Atheist Debates - Consciousness as Energy

Is consciousness energy? If so, can it be destroyed?
Or will this argument demosntrate that we can live forever?!?!

[@greenjelly01]

Think of consciousness as a running engine. It uses energy. It responds to certain stimuli. But when the fuel runs out, the engine dies.

[@kamidarrell8750]

But when more fuel is added, what happens?

[@AmberAmber]

Love you Matt! TY for saving me from terrible fallacious beliefs - you've made my life sooooo much better for 14yrs now & Im BEYOND grateful. Also? TY for caring about civil rights & for taking humanist positions on all things regularly 'demonised' by greedy charlatans. You matter so much.❤🫂🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️✊🏾✊🏽✊🏿🖤

[@MercenarySed]

He saved me as well... thn I came to his channel and realized the man has fallen into another religion called "woke sjw" 😂 he even fell out with Dawkins, an actual scientist, for speaking verifiable truth. Life's wild like that

[@AmberAmber]

@@MercenarySed I feel you're ignoring evidence by saying "verifiable truth" despite Dawkins being verifiably incorrect.

[@MercenarySed]

@@AmberAmber which part is Dawkins incorrect on?

[@MercenarySed]

@@AmberAmber u claim Dawkins is "verifiably incorrect" without knowing what statement of his I was even referencing. That's the religion of "woke". I hope u find your way out of this religion as well one day. Good luck!

[@AmberAmber]

@@MercenarySed Define woke.

[@FoursWithin]

Thank you Patrons ! ❤ For doing what I presently cannot. Thank you for supporting my favorite dufferless Duffer. 😊

[@quamtatado9892]

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be destroyed. Fire is energy. This is why we can never put a fire out. 😞

[@chrisgraham2904]

Fire is not energy. Fire causes energy to be released from the material that it is burning. During the combustion process, energy is released as heat to the atmosphere, along with a soup of chemical elements. Fire is put out by removing its' access to one, or more of the essential requirements of combustion, such as oxygen.

[@starfishsystems]

Bad luck for your argument, then, that we CAN put a fire out.

[@kappasphere]

​@@starfishsystemsNo we can't, it only looks like that from the outside. That just means that as a fire goes out, it transfers into an unobservable spirit realm.

[@chemquests]

Energy dissipates and is distributed to heating up the air and ground around it

[@kappasphere]

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 It's unobservable, so it's impossible to prove or disprove. But I just proved that fires have their own spirit realm because where does the fire go when it goes out.

[@yami-131]

It's been a while since I've seen you and I'm loving the beard. I've got nothing much to add to the argument though, you've laid it out perfectly. There's is something I'd like to add though and that is about the last part of the video. I think there's great value in training your BS alarm to go off and heeding it when it does... I've encountered this precise argument before I think... and even if you don't have enough knowledge to refute it instantly, it's one of those that exactly makes you go "Hmm". Once you do though, really worth dissecting the various parts and understanding what part of it doesn't make sense. That will help you get a better grasp of how to approach the next argument which doesn't quite make sense. Overtime you can develop a good sense of the places where people misconstrue or even unintentionally misunderstand a concept and insert it into their argument, thus giving you the ability to find the problems with an argument more quickly. As a tip I've found that more often than not, the error either lies in the second premise or the conclusion is a non-sequitur, so those might be good places to start looking.

[@vegasflyboy67]

Consciousness is not energy. it's a brain state that can be destroyed, altered, and even suspended with anesthesia.

[@starfishsystems]

Better to call it a brain PROCESS. States are static by definition. It's in the etymology of the word. And it would be better still to call it an process which emerges from the operation of other complex cognitive processes.

[@riccardozanoni2531]

@@starfishsystems that's not totally correct. I mean, it's correct if you ask a cognitive psychologist, but that is merely an operative definition, it does not intend to give an explanation of the physical processes that form what we call consciousness. It is not a state either, those would be things like memory, emotions and other masses of information and/or data within the brain that are only accessible by the brain itself (usually). (It's important to note that states are not static by definition, in this case they rarely are. The two words are just similar, but don't share their origin. Static comes from stasis, which comes from the greek word for "to stand", while state comes from the latin status, which means condition, situation) If anything, one could say it's a property of the brain, but to be honest that's my personal classification, many other psychologists/neuroscientists probably have differing opinions on the matter.

[@goldwhitedragon]

The brain is one of many forms of consciousness. It cannot be destroyed. It can be reformulated.

[@riccardozanoni2531]

@@goldwhitedragon and do you have any proof, or data about that? or any actual operational definition of other forms of consciousness, or a way this could be investigated?

[@goldwhitedragon]

@@riccardozanoni2531 Modern Science (that's right, with a capital S) deals with externality only. That's its limit. Full spectrum proof requires both external AND internal understanding and formalization. Here's the dichotomy breaker: inductive logic. 1. Existence of Reality Statement: Reality exists and is self-contained. Formalization: ∃R:R=R∃R:R=R (There exists a reality RR that is self-referential and self-contained.) 2. Reality Must Self-Generate Statement: Reality is self-configuring and self-generating. Formalization: R→∃f:f(R)=RR→∃f:f(R)=R (Reality implies the existence of a function ff such that f(R)f(R) generates RR.) 3. Reality Requires a Universal Syntax Statement: A self-contained reality must have a universal syntax, or structure, that enables self-generation. Formalization: ∀R:∃S:S(R)→f(R)∀R:∃S:S(R)→f(R) (For all reality RR, there exists a universal syntax SS such that SS governs the self-generation ff.) 4. Reality as Self-Modeling Statement: Reality must model itself to exist coherently, implying it has an inherent self-referential logic. Formalization: ∃M:M(R)=S(R)∃M:M(R)=S(R) (There exists a model MM of reality that is equivalent to the syntax governing reality SS.) 5. Reality as Self-Perceiving Statement: Reality must perceive itself to create a coherent universe, implying consciousness is inherent in reality. Formalization: ∃C:C(R)=M(R)∃C:C(R)=M(R) (There exists a consciousness CC such that consciousness perceives the model of reality.) 6. Universe as a Global Operator Statement: The universe must act as a global operator, or G.O.D., coordinating all self-perceiving entities and processes. Formalization: ∃G:G(C(R))=∀x∈R∃G:G(C(R))=∀x∈R (There exists a global operator GG that governs the perception of all entities xx in reality.) 7. The Universe is Infinitely Recursive Statement: The structure of reality must be recursive, with the global operator continuously updating and generating reality. Formalization: G(f(R))=G(R)G(f(R))=G(R) (The global operator recursively operates on reality to maintain its consistency.) 8. Reality Must Be Teleological Statement: Reality has a built-in purpose or teleology that drives its evolution toward increasingly coherent states. Formalization: ∃T:T(R)→G(R)∃T:T(R)→G(R) (There exists a teleology TT that directs reality toward coherence under the global operator.) 9. Reality = G.O.D. Statement: The global operator (G.O.D.) is equivalent to the universe itself, encompassing all entities, processes, and consciousness. Formalization: R=G.O.D.R=G.O.D. (Reality is equivalent to the Global Operator Descriptor.) Putting It All Together (If you made it this far, congrats!) We can formalize the entire reasoning as a compound logical formula: ∃R∃f∃S∃M∃C∃G∃T:R=G.O.D.∧f(R)=R∧S(R)→f(R)∧M(R)=S(R)∧C(R)=M(R)∧G(C(R))=∀x∈R∧G(f(R))=G(R)∧T(R)→G(R)∃R∃f∃S∃M∃C∃G∃T:R=G.O.D.∧f(R)=R∧S(R)→f(R)∧M(R)=S(R)∧C(R)=M(R)∧G(C(R))=∀x∈R∧G(f(R))=G(R)∧T(R)→G(R) This formula states that reality RR, which is self-generating and governed by a universal syntax SS, is modeled by consciousness CC under the operation of a global operator GG, all directed by teleology TT, with the final conclusion being that reality is equivalent to G.O.D. (a universal mind) Let me know if there's anything you need clarification on, that is, once you work through my formalization and digest it. Be happy!

[@TheLotusManFILMs.]

Good vid.

[@Darth12000]

The brain, being made of matter, is energy, because matter is a particular state of energy. However consciousness is a type of brain activity. Saying that consciousness is energy is akin to saying playing chess is magnetism. IE it's a category error.

[@Apoplectic_Spock]

How did you determine that the brain is the originator of consciousness? And how did you rule out the brain acting as a filter for non-local consciousness?

[@wtfisgoingon8587]

@@Apoplectic_Spock If you are claiming the brain acts as a filter for non-local consciousness, how would you demonstrate that is the case?

[@Apoplectic_Spock]

@@wtfisgoingon8587 I make no claims here, homie. Just asking questions in response to the claims above.

[@bsjett]

@@Apoplectic_Spock Because everything that we determine to be conscious has a brain and nothing that doesn't have a brain is considered conscious. I think you've got reality and consciousness mixed up. Sure, it's fair, in my opinion, to say that consciousness filters reality and forms, personality? Identity? as an output - but while consciousness as a brain state is apparent, some non-local source is not. You've still got that work to do before belief is warranted.

[@wtfisgoingon8587]

@@Apoplectic_Spock Do you have any evidence the brain acts as a filter for non-local consciousness?

[@FrogToTheFrog]

It’s like saying “If energy can’t be created or destroyed, where does the functionality of my computer go when it is unplugged?” “Where does the energy go when all the energy is gone” Like, what energy 😭

[@laurajarrell6187]

Matt, thankyou for sharing with 'poor people ' like me! Great explanation! I guess they, um, tried? LOL 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼

[@ScottM1973]

I like using fire as an example. It's not a thing as in you can't scoop up a jar of it. It's an ongoing result of chemical processes and when the fuel driving it runs out it stops. It doesn't continue on as fire somehow and neither does conciousness.

[@kenpanderz]

the moment i heard the idea at the beginning of the video, i already had holes to poke into it. suggesting that consciousness itself is an energy or is made of energy, so it can not be "destroyed", thus it must continue to "exist" even once the body is no longer alive, is at best an incomplete understanding of natural processes or an outright impossible lie at worst. when electricity is used to motivate the turbine of a fan, for instance, that electricity doesnt disappear from reality, it is converted into potential energy to move the fan. when the brain can no longer function/use bio-electricity to produce a mind, that energy is used for other cellular processes as the brain slowly dies completely. once the brain dies completely, the energy that would have fueled it to produce a mind/other cellular processes, is imply used by some other chemical/physical processes, like fertilization or burning in-case of cremation. believing that the mind is not en emergent property of neuronal activity and instead is a mystical/spiritual entity that merely inhabits our bodies for a time before moving on, is extremely fantastical. might aswell believe you can absorb the strength of a warrior by eating his heart..

[@Craxin01]

I can sum this up quicker. Energy cannot be destroyed, but it can be dispersed. Once energy is dispersed, it ceases to have the same form. Once you die, all electricity in the brain and body disperses.

[@BertrandLeRoy]

The opposite is true: there are aspects of consciousness such as memorization that are only possible with an augmentation of entropy, so consciousness cannot be maintained forever, it has to die eventually.

[@ŠONŠOV-e9w]

We can pierce the corpse with a needle to determine that there are no reactions, when we look at the corpse it seems that something is missing and the corpse's brain is still in some state.

[@TrappyJenkins]

"where does the computer processing energy go when i turn off the power?"

[@TrolletAmok]

It is an equivocation fallacy. In relation to the conservation of energy or the first law of thermodynamics, energy is a physics concept. In physics, energy is the ability to do work. This is a measured value, usually measured in joules. One joule is the amount of energy used when a force of one newton moves a mass of one kilogram one meter. The question then becomes - what work can consciousness do? If it is energy as described in physics, this should be measurable and evidenced. We can indeed measure brain activity in terms of energy, and as a rough estimate, a normal-sized adult human brain uses about 1,080 kJ of energy per day. But this energy is used for the biological functions of the brain, its ability to 'do work.' When all biological functions have been accounted for, there is no energy left for 'consciousness.' That biological energy is transformed in the brain as it does work, and therefore does not invalidate the conservation of energy. A problem with brain energy as consciousness is that ALL brains and nervous systems have it, making almost everything alive in any shape or form conscious. It also stops at brain death; the brain stops 'doing work,' and there is no longer any energy used. For these reasons (and some others), you need to separate the brain's organic biological functions to consume energy and do work, from the energy a possible consciousness uses or has. Then, you need to prove that this energy exists. If you cannot, then you cannot use physics definition of energy, and as a consequence, you also cannot appeal to the conservation of energy.

[@danford6678]

Consciousness as energy is crazy if that were true people have would have expended that energy to try and make contact with the living.

[@anzov1n]

When its said "cannot be destroyed" it is only the total quantity that is preserved, not any other property of this energy. So all consciousness is somehow encapsulated in a single, albeit rather large, number (of joules) according to these people? But of course not, because this is a word association game not an actual argument.

[@Andulsi]

Impressive beard on Matt these days

[@escapedgoat]

A CPU uses energy that is turned into heat, that heat can't be turned back into the information the CPU produced when creating that heat.

[@gregwade32]

Matt's matter matters! 🤭

[@TeaMollie11]

Immediately though that if consciousness is energy and can’t be destroyed then how could it have been created either

[@qwadratix]

This is a particular bonnet-bee of mine. The Church of Woo consistently mistreats the concept of 'energy', ascribing it to all sorts of things that are not remotely a form of energy. We hear of 'spiritual energy', 'crystal energy' and the like; just vague hand-waving terms that don't even exist except in the imagination of the users.

[@NeilSims-d4q]

The argument Matt was dealing with is not valid, for many of the reasons given. But the additional claims about consciousness being a product or activity of the brain is also not in evidence. In fact, we have very good reasons to think consciousness cannot be explained in terms of materialism. This is an epistemological limit, not a claim about ontology, of course, so consciousness still could be a product of matter, but we are not in the position to say so.

[@pansepot1490]

What do you mean not on evidence? We have ONLY evidence that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Chemicals that interfere with brain chemistry also have effects on consciousness. The right chemicals or a blow on the head can turn off consciousness, brain injuries can alter consciousness. There’s a one to one relationship between fiddling with the brain and having a corresponding effect on consciousness. If that’s not evidence that consciousness is a product of brain activity I don’t know what is. Just because philosophers don’t like it and/or are unsatisfied and/or don’t fully grasp the biochemical mechanism at the bottom of it doesn’t mean we are not in position to make that statement.

[@NewNecro]

Emergent materialism specifically deals with that. Not to mention that a study of the "immaterial", isn't 'practical' so-to-speak, not that people haven't tried. But my point is that there isn't a 'real' alternative here to consciousness resulting from anything other than a brain, or perhaps a system complex enough to comparable to it if we're being generous to the artificial route.

[@NeilSims-d4q]

Emergent materialism is not even close to being established fact. In fact, we have very good reasons to question it, especially since consciousness does not appear to be explainable in materialist terms. This is not a "we cannot explain it yet" claim. This is an in principle claim. Complexity of the system, in turn, has only been shown to perhaps be relevant to the kinds of experiences some entity can have, not to the fact that it has experiences as such. Further, nothing about methodological naturalism, or naturalism of any kind, implies materialism. There are plenty of alternatives, from neutral monism to panpsychism.

[@NewNecro]

@@NeilSims-d4q 👐 I'll remind any philosophies I come by to ask you so they can know whether they're an established fact or not. Sorry emergent materialism, but the only way materialism may be defined is reductionism and reductionism alone! And that's final! Apologies to biological naturalism, you are either not 'material' or established enough to be taken into consideration 😢

[@NeilSims-d4q]

@@NewNecro materialism cannot explain consciousness at all. Not reductive, not emergent, etc. Naturalism is not materialism. You can be a naturalist and an idealist. You've made no point by merely expressing indignation.

[@jursamaj]

4:58 "expert credentialed philosopher" … which doesn't mean he has any particular expertise at anything. This is demonstrated by the fact the vast swathes of "expert credentialed philosophers" routinely start from the same data and reach completely antithetical conclusions.

[@spartan36915]

Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom. In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic, and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: Description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. Logistical order is: 1) Philosophy 2) Logic 3) Scientific method 4) Hypothesis 5) Theory 6) Axioms 7) Fact, empirically correct truth. Belief has great power, just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is, the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false, it’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control. EVIDENCE (1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community.

[@jursamaj]

@@spartan36915 Self-contradiction: knowledge is a subset of belief. And science never claims to have truth, only the current best explanation. Also, as stated above, philosophy doesn't produce knowledge. Just poll a group of philosophers on any major topic, and see what a broad range of answers you'll get, answers that are quite contradictory to each other, and yet believed by the individual philosophers. See "There Is No Progress in Philosophy" by Eric Dietrich.

[@quinndaly6258]

I (a subset of reality) am aware. Awareness is made of matter/energy/space (the universe). My brain is made of the universe. You could say my brain is made of ‘dead’ matter/energy: protons, electrons, electromagnetic fields etc. When we observe these things in a clinical setting, we call them unaware, but when we arrange them into the shape and pattern of a brain, we call it aware. At what point does it go from unaware or dead to aware and alive? I would say there is no definite line and that the universe at a fundamental level is awareness (or consciousness, if you prefer). Energy itself does not change, if you zoom infinitely far into it, it is fundamentally itself. From this perspective, it doesn’t matter how you arrange a collection of atoms, that doesn’t change the fact that each one is still ‘universe stuff’. So how are these ‘unaware’ and separate atoms suddenly aware when they take the form of my brain? They’re not even touching each other. I would say that it’s because they are in fact aware but the level of awareness of a single atom is tiny relative to the perception of being trillions and trillions of atoms put together to form a human. Of course, most humans don’t grasp this since they have only ever identified as a whole being and never as trillions of distinct, barely conscious atoms.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"Awareness is made of matter/energy/space" What is movement made of? Is movement a property of an object? No, because movement is relative. Two trains side by side on parallel tracks going a hundred miles an hour in the same direction through the countryside are, relative to each other, not moving. So, the trains are both moving and not moving. Awareness is like movement. If your brain is frozen solid down near absolute zero your brain is not aware. Thaw your brain so all the atoms resume their former relative movements and voila, you resume being aware.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

So now you understand the fundamental flaw in the science fiction film, "Vanilla Sky".

[@quinndaly6258]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I haven’t seen that movie but maybe I will have to check it out now. I think you may have misunderstood what I am trying to say. Yes, if you froze my brain, then my brain would not be aware, but that doesn’t address my main point of the individual atoms having awareness of their own (or maybe it is space time itself that is aware of the atoms). If everything (save for a fundamental unit of space time, if it exists) is made of smaller things, then surely my higher level awareness (brain) is comprised of smaller bits of awareness. Thus, the atoms themselves (or the space they occupy) are aware

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@quinndaly6258 Do you imagine if you had been born into a dark and silent room and kept there immobilized and fed through tubes with not even robot contact that you would nevertheless be perfectly conscious as you are now?

[@quinndaly6258]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I think I understand where you’re coming from. I think in that scenario, my consciousness as a human would certainly be much less evolved if at all. I would essentially be a blank slate that probably wouldn’t have any thoughts. However, even in this state, I think I would still possess awareness. Even if I weren’t aware of anything in particular, I think I would be aware of the void you could say. I wouldn’t know that I was aware of anything because awareness is more fundamental than knowledge or thoughts (thoughts exist within awareness), but the awareness would still exist, as empty as it may be. And this is essentially what I’m saying, I think that ‘unconscious’ matter is experiencing that empty void. Clearly, matter is capable of awareness (me), but it’s a fundamental awareness that doesn’t just emerge from being in a specific shape, it’s an inherent property of the universe. I think this makes a lot of sense and cannot see why it wouldn’t be the case. That was a very interesting thought experiment!

[@caloricphlogistonandthelum4008]

Look at that Matt, a human being using rational arguments, not superstition or wishful thinking or flat out lies, to explain a part of the universe your tiny little brain hasn't got an explanation for - fancy that.

[@spartan36915]

Is the sun on that dome more responsible for shriveled brain than age?😮

[@Apoplectic_Spock]

Matt, your community is drowning in consciousness experts! They really need to get this data to neuroscientists ASAP!

[@breezybee777]

For some reason, I can not stop believing that a soul exists. Even with no evidence for it existing, i just still think it exists. It's almost like i can't not believe. In a lot of ways, im logical. And yet, with this specific thing, i just can't.

[@wyldink1]

Why do you suspect that to be the case?

[@breezybee777]

@@wyldink1 probably because I'm just attached to the idea of a soul and because I take things that aren't actually evidence as evidence. I don't have a good excuse.

[@wyldink1]

@@breezybee777 Well, you're at least consciously aware of your internal contradiction. That puts you about a million miles ahead of the stock believer.

[@JWanswer]

Man is a soul. He doesn't have one. This is a church lie. The bible actually says. God blew the breath of life into Adam and he BECAME a living soul. He wasn't given one. Just another thing the churches have twisted.

[@antreasAnimations]

If you deny that consciousness is energy, then you're putting forth the premise that consciousness is something other than energy ergo metaphysical. To refute the original premise, the 'subjective experience' based on materialist view is the energy passing through neurons. Once we die that energy turns into something else, nerve signals use ATP, this is a molecule which has mass therefore energy when we die no more ATP runs through our brains, that ATP is decomposed into its constituent parts and turns into heat/feed for bacteria . I whole heartedly disagree btw the consciousness is the 'mind' created by that energy (we have a total of 11 suggested dimensions, limiting our belief to what matter can be to 3rd dimensional molecules is meaningless, consciousness could might as well be another form of 'matter' which is not part of the universe we can observe, this in no way proves the existence of God whatsoever however)

[@AbsurJ9856]

@@antreasAnimations Even if everything you said was right, if other dimensions exist we cannot presuppose that souls or other type of matter are in one of them and exist till we find evidence for it, because anything can reside in those dimensions.

[@mqb3gofjzkko7nzx38]

"If you deny that consciousness is energy, then you're putting forth the premise that consciousness is something other than energy ergo metaphysical." Energy, as defined by thermodynamics, is not the only physical property we know about. Your argument relies on a false dilemma.

[@riccardozanoni2531]

not necessarily. It could be, in fact it probably is, an emergent property of the brain, meaning it is not directly related to specific brain activity, but rather a side effect of the general structure and activity of the brain. In this case, it wouldn't be "energy", since tecnically it wouldn't exist. It would just be an abstract concept used to communicate what would otherwise be a very wide array of different minor effects and phenomena within the brain. Just like intelligence. It doesn't exist as a material entity, nor is it actually describing one. It's just an umbrella label for all those skills and properties of a human brain that we collectively decided to call "intelligence", or the ability to reason. It's a construct.

[@antreasAnimations]

@@AbsurJ9856 Everything I said was right. Our perception of any evidence will simply rely on the capability of our minds, so it's similar to creationism arguments. You can't know that consciousness is metaphysical, because even if it were you wouldn't be able to prove it is so agnosticism is the best option

[@antreasAnimations]

@mqb3gofjzkko7nzx38 Let me rephrase, by energy I mean any form of 'physical', if you watched the video you'd understand that Matt is clearly using the law of thermodynamics to explain why the original premise wasn't a great argument for souls. No mention of elementary particles that pop into existence due to randomness whatsoever, so I don't understand why you got so intimidated by the premise?

[@donepearce]

The OP got it wrong. Conciousness is not energy, consciousness uses energy. That energy will ultimately dissipate as heat. There is a calculation (which I have forgotten) for the amount of energy required to store one bit of data. This is intrinsic, and unrelated to any particular technology.

[@jayjasespud]

Energy is just the ability to do work. It's not some tangible thing. If you lift something up against the pull of gravity, you have increased the energy in the system. So yeah, I'd bet there's some range of the amount of energy over time it takes to maintain some state against all active forces and entropy.

[@donepearce]

@@jayjasespud Power is the ability to do work. Energy is the amount of work done.

[@donepearce]

@@ImAmirus If I have a 1 wat power supply, it can produce energy at a rate of one Joule per second. But it only does that when it is connected, hence the definition of the ability to do work (supply energy).

[@pansepot1490]

You guys are talking Newtonian mechanics. You forget Einstein equation on relativity, and quantum mechanics. IIRC at the most fundamental level matter is just a particularly dense configuration of energy. Not a physicist myself so I may be getting it incorrectly but sure I have watched tons of videos on the topic by professional physicists and that’s my understanding.

[@fomori2]

@@donepearce "Power is the ability to do work. Energy is the amount of work done."-- Unless you somehow left reality, the definition of energy in physics is "the capacity to do work". Power is "energy per unit of time."

[@ahgflyguy]

Nice vid, Matt. Smuggling in a soul is something I think I’ve heard Michael Shermer talk about as well. Here, the double-smuggle, consciousness for a soul, then actually smuggling in (fake) properties of consciousness through energy equivocation is a new one to me.

[@Trumpulator]

🤔 Yep, always. Anytime anything supernatural is claimed or assumed, when they can't prove their hearsay under cross examination, then each one is a separate checkmate debate point win. They either have to cede the point that they can't prove it, or I declare checkmate and just rack them up, one after another. I my view it's fascinating to study the minds, mental processes and personalities of Magical Thinkers 🤔😒🙄

[@FredHarvey779]

Consciousness is not a thing, it is a function of a thing.

[@spartan36915]

OXFORD LANGUAGES Consciousness: the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. Brains don't produce consciousness. Brains help focus consciousness. There’s plenty of life that have some level of awareness that doesn't have a brain. Starfish, slime mold, plants... Consciousness is nonlocal to the physical side of atoms. This is why there's the hard problem of consciousness. Why is something conscious rather than nonconscious? If consciousness was in the physical side of atoms all physical presences made of atoms would have levels of awareness. It's not a big game of hide and seek where consciousness is. Consciousness is in what we call space. There's enough energy in a teacup of space to boil all the world's oceans. Space is acting like a multiple nested Klein bottle on steroids. It's all one surface. This is why there's quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement and consciousness are related in a group of scientific hypotheses called quantum mind or quantum consciousness.

[@cullenjohnson0]

Consciousness is an activity that certain cells and organs perform.

[@spartan36915]

@@cullenjohnson0 The Libet experiment is known as the experiment that puts free will into question; it demonstrates that consciousness is nonlocal. There are many subsequent experiments similar. If we connect electrodes reading the brain, buttons on the thumbs pushing randomly; we have a binary read out to line up that predicts what button is going to be pushed 6 seconds previous. Another version is like playing wack a mole with dots on a computer screen while reading the brain, with longer prediction time. In 2019 a version called Decoding the Contents and Strength of Imagery Before Volitional Engagement demonstrates a full 15 seconds prediction. Organ recipients, especially heart transplants, will adopt characteristics of the donor. The human brain doesn't produce consciousness. Consciousness isn't produced by brains. There are living presences that have no brains having levels awareness such starfish, slime mold, plants... Brains help focus consciousness. Consciousness is nonlocal in physical presence of atoms. If consciousness was local to the physical side of atoms all physical presences would be conscious. Consciousness can only reside in one other place, in what we call space. This results in what's called the hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious.

[@douglascutler1037]

@@spartan36915 "Consciousness is nonlocal to the physical side of atoms." By the same token, neither does consciousness appear independent of atoms. Otherwise, paranormal effects would be observed but are not. The condition for atoms to exhibit a collective consciousness is a high level of complex self-organization.

[@woopygoman]

I believe this is called an "emergent property" but please correct me if I am wrong.

[@michaelrodger]

Energy, in physics, is the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, and nuclear. All of these things are of the physical world. So when people use the first law of thermodynamics (energy can't be created or destroyed) to support a metaphysical idea of energy its a false equivalence we aren't talking about the same thing when we say or mean energy.

[@starfishsystems]

I called my wife out on that during our first date. Without hesitation she said, no problem, let's call the magical one "schmenergy."

[@lucassalles3861]

True

[@chemquests]

@@starfishsystemsha, that’s great. Now we wander into the untethered world of imagination where anything is possible. Appreciate her flexibility of mind

[@ConsciousExpression]

I had an argument about consciousness where the guy was insisting we don't understand consciousness..... but refused to define what he meant by consciousness. I claimed we do understand consciousness quite well, but he wouldn't even agree that consciousness is present when you're awake and not present when you're under general anesthesia

[@riccardozanoni2531]

unfortunately, that's so common when definitions used in specific research fields overlap with commonly used words... i've had wey too many dumb conversations with people who didn't understand that operational definition often are different from what they called "common sense".

[@jayjasespud]

Does my soul leave my body every time I sleep or get knocked out?

[@dirtydish6642]

Knocked his soul right out of his soles.

[@aaronbredon2948]

P1: energy cannot be destroyed (true) P2: fire is a form of energy (true) C: therefore, no fire can be extinguished (obviously false) This is an invalid syllogism if the same type as the consciousness one. The flaw is that P1 does not restrict energy changing forms. And if the form of the energy constituting consciousness changes to some other form(for example, heat), then consciousness is destroyed, just like if the form of the energy constituting fire changes form, the fire goes out, and the fire is extinguished.

[@chrisgraham2904]

Fire is not a form of energy. Fire is the process that is capable of releasing energy from the material that is burning.

[@aaronbredon2948]

@chrisgraham2904 oxidation is the process. Fire is the form (shape) of energy released by certain types of oxidation. It is the black body radiation of the products of combustion. If you put something into the flames, it will heat up (absorb energy). But the energy quickly heats up the surroundings and stops being fire.

[@chrisgraham2904]

@@aaronbredon2948 The energy originates in the material being burned requiring oxygen, heat and fuel to generate combustion. That energy is released by accelerated oxidation in the form of heat as super-heated molecules rise in the atmosphere until they are cool by transferring their heat to objects, or the atmosphere. Fire is the transporter of energy, rather than the source.

[@aaronbredon2948]

⁠@@chrisgraham2904fire is the visible form of the released energy - the light emitted in both visible and infrared is energy. That energy comes from the kinetic energy of the superheated products of combustion. The flame aka fire is the actual energy released given form. You can see it because it emits photons in the visible spectrum. The material is the gaseous product of combustion given kinetic energy in the form of heat.

[@spartan36915]

It's all energy altering in form, different vibrational frequency. Energy can be transferred and transformed.

[@mqb3gofjzkko7nzx38]

How many Joules of consciousness do I have?

[@seanmatthewking]

Only 7

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

Premise 2: Counsciousness has been demonstrated to be A FORM OF ENERGY Has it?

[@spartan36915]

Energy, frequency, and vibration. Which one do you think consciousness falls under? I would say it's a frequency. One consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Sui generous perspectives as the universe has solved for everything. One fractal energy connected in a fashion called entanglement, instantaneous connection. I am sentient consciousness manifest in holographic fractal dimensionality as energy. We can neither be created or destroyed, only altered in form. As above, so below. As within, so without. A grain of sand in the universe, a universe in a grain of sand. All is in everything, everything is in all. I am that I am. I am. Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe. Tatvamasi.

[@LouisGedo]

Looking forward to watching this. In the meanime, about a dozen years ago a read a science based paper on consciousness. The author, a neuroscientist, sleep study assessor, and other relevant credentials put forward the most compelling argument that consciousness is the outcome of a particular brain state where 2 main parts of the brain are communicating with each other in a particular manner. I don't recall the author's name or specific details about which exact parts of the brain the author is referring to.

[@moodyrick8503]

*_Can't Have One Without The Other_** ;* We currently have zero evidence, that a _thinking conscience mind,_ can exist separate from, a _living functioning brain._

[@chrisgraham2904]

Yes. Even if A.I. someday reaches a level of consciousness without a "living biological mind", it still will not survive independent from its' hardware and external energy sources.

[@Leith_Crowther]

You might’ve meant “brain” and not “mind” for that last bit.

[@moodyrick8503]

@@Leith_Crowther You're right. Thanks for catching that.

[@charlesben9104]

no concrete evidence, but patients on operating tables have claimed to move around the hospital and saw and heard things they otherwise wouldnt have been able to, suggesting they did leave their body.

[@chrisgraham2904]

@@charlesben9104 Urban Legend

[@lonewolfmtnz]

Energy can't be destroyed, Woo woo is energy. Woo woo van't be destroyed

[@RevilHermes]

Good that words can't affect reality like spells would, but this is a weird thing, people make word salad thinking it would change reality. You still have to get up and go to work.

[@philm7758]

I wonder if the individual (mistakenly) equated consciousness with information. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics hold the conservation of information to be fundamental, just like the conservation of mass/energy. Embracing conservation of information requires determinism. Under determinism, there isn't true free will, only the illusion of free will. Therefore, consciousness would also be an illusion.

[@skepticsinister]

I’m conscious that your work Matt, is indispensable to the progress of humanity, and thus, I’m maximally appreciative! ❤️👏🙌

[@DontMockMySmock]

(1) consciousness is not a form of energy; (2) even if it was, energy CAN change from one form to another. E.g. Gravitational potential energy (the energy of being in a high position in a gravity well) converts into kinetic energy (the energy of motion) when an object falls or rolls downhill. (1) is a complicated subject but (2) is really fuckin simple and you don't really need to go too far into (1) to debunk this argument.

[@Alacritous]

Concsiousness is chemical energy in the brain. That just dissolves into goo when you die. Those chemicals react in different ways, but the energy and mass doesn't go away. It just stops being you.

[@eklektikTubb]

"Everything that makes me me is an identifiable part of my brain that can be changed and can stop" - Well, that is your claim. Anyone who believe in soul will either reject that claim, or at least ask you for evidence or argument to support it. Even those who dont believe in soul should recognize that arguments in sense "there is no immaterial immortal soul inside me because all that is inside me is physical and mortal" are totaly circular. Your main premise is THE SAME as your conclusion.

[@kamidarrell8750]

Consciousness cannot be destroyed. It may disappear from one deceased body but it rises again in a newborn body.

[@featheredskeptic1301]

If one equates consciousness to energy in the sense that our brains require energy in order to function, then yes: it would be true that consciousness is a form of energy. This however only means the energy required for our brain's electrochemistry. That energy is in one way or another constantly converted to heat and dissipated into the environment, then replaced with new energy through our body processing food and oxygen. In that sense our consciousness is no different than a file typed in a text editor and not saved on the drive. Once the computer crashes what, happens to the file? Does the information in it survive somehow? The energy needed to keep it in the RAM has turned to heat and still exists, but the file itself no longer exists. The same happens with consciousness once the brain stops functioning. Energy is never created or destroyed, but it can change from one type to another and go into an unusable state.

[@charlesben9104]

If we consider quantum entanglement, it could explain life/consciousness after death when considering the multiverse theory. Matt brought up a good point about conservation of energy in the physical having nothing to do with abstract consciousness, but if we look into quantum entanglement then maybe "consciousness" carries more weight because what is in the physical is "entangled" in another atomic environment, possibly even dimensionally.

[@a.randomjack6661]

Thanks Matt. I needed this 🖖

[@spartan36915]

I suggest you find someone intelligent to listen to. This pronoun atheist believes in infinite imaginary "genders" while disbelieving in the nature of the universe. Belief/disbelief based deductions strike again. Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom.

[@aportfolio8324]

@@spartan36915 man you need to get a life. You just constantly shill on this guys page because you hate how badly he destroys your community in debates lol

[@kappasphere]

P1: Energy can't be created or destroyed P2: Music has been demonstrated to be a form of energy C1: Therefore, music cannot be destroyed

[@spartan36915]

Energy, frequency, and vibration. I do the dance of life. 😆😝

[@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος]

Then your consiousness would have had to exist before you exist (bodily), if so, why dont you remember any of that? If you are consious, you should perceive things

[@FrogToTheFrog]

My English teacher was talking about how ghosts exist or something because the “energy of consciousness” has to go somewhere

[@chrisgraham2904]

Good thing your English teacher isn't your Science teacher.

[@FrogToTheFrog]

@@chrisgraham2904 😂 I actually told him to go say this to the science department, and he replied with something along the lines of “they can’t explain this, this is too far out for them” Also known as “this is bullshit so of course science can’t explain it”

[@chrisgraham2904]

​@@FrogToTheFrog There is no "energy of consciousness". One of the functions of the brain is consciousness. The brain draws energy from the body to produce consciousness. When the brain dies, or ceases to function, the brain no longer requires, or draws energy. A computer, or a light bulb, draws energy from the electrical grid as long as it is functioning and using energy. When the computer, or light bulb is broken (ceases to function), it no longer draws energy. The energy used while the computer, light bulb, or brain is functioning, is dissipated as heat into surrounding materials, or atmosphere.

[@nullverba856]

Video is just getting rolling. Early take: Consciousness isn't its own thing, right? It is *_the result_* of energy coursing through the brain, not the energy itself, right?

[@nullverba856]

I love the idea of an eternal scream traveling off into space more or less forever.

[@JeffryDwight]

Go ahead and allow the equivocation fallacy, and accept the premises. Then add the remainder of the first law of thermodynamics -- matter/energy cannot be created. The conclusion becomes consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed; corollary, consciousness doesn't exist at all. This exposes the mendacity of the argument.

[@RickReasonnz]

Huh. Don't often see 'mendacity' popping up these days. Kudos to your vocabulary.

[@allenpasch5841]

Time to trim the beard.

[@spartan36915]

If he flips his head upside down, it's not.😂🤣

[@SuperChicken666]

Apparently energy can even think and reason without a brain, see without eyes, and hear without ears. Some people even say it can manifest clothes and communicate with those of us who still have bodies to contain their energy. Apparently, energy can do anything that our imaginations conjure up.

[@RickReasonnz]

Imagine a consciousness that was aware of itself yet had no way to interact physically. That is what these proponents of a surviving consciousness are proposing, and I can think nothing more horrific.

[@charlesben9104]

unless quantum entanglement would allow a once living being to exist in another dimension as "consciousness/spirit"; that would be theoretically possible.

[@HR2007-o3f]

What are your thoughts on Jordan Peterson’s view that using preferred gender pronouns shouldn’t be required by law?

[@douglascutler1037]

Is the claim the consciousness goes to nowhere upon death, and thus comes from nowhere up birth, akin to a supernatural claim, i.e., a force that has agency within the natural order but has an unknown point of origin outside the natural order?

[@FoursWithin]

"Outside of the natural order" is a concept only taken seriously by the religiously indoctrinated.