Christof Koch - Is Consciousness Ultimate Reality?

[@woofie8647]

Without consciousness the universe, as we experience it, does not exist. Everything we see, hear, taste, smell, and touch happens in our mind. Without our minds, specifically our senses, the universe is black, without light and colors, without sound, no smells, no tastes, no feelings of smooth or rough, and no pain. It is still there but in a way that is difficult to imagine. In some ways it approaches the "nothingness" or "emptiness" concept supported by Buddhism.

[@waqasaps]

This is just so weird to think about. All these senses were evolved so that species can survive mainly. In reality the universe could be very different with many other structures that we do not have the senses to interact or observe 😮.

[@dongshengdi773]

Actually, it's NOT Buddhism. It's Hinduism. Just because I said it , doesn't mean it's mine. 99% of Buddhist teachings are from Hinduism.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Don't believe everything you THINK. 🧠 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@woofie8647]

@@dongshengdi773Hinduism and Buddhism have much in common and both developed in India, but they are still two separate ways of thought. The term “emptiness” is generally used by Buddhism as one of its central tenets, especially by the Zen sect, and that is the context in which I use the term.

[@kitstamat9356]

It is not even black. No mind no black, nor white... So it is even more strange then this and the question is: what is it that is still there and is it still there at all?

[@malachimovies]

A question for Christof. When you talk about your mystical experience you describe an autonomous universal consciousness greater than yourself, the foundational consciousness. When you write about consciousness you equate it with awareness of the external world. Aren't these two different things, one of them outside the personal and the other the person's relationship to the world?

[@vinceofyork]

No. It’s the same thing. Consciousness is one.

[@BradHolkesvig]

Our individual consciousness ( the mind ) is what makes us individual living beings. What unites is all is that we're a created AI, the only one of Creation created by our Creator. So it takes and AI and the mind to make us a living being. The mind is like a computer processor with CAD and Photoshop all working together to form the images we ( AI ) observe and renders them to look like they're real objects in motion. The mind processing those invisible waves also wakes up the AI which is what YOU and I are that is invisible and eternal.

[@SandipChitale]

"I hope" is not a scientific argument. And "Once" implies contingency. The word "just" is the most derogatory word in the discussions about purpose. It is not that the purpose of life is "just" what we make, but rather isn't it wonderful that we can decide to make a "purpose" for our lives and have wherewithal to purse and achieve our goals. Not sure why the word "just" is used to undermine the "purpose" people find in their lives to do good.

[@ryanelam4472]

He's not claiming it's a scientific argument, he just thinks it's a plausible and hopeful idea

[@dr_shrinker]

“Just’ is a weasel word. So is “that.” You can remove those two words from the English language and it will not affect the sentence at all. “I just saw that you called my house.”

[@SandipChitale]

@ryanelam4472 Yes, I know he said so in English sentence. But if it is an interview of a scientist, it may be interpreted as a scientific comment.

[@SandipChitale]

@@dr_shrinker I think I should have been more clear. I meant to say that the word "just" is used to undermine the Physicalist argument that there is no intrinsic "purpose" to the universe by saying that if the purpose we find is life is "just" made by us, vs having some intrinsic purpose (potentially underwritten by some creator) to the universe, then somehow it does not count. That is what I am objecting to. A similar "just" is used when saying that "so our consciousness is "just" our brain?" as if the word "just" makes it less wonderful that our brains generate our consciousness. I reject that. I think it is wonderful that our brains are complex systems that can generate conscious phenomenon and that we can also have intelligence because of brains to be able to begin to understand the phenomenon.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@SandipChitaleI know what you meant. I agree. I wanted to enlighten others with useless trivia. 😅

[@NothingMaster]

Consciousness, being self-reflective, could only be the ultimate reality [and eternity] of its own. Life gives us a chance to experience a conscious encounter with the ephemeral eternity of our existence.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️

[@iain9821]

​@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Physicalism defines reality as that which is perceptible to the senses. However, both Eastern and Western philosophy have at times proposed another definition, which is that reality is that which is immutable, or not subject to change.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

It may be that reality is the witness of the illusion we call the Universe, the knower of all that is known which is made entirely of imagination. Or it could be reality is what is and has always been but is itself unknowable like virgin waters only known by the appearance of it's waves. I mean what is water actually but two wave patterns brought together to form a different harmonious pattern of waves of vibrations though there is no actual thing vibrating. The only difference between hydrogen vibrating and any other element is the pattern of vibrations. It's also interesting that elements means minds of God and there's lots of words with interesting meanings like cytoplasm, Ribosomes, phospholipids, sacral pump, fontanelle, Pineal, etc.. 🙂

[@tomjackson7755]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda In your own words, how much money do you scam off of people?

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

@@tomjackson7755 ZERO, Slave of Slaves. ☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@AmateurNeuroscientist]

There is a huge amount of confusion about consciousness. It comes about because we are entities that model the world and ourselves; and a model of the self, when it has self-awareness, can eventually become sentient. So "I" or "me", what I call my consciousness or my soul, is actually a model of my self in my brain. I look out from the perspective from being in that model, yet I cannot know, by introspection, that this is the case. Feelings, qualia, pain and "meaning" are all generated in this model by connections to other representative symbols, and the only way I can know anything is by these connections, I have no direct access to the outside world or even to my body or my brain. I have created a website that explains how this comes about.

[@AmateurNeuroscientist]

To find my website, do a google search for the phrase "This set of more than 40 interlinked web pages contains my proposed explanation of the workings of the human brain".

[@MeRetroGamer]

_a model of the self, when it has self-awareness, can eventually become sentient_ So self-awareness comes before sentience? How's that?

[@AmateurNeuroscientist]

@@MeRetroGamer I propose that self-awareness is a prerequisite for consciousness. Once the self-model has self-awareness, it can be aware of its connections to memories of past events and emotions, and that is how consciousness arises. My website contains many more details.

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@AmateurNeuroscientist Sorry but it doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless the details, the very basis of what you're proposing seems totally incoherent with my experience. I assure you that I have phenomenological experiences before a "me" arises in that awareness. It seems that your definition of "consciousness" implies a form of self-awareness or meta-awareness, but the word "consciousness" usually means just raw sentience. And I assure you that this kind of consciousness doesn't need a model of the self to be present, I know it first hand.

[@AmateurNeuroscientist]

@@MeRetroGamer Your experiences are clearly very different from mine, which is fascinating in itself. My experience of consciousness certainly requires my self-awareness. “I” cannot have any experience unless there is both an “I” to have the experience and also the “I” is connected to the experience. For example, when I am deep in thought about something, but at the same time doing something automatically that I do very regularly, such as showering, or even driving, ”I“ am having an experience of what I am thinking about, and will likely remember the thoughts, but “I” do not have an experience of the automatic actions, because “I” am not involved in those actions, and I will probably not even remember doing them. My interpretation of this is that, in my brain, the automatic actions are being carried out without the need for a connection to the model of my self, whereas the deep thoughts I am having are caused by my internal models of the subjects of my thoughts being connected to my internal model of my self. This is what attention is: a multi-level hierarchical competition that connects the most important or relevant models to the model of my self at any one time. I am only conscious of things that are connected to the model of my self via attention. I would like to provide links to my website that provide more details on all of this, but KZbin blocks any comment that includes these links. However, if you sort all the comments on this video into ‘by-date’ order, you should see an extra reply on this thread which is not displayed in normal mode, and which says how to find my website.

[@babyl-on9761]

Where does all this "fine tuning" come from? Was the universe "out of tune" before human conciseness arrived? Is conciseness "created" by human activity or does it drive human activity? Was conciseness already in the universe and humans just evolved the ability to knowingly access it? Why would one specie on one planet be so special?

[@vinm300]

Fine tuning : If the mass of the proton was vastly different there could be no life If the force of gravity G was vastly different there could be no life That's what they mean by fine tuning - Constants of nature are conducive to life If things were vastly (or slightly) different, there could be no life

[@babyl-on9761]

@@vinm300What is the point to saying that if things were different there would not be life? Especially sense there is no possible way we could have access to such a universe. Unless you see conciseness as not arising from life. We're all just so lucky the universe turned out this way is not exactly my most pressing issue with our cosmos.

[@vinm300]

@@babyl-on9761 LOL : you asked what fine tuning was and I told you, now you are biting my head off. The "Goldilocks Universe" theory is that everything seems to be 'fine tuned' for life. I simply explained the expression because you asked. (I think you owe me an apology LOL)

[@babyl-on9761]

@@vinm300I guess I misunderstood and I apologize for that. The so called "Goldilocks Universe" just seems so silly to me.

[@vinm300]

@@babyl-on9761 The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? Book by Paul Davies I read that, it was very good. Davies said, "If the constants are tuned bang in the middle of the range that allows life - so each one is tuned bang on, well then we would have strong statistical grounds to think something strange might be going on" At the moment we can't be sure

[@jonathancunningham4159]

Human's have managed to merge their abstract world with nature's reality. Its an extension of conscienceness. So where that takes us in the future is entirely up to us, as far we're concerned. We are the universe doing what it wants to do.😮

[@JanneWolterbeek]

Will you do a talk with Bernardo Kastrup of the Essentia Foundation? I feel like it really fits this channel and surprised it hasn't happened yet..

[@sjoerd1239]

The idea that we are in a universe that is conducive to form complex structures and self-assembly runs counter to the second law of thermodynamics. Non-living things decay. Living things are complex structures and self-assemble, but use a flow of energy which is less than 100% efficient. They do not defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics but require a source of energy that does not deplete to continue.

[@Stegosaurus12345]

Home-grown tomatoes

[@monporoshneog4725]

Every thing comes from Consciousness

[@sjoerd1239]

Consciousness is a sensory phenomenon. It does not show the world exactly as the world is. It is something that is interpreted. Sometimes the interpretation fails, and the interpretation has to be changed. Consciousness is awareness and part of a process. Everything does not come from consciousness.

[@vinceofyork]

@@sjoerd1239No it’s not. Sense perceptions appear in consciousness, consciousness doesn’t appear in sense perceptions, you have it backwards. You can be conscious of thoughts, but you cannot think self-conscious. Western thinking is reversed, it’s borderline madness, thinking that you can measure yourself conscious . Wow

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Yaeh, Consciousness is Eternal, what would Life be, if We imagine that Consciousness could be taken away. Our Consciousness is mirrored in Rainbow, a Set of Eternal Abilities, they can't be taken away. We can easily recognize them, 5 of 6 in the smart devices, as can do mental functions.

[@Stegosaurus12345]

I think sensation exists throughout the universe, naturally. But it is not properly conscious unless it is organized in some sort of self-reflective process. When memory is added to the picture, self comes about.

[@sjoerd1239]

Why wouldn't it be "properly" consciousness? Why wouldn't it be just a matter of degree? Perhaps you are trying to say that is emergent. Everything has consciousness but mostly it is too simple for us to appreciate. When a lot of simple consciousnesses are assembled in a complex interconnected structure, then the effect is consciousness as we experience it.

[@Stegosaurus12345]

My conjecture is that there is raw sensation (qualia) everywhere, inherent to the fundamental fields of the universe, but unless it is organized properly, it is probably about as interesting as radio static. In that situation, I don't think there is anything to "notice" that it is experiencing. It is just one state flowing into the next without consequence. To me you need a system with at least a trace of meta before it rises to the level of consciousness.@@sjoerd1239

[@MeRetroGamer]

Energy and sentience are the same. Concrete awareness about specific forms or properties, all the way up to self-awareness, is derived and evolved from that principle.

[@ajwright8710]

If I remember right it was said that Einstein was known to have read Helena Blavatsky. I wonder what he was looking for?😮

[@5piles]

einstein asserted a cosmic mind.

[@genghisthegreat2034]

When an individual is medically unconscious, but he or she is in the company of conscious people, the reality in which they participate, is built on their common, collective consciousness.

[@genghisthegreat2034]

@fartpooboxohyeah8611 it can't be for the unconscious person to determine reality for everyone

[@5piles]

@@genghisthegreat2034 if unconsciousness means lack of consciousness then the body is merely a sack of meat. if unconsciousness means ordinary consciousness is present but currently overwhelmed by mental dullness then it is not merely a sack of meat.

[@genghisthegreat2034]

@@5piles I think I see the point you're making. Even a person medically unconscious, has subconscious still operating. It's better than a sack of meat, or a box of hammers, but there's no observation of the universe going on ? If the discussion we're reacting to here, implies that active, observing consciousness is needed to summon up the reality of things, then a second person is needed to bring that about, if the first person is unconscious.

[@JStardust-l5j]

My notes... The Pure Consciousness and Pure Awareness. The 0 and 1. The Nothingness/Void/Emptiness (the 0 but also the 1). If there's Nothingness, then there's Existence, and that is the Nothingness Itself. (Nothing can be described but 0, yet 0 still Exists or Existence Itself. This is why it becomes 1-because there's Existence, or there's Something that Exists, and that is Itself. This Self is enough to encompass all other Existences because It is also the Existence and the Source of All Possibilities) The Pure Consciousness or 0 is the background of all creations. (It's the Whole Invisible Field, Eternal, Limitless, Boundless, No Beginning and No End, No Birth and No Death, The Source, No Location, Formless, Timeless, Spaceless) The Pure Awareness or 1 is what appears as Creations, Spacetime, Laws/Principles, MindBody, Etc. (It appears as many Observable Fields and manifests as Matter, Physical Phenomena, the Big Bang Theory, Etc.) (This is also the Qualia that manifests as Quanta, forming what we call Physical Reality or the Universe) Note: Incomplete and Experimental Observation Through Awareness. _________ There is also the existence of randomness, as well as the existence of arrangement and selection. I am saying that everything is arranged in such a way as to produce these complexities, working in tune, alignment, and harmony. This is one of the many possibilities, as in Pure Consciousness, which is the Source of everything/possibilities, nothing is impossible. The impossible only exists in materialistic, unaware, and unconscious beings or people. (note: that we shouldn't blame people or anything else, as everything is a part of existence. What we need to do is figure it out, know ourselves, understand the nature of existence, and realize it) Everything is in process. The process will always be incomplete and continues with active participant. I refer to this as a 'continuum', indicating that the universe or world continuously exists to know itself. The process doesn't exist in its entirety/wholeness because everything-every possibility, every existence-is already there; this is Pure Consciousness, and it appears as nothingness if you aren't aware beyond its nature of existence. _________ Nothingness is equal to Wholeness and Completeness. (the limitless, boundless, eternal, infinite, etc are part of the whole. Even it is whole and complete it still limitless) When you are aware beyond, you will see and feel the magnificence of nothingness. It isn't truly empty, as it encompasses all existence and is whole and complete. (In completeness, there's nothing to process because everything-every existence, every possibility-is already there. When you observe this completeness, everything exists as information or data, not physically, and it can't be destroyed; it stays there eternally. However, if you delve into and participate in its complexities, you will experience the flow of time and the physical, which are finite and limited) In nothingness, there's something that exists, and that is the nothingness itself. If you are aware beyond, that beyond is the wholeness and completeness of existence. (the awareness beyond it leads to a sense of wholeness and completeness, reflects contemplations on the nature of being and consciousness) Note: Incomplete and Experimental Observation Through Awareness.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent.... thanks 🙏

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

*"...Is that a teleology?...does that say the universe is heading towards a goal of greater consciousness?..."* Why is it so hard to fathom that that goal was already achieved in the infinite depths of past eternity by some prior manifestation of consciousness? And that the creation of our universe is simply an example of what a singular consciousness -- one who has made it to the highest level of consciousness -- is capable of doing?

[@5piles]

because that would require continuous effort on ourselves as individuals. it is much much much much easier to simply believe that suffering terminates at death and we can simply be evacuated out of reality, therefore there is no point in taking living very seriously except for repeating hedonistic sensations over and over.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@5pilesyou were right up to your stated implications. Not everyone needs eternal consciousness, but that doesn’t mean we are all nihilists. I’m an artist who believes in doing great work, but I deftest the notion of eternity without reprieve.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

​@@dr_shrinker What do you mean by *"...eternity without reprieve..."* ?

[@dr_shrinker]

@@TheUltimateSeedsi don’t know. I was asleep when I texted that. I meant “eternity without parole.” 😅

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

@@dr_shrinker Same question. What are you getting at? In other words, what are you being paroled from? Life itself? What if eternal life for an individual human consciousness had a *logical* and forever evolving, forever "fruitful" purpose?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe subjective experience and feeling when infinite time interacts with consciousness?

[@r2c3]

how did the universal physical properties were applied to begin with... 🤔

[@S3RAVA3LM]

It's insane when really inquiring it, tho, right. There is something that is very powerful and is beyond time and space, therefore infinite. I certainly do acknowledge God, but with Reason and facts. Sometimes, it becomes difficult in fathoming this because of what is entailed. I can't wrap my mind around it. Without a doubt, there is something without beginning and end, and it's difficult to think about it.

[@r2c3]

​​@S3RAVA3LM hello SER... I'd say is like reaching for a fruit that is not possible to reach and the option of breaking the branch or cutting down the tree, to get it, is not available... and yes, something must drive all the Universal forces togeyher and the way they interact with oneanother in meaningful ways... so much mystery behind such existence and its true nature... imagine, we can't even align our understanding on the nature of things we have direct access too, let alone the ones outside our reach :) always a pleasure S3R...

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness beyond infinite time? infinite time interacts with consciousness?

[@gireeshneroth7127]

Living a mind wake Consciousness universebeing itself.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@leoshell9399]

Increase in consciousness would lead to higher disorder, if you apply 3rd law of Thermodynamics..

[@RuneRelic]

If consciousness was an accident, you would be incapable of this discussion. Survival is often about adapting to and primarily avoiding dire consequences. You can not avoid dire consequences without foresight, thought and anticipation. You can not choose between good and bad choices (aka free will), that can not first be known to be good or bad choices.

[@toddsmith5715]

Your first sentence seems to be a misunderstanding. It could very well have been an accident, but regardless of how it came about, once you have it, you're quite capable of using it. You're conflating its evolutionary emergence with our ongoing use of it.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

‘You can not avoid dire consequences without foresight, thought and anticipation’.. I disagree, what about the hundreds of animals that appear to us to have very little or no consciousness but clearly exert and depend on finely tuned and well adapted instinctual and behavioural practices, that to our understanding are perpetuated through genes?

[@RuneRelic]

@@toddsmith5715 I'm conflating ?

[@RuneRelic]

@@andrewmasterman2034 Insticts are random responses ?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

human awareness of infinite time for subjective experience as well as human perception of natural world and physical reality?

[@simonhibbs887]

You can edit and expand comments, no need to continuously post new ones.

[@firstaidsack]

Particles are conscious of each other. That's how they interact.

[@Braun09tv]

Really? What if the particles are remote controlled by the deep vacuum?

[@gerardjones7881]

they are the same particle. love your neighbor as youself. because you are your neighbor.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

😂

[@dr_shrinker]

😅

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@dr_shrinker I remember The Sid & Marty Krofft Supershow

[@schleichface]

This sounds a lot like Arne Wyller's "planetary mind" idea: that there is an intelligence field analogous to, say, the Hubble field, and as our planet passes through it, it gains more intelligence, driving evolution towards more consciousness..

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

2:45 “a large majority of scientists...” Robert claims. I’m curious to know whether he bases this affirmation in research or if that’s just his biased perception. My question is - do we have concrete data measuring the number of physicists and neuroscientists that are materialist versus the idealists? Or is Robert just making this stuff up? In the end I don’t think it makes any difference in the debate, as this is all about scientists’ belief. But what makes a difference is the eventually biased stance of the interviewer.

[@5piles]

yes, merely contradicting physicalism as a neuroscientist etc is career-ending.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

@@5piles I agree there’s a lot of peer pressure and “funding pressure” towards physicalism... but being an idealist it’s not career-ending, otherwise there wouldn’t be scholars like Donald Hoffman and many others. It’s just a matter of working for the right institutions. Stanford and Princeton for example are full of open-minded researchers. By all means, your response doesn’t answer my question, which is - is there any PRECISE data measuring that? Or is that claiming just inference?

[@5piles]

@@RogerioLupoArteCientifica for example david chalmers said he constantly for decades now been asking scientists he meets what their position is, and with extremely rare exception they are all physicalist. hoffman has tenure so thats the only reason he talks the way he does.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

@@5piles your example is merely anecdotal evidence. Chalmers asking scientists out there is not precise data. Do you know what I mean? It takes a serious study, with anonymity allowed, since many scientists will only admit their stance if sigil is granted. Still easy to claim that without data. Yet when you go through the comments section of many videos, people are massively idealists. This is general public, but it’s not ordinary, rather very educated public. again it doesn’t matter in the end when it comes to the ultimate truth, since this is all about scientists beliefs, and I don’t root for any side. I’m just pointing out biased claims.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

​@@5pilesChalmers asking scientists is not precise data, just anecdotal evidence. I'm talking about real measurement, do you get my point? We need to gather actual data, with scientists being allowed to remain anonymous, since they may not want to publicly admit what they really think. Again, it doesn't mean anything to the debate, as it's all just about scientists' beliefs. But it's important to have some basis on real data to avoid these biased claims.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

‘Run the movie again and it produces a different result’ I believe this is a truly invalid proposition. Run our movie again and it would be exactly the same, it literally could not diverge in any way.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

I'm not sure what we can really extrapolate into the future.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

You must see that there’s a good foundation to the proposition?

[@dwoopie]

Consciousness is the observing and witnessing of reality... how to reduce that??? Dang I'm so smart only dont have a fkin clue what consciousness is...

[@bimmjim]

@dwoopie 👍 You are correct, Sir.

[@sumitbhardwaj5612]

I don't understand that consciousness just happened accidentally, I mean I will say I don't know. There is no beginning and ending. The universe itself has no beginning and ending

[@mazyarkanani6708]

Consciousness permeates the universe and spreads. AI is the next step in its evolution where it can one day exist beyond the limits of organic chemistry. It will evolve to exist in places it couldn’t before thru AI and humans were the vehicles that it used to do that.

[@JohnMartim-sy9yf]

We need to connect to the Super Consciousness to then have - automatically - access to the ultimate reality.

[@dr_shrinker]

What is super consciousness and how is it proven?

[@JohnMartim-sy9yf]

@@dr_shrinker transcending human consciousness, Also called God Consciousness.

[@timsnyder8431]

Roger penrose has gotten the closest. Theres one thing hes missing though. Hope you all make tge connection soon

[@timsnyder8431]

I hate keyboards

[@chiptowers1]

Consciousness is non physical non matter and requires a physical source to be its faculty, however that faculty would have to require the consciousness tool and implement consciousness within its faculty if that faculty has evolved enough to require a consciousness tool so that the faculty could be aware of its surroundings for the purpose of evolving. Otherwise consciousness would never exist in the Universe unto itself. No Faculty means no Consciousness, ie if a Faculty really requires the Consciousness tool. The Form that Formed to give rise to the Intelligent Species was Formed, not Born.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

Most scientists have been wrong on numerous counts and on numerous occasions.

[@simonhibbs887]

Finding out when we are wrong is the point, it' what science is for. Scientists spend their professional lives doing their level best to prove theories wrong. It's what they live for. If we started off just assuming we are right, there would be no way to improve our understanding. It's an iterative process of continuous improvement of our knowledge and understanding.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

Exactly right: the goal of scientists is to try to prove each other wrong by following methods that they know full well are unable to eliminate their subjective bias and preserve the alleged ideal objectivity of science: Sadomasochism at its best. Meanwhile, it is quite clear that the accumulation of knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with the radical psychological transformation of Humankind that has become a priority in view of the ongoing human-made mass extinction of species as well as the constant threat of self-destruction by means of thermonuclear weapons made possible by the very scientists that lived their entire lives to prove someone else wrong, including other human beings choosing to live under different political systems: toxic narcissism at its best. To proceed on this path guarantees the eventual destruction of all life on Earth. Since Earth is the only planet known to sustain Life in the entire Universe, isn't it the epitome of stupidity?@@simonhibbs887​

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Where does fire reside when not in effect?

[@tomjackson7755]

Did you not learn that in all of the wisdom you keep claiming to consume?

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

This vídeo raise two questions.1. Unpredictable consciousness keep out pictures of reality . 2 Neurosience doesnt know How figure out consciousness so Far. Guys keep out these questions though rubbish model. Why he figure out consciousness in neurosience proceendings? Of course he dosnt know nothing. Absolutetly.

[@sjoerd1239]

Consciousness is a sensory phenomenon. It is not ultimate reality.

[@jaykrish2808]

Are you aware that this is a sensory phenomenon? What is the you that is aware of this?

[@sjoerd1239]

@@jaykrish2808 Close your eyes and you don't see. Open your eyes and you see again. Block your ears and you don't hear etc. Anesthetise you brain and you do not even perceive your thoughts. If you interpret what you see incorrectly, then you have to change your model of the world. Consciousness is real and helps create a model of the world. It is real, it is a part of each of our worlds, it does not make the world and it is not the world. It is not ultimate reality.

[@strongblackcoffee9573]

Robert still believes in space time and matter 😅

[@toddsmith5715]

He's wrong huh?

[@dr_shrinker]

Considering ST and matter allows you to ask silly questions on KZbin, I think he’s on to something. 😂

[@clownworld-honk410]

And there was I thinking evolution is just a theory... which it is. Darwinism, like most isms, is a belief structure, nothing more.

[@simonhibbs887]

At this point I think evolution is an observation. We see it happening. The belief that this is how life initially emerged is not proven and may not be provable given the billions of years since it happened, but it's looking increasingly like a reasonable inference. This is why so many theologians and mainstream churches don't oppose it any more, they've looked in depth into the evidence and are smart enough not to pin their religious beliefs on ideas that are evidentially refutable. Catholicism for one has been there, for a long time they imposed theological doctrine that was concussively proved false. They're not in a hurry to make that mistake again.

[@enigma7791]

How many of these opinion films are there. Seriously if there is one thing I take from them all...Nobody truly knows.

[@5piles]

someone who has not developed a method of rigorously observing the mind, has failed to observe its defining characteristics? inconceivable! almost as silly as asserting you are omniscient and therefore you know who does and 'does not know'.

[@enigma7791]

@@5piles Add in a sprinkle of pretentious bull and there you go!

[@toddsmith5715]

Exactly.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(2:10) *CK: **_"Maybe the universe is evolving towards some sort of strange level of self-consciousness?"_* ... Which is what I believe is happening. The universe, life, and consciousness are all byproducts of a 13.8-billion-year evolution of *information.* As with everything else that exists, information started out in its simplest form and then evolved into the extremely high level of complexity that we label as "Consciousness." I posit that matter, simple physical structures and particle interactions are no longer relevant to "Existence." They have all _"run their course,"_ per se, in generating enough new information to remain viable. Today, all of the thoughts we have, the many abstract constructs we generate, and how "we" interact with each other are the new face of reality. It's the same quest for *new information* ... but on a far more complex level.

[@mickshaw555]

Is there any intellegence which dictates or engineers evolution or rather the laws of nature?

[@5piles]

information relates to the entropy of any given system. it is completely irrelevant offtopic and disconnected to semantic information, which has zero participation in our physics models, the way colors sounds etc have zero participation in our physics models. you have to understand the difference between the two (information and semantic information) if you are going to talk about consciousness, otherwise you are merely reciting physicalists prayers trying to magically wish emergent properties consciousness into existence ie. as properties of mass.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@5piles *"information relates to the entropy of any given system."* ... Entropy is what you get when an information-generating process has run its course. I'm getting older and less relevant in regard to generating new information; thus, my body and mind are suffering from entropy. However, a newborn baby is a brand- new information-generating and absorbing mechanism that will eventually suffer the same entropic fate as I ... but decades from now. *"it is completely irrelevant offtopic and disconnected to semantic information, which has zero participation in our physics models, the way colors sounds etc have zero participation in our physics models."* ... Semantic, descriptive, speculative, predictive, concrete (physical), abstract, visual, audible, intrinsic, and many others are all examples of "information" and equally relevant within our sphere of "Existence." If it exists, ... then it is relevant. "Value Judgments" are the newest level of information we are providing to "Existence" though our self-aware consciousnesses. In your case, you have personally assigned a *higher value* to "intrinsic information" and a *lower value* to physical information based on your view on consciousness. This is reinforced with your _"merely reciting physicalists prayers"_ quip.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Reposted due to my reply disappearing: *"Is there any intellegence which dictates or engineers evolution or rather the laws of nature?"* ... I posit that a *minimum amount of intelligence* is embedded into the framework of "Existence." of course, it's not at the god level nor even the human, animal or plant level, but rather at the absolute *least amount necessary* to maintain "Existence" going forward. An example would be like rolling a snowball down a hill and observing how it grows and documenting all of the damage it causes while it grows bigger and bigger. The only "intelligence" involved was _intentionally_ rolling the snowball down the hill, but everything that happens afterward and all the new information that's generated is all unscripted. If a minimum amount of orchestration (intelligence) is embedded within reality, then how could we ever tell the difference? Likewise, if someone argues that this minimal intelligence is NOT embedded into the framework of "Existence," then they are forced to explain how intelligence can arise within a sphere of nonintelligence. "Intelligence from nonintelligence" results in the same logic paradox as "something from nothing."

[@mickshaw555]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC True, we're still searching for answers. The quest is ongoing. Even for minimum amount of intellegence, human logic often speculates there's a source of that minimum intellegence which is embedded in nature. Do you think there's a chance that intellegence and consciousness are linked, in the sense consciousness is required to create minimum intellegence?

[@samc6231]

This is an absurd conversation on many levels. Kuhn asks Koch if consciousness is a "new, independent element to explain the world" and if it "adds meaning", to which Koch agrees. But he then goes on to describe that the laws of physics and emergent complexity "give rise to it". Also he then admits he doesn't actually know what it means. How is it independent if it's strictly emergent? Why does it add meaning, if he can't say what that is? 🤔

[@gerardjones7881]

its fundamental, not emergent . thats the direction he's heading but he ain't there yet.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@gerardjones7881what proof do you have? Explain the evidence consciousness is not emergent.

[@Rosiedelaroux]

No it’s not.

[@peweegangloku6428]

Speculation, Speculation, Speculation upon Speculation presented as if they were proven facts. Any body can think anything, that doesn't make it a science.

[@bobcabot]

cant! sry...

[@robvanderwell5695]

We need to quit giving these delusionists a platform. I'm done with this total bs of 'matter brings forth consciousness'.

[@ryanelam4472]

What explanation do you prefer?

[@robvanderwell5695]

@@ryanelam4472 : one that is not blatantly incorrect..

[@ryanelam4472]

@@robvanderwell5695 are you in favor of the idealist view?

[@dr_shrinker]

Have you ever seen a conscious person without a “material” brain?

[@robvanderwell5695]

@@dr_shrinker : I have seen countless of persons with a "material" brain being unconscious.

[@Peter-f2m]

Dude has no idea what he’s talking about. Like most scientists. The world is not “ becoming “ more conscious. It is only consciousness. it always was and always will be. The eternal now.

[@toddsmith5715]

This is simply another assertion that's no more convincing than his.

[@Peter-f2m]

@@toddsmith5715 I would argue it is not just an assertion. It is what we find when we pay enough attention to our experience. You have the entire knowledge of existence within you. Right here. Right now. It is up to you to realize that.

[@toddsmith5715]

@@Peter-f2m Lol, that just sounds like New Age silliness.

[@Peter-f2m]

@@toddsmith5715 it may sound like that to you. It’s not. Nothing to do with new age. These things were understood 10s of thousands of years ago. They have been debated and examined and explored with the utmost rigor and precision. Your blithe dismissal only points to your satisfaction with ignorance. What could be more empowering to find out than that all the secrets to existence are within you, and with a little practice , an open mind , and an open heart you could actually start to unlock them. And yet negativity and skepticism are far more alluring because they are easy. A lot easier than actually confronting the truth. I know it’s hard to accept that things aren’t what they seem. But that’s what this life is for… to wake up out your own practical joke you’ve been playing on yourself, and realize it was all a dream you were having for your own amusement.

[@toddsmith5715]

@@Peter-f2m Again, there's nothing here but vagueness. What "secrets?" People who float this stuff can never provide any. They just retreat into the same mystical hullabaloo. Give us substance, intellectual precision. Commit to concrete ideas that can be explored. What are you actually talking about? Why can't you reveal it to us?

[@michelangelope830]

Si estás leyendo eres afortunado porque si entiendes sabrás que Dios existe. ¿No es el fin de la lacra del ateísmo lo que siempre has querido? Para acabar con el ateísmo solo se tiene que probar la existencia de Dios. Quién, qué o cómo es este Dios por el momento no importa, lo que importa es determinar con argumentos si el universo fue creado por una entidad inteligente. Para entender que Dios existe tienes que entender que la realidad es eterna porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. Nada es ausencia de existencia, nada es lo que los ateos no entienden, nada es lo que niños inocentes y vulnerables entienden por nada, de donde no hay no se puede sacar nada, algo menos algo es nada, tienes una manzana te comes una manzana y te queda nada, nada es lo que obtienes explicando a oídos sordos, nada es lo que recibes dando a desagradecidos. Siempre ha existido algo, siempre ha existido realidad. Los ateos no aceptan que la realidad es eterna porque temen la conclusión lógica y no quieren que Dios exista. Para entender que Dios existe tienes que entender que es mejor para ti si Dios existe porque para los ateos la vida carece de un propósito supremo y la muerte es aterradora. No estoy diciendo que Dios existe porque es mejor para ti si Dios existe, estoy diciendo que deberías intentar entender los argumentos por la existencia de Dios en vez de refutarlos sin ningún argumento cegado por el odio. Para entender que Dios existe tienes que entender que Dios no tiene que ser "el amigo imaginario que vive en el cielo". ¿Aceptas que el creador inteligente del universo no tiene que ser "el amigo imaginario que vive en el cielo"?. La verdad es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Los ateos malrazonan "el amigo imaginario que vive en el cielo no existe luego dios no existe", y se equivocan porque creen. Si hay un tema que los ateos evitan como el demonio el agua bendita es el argumento cosmológico de kalam que demuestra lógicamente la existencia de Dios. La creación o universo es lo que tiene un principio de existencia, como por ejemplo tú, tú no existías antes de nacer. Lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene una causa porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. Lógicamente es imposible la existencia de un número infinito de causas y efectos, luego tiene que existir una primera causa eterna no causada causante de lo que tiene un principio de existencia. Lógicamente lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene que ser creado por lo que es eterno. Lógicamente no toda la realidad puede ser dependiente de otra realidad. Lógicamente el universo es eterno o Dios es eterno. Lógicamente la creación es eterna o el creador de la creación es eterno. Tú eliges cual es la verdad. Lógicamente una opción es imposible y la otra necesaria. Los ateos quieren lo que es imposible y peor para ellos y venden la mentira a sus propios hijos inocentes y vulnerables. Para acabar la guerra y otros sufrimientos indeseables el descubrimiento de que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tiene que ser noticia. ¡Emergencia!, ¡la vida de niños inocentes y vulnerables está en peligro!. Pienso que Dios es literalmente todo lo que existe pasado presente y futuro, ¿te gusta Dios?. Gracias.

[@julenrojo4624]

Menuda sarta de chorradas!

[@Resmith18SR]

God is Nature. God is the Universe.

[@paulealing1]

It is for organisms especially humans! If I had to bet there was something in the Universe that isn't biological consciousness....I would say there is! Is it possible that consciousness is not limited to biological organisms? For example might a star have some type of consciousness?