED FOR ETERNITY …. BECAUSE … the soul of man is eternal ! … and the “memory” which God has for our actions is ETERNAL ! The SACRED is when man chooses to serve GOD … and a major way to serve God is by acting with kindness towards his fellow man. The “devil” is when man instead acts like an ant … in a selfish self-absorbed manner. It simply boils down to will man serve God by being kind to others … by loving … by being moral … by being just …. or will man like Rikitin act like a self-serving insect who is oblivious to our sacred obligation to God … and to one another. The “ eternity” I speak of above involves our souls and does not require physical resurrection

Really amazing condensed lot of wisdom!

Alexey says, towards the end of the book that they must be kind to each other and to tell the truth. Dreyfus struggles at the end of the lecture to explain life after death and FD’s existentializing all the miracles in the bible. When alexey says to the kids that there is life after death, I think he was being primarily kind. Truth comes after and is there as we grow out of the need for stories and myth. This preserves the sacred memories for the kids. I would assume the never completed Book II would concern the maturation (or not) of the kids where they retain these memories fondly but are mature enough to handle the reality of there might not be life after death. But alexey gives them the experience of discovering Eternity in Time. That’s the real sacred. The experience of connectedness is experience Eternity in Time. To drop a bomb on the kids that that there’s no heaven would short-circuit their experience of the sacred. Furthermore, Alexey is basically a kid himself. He’s also not necessarily the mouthpiece for FD’s personal viewpoint. He’s halfway through the journey FD was describing to us.

Shattering, then putting together again more beautifully than before (Tikkun). Define "more beautifully than before". The Great Reset people have their very specific idea of shattering and of "building back better" (define "better"), "more beautifully than before".

Trauma is stored only on one side it’s the physical substrate of the body/subconscious mind

Infinity is the opposite of physics.