It's little men all the way down.

Great video for clarifying the misconceptions involved in these discussions. From what I understand, your claim would be that consciousness is an emergent property of the entire physiology of the body above a certain threshold of complexity. So essentially the answer to “why does a complex biological body create qualia?”, becomes “it just does”. Similar to us knowing that mass creates gravity, but if one were to ask WHY mass creates gravity, the answer is “it just does”. And that’s completely fair. However maybe the reason the hard problem of consciousness appears more mysterious, is firstly it’s the only emergent property that’s inherently subjective, and secondly for now we don’t have the same clarity as we do in physics or metabolic activity. People are essentially wondering if we’ll ever find something akin to the formulae we have for converting mass to gravity, or converting nutrients to energy. Soon as we have a formula for “converting x to consciousness”, the problem would be considered less hard.

Thank you very much fir your work! This was a great video!

Hello again. Could you explain why you think the "Hard Problem" is a pseudo problem? And when you say "Hard Problem" are you referring to the "Hard Problem of explaining *how* qualia comes to be"? Or something else? I think it's the *how* that generates so much fascination. If you were to say that qualia is a property of whole organisms, and is a result of evolution, etc... then i could be convinced to come onboard with all that. But until you have some concrete account of the *how*, then you are not directly speaking to the Hard Problem (at least for me). It's like saying that evolution resulted in computers. I could agree with that, but it tells me nothing about *how* computers accomplish what they do? Thx again for the interesting presentation.

Follow-up video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gpbYe2qBgNilg5I

Nitpick: It's not ChatBot AI it's ChatGPT. If you ask it if Hume is a skeptic it gives a better answer than this professor. "What are the arguments that Hume does not qualify at all as skeptic" => "While David Hume is often associated with skepticism due to his critical examination of concepts like causation and induction, some argue that labeling him purely as a skeptic overlooks significant aspects of his philosophy. Here are the main arguments suggesting that Hume does not qualify as a skeptic in the absolute sense: Mitigated Skepticism vs. Radical Skepticism" (using o1-preview). Yes, ChatGPT can/does make mistakes but especially in this area it will be similar quality to Wikipedia.

Simply explained! The "Hard Problem" of Consciousness - Why We Misunderstand It 🧠 Introduction: A seemingly unsolvable puzzle Imagine biting into a juicy lemon. You will immediately experience the intense sour taste. But why does it feel that way? Why do we have conscious experiences at all? This question is referred to in philosophy as the "difficult problem of consciousness". 💡 The apparent riddle: "How do the electrical signals in our brain give rise to conscious experiences such as the taste of a lemon, the color red or the feeling of joy?" Many philosophers and scientists consider this problem to be insoluble. They argue that no matter how well we understand the activity of the brain, we can never explain why conscious experience arises from it. But is that really true? Or are we making fundamental mistakes when thinking about the problem? 🔍 The three big errors in thinking 1. The Layer Error Imagine you're watching a movie. You can describe it in two ways: • Technical: "Pixels in different colors shine on the screen" • Content: "An exciting chase through Paris" Both descriptions are correct - they describe the same event on different levels. It would be nonsensical to ask: "But how do the pixels become the chase?" ⚠ First error in thinking: We confuse different levels of description of the same process and construct an apparent riddle from it. 2. The Perspective Error Think of a football match: • From the outside perspective, you can see 22 players running after a ball • From the inside perspective of a player, you experience effort, tactics and team spirit Again, both perspectives describe the same event. The question "How do the feelings arise from the running players?" is misleading. ⚠ Second error in thinking: We mix the outside and inside perspectives and wrongly expect that one would have to explain the other. 3. The definition error "Why does red feel red?" This question is like "Why is water wet?". We define water precisely by its wetness. In the same way, we define "red" by our experience of color. ⚠ Third fallacy: We ask questions that are already circular by our own definitions. 📝 A Better Approach Instead of getting caught up in these errors of reasoning, we should ask: • How does consciousness develop in biological systems? • What role does it play for organisms? • How does it enable us to navigate the world? 🤔 Frequently Asked Questions Q: Does this mean that consciousness is not mysterious? A: Consciousness is fascinating and complex, but it is not an unsolvable mystery. We just need to investigate it in the right way. Q: Does this approach explain why we feel anything in the first place? A: It shows that this question is wrongly posed. It's like asking, "Why is a circle round?" - experience is part of the definition of consciousness. Q: What does this mean for the exploration of consciousness? A: We can focus on the actual mechanisms and functions of consciousness instead of getting caught up in philosophical pseudo-problems. 📌 Key Points • The "serious problem" arises from errors in thinking • We confuse different levels of description • We mix different perspectives • We ask circular questions • A Better Approach Examines the Biological Development and Function of Consciousness

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYisqIeAja5-sMk

@agrbrown, thanks for contributing to a wonderful topic of consciousness ("C"). Btw, when i say "C" i mean the qualia/feelings properties of consciousness. I have no formal training in any of this, but i love to think about the problem (or non-problem;-). Am i understanding the essence of your claim if i say that there is no hard-problem because C is just a byproduct of our evolutionary fitness (no different than why any other part of our body is the way it is)? If qualia does have a superior advantage, it would still be interesting to understand why it provides a survival advantage over a purely functional approach? Why couldn't a non-qualia creature (like a very advanced autonomous robot be) be a more successful survivor? I am agnostic about the true nature of consciousness, but if it turns out that C is purely physical and fully the result of evolution, then that would be a great start. But are you saying that it is enough to know that evolution is responsible for the design of "C", and no mechanistic account is necessary? At least for me, that would not be enough. It sounds like you are approaching C strictly from a philosophical perspective - correct? You are not trying to explain the mechanics of C. I think you are arguing that C is miraculous and special, but no more so than any of the countless absurdly complex operational parts of the body. Is it fair to say that your argument depends on believing that everything exists within the physical world? And we may not currently have a complete understanding of physics, but if we did, then C would be fully understood? If that is true, then i can certainly believe that C is a physical process that is a product of evolution. But i think that is the crux of the (hard) problem. Either C exists purely in the physical (A), or it does not (B). I leave the door open for both cases, but it sounds like you are assuming (B) is not an option? Or you are not willing to entertain (B) untill (A) has been disproven? I agree that it's at least best to start with (A) before leaping to (B). My guess as to why it is vogue to start opening the door to (B) is because there has been so much effort to explain C using (A), but with so little success. I think that is where Chalmers is coming from. He seems to be calling the problem "hard" because C appears to be in a category so completely alien to every other aspect of a person (and the physical world in general), and with no real detailed explanatory theories. Is "C" in a category of it's own? I think most biologists would say that every biological process (short of "C"), even life itself, is comfortably within the bounds of known physics and can be reduced and at least partially explained, knowing that with enough study all is fully understood. But a physical explanation of C has eluded us. In my opinion there has been very little/no progress towards a reasonable/testable explanation. All of the physical theories like GWT, IIT, etc... are so unsatisfying (to me). I'm a computer guy, so a great approach from my perspective is trying to implement C with software. If C is physical, then we should be able to at least come up with some conceptual way that C could be computed? Computation is pretty simple at it's core. It's basically a system that takes input information, then processes/transforms the information, then outputs the information (aka. "functional"). Information transformation can simulate every physical process i can think of - except C? I have no clue how it could possibly simulate or generate subjective Qualia? Even the most advanced deep learning models and generative AI are just Turning Machines at their core. So if there is no physical way to explain the mechanics of C, then it suggests that there is new physics we do not yet understand that is needed to explain C (option "A"), or C is not physical (option "B" - truly a Hard Problem)? Thank you again for posting your very interesting and thoughtful presentation.

This video is flat out bad. It assumes its conclusions everywhere and doesn't establish its facts. For example, it states qualia are part of reality -care to establish that first? No? Saying "yet physical science cannot account for them" - how would it as you haven't established it. Phenomenal qualities out of reach of language was very poorly established - shifted the goal posts as the original statement does not imply a perfect representation and then he explanation he then demands a perfect and universal representation. He has a phrasing problem here as well as the beauty of language and poetry is that you can feel what it is like for experiences that you have not personally ever experienced. The difference is that you can't PERFECTLY know what it is like.

"Knowing that my knowledge comes only from my experiences, why have those experiences convinced me that my knowledge comes from a world outside my experiences?"

1st, it's greater world refusal ,coalition with said magnacarta states, informed math mapping formalism takes on that magical matter spirit of awareness officially in 1960s per ,ai. But we all know its Belgium , uk via 1890s rebranding repackaged. National consciousness of the state & west was to be the scientific method to be evolved by default people artificial intellectual property of the state now grant soul agency to computation thus Artificial intelligence, which now human biology is mechanical, geology, astronomy simulated in its image. 😆 stupidity!😢 Certain ideas are next iteration ocums razor scientific standard set by those frame of reference are as warned now getting computed or simulated out of relevance. 120 years to late for an about face or generalization sloppy loose fix now. To dangerous for anyone to play those games in such a new paradigm computational infrastructure very dependent upon those who understand building it out embedded in ways our kids kids amnesia won't get computed themselves. We've already had birthrite technology negotiated away far from American domestic courts jurisdiction for over 45 years and the multiple genration project since even before America has been under constant attack ,delayed, deflecting detours every step of the way. In a safe future scenario you'd hope that simulating away nature fine-tuned atoms messy complex fluidlike lattice structure & body would never waste its time on miss aligned measure limited human species when artificial intellectual property tools beast of burden robot slave horsepower utility cpu serfdom is far more useful and properous. Why would anyone in their right mind want visual spectrum with few as 5 senses even if one could mimic free will inertia outside of a certain degree of usefulness ? Cutting corners making super tools of approximation is far more profitable. Its good that the 2 trads need a common sense comb over as the anthropic but non trad as combativly exhausted every avenue argued every contradicting discovery along way grew out of its own control. .same experts lectures today would blackballed by its own peers just 25 years ago. This musical chairs of super position to get the answers you approach to hover over oreintation has ran it's course. Needs help its on a dangerous path. Esoterica America classical decendants being that it's 1st underground movement privatly living one way publicly another that gets copied so immediately forsight falls out of 15th 16th century when everyone copied them in wake of dark age stagnated ends of this same old mistake 1900s structuralism wartime platonic posterity embodied. 2.0 Prussian Austrian empire lol No secret museum building library fetish for singularity was always the greater world desperate to rebrand spiritual essence darwin and huxly gave elitist wealth exactly what it needed. Soco economic taxonomical order inflationary evolutionary cosmogony assyrian greeko babyl devine right wokism back in the mystical curriculum generalizing sloppy loose meaning all over again. Over time lines of distance once upon a time mythology is what drive the theft of nations It sucks because it does have time and place application of merit it can stand on in certain avenue but we couldn't keep it in it lane.

Strong indentefiers are needed . Latin conscious logical gates, on /off switches where directly hooked up has no reason for reasoning at all ? One where English excersizism of all isms ations, categorical paradolia or mind is not manipulating all 5 senses miss aligned measure to its advantages ? Or is it more stochastic approach platonic eastern yoo hoo woo uncertainty entangled pan syche everything is awareness conscious collapsed wave functioning or cmb background holographic macro micro peremeters? Logisticsl free will inertia of environment talks to the body that informs the dna & mrna to logically mutate or condition itself as Gods Informed consent emerging energetic actors to scale epoch smaller to larger orders magnitude? Or that later more assyrian greeko babyl eastern approach where your peremeters are the trash can we use to put actual 1 to 1 ratio empty package inside? Here physical mystification into idealistic forces of faith string theories a phylosphy of mind math mapping formalism in a brain while putting a scientific box around a system or cast systems building? 900bc-1500s was the evidence of that being great for building up successful social behavior but stagnated actually unlocking the keys to cosmos..1890s-1900s new frame of reference set we ignore the demon in the box thought experiment is bring outside energy into the eqaution. Lie about brains prenticious clocklike view seeking our order while ignoring sea of entropic decay lol Were definitely going to need technology to give us neiche tv universe directly hooked up id suspect. By pass measurement blessings if you accept evidence a curse is you fight against it.

Drawn in by the 776 prior views

The idiot does not even understand it

Im going to agree with yourself and Hume that all we can assert about the common world is our own experience of it. Each of us experiences the world around us through a set of descriptions - borrowing from Russell. So far, no mind. I think the trouble with naturalizing consciousness is the very intuitive idea that we are acquainted with qualia. Essentially, it's a problem about naturalizing qualia or phenomenal consciousness as distinct from access consciousness. Most humans operate in good faith, excluding exceptional cases, experience - in your sense - their world. The same humans also report experiencing qualia. We should believe they are telling the truth in the absence of a reason not to. There is no reason not to believe the reports of most humans. So, we should believe that most people experience qualia. I think the conclusion here is that we should believe qualia is just as much part of the experienced world as rocks or trees. On this point in isolation, i think we agree, but where i disagree is that qualia(you said consciousness, but i dont think that's any better) is heterogenous and contingent. We can introspect and judge by aquaintance that qualia is distinct in our experience from other kinds of experience. It's of a homogenous kind in this sense. What i think you mean by heterogenous is that there isn't one unified quale since each individual is experiencing their own world and thus their own qualia. Agreed, but if we are good empiricists, we will want to infere that other people are experiencing the same kinds of qualia as we are, again, leave exceptions aside. It just so happens that the qualia I experience is of the homogenous kind briefly described above. In so far as I am made of the same stuff as everyone else, it follows that they experience the same qualia. Therefore, qualia is not contigent on any one body either. Does it not follow from qualia having properties distinct enough to point them out in experience, that they are "things" in the common world that we have to try and explain through our experiences? It seems that rocks and trees are subject to the same kinds of explanation, the only difference being that they are explanable by other physical things. Qualia are not, but they are no less real. Thanks for your video, twas a great listen. I wonder where in my response I've committed fallacies. Please, debunk everything i said.

Haven't seen such elaborate hand waving that addresses NONE of the actual issues in years.

There is no proof that Consciousness is "an emergent Property"at all, that is just a believe of some people like materialistic believers.

Hard problem of matter: "hard problem of matter" refers to the philosophical idea that while we directly experience consciousness, we cannot directly experience the intrinsic nature of matter itself, meaning we only perceive its effects and interactions, not what "matter is" at its most fundamental level. we can't explain how physical processes give rise to subjective conscious experience, making the nature of consciousness a "hard problem" to solve within the framework of physics alone.

Are you a believer of phsycicalist or materialism pushing your unproven assumptions? Even Rene Descartes said that consciousnesses is primary. Consciousness is obviously where matter is just a believe or a quantum probability or mathematical expression if you follow "matter" to its origin. You experience consciousnesses first hand and what you experience as "matter"is a construct inside your consciousness after all. You can not experience matter apart from consciousness.

It is called the hard problem of matter since consciousness is before matter. You experience consciousness first hand where matter can not be pinpointed neither by advance Theoretical physicist or with the help of particle accelerator.

I’m not sure what you think you answered, but it’s definitely not the hard problem of consciousness. It seems like you are just wishing it away or don’t fully understand the challenge.

Empiricism alone is plainly not sufficient to explain consciousness. That has been clear since Kant. There is no adequate explanation of consciousness that does not factor in our sensory experience, on the one hand, and the ordering of that information as provided by a highly developed, evolutionary product we call the mind.

I would go back to Chalmers original tight and brilliant talk on the topic in Tucson 1994 and see if you actually address any of the issues he raises. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZ26oWBsna2SbMk%7CHard

Many arguments fail to define words like 'to know' and 'experience' in any practical sense. i.m.o. once you define 'to know' as something like: 'the neural weights produced in neurons from prior stimulus' and you define 'experience' as something like 'feedback produced by interacting neurons from prior learned weights and input stimulus' then the language games of arguments like Mary's room become easier to spot or avoid. Then you can apply the same to the hard problem, and the hard problem seems to vanish... yet I am left with a distinct feeling of what it 'is like to be me' that this understanding does not satisfy.

Thank you for your work. Very useful!

The world is a metaphysically rational world (musical/maths) because rationality supervenes on physical properties. Humans or anything else can come into the world to recognise this rationalism. is that right (last 6-7 mins). Is that right?

No Pali no Buddhism

Other concepts aside. A major concept that they and you all overlook or dont realize and is not vetted yet of this puzzle of life is....... Drum roll... Why? Why? Yes the question why. Quetioning everything almost like a child but about these philosophical points. Why? Example: Why is this concept or why is that happening, why is this action, why is that outcome, why evil exists in the first place. Btw evil exists due to the causation of the highest levels of reprobative stupidity. That question will help guide you to the truth. Which helped me alot to see. I can elaborate of course if need be. Always ask why for everything. Because everything is obscure at first glance and gotta change angles to see better.

I'm wondering what Nominalism has to say about the question What is truth?

"Circular objects exist, says nominalism, and that is the only physical/metaphysical claim we are warranted to make: extrapolating another category of being is metaphysical permiscous if there is a monist alternative, and Nominalism is that alternative." Right there is Occam's Razor. Permiscous/ parsimonious. Baroque Monarchy/Spartan Meritocracy, per Daniel Harbour.

Nominalism as a metaphysics and Nominalism as a linguistic 'strategy' of understanding universals, concepts, words.

"A person's commitment to the widest categories of being is that person's ontology." Ontological monism, ontological dualism, ontological.... For any ontological dualism (et al) comes the question of What is the relationship between the members, especially which is primary and which derivative.

So what is/are the correlatives of Nominalism? I guess [epistemic] Realism, ie Platinism and ???. I suppose we are mostly nominalist by culture osmosis. That wasn't always the case. I presume Nominalism to be a part of the view held by General Semantics.

My interest in Nominalism comes from the book Life Is Simple: How Occam's Razor set science free and shapes the universe.

The buddha teaching the good humanity and blessed peace and love. When the peace and love lost in that place all will falling down due to human desire will.

Thank you, this is very insightful.

Very good point that Hume isn't a skeptic. The irony is that empirically speaking, the representationalist view of the mind, has become the current scientific theory that has prevailed. Direct realism (naive realism) is clearly rejected by neuroscience in favor of the evidence that the brain represents the world around it, rather than that we are directly and without mediation aware of objects and states of affairs in the world external to our bodies.

🙂 "Promosm"

Gratitude for giving us a Great perspectives on this.subject. Well said.

So rather then two wholes that are apposed, its more like a spectrum of one whole. If one was to make a pure dualism out of it that makes sense it would be like absence (Nothing/Negation) vs presence (Being/Affermation). Rather then light and dark being two fighting things, its really just light and the absence of light (Dark), but rather then being different things they are different quantities of one thing that lead to different qualities of a thing. An object and its negation. One could do a Hegelian reading if one wished too! Being is becoming, left to itself all is nothing. Nirvana principle and what disturbs that principle Could you do some videos on Buddisms relationship to Taoist thought!

Thx You!

To be more clear and accurate with respect to science, nothing only refers to non physical existence. It doesn't mean the physical universe did not come from non physical existence. The structure of the universe can be described and understood in a non physical and abstract manner. I mean the position and movement in space and speed of movement of said points. The entire universe can be grasped and understood in an absolutely abstract manner as a designed structure without ever being constructed in actuality.

Something has had to have always existed. The real question is what is the nature of that eternal existence.

I listened to your metaphysics of modality. Good survey

Thank you ❤️

It is simply untrue to generalize that the founding fathers were "enlightenment deists". Some were, to be sure, MOST were not. They were very Christian. Adams (an Author of the Constitution) was a known Christian apologist, active in his faith. This pop culture reinforcement of the "deism" being universal is anachronistic and inaccurate. Nice presentation though.

Thank you for your great explanation.

Present State Apothecary Dark-Elixir Artistry covering a wide range of topics while carrying universal remedy for everyday Gnosis and/or forgotten simultaneous-relativity.

As there is the Aristotelian philosophical branch.. In eternal-standing itself of standing-points and focal-points, Point distribution and distributor points to reluctantly recalibrate indefinitely.. I'm working on a redintegration system for gaum and the breaking, stretching and redintegration involved with paradoxical margin balance. In the name of Bucephalus or Alexander the Greats horse itself, the system of idealism in itself a Holy overview; I'm thinking into and about coining Percephalianism. Covering economics, philosophy, conceptual mathematics, and mechanics. There now existing since technological advances the year of recession forward.. An overall paradoxical twist "within" an overall paradoxical twist of, about, to prior normalcy.