Roger Walsh - Why is Consciousness So Baffling?

[@christianrelloso2649]

Thanks!

[@frankjspencejr]

Physicalism is a closed system of objective "particles" and the forces that move the particles around. So physicalism, by definition, is not a system that can explain or accommodate 1st person subjective experience. Subjective experience has properties categorically different from particles and forces. The kicker is that consciousness (thoughts, sensations, and feelings) is self-verifying, that is, I have no doubt, zero, that consciousness exists. On the other hand, physical reality is suggested only CONTINGENTLY by conscious experiences. So if we can only have one or the other, consciousness is the reality and the physical world is an illusion. The opposite is flatly illogical. NOTE: I can only speak to "my" first-person subjective experience. I have no access to or direct proof of consciousness beyond the first-person.

[@fireside9503]

I listen to binaural beats every night with my noise cancelling headphones - all different frequencies. I fall asleep to them and they play in my ears all night. I really think looking inward holds lots of information. Meditation is hard tho. Constantly having to clear our thoughts when all we are is thoughts. I’m working on it.

[@greenblue6935]

Very bad for your ears to use headphones for long amounts of time, have you heard of tinnitus?

[@mystic1der2000]

I would look into Transcendental Meditation, it’s a simple effortless meditation

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

meditate: to think on, from Latin “meditat-”, meaning “contemplated”, from the verb “meditari”, from a base, meaning “measure”. In most religious/spiritual traditions, particularly those originating in Bharāta (India), meditation is a mental practice in which one either allows thoughts to appear in the mind (and simply observe those thoughts without judgement) or else one tries to focus all thought upon a single object. That object can be almost anything, yet most commonly is a religious figure (such as God, a demigod, or a spiritual master), a point in one’s visual field (such as a candle flame), a brief prayer (normally referred to as a “mantra”), or else, observing or focusing on one’s own breath (a fundamental part of “vipassanā”, in the Buddhistic tradition [“vipaśyanā”, in Sanskrit]). The main benefit of meditational practices is to free the mind of superfluous thoughts. Some individuals in the so-called “ultra-spiritual” community mistakenly believe that the cause of suffering is any thought whatsoever, and therefore, embark on a fruitless endeavour to eradicate all thoughts from the mind (or at least from the intellect - see Chapter 05). How I wish that every single one of those persons end-up in a coma for the remainder of their lives, since that is the only way that they will possibly achieve their impossible goal. Humorously, even coma patients can experience dream thoughts, so even then, their aim may be thwarted! Fortunately, as demonstrated in Chapter 15 of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the source of suffering is NOT due to thoughts as such, but due to a misunderstanding of how life operates. The cure for such nescience is unerring knowledge. In fact, I would posit that excessive meditational practices, such as that observed by the stereotypical Hindu/Buddhist monk who flees to a mountain cave in order to meditate for about fifteen hours per day, is actually detrimental to one’s spiritual development, because it weakens the intellect. Just as the physical body requires regular exercise, the intellectual dimension of the human person also needs to be exercised via the study of philosophy and yoga, which is especially important for those who profess to be spiritual teachers. Therefore, a healthy balance between contemplative practice, intellectual endeavour, and physical exercise is most beneficial. Possibly the most apposite form of meditation for the overwhelming majority of humans is a kind of ACTIVE meditation, in which one is perpetually contemplating how to best benefit society. Because it is practically impossible for one to fully control one’s thoughts, one should use the hyperactive nature of the intellect to its advantage, by constantly devising methods how to further dharma. This is the principal meditation practice of the current World Teacher Himself, The Saviour of Humanity, Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda. Some persons believe that one can learn the “secrets of life” (that is, to fully understand life/existence, and how to live one’s life in accordance with the universal, Divine Will) by sitting in the lotus position and focusing one’s attention on the base (or tip) of one’s nose for several hours per day! Undoubtedly, some have received wise insights during their meditation practice, but to assume that one can replace the accumulated wisdom of the sages over the past twenty thousand years or so, with an introspective path of illumination, is, sad to say, one of the many delusions of pseudo-spirituality. None of the great sages in history were so naturally enlightened as to dispense with a living guru. Even a single day spent at the feet of an actual spiritual master can be more valuable to gaining knowledge and insight into the meaning of life, than an entire lifetime of meditating on one’s navel (figuratively speaking).

[@erentxunlopez6281]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Very interesting and informative !

[@dmrd222]

Meditation takes practice initially. You need to focus your mind on a "mantra" or even on your breath. With practice, you will be able to calm your mind.

[@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt]

The current materialistic mode of science falls woefully short in explaining much of what we experience. A shift in consciousness away from this reductionist, materialist consciousness is necessary to understand the bigger picture.

[@philosophyofvalue8506]

Because phenomenal entities can't be properly understood with the criteria of science and logic.

[@KenChan-d2k]

Consciousness is so baffling because no one has artificially produced one - even ChatGPT 4 and AlphaGo are not conscious. What are the system states of pain/pleasure, intention, or satisfaction? No theory from Physicalism can define it specifically. Because the variety of behaviors can be produced, the flexibility of system states can be evolved, and the non-definitive of system parameters for trying to classify the basic emotions, you will find that the basic emotions are impossible to be classified from conventional system perspective. If functionalities of consciousness are all only from conventional information processing, how can consciousness do such classification on brain system states almost instantly (report the brain states are in pain or pleasure state almost instantly)? It is impossible! Therefore, consciousness probably requires factors more than conventional information processing.

[@interstellarbeatteller9306]

Even more baffling is that it's yet to be defined. All cases of human consciousness can be found in the Animal Kingdom, or at molecular level. Compassion & awareness are just attributes that people learn, so my guess is that consciousness can be replicated in computation....Bots already have 'personalities' and engage in public discussions with humans, so the line is getting thinner & thinner

[@WildBullWriter]

I've watched quite a few of these videos Kuhn has done with well known scientists on the subject of "consciousness". What most strikes me is how confused they sound. Or perhaps what strikes me most is how none of them offer a clear definition of the term "consciousness". It's difficult to really explore a subject when one hasn't even managed to define the meaning of the term under discussion.

[@philboast8841]

It's not that a definition is required as a clarification, and this is what is really missing from these discussions. More striking is the amount of research that has addressed this issue, yet here and elsewhere, is completely overlooked.

[@WildBullWriter]

@@philboast8841 Definition, clarification, either would help. I suppose the series is old enough to be dated by now. But still, the fuzziness is unwarranted for even when it was made. The only one who seems to be clear and sensible on the subject is Daniel Dennett. He will be sorely missed.

[@philboast8841]

@@WildBullWriter I can't agree about Dennett. He's about reductive as you can get, and a proponent of the idea that the mind/brain (interchangeably) is essentially some form of symbolic processor (ie, a computer). I would point you in the direction of Hubert Dreyfus for a comprehensive and thorough takedown of Dennett's position.

[@WildBullWriter]

@@philboast8841 Dreyfus is not interesting. An old style armchair philosopher. To dig into consciousness, mind/brain, etc., one must roll up one's sleeves and go to work, make mistakes, correct the mistakes, etc. That is, take risks. Dreyfus doesn't do that. He doesn't take down Dennett; he merely disagrees. I suppose if you want to know more about Heidegger, then read Dreyfus. But that's not cutting edge stuff, which is what we need.

[@philboast8841]

@@WildBullWriter Again, I disagree. Dreyfus absolutely takes down Dennett, and he does so in a painstaking and thorough way. He works through various assumptions that are critical to cognitive psychology (one being that the conscious reasoning is equivalent to symbolic processing), and shows that what are basically superficially plausible ideas do not bear scrutiny, being internally incoherent and unsupported by evidence. In terms of risk, he put his own career and reputation on the line arguing against senior researchers within MIT while working there, and also correctly stating that the specific claims of AI made in the sixties would not be achieved (while later acknowledging that neural networks had a better chance of making better ground).

[@markstipulkoski1389]

He cites how we create worlds while we are asleep, in the form of dreams. The same circuits are creating the world around us when we're conscious, the deference being that when we are asleep, those circuits are mostly cut off from our senses, so they are not constrained to create a world that is consistent with our senses. No magic there. And today, AI neural networks are able to construct worlds out of short language descriptions. Anyone researching the theory of mind who is not keeping up with the advances of AI is not doing the topic justice.

[@fineasfrog]

All of us not keeping up with the work of Bernardo Kastrup, Donald Hoffman, John Vervaeke, science writer Amanda Fefter, Eric Weinstein and the recent interview of Brian Greene on the "Theories of Everything U-Tube channel and many others are in the same fix. For one well ahead of his time who died in 1974 give a reading to the first of the four volumes of the Dramatic Universe by John G Bennett. Without an open heart as well as a open head brain and also a well trained or well educated gut brain, what chance do we have of approaching real understanding? What does the phrase "With all thy getting get understanding" mean? What does it mean to live in the question?

[@dntfrthreapr]

I agree although current AI is operating at a level equivalent to the highways that connect major cities. (A city reperesenting a neuron.) That can do some neat stuff, but to closely mimic what goes on in the mind, an AI needs to operate at the levels of city streets, floors of high-rise buildings, and then file cabinets within those floors, and then individual files within those file cabinets. By the time you get down to that level of a neuron, you are small enough where quantum mechanics calls the shots. I believe this is what Penrose is arguing. He is unimpressed with current AI. There is no "understanding" going on anywhere, he says.

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

Which is more real, sleep or being awake? I am not sure.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

We experience life moment by moment because the future is coming into existence quanta by quanta, photon by photon. In such a theory, consciousness is the most advanced part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms our ever-changing world. At low temperature, we measure this process as a ‘period of time’ relative to the atoms or the Periodic Table. At higher temperature the same process is relative to plasma with charge be able to cover a large area of interstellar space.

[@erentxunlopez6281]

Yes indeed.

[@declup]

A thousand words are worth a picture. Salvador Dali's "Melting Clocks" is one arresting picture; it stops most angsty teenagers in their tracks, anyway.

[@medusaskull9625]

We all experienced illusion. The question is, if there is no consciousness, would there still be illusion? Can you experience illusion without consciousness? Is there an example of that in nature? What can experience illusion without being conscious?

[@EROSNERdesign]

How can we be sure that "awake state" is any different from "dream state". What's the first thing you say when waking from a vivid dream? "it felt so real...."

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Both "worlds" are created in the exact same way and of exactly the same stuff. The difference is we believe one is real and the other is not, when un fact both are unreal. We never see true reality, ours is only a simplified version made of mentally created "things". (Alan Watts said "things are thinks.")

[@valuemastery]

Consciousness is so baffling, since it is so different from the material/physical stuff we know, and that appears within consciousness. So the "things" that appear in consciousness can be pointed to, and distinguished from other things by their properties. But consciousness is not a thing itself, it is that in which all things or properties appear. Therefor, it has no properties of its own, can't be pointed to, does not have a cause and does not exist in time or space. Still, it can be experienced (by itself). It is what we are. Everything else is just what we know.

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

Self-evidently, it is naturally "like something" to be an engaged entity (i.e. an animal), but it is apparently NOT "like something" to be either a responsive entity (i.e. a plant) or a reactive entity (i.e. any non-living thing). There is no evidence for there being any deeper reason for why all of this is the case. The concept of "consciousness" (or, interchangeably, "awareness", "subjectivity", "sentience", "mind", etc) is nothing more than a reification of this "like something-ness", with no non-conceptual distinction to be found between it and the engaged entities it is self-evidently associated with. In other words, what we call "consciousness" can be more accurately regarded as "engagement".

[@mystic1der2000]

Interesting idea

[@ALavin-en1kr]

It is hard for science which is currently materialistic, as that is the limit of its understanding in this material age, to consider that anything might be intangible. If consciousness is found to be fundamental, and mind is elemental, emerging with quantum events, that changes materialism and would likely end the material age. We are no where near that yet, so the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is likely to stick around for a solution at a much later date. If it is seen as intangible that brings up the God question and most atheistic scientists are nowhere ready to go there now, or anytime soon. If consciousness is found to be fundamental and has a Self then the God question is settled.

[@objectivewitness9766]

Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, and unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful; awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent and it is the common matrix of every experience. Nisargadatta Maharaj

[@johnhausmann2391]

Everything is baffling when you ask "what is it's nature". It's just that consciousness is so close that we think we should be able to explain it better than anything else..

[@erentxunlopez6281]

Fascinating !

[@hc8379-f4f]

In some profound way consciousness is the mechanism whereby experience is accumulated, processed, and given meaning to provide a dependable prediction of events affecting that sentient being. Experience has its roots in the senses that receive input and generate output. Outputs are either actions or language-proposing actions. Every act of language is an act of judgement. The judgement is about the truth-value of the utterance. Consciousness exists in virtually all living things in the amount necessary to provide for that being the predictive power to allow that being to survive as a species within some range of statistically likely events. Cataclysms don't count. Thus the level of consciousness is a biological evolution dictated by the environment within which an organism exists and survives as a species.

[@vicp7124]

Very skilled thinkers at delineating our ignorance or in philosophical language the epistemic gap. I'm an engineer and understand how the average person does not how a TV, cell phone or computer works down to the component level. As an engineer I understand the components. Neuroscientists do not have a component level of how neurons actually work, actually interact with other neurons or how the thirty plus suborgans which actually make up the system of organs we call the brain and central nervous system. 12:02 They discuss the methodologies of tracing EEG waves and states in the brain but remain clueless or willfully ignorant why the brain generates such high levels of EEG waves. To an engineer this screams synchronicity between the neurons or the signs and signals of conscious emergence.

[@micheldisclafani2343]

Consciousness is the connection between life and reality.

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Just thinking, wanting to continue to grow, learn, reorganize old fact creating new information. Both of you show how through conscience important & special your experiencing all things around each of have a special corporate information. We rely & help one another. It seems to me that with consciences is essential to everyone's creativeness as everyone has different gifts & talents. If I may be allowed, it is GOD'S Breath in our lungs that provides the wonderful/beautiful gift of life. Each with different fingerprints. It is up to us how we use those gifts & talents to mature, and continue to help other, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...we have learned so much in a very short time as Time/Space we must continue to live, learn, and grow, as there is so very much to interact and experience...

[@reverend11-dmeow89]

I quit worrying about what Consciousness is once I sent it back Home...

[@lenspencer1765]

This guy is so right i believe we came from the dream world

[@dntfrthreapr]

This well spoken gentleman is more of a rock star than Joe Walsh and Roger Waters combined.

[@yitzharos]

All of this still has to Question. When "I" Observe, what is "it" is that "Is seeing"? It's "I" I am Observing. We still haven't explained that, and from there "Why does it matter to myself, that "I " Exist? Why do I want you to exist? All of this.

[@deanodebo]

The materialists will discard your legitimate questions. Those questions scare them

[@tomazflegar]

Baffling, nonstable as everywhere in science means you don't know what it is. Only something that is precise and simple can be what it is, not complex one. The truth is always simple

[@declup]

I'm not so sure the truth is always simple. In fact, I believe the opposite: The truth is always complex. For instance, I bet everybody has a go, some time or other, at trying to understand quantum physics. Most people agree it approximates the truth of the universe as closely as human beings presently can, but nobody says it's simple.

[@tomazflegar]

@@declup not speaking of understanding.

[@declup]

​@@tomazflegar -- You did use the words "baffling" and "know", so you were speaking at least a little about understanding.

[@tomazflegar]

@@declup there's knowledge withouth thinking, even without understanding. Just exists as knowlede, withouth a need to do with it that or this

[@declup]

​@@tomazflegar -- What kind of example of knowledge without understanding do you have in mind?

[@andrewtaylor9799]

Most of what your brain does is unconscious. There are literally billions of neurons and we are not aware of how they are all are interacting at any moment. Consciousness is that very small part of your neural experience that you are aware of and can report to others. For example when your visual system and brain respond to a certain spectrum of light, most of the processing is completely unconscious; we are only aware of the experience of seeing the color your brain assigns to that light spectrum (it's an "experiential label" that your unconscious neural machinery applies for you to be aware of), which is a minute portion of the overall processing that occurs. Consciousness has an evolutionary purpose for survival, which however does NOT include understanding the underlying neural mechanisms - that was not needed. Nonetheless, consciousness, as the part of your neural processing you are aware of and can report to others, is easy to imagine and conceptualize. But you might say, what about the part of me I know is there, that I can feel? Answer: that is your awareness of the mostly unconscious part of your brain that directs your mental focus. So if you decide to focus on that pretty girl across the street, most of what happens is then again unconscious, since the neural machinery is so incredibly complex. But you do have an awareness of redirecting the unconscious neural machinery, which gives you a feeling of a self with free will, or "consciousness". That feeling of a "conscious self" is also evolutionary enforced since it helps us value our life. Our conscious awareness, which models the neural process of attention in a simplistic way, does not clearly reveal itself to us, and that is indeed confusing when we try to explain it. But this awareness is nonetheless adequate for its purpose of modeling and control of the physiological process of attention. HOWEVER, what makes this even more confusing and hard to understand is that our models of what we perceive through our senses, such as the redness of the apple, are also based on unrevealed neural processes. That is, the perception or experience of redness is the brain's visual label (a visual hardwired modeling process) that it applies when a particular spectrum of light impinges on our visual system. The redness that we experience is simply the brain's shorthand, and highly adaptive, way of telling us about the spectral characteristics - it's a visual label (analogous to a verbal label, but applied unconsciously). As with the conscious awareness control of our attention neural processes, we do not perceive the underlying physiological processes that perform this visual labeling. So when our conscious awareness focuses on the redness of the apple, there are actually TWO types of parallel neuronal action that are hidden from us: 1) the hardwired labeling of the sensing process (e.g. experiencing red in response to a certain type of spectrum impinging on the eye) 2) the attention process that focuses our brain on this sensory experience. This double layer of unperceived "trickery" that our brain performs is therefore extremely counter intuitive.

[@evaadam3635]

If your evolution is an INVOLUNTARY Natural Process, then it has no business of driving physical matter, enslaved by natural laws all the time, to have free time to consciously choose on its own TO VOLUNTEER to be faithful and servant of Supernatural God that defies Chemistry ... very funny

[@deanodebo]

Ironically as you describe the brain’s modeling of redness, you ignore the modeling of objects. You appeal to the myth of evolution, yet ignore that your own “reality” based on your worldview is dubitable in that it is composed of models created by “the brain”. What do you know with certainty about the external world, and how do you know it?

[@andrewtaylor9799]

@@deanodebo You've missed my general point: Consciousness is our limited ability to focus on and report on what the extremely complex subconscious is doing. Almost all of this unconscious processing is unrevealed to us, which makes doing this very tricky. That's my main point. We do have some ability to direct the subconscious machinery, but only indirectly via our crude awareness of it. To answer some of your question: 1) The "modeling" of objects is similarly an unconscious process. We merely have the ability to focus on the results and report them to others. 2) With regards to your question of what I know with certainty: nothing.

[@deanodebo]

@@andrewtaylor9799 Just curious and not trying to bust on you, but if you literally know nothing, why hold up a scientific theory (evolution) as if it’s proven true? Do you think any theory is ever proven true? I ask because you’re bringing up brain modeling. After all, doesn’t the brain in your worldview translate electrical signals and process the information and create mental models that are the actually experience we have? As in, not reality, but models of approximation? Yet you profess a theory of the world as if it’s true

[@meesalikeu]

what about using mri instead of eeg? has it been done much?

[@simonhibbs887]

There has been some recent work done with MRIs to interpret conceptual representations of experiences in the brain. They can analyse an fMRI scan of the brain fo a subject watching a silent movie, and generate a text description of what is happening in the movie from brain activity. They can also generate an audio version of music the subject has in mind. It sounds a bit like it's being played under water, but it's recognisable.

[@declup]

Reading the comments here worries me. This channel attracts a lot of dotty philosophastering. Commenters are convinced that their opinions are revelations to be shared with the world, and they don't seem to recognize the wooliness of their own thinking. I'm a commenter here, too, though. What should I make of that? It scares me that grounded reason and self-awareness may elude me as well.

[@aiya5777]

​@Green-Dragon206 life is your kidnapper😂

[@aiya5777]

​@Green-Dragon206 you were kidnapped by life without your consent, only to get abandoned by life at the end without your consent again

[@aiya5777]

idk care how Smart you are, when it comes to philosophy everybody is equal

[@aiya5777]

@Green-Dragon206 kidnappers don't necessarily need any script to kidnap anyone, they could do it just randomly you're randomly kidnapped by life then, life iS Still your kidnapper

[@aiya5777]

@Green-Dragon206 apparently you're too brainwashed by your beloved kidnapper, you're talking as if there are those who didn't get kidnapped by life everybody is kidnapped by life, no exception

[@Septemberhello]

Roger is correct here regarding bubbles consciousness creates and these bubbles move to be negative or positive and merge into dark energy or ultimate consciousness

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Thank you for your marvelous explanation. My mind, experiences, & reality has been enlarged, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...

[@johnkuthe1]

Because as you study Consciousness with Consciousness, it gets very confusing! ;-)

[@TheTroofSayer]

3:37 - "Every night we fall asleep and we literally create worlds... as real as this one... other people interacting with us..." I'm not sure our minds are creating all of this. That's a LOT of information to assemble. Hence my conjecture regarding nonlocal selves. That is, when dreaming, we are see through the eyes of another entangled self in another part of the cosmos. Beware of assuming, however, that you are listening to people speaking English. It is the *dreamer* who implicates their *own* language in the course of interpreting their interactions unfolding with other people in the dream (I've observed myself doing this). A juicy thought-experiment that resonates with aspects of CG Jung's collective unconscious.

[@rick8873]

It’s like a fire chief looking for an arsonist when the fire chief is the arsonist

[@bryandraughn9830]

In order for a creature to survive it needs to be aware of it's surroundings and it's own location within those surroundings. As the creature becomes more complex so does it's awareness. Nothing baffling about it.

[@tedgrant2]

I'm fed up with this puzzle. Nobody knows.

[@bobcabot]

...and again where does it go afterwards?! according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics energy cant be destroyed - so where?

[@rumidude]

Where does the energy go from a flame when the candle is extinguished? It doesn't "go" anywhere. The flame is extinguished but the energy, i.e. matter, is all accounted for.

[@interstellarbeatteller9306]

The amount of matter in the Universe is constantly increasing, and only changes form once created.

[@georgespiese7388]

Well, im glad you like me!

[@scottfauber]

There's no difference between waking consciousness and the consciousness of a dream? Yes, there is. Waking consciousness has an actual referent: physical reality.

[@CouplesLite]

Consciousness + Dreams

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is there any relationship between time and consciousness,?

[@steveroonie37]

Now this is a great question.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

Neuroscience of kindness. Peace be upon you'll out there and assalamualaiqum wmt

[@whatzause]

If, when you are dreaming or meditating, you are in another “created“ world, and you think that is as real as the one you will wake up into, then why is it so easy to wake you up, and why is your physical presence “here“ still too convincingly apparent to others BEFORE you awaken?

[@eximusic]

Why is the obsession with consciousness so baffling?

[@browngreen933]

Baffling? No more so than any other manifestation of Nature or Existence itself. 😮

[@lugus9261]

9:15 human consciousness project sounds straight out of evangelion

[@AMorgan57]

Great talk. Compare Star Trek, Next Generation, episode titled "11001001." Explores the nature of simulated human personality. One is invited to note that the characters presented as real are themselves fictional creations, and how many layers of imagination it is before it reaches a real audience. And what is going on in the minds of the audience watching this.

[@apparentbeing]

How can any being do anything without consciousness? Can you do something yourself in an unconscious state?

[@branimirsalevic5092]

We are body and mind and the processes that happen when these two interact with each other and with the "outside world". Physical body makes up maybe 5% of us, the remaining 95% is our mind - our mental activity. Yes, we are only 5% "meat", the rest of it is mental activity: *sensation* , when our senses make contact with their objects. This is as close to reality as we can get - a sense organ is sensing something; from here, everything that follows is interpretation of reality. *perception* , i.e. deciding whether that which is sensed is pleasant, unpleasant, or undecided. If it's pleasant, it will trigger greed & clinging; if it's unpleasant, it will trigger aversion & hate; if its undecided, it will trigger fear .. *mental fabrication* , the mind "dives" into previous experiences in order to fabricate a new experience that will correspond to what's currently being sensed. *consciousness* - we become aware of the experience fabricated in the previous step That's (almost) it. But then this new experience, through consciousness, becomes a sense object itself. It is purely a mental object, so it makes contacct with the mind in its function as a sense organ. There arises the sensation again, and the cycle starts over, never to stop, except when we're unconscious or dead. So this is why I said at the start, we are 5% material, and 95% mind. Even our material body is a mere mental fabrication. What we think is our material body - is not; note the "think"? Now compare these percentages with our image, nowledge, understanding of the Cosmos: isnt it too 5% matter and energy, and 95% "black mater" and "black energy"? So the question I ask myself is: Perhaps this "black stuff" actually is no other than our MIND, exact same mind I described above?

[@bltwegmann8431]

Brain stops, person stops. Amazing how far people will go to avoid the obvious.

[@juliorivera870]

In this age we are trying to understand our brain, something that is way too advanced to understand, our creator & designer knew that we will try to figure out, so he created it way too advanced for us dummies.

[@ktrethewey]

You are naive if you think consciousness can be explained using current science. There is a huge amount of stuff science doesn’t understand.

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

…and there is a lot that we didn’t understand at all before but now we understand quite completely. So make the math mate

[@mystic1der2000]

I agree

[@mystic1der2000]

Consciousness is more significant than most people realize

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).

[@declup]

People who delight in magical explanations will find proof of magic at a magic show. People who resist magical explanations won't.

[@quantumkath]

Those who use prayer to meditate associate the unburdened consciousness with a deity.

[@chyfields]

Have you ever considered that consciousness is not ours? Or that we are like evolving musical instruments, each attuned to different notes of consciousness?

[@aiya5777]

you know who you are because of your memories your consciousness takes your memories and runs with them If your consciousness were given a different set of memories, it would not know that anything is wrong, and would ‘be’ the person whose memories it is given so next time you go to sleep try not to ignore the possibility of you being just one of hundred thousand consciousness that emerged from the brain the morning you woke up and died in the following night

[@chyfields]

@@aiya5777 Some people, myself included, have memories of being many different beings in this simulated dream world.

[@aiya5777]

@@chyfields and if you're incapable of remembering your real life memories, you would always feel natural playing as those many different individuals in your dreams I once had a dream, I found myself walking around in a market and I felt so normal, and then I found a gigantic mountain of bloodied dead pigs pilling up on sale it's supposed to be quite bizarre isn't it? but I felt absolutely nothing wrong with it, it felt so normal people are lining up to buy these dinosaur sized bloodied dead pigs in the market when I woke up however, especially after regaining all my real life memories, I instantly flabbergasted by how normal I was in that dream how could I feel so normal back then? Interesting🤣🤣🤣

[@Corteum]

_"Why is Consciousness So Baffling?"_ Because you're not conscious enough 😂😂

[@alkintugsal7563]

😂

[@infinidimensionalinfinitie5021]

for me; consciousness is baffling because heisenberg's uncertainty principle;

[@tomas1629]

Not one single strong argument against the ilusion theory

[@cameronmckenzie7049]

no materialist would deny the mind's creativity. this guy's shift in position goes unexplained by himself.

[@dr_shrinker]

Creativity is a regurgitation of past experiences. Creativity is a determined process.

[@brimantas]

Consciousness So Baffling because man like to live in phantasy world, to imagine that Consciousness is separated from mater and he can fly to cosmic infinitely good father to experience infinite satisfaction. Indeed man has to find balanced live style for brain

[@BernardS4]

Is consciousness a function the brain vs consciousness of consciousness is a function of the mind? mind being nonmaterial contrary to doctrine of the "Frankfurt school"

[@richardoldfield6714]

Consciousness is only baffling to those who insist on a materialist explanation for everything .... not realising that everything stems from consciousness, including all material phenomena.

[@deanodebo]

Yes

[@dr_shrinker]

Except the universe exists without consciousness. If I leave my car in the driveway, I know it will be there in the morning.

[@richardoldfield6714]

@@dr_shrinker That's only because the combined consciousness of most of the human race contrives to create the apparent existence of 'car', 'keys, 'driveway' and 'morning'. In reality these things are surface illusions. They have no existence other than what consciousness gives them. You think that they are part of 'waking life', but they have no more reality than the dreams you experience when asleep. Most people are still dreaming during 'waking life', except they don't realise it.

[@deanodebo]

@@dr_shrinker that’s called induction and that’s not justified. That’s your faith

[@mwizachavura8399]

All you need to say is the brain is responsible for consciousness, but we don't know the full story yet.... . No need to start making claims based on emotions

[@sajithsomaratna1493]

Consciousness is having a moment of chicken 🐔and egg 🥚 argument which came first anserwer is either of them neither of them there is no beginning and end

[@heliumcalcium396]

Is he assuming that physical processes can't be creative?

[@fullyawakened]

It isn't. People just can't accept that it is exactly what it appears to be, a completely natural phenomenon. Instead, they would rather it was baffling, an enigma, a mystery, intangible and unknowable.

[@deanodebo]

That’s a simplistic claim, but you have zero justification.

[@alkintugsal7563]

Yes because it is a mystery if that simple it could be clearly explained it isn’t that simple.

[@fullyawakened]

@@alkintugsal7563 but it is simple. it's not a mystery. that was the whole point. if you spend your days watching youtube videos about consciousness then you are going to arrive at exactly zero actual knowledge. because this isn't education, it's clickbait. pick up a scholarly journal or textbook on the subject and you'll find the mysteries unravelling faster than you can ask questions.

[@alkintugsal7563]

@@fullyawakened I do follow Donald Hoffman cognitive scientist what he is suggesting is that the world we perceive is cheap VR set that we don’t see the whole reality it is a mystery in some way.Everything that Donald Hoffman argues about has mathematical testing ground it is a fairly new theory it isn’t that simple the consciousness.So it isn’t a click bait.

[@steveroonie37]

Exactly.

[@joeymartinez5515]

It's not baffling...

[@rob.parsnips]

I don’t know why you need “ancient wisdom” to believe consciousnesses isn’t an illusion. The idea is just nonsense on its face. But just because science hasn’t explained the origin of consciousness yet doesn’t mean any kind of traditional philosophy is required to do so. Meditation is beneficial, and philosophy can be useful for describing the subjective and abstract, but a rigorous explanation for consciousness, in my estimation, can only come from science, because “science” is the word we use to describe the rigorous study of empirical phenomena. And I do believe a complete empirical account of the brain would include an identification of the origin of consciousness.

[@rossw1365]

you can read about paris but reading isn't the same as going there and experiencing it yourself that's the difference betwn neuroscience (reading about it) and consciousness (being conscious)

[@rossw1365]

science has become so accustomed to reading about it, it's forgotten paris is a city you can visit and experience

[@rossw1365]

science thinks reading about paris is "real" and visiting and experiencing it is an "illusion"

[@jimliu2560]

It’s only different because reading only involves one of the senses. What if you create a holodeck Paris? Will there be any difference between the real Paris and the holodeck Paris?

[@rumidude]

As soon as he appealed to his first person experience, he lost credibility.

[@mioszbies903]

Is it your first person opinion?

[@mystic1der2000]

Ah but what is anything you’ve ever known except a first person experience?

[@rumidude]

The point is that first person experience can never be explained by first person experience. Until you have a third person explanation of consciousness you don't have an explanation of consciousness.

[@ianwaltham1854]

​@@rumidudeSo you're saying no-one should explore consciousness from a practical first person perspective until the materialists have solved the hard problem of consciousness. Perhaps you should tell that to the Buddhists. I don't think they got your memo.

[@rumidude]

@ianwaltham1854 Buddhism is a religion and explains things from the Buddhist perspective. Let me reiterate, until you have a third person explanation of consciousness, you don't have an explanation of consciousness.

[@quantumkath]

Just because someone meditates, it doesn't necessarily give them the advantage of creativity and calmness. It means you are specialized in the field of meditation, so you think your way is the best way. Meditation isn't going to change the world anytime soon.

[@quantumkath]

Yes, I agree. Meditators are focused on being calm. Creativity comes from excitement too. People who do not meditate know the power of consciousness too. Meditators, neuroscientists, physicists, philosophers, biologists all think their way is the best way when describing the baffling nature of consciousness.

[@artwatch-y9j]

This guy is a waste of time, he says nothing

[@monty3854]

A lot of nothing said here.

[@karlernstbuddenbrock371]

A lot of something happened in the act of creation. Imago DEI.

[@monty3854]

@@karlernstbuddenbrock371 please don't proselytize.

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...You can not catalog conscience systematically provide wisdom/understanding. This should be enough information that man is much more than most people reason. Also a close Spiritual connection let us say, into the Quantum World or maybe the Second Heaven where we Pass from this world on our way to GOD. Many paths with the same Spiritual ending, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube...Blessings...continue to grow in wisdom & knowledge...

[@infinitygame18]

Till now all your research about conciousness is limited to your own mind, and you are researching a part of your mind on behalf of consciousness, you cant understand conciousness with your mind, yes moving beyond mind can give you a gate way to understand beyond, again its the matter of mind to be silence to dive beyond,

[@dennistucker1153]

Roger Walsh is so in the dark about this subject(like many others).

[@steveroonie37]

If only we were all as enlightened as you.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I, too, have changed my position. Consciousness is an illusion. The consciousness of feeling, touching, sensation, perception, and all such experiences are ultimately illusion. They state maya is illusion in that what you're perceiving depends upon your condition, and what's being perceived as real isn't what it actually is. Illusion doesn't mean it's a phantasm, but illusion when a misconception is interpolated upon what really is as in substratum. Consciousness arised with the body and ends with the body. Without body, there can be no experience of the sense perception organs and their activities; without consciousness, there can be no mentation or mental construct that comes from the senses. There is something greater than consciousness. It is that very light, behind all phenomena of which, and without, the 3 states in waking, dreaming, and deep sleep wouldn't have become enlivened at all. Consciousness still probably can be used as a predicate for God....erroneous when people apply anthropomorphism onto God.

[@aiya5777]

you need to show this post to your psychiatric team so they can get your meds adjusted

[@sami555aroima]

I can refer to a poesy from Romi who wrote said following about 800 years ago. تن ز جان و جان ز تن مستور نیست لیک کس را دید جان دستور نیست: The body is not hidden from the soul, nor the soul from the body; Yet, no one is permitted to see the soul." Explanation in English: In this verse, Rumi is reflecting on the intimate connection between the body and the soul. He suggests that the body and soul are interwoven and not hidden from each other. However, despite their close relationship, human beings are not granted the permission or the ability to perceive the soul directly. This implies the profound mystery of the soul, which remains beyond the reach of ordinary perception and understanding. Rumi highlights the paradox of being intimately connected to something that is simultaneously elusive and hidden from direct experience.

[@buddachile]

Consciousness is so baffling because our civilization's view of reality is materialist where consciousness would emerge from configurations of matter but that is not the case. It is not consciousness that is an illusion (perceived by what? consciousness!) it is matter and spacetime that are illusions. Consciousness is fundamental and creates every perception.

[@lukewalker1051]

Biggest obstacle to consciousness being a neuron generated brain specific mechanical process is..all the anecdotal death experiences where consciousness leaves the body as the flesh dies.

[@jimliu2560]

Anecdotal info is garbage info… Consciousness comes from the brain….

[@MagnumInnominandum]

Anecdotal "evidence" poses no issue for a model that works. That one simply "can't imagine" that something could work, does not effect that thing working one wit.

[@ToriZealot]

@@jimliu2560 zero evidence for that. Why make stuff up?

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

🤦🏻

[@declup]

​@@ToriZealot -- There's a ton of evidence that a functioning brain is necessary for consciousness. Even Roger Walsh in this video says as much. What evidence, though, specifically? The most obvious: every single corpse ever.

[@ChitwoodMitwood]

Because there is no consciousness only awareness via bodily senses. Including awareness of our imagination.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

There are no states of consciousness. Concentration is not meditation.

[@ToriZealot]

in meditation you experience that you are without thinking.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@ToriZealot yes... This is meditation. A state of thoughtlessness. But to experience such a state is very very difficult for modern mind. People were simple during the times of Buddha. Now human mind has become too complex and active and hence cannot adopt meditation techniques so easily. They have to under go catharsis of their mind.

[@ToriZealot]

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Not easy ... but don't give up 🙂

[@anteodedi8937]

​@@sujok-acupuncture9246That's not a coherent proposal. During meditation, the thinking subject is still there. That's why you are capable to recognize such a state to begin with and compare it with other states. Meditation is just a relax state where the activity of the mind is reduced significantly, but there is still activity.

[@gettaasteroid4650]

"catharsis of their mind" that's like David Rosenthal where unity is over stated especially in David Lewis' functionalism (which the host introduces). Yet I'm pretty sure this channel is controlled by unity under staters or, mutatis mutandis, who believe in the singular unity of consciousness. The problem to Descartes is that the mind is indivisible in Meditation six.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(2:50) *RW: **_"if you only look at the mechanics; if you only look at the neurons then of course that's the only thing you'll take account of"_* ... That sums up the entire debate over consciousness. Sure, you can claim consciousness is all just *physical brain activity* just like you can claim that "life" is just *matter moving around from place to place* ... but neither speaks to the entirety of the subjectively experienced phenomena known as "life" and "consciousness." Besides, in order for anything to be deemed as an "illusion," all elements contained within the illusion *must exist.* An "illusion" is being tricked into thinking _something_ that exists is actually _something else_ that exists, ... but both things *must exist* for you to perceive the "illusion." The "illusion" part can only be the *"trickery"* and cannot be the _subject matter!_ *Example:* Santa Claus is technically an illusion. Children are tricked into thinking that a jolly ol' fat man from the North Pole brings them presents each Christmas day, when in actuality, it's just the parents giving them their gifts that they bought online. Now, "Santa" doesn't really exist, but everything Santa is purported to do each Christmas Day is being accomplished by the kid's parents (who DO exist). ... It doesn't matter if it's Santa or the parents get the job done. What matters is if the presents are "real," ... _and they are!_ True, Santa may be "fictional" (nonexistent), but he is still based on things that *do exist* (reindeer, fat man, red outfits, white beards, North Pole, Sleighs, chimneys, etc.). Santa's nonexistence in no way changes the nature of the presents the kids receive nor turn their presents into something other than what they actually are. ... Apply this same standard to "consciousness" and "free will" and you end up with the same type of outcome. It doesn't matter what the source is because the subject matter ("consciousness" and "free will") is still "real" and experienced exactly as they are presented to us prima facia.

[@declup]

What do illusion and false representations have to do with consciousness and free will? Santa Clause doesn't exist, but plenty of books and movies have been "tricked" into claiming his existence. Databases can contain errors; account books can be cooked; ML systems can hallucinate. What do errors or deceit, though, have to do with noncontingent choice or the primacy of self-awareness?

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

This guys doesnt understand conscieusness. He knows neuroscience keep out how figure out consciousness so far. However he insist consciousness definitions It is closer questions. He is wrong absolutetly . So he are talking with rubbish blah blah.

[@TheCosmicRealm3]

The replication crisis...enough said.

[@mardbalasy6671]

Did you note how many times this guy used word "extrairdinary"? He didn't reveal not a single discovery he achieved. Just Bla-bla-bla, and "extraordinary" Bla-bla-bla. That means self advertisement Only. I wasted 30 minutes to "discover" he is going to waste entire hour. Sorry, just turn him off.