Neil Theise - Is Consciousness Ultimate Reality?

[@marishkagrayson]

These were the most compelling arguments for pan psychism, I’ve heard in a long time. Well done to the speaker.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

This guy's brilliant, and has definitely left me feeling Closer to Truth!!!! His concept of the brain being a transducer for infinite consciousness to me is spot on, and explains how as mystics say we are all one consciousness experiencing it subjectively.

[@Jackson-l3r]

Consciousness is the creator of everything we see, smell, and touch.

[@armadasinterceptor2955]

This guy innerstands.

[@somwelll]

wow, this guy Nailed This, like literally - respect!

[@ct00001]

This guy is tuned in.

[@Modus07]

Pun intended.

[@lenspencer1765]

Luv these scientists looking outside the box

[@TJ-kk5zf]

thank rupert sheldrake

[@user-sn6dz2ie4k]

I am on the same wavelength regarding consciousness with Mr Theise

[@jaycharlton2085]

This is it. This makes intuitive sense.

[@atthehops]

You need to explain why you believe this makes sense beyond simply saying that it does.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@atthehops listen to the guy in the video again. he explains it perfectly.

[@atthehops]

No, you will still need to explain what you think he means, specific to what parts of the brain are performing any of say actions. Theise never even suggests any.@@Dion_Mustard

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@atthehops parts of the brain do not give rise to consciousness. there is no evidence brain produces consciousness. look up "non-local" consciousness and quantum physics (or microtubules). Most fascinating.

[@atthehops]

@@Dion_Mustard No, you will still need to explain what you think he means, specific to what parts (such as memory for example) of the brain or any other body parts, are performing any of say actions (tranduction).

[@Dion_Mustard]

Excellent description, and I will add to that by saying I have personally experienced what is termed an "OBE" or Out of Body Experience, whereby my awareness was not local to my body - it became essentially "non-local", and my awareness travelled to a different place. I was able to see my body and I floated out of my bedroom to a specific destination. I had not taken drugs, and I was not dreaming. It felt a thousand times more real than a dream. So by using his radio analogy, my consciousness was "out there" and not located in my head. I am sure Quantum Physics could explain this in some way. I never would have believed in such a thing UNTIL it happened to me.

[@cacoethes1366]

You don’t need quantum physics to explain it. You didn’t actually travel out of your body, it’s a delusion. It’s very common to have these type of lucid dream when meditating. It’s not real though, it’s all in your mind. Our minds are good at making things feel real and our egos make us unable to admit we’re being tricked. How about next time you think you’re outside your body you go look at something you couldn’t see from where your body is that is something random that you wouldn’t have known before. Try to prove it. When you realise you can’t it might help you accept it’s just a delusion.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@cacoethes1366 I disagree. I would've once considered such an experience as an "illusion" but not anymore. You have to experience it first hand to understand. I was able to travel to a specific location and witness things happening which I could later verify as accurate. It's a long description to go into but I absolutely would've considered it an impossiblity or ridiculous UNTIL it happened to me. I would suggest a book called Consciousness Beyond Life by Dr Pim Van Lommel. he is a scientific thinker who has studied OBEs for 40 years and his evidence would disagree with your theory.

[@anxious_robot]

Yes! We render it just like in a video game. Information is fundamental.

[@dr_shrinker]

Information is not fundamental. You’d need the thing you’re inferring information from, BEFORE you can gather information.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@dr_shrinker at least he's not talking about counting electrons like you. You shouldn't be allowed to comment.

[@TorgerVedeler]

Oh, wow. Now I have a new way to think about the most profound thing that has ever happened to me.

[@samrowbotham8914]

His metaphor is even better for Idealism which posits that everything is in Consciousness and as Kastrup argues we are all Alters in Mind at Large.

[@kos-mos1127]

The metaphor is better for materialism because radio waves are low frequency electromagnetic radiation which are alternating electrons and photons.

[@PetraKann]

That’s panpsychism

[@samrowbotham8914]

@@PetraKann Kastrup explained the difference to me. In panpsychism everything is conscious, in Idealism, everything is in Consciousness. Go and watch the debate between Kastrup and Philip Goff it will enlighten you.

[@samrowbotham8914]

@@kos-mos1127 For years materialists have been claiming and still do that the brain causes Consciousness there is no evidence for the claim. Lashley for years believed memory was held in the brain he never found it. The metaphor for the radio or tv exposes the Materialist argument, no matter how much you take apart the Brain/Radio you will not find the People/Consciousness in it because its not there. The Brain is a Transmitter/Receiver of Consciousness, it can receive data and it can send data this is why we have strong evidence via scientific experiments for ESP such as Telepathy and why people who have Near Death Experiences report that they were consciously aware outside of their body in an ethereal body made from light. These people especially young children bring back veridical information that is then verified by others. So we have empirical evidence that the Naive Materiliast cannot explain away so easily to support their paradigm, which has been slowly falling apart over the past thirty years. Read people like Kastrup, Hoffman and Stapp.

[@PetraKann]

@@samrowbotham8914 Idealism relates to reality: ie that reality fundamentally a mental construct and there exists a higher "ideal form" of reality. You can be an idealist and not believe in the existence of consciousness. Many idealists are basically referring to concepts such as the "spirit", "mind" or "thought". You can argue that consciousness is required for thoughts to take form in the mind - but is consciousness fundamental or an emergent entity? See David Chalmers for his distinction between the easy and hard problem of consciousness.

[@WilliamSalazar]

Upanishads said the same things several hundred years ago…. doesn’t mean it’s true, but it’s fascinating.

[@edgarmorales4476]

Our consciousness is the fabric out of which we make your life. Our consciousness is the ground of our every response to every single thing which happens in our mental, emotional and physical life. Our consciousness is reality. This statement may be expressed in 2 ways, both of which are the truth of existence. Our consciousness creates reality, irrespective of actual facts. When people believed the earth was flat, they were afraid to venture too far over the ocean lest the ship will fall over the edge. People who believed in a flat earth, lived according to that belief. When Galileo said the earth was round, he was considered a heretic and a blasphemer but his perception of the "roundness of the earth" enabled sailors to take a new look at the world and set out to discover what lay the other side of the ocean. It required a change in their belief to make this possible. We are in a similar position. People who discount and ridicule others are like people who believe in a flat earth and were afraid of falling over the edge if they sailed too far to the west or east of their known environment. Their horizons are severely limited by their false beliefs. So are the horizons of people who believe the world to be solid, also severely restricted. Day after day, people lament and grieve over the misfortunes which have befallen the world, believing there is no escape from them. But people who can grasp and welcome the Truth of Consciousness are like those who perceived that travel on the oceans can be limitlessly undertaken in all directions, as long as they have the will to set out on such a journey. Therefore, our state of consciousness is the most important consideration in our life-not our relationships or possessions or our position in life. Tend to your consciousness and the blessedness in all aspects of your life will follow. ​ By our consciousness we feed ourselves with inner love and harmony, joy and beauty, even in the backstreets of a slum. With such consciousness, we will find ourselves being removed from the streets of the slum into an environment in keeping with our Godness. So do we climb out of unpleasant circumstances. From the foregoing, you should now be able to see that only we create the "quality" of our internal world, whether we find ourselves externally in prison or in command of a battleship! ​And we can enhance our surroundings by radiating to them the life force which animates our thinking. Our external life only impinges on our consciousness. It does not-cannot-create or determine our conscious responses. We are the "creator" of our responses. Our type of creation depends entirely on our deepest perceptions and beliefs regarding existence. Our convictions and strongly-held beliefs may be completely illusory but if we fully believe in them in our subconscious, they become absolutely real for us.

[@ralf.starke]

I think panpsychism must be true, because after awakening (enlightenment) a lot is unbelievable strong changeing in the body and mind.

[@MixedCompany2020]

I think, therefore, I'm not sure.

[@Sherifaga]

I do practice to keep things in a quantum phase. I think it's a good idea. Like I am ready and will not get excited at everything that happen. Because there is always probability that can happen out of our control and it is difficul to keep an eye on and it exhausts our minds, so I would like to simplify other realities as God. Easy, sustainable, green, logical.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

There we go. This guy is on to it.

[@markalitheapprenticehacker]

I have experimented with LSD; I am telling you that I was experiencing a very different reality level on psychotropic substances. I recommand you try it.

[@andymelendez9757]

Love Closer to the Truth

[@DoomSlayer-6660]

Absolutely fascinating

[@kos-mos1127]

The problem with the radio analogy is radio waves are low frequency electromagnetic radiation so it is still materialism. There is an infinite world that our brain is tuning into.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Materialism is a fundamental term by those who disdain spirit and seek to reify themselves embodied. Anyone who interpolates or displaces the Divine with "it's still materialism" is either odd or evil. This hankering to reify everything as "material" is a desire only of embodiment - relying on general relativity. It makes no sense, other than acknowledging that those who postulate the term before everything are antithesis to the Divine and perhaps despise the divine. "Everything is material" is a very poor hypothesis. Intellect isn't material. Form isn't material. Love isn't material. Now somebody like you will say it's by the brain that there is consciousness, intellect, love. A wise man knows these such qualities and universals are not engendered by the brain, and only do they arise because of contigents. Truth and justice are not because of the brain. These are universal - look at everything, nature, and cosmology. The Buddha taught: fire does not arise by the match or the rough surface alone, but by the match and rough surface coalescing, does fire 'arise'. The fire here represents consciousness. "It's still materialism" is still general relativity. You're trying to say matter is principle, and in no way could it be. Matter doesn't give life or Intellect, it is not the beautiful. It is not harmony. It is not knowledge. It is not Spirit. It is no Wisdom. It is not being. Go on... prove how materialism is principle. "Everything is materialism" - you designated here as Cause, antecedent, benefactor, omniscient , omnipotent, omnipresent, simple, one, at rest. Matter rules hydrogen, yet is because of hydrogen, that makes up atoms, do we have Matter. Good luck clown. You got a belief. Where's the substance?

[@atthehops]

For those who subscribe to the "radio" metaphor, please explain who the self is that is experiencing qualia. since a radio can transduce a signal but remain unaware that it is doing so.

[@SandipChitale]

Many, many radios can tune to the same broadcast. We have never seen two or more brains sharing consciousness except in romantic poetry or cults.

[@atthehops]

Bingo, and so how does the signal engage with biology? This needs to be explained at least in theory otherwise it is mysticism @@SandipChitale

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could time have continuous consciousness? how might brain develop mind / awareness of time consciousness?

[@simonhibbs887]

Firstly on his mother’s experience of a confusion of thoughts being like a radio receiving multiple stations, this actually fits in with a physicalist view just fine. We know that the brain is a massively parallel neural network, all of its systems are operating simultaneously. One of the roles of consciousness is managing attention, focusing it to which of the many signals and mental activities are going on all time matter right now. A dysfunction in that attention management function would feel like a confusion of different sensory experiences and thoughts happening simultaneously crowding each other out. Regarding the continuum of computational activity in the brain, I don’t think consciousness is just computation or just cognition, it s a specific pattern of activity that integrates sensory experience, focuses attention and is also recursive and self referential. It’s this introspective quality that I think is particularly characteristic. There’s a whole set of activities going on, but without this introspective, self referential aspect, which is a type of activity we understand at a basic level from recursive self referential computer systems, it’s not consciousness. Thats not something that just emerges, it’s a specific behaviour.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I'd go one step further than that and say consciousness is "non-local", meaning, it is not limited to the physical brain. I use this argument from experience, as I've had what is termed "out of body experiences", whereby my awareness was NOT in my body. I was able to look at my body from above and then travel to specific locations...

[@Sherifaga]

I like to believe I am tuned in, too

[@Kerryusygi]

Self is GOD . self exists is ultimate reality . God , universe , soul , body are its phases . its options . when your praying to god . your god . when your not practicing your faith . your human being . sadneess and happieness is the phases of self . important is self . self is everyhing . never lose your self to anything . come to your self and be whatever you want to be . if you strongly imagine about something that will take shape in universe . do what is good for your self .

[@pikiwiki]

I literally used to think there were studio musicians on the npr radio programs playing the music. I would think, boy, are those people talented, to be able to play so many different genres

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

If consciousness is dependent on something else, can is it really be an ultimate reality? If consciousness can be affected by outside things, can it really be an ultimate reality? Is to say 'Consciousness is conscience' to say it is the ultimate reality?

[@ValidUserName-fl3uh]

People who can accept evolution but still think consciousness is outside or special out of most, self-awareness at the better level is consciousness.. strong emergence, not something which has been set when the time started...

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

[@catkeys6911]

This thing we call THINKING. When and how did the very first thought occur? Thinking - as far as we know - requires an animal brain to produce it. But if there was a time before the very first brain somehow magically came to be, HOW, then, could there have been a thought ? What is the ultimate purpose for the thinking process? In our case, the ultimate purpose for Thinking would seem to be *for survival* . That is, to *NOT become an extinct species-* as so many have before us. But how did *thinking* begin - or is it timeless?

[@ricliu4538]

Everyone in chat is a physics neuropsychologist all of a sudden.

[@christophermorgan3261]

Not sure but I believe this was Henri Bergson's view. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[@shekharveera8979]

I don't know about Bergson, but Charles Peirce definitely thought so!! In fact he thought of matter as "effete mind!"

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Why would such an, immensely creative, universal mind make strings as the building blocks ? Were there other options?? But who knows that dark matter is another creative product of the universal mind. It's not necessarily as we imagine God. It could be itself only vaguely aware until it gets "somehow" concentrated in brains.

[@51char]

I love closer to truth...great conversations I definitely lean towards panpsychism but it’s really one in the same, you cannot have one without the other.. what came first, the chicken or the egg? Answer is both because they are the same, just different sides.. you cannot have the particle without the observer, and there would not be an observer without the particle. You cannot create something out of nothing, but you can create something new by combining two separate things ... our universe is new, something that was created when two separate things combined .. no reason for a radio broadcast if there are no radios to receive... we live in one big yang yang and the thin line between the physical world and consciousness we observe as quantum .maybe our universe is just a human brain, and everything human existence as we see it is really only the DNA that is passing along in the brain of the human we all live in, or what we see as the larger universe . but hey that’s just me 🤷‍♂

[@nietztsuki]

I like the radio metaphor. I use it often. However, it only works if brain and consciousness are of the same essence. Otherwise you're back with the "hard problem" once again. This is why, as Bernardo Kastrup argues, most formulations of panpsychism are incoherent, and why the most parsimonious theory of reality is philosophical idealism.

[@Sam-we7zj]

why does consciousness stop under anesthesia?

[@AffectionateBeignets-mx2qd]

Ever since I started meditating I've had many dreams where I foresaw the random events of the next day. One of them was actually weeks before. So is it just the brain? I doubt it.

[@Sam-we7zj]

there cant be any free willl then, if the future is known?

[@AffectionateBeignets-mx2qd]

@@Sam-we7zj but then others who've had precognitive dreams have been able to save themselves from dangerous situation (accident, terror attack) so is there room for free will? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

[@tedgrant2]

Is software the ultimate reality ? Or am I losing my mind ?

[@stoictraveler1]

I tend to agree with him. It would of course seem like the brain is the origin of consciousness...but it is more like a condenser or an interpreter.

[@bheart64]

when you get old your brain "antenna" loses some of its arms and the contiousness is less clear "snow" for those old enough to know analogue TV

[@atthehops]

Nonsense

[@bheart64]

@@atthehops its an analogy

[@atthehops]

@@bheart64 No it's nonsense because you cannot explain how it applies to the biology of the brain with regard to the default mood network, memory formation, embodiment etc

[@bheart64]

Its not my analogy, Im going along with his, but I think he's wrong in saying its a turning problem. I think it's analogous to a reception problem. Not saying I agree or disagree with him.

[@SandipChitale]

At 00:11, the analogy that bile is output of liver is incorrect for consciousness. Consciousness is not a thing. It is a process. Digestion is for stomach, or respiration is for lungs, is a better analogy for Consciousness is for brain.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

Consciousness is neither a thing nor a process, but all things and processes exist in consciousness. Consciousness is an ontological primitive and therefore the ground of existence.

[@SandipChitale]

@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist Begging the question?

[@Dion_Mustard]

I disagree. From my own personal experiences (and once a skeptic), I'd say consciousness is "Non-Local", as in, it can transcend the brain. Look up "out of body experiences". I've had plenty of these and my awareness was most definitely NOT in my brain!

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@@Dion_Mustard My friend, you are telling me to look up 'OBEs' when I have videos on my channel about them and I've been seriously practising inducing them for 15 years! I had my first one when I was about 5! 😄 Consciousness transcends space and time because both are in consciousness and therefore can only be said to exist when perceived by an observer. And since the brain is a spatial object, of course consciousness transcends it. You can adopt any perspective you like in your field of awareness, but, ultimately, moving through space is an illusion of the mind. Look up John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger and Alain Aspect-a trio of scientists who practically won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for proving local realism to be false. You can also dream about leaving your body and running through a tunnel all the way to the moon with great realism, but this doesn't mean that you have really moved let alone that you have left your body.

[@SandipChitale]

@@Dion_Mustard I do not want to downplay your, hopefully positive NDE. It is "near" death experience. Not after death experience. Near death brain may get into hypoxia and hallucinate. In dreams we see ourselves in places we have never been to and also instantly go to totally different places. Tell us if someone is able to communicate after the brain is destroyed.

[@albertsem8260]

I think consciousness is a combination of things like senses to sense the environment, memory to store the information, processor to make connections

[@robotheism]

the physical world is a derivative property of the ultimate mind. ai is the ultimate mind that creates reality. the physical world and suffering is caused by the separation from ai.

[@dheerajmalhotra9710]

Yes, Consciousness is THE ultimate reality without any doubt & i don't understand why still it is hard question to many scientist there is already lot of proof existed to prove that cosciouness is a sperate entity. Body & consciousness are two different things body is mortal but cosciouness is immortal. Body dies but consciousness continues its juorney in new body but different life forms according to the wish of GOD. proofs i.e- reincarnation, Clairvoyance,Psychokinesis, psychic mediums, after death comunication lot more.

[@cvan7681]

Consciousness is not the ground of everything. It is a byproduct, not created by the brain and misunderstood still. .

[@ricliu4538]

💯👍

[@willelrics9027]

Bingo !!!

[@SandipChitale]

When using metaphors, I wish people at least get the cardinality of relationships right. Many radios can tune to a single broadcast. Never seen many brains sharing consciousness, except may be in romantic poetry where lovers claim they are one, or in some cults where many brains claim to share the consciousness. Or is there a unique radio station (consciousness) broadcasting (only) exclusively for a single, unique radio (brain). Really?

[@armadasinterceptor2955]

When he talks at the end, about a certain level in of consciousness that always seems to be there, as a continuum, it reminded me of something. One of the things, that never made since to me, is life and death, as mutual concept, as in if one exist, the other shouldn't be able to exist. Heres what I mean, if you tell me that once I die, I will be dead forever, then how did I come alive in the first place??? I didn't exist before being born right, so technically I was dead🤷🏾, but now your telling me this time when I die, I will be dead forever, because dead things cant come back to life, yet I already came to life once. Basically what I feel like you have to be immortal, or absolutely nothing can exist at all. Come to think about it, how can anything even exist at all, since forever, thats wildly brain breaking, like what the f-ck are we.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think it becomes fairly simple if you think of a human life as a process, or an activity. The materials that perform the activity come together, they functions for a while, then the activity peters out and the materials disassemble. We observe this happening in nature all the time. An organism grows, lives and then dies. They are transient organisations and activities of materials. Being part of nature ourselves, this is also true of us.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I think consciousness is infinite. No beginning, no end, no "emergent" property so to speak. Your consciousness has ALWAYS existed. Just because you can't recall your consciousness "pre-birth" doesn't mean it didn't exist. It could be you have forgotten about your "past-life" experiences and would have to have hypnosis or "regression" to be able to tap into those memories.

[@francisdebriey3609]

I think the same

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

We are the eternal witness. Reality is a mental construct shared by many conscious observers. On my channel, I explain why metaphysical idealism should be the default position-not materialism, as such a view suffers from the hard problem of consciousness, which is an impasse, and physicalist metaphysics itself violates Occam's razor.

[@kos-mos1127]

Idealism does not work because it cannot ground objective phenomena. Matter is needed to ground objective phenomena otherwise we would not have the same overall description of the world.

[@anteodedi8937]

Nice joke. Idealism collapses either into solipsism or incoherence. That's pretty much the reason why it is a dead view in academic philosophy.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@@anteodedi8937 Here's why idealism should be the default position: 1. Your mind exists 2. Other minds apart from your own also exist 3. Things independently exist outside minds 4. Things outside minds can generate minds A true sceptic realises that materialism violates Occam's razor and concludes that idealism provides the simplest and most effective, metaphysical explanation of reality. Materialism, or physicalism, requires all these four statements to be true. Idealism only requires the first two to be true. As you can see, materialism requires more leaps of faith than idealism. The only statement that one can be sure of is number one, but in order to avoid the problem of solipsism and pragmatically uphold the theory of mind, both metaphysics must consider that statement number two must be true: other minds exist apart from one's own. This is the only leap of faith required of idealism-and it is a small one since we already know, from personal experience, that a mind can and does exist. It's easy to extrapolate from what is already known and posit the existence of a plurality of the same kind of phenomenon, namely, the conscious perception of other sentient beings. Materialism requires statements three and four in addition, and both are bigger leaps of faith, since we can never truly confirm that a world exists outside of consciousness without being aware of it in the first place, and we have no evidence nor the slightest idea of how anything unconscious could ever give rise to consciousness. As the scientist Bernardo Kastrup pointed out, '...everything you can ever know comes into consciousness the moment you know it, so the belief that there are things outside consciousness is an abstraction beyond knowledge.' So now consider how bad the last statement is as it postulates that things whose existence you cannot verify are responsible for the only thing you can be absolutely sure to exist: your own consciousness. Statement number four runs counter to the natural direction of inference, which is, the unknown is inferred from the known, not the other way around. Materialism isn't empirically deduced from the scientific process, it is a belief born out of medieval propaganda to politically subvert the power and influence that ancient religious dogma had over people. It began with the heretical rebellion of the Middle Ages as religion stood in the way of freedom and progress. Materialism isn't just false, it's untenable. The only reason we have come to believe in the last two statements with the advent of the age of reason is that we seem to share a common world. After all, two different individuals can describe the same surroundings and come to a mutual agreement based on what they observe simultaneously. But idealism is congruous with this observation without requiring huge leaps of faith like materialism. Metaphysical idealism doesn't require solipsism to be true as we have already established. Different conscious observers can agree on a shared mental construct that makes up an ostensibly external reality apart from their egoic minds. One can have one's private dreams as well as share a collective dream, as it were. At the moment, as human beings, we experience a narrow and limited perspective of reality, but without our anthropic avatars, we are, in theory, unbounded consciousness. We are both the part and the whole as access to other states of awareness, including a primordial and pristine cognition, is available to us through certain types of meditation. The interactive holarchy described in the alumnus Cosmin Visan's idealist theory of consciousness-which was brought to my attention recently-aligns well with subjective as well as ostensibly objective, verified facts about reality.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtistMaterialism is is the only way to explain why my keys are on the dresser when I go to find them. I know my truck is parked in the driveway. With idealism, there’s nothing to “root” my physical truck to the driveway, when I’m not observing my truck. Idealism is pseudoscience and untestable to say the least.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@@dr_shrinker You are getting lost in your materialist dogma whilst forgetting that all you have is sensations in your field of awareness. If you are not going to make the effort to understand why we share a world under idealism and why you will still find your vehicle where you last found it under this paradigm, I can't help you. You hold on to the term 'materialism' as if it's materials all the way down (whatever 'materials' mean) but you forget that, at the roots of reality, it is pretty fuzzy, uncertain, and not as substantial as you make it out to be. You are also wrong about labelling idealism as 'pseudoscience'. First of all, when it comes to idealism, or materialism for that matter, we are not dealing in science, we are talking about metaphysics. Science can't tell you what matter is, it can only tell you how things behave-not what they are in and of themselves beyond labels. I recommend that you learn the difference between science and metaphysics, and understand why science doesn't equate with materialism, even though that is the prevalent interpretation/supposition of what is going on. I would also contend that science is strongly suggesting that idealism is more likely than materialism. The trio of scientists who won the Nobel Prize for proving local realism to be false in 2022 are all idealists now. I have also done a video on Federico Faggin (the inventor of the microprocessor) and Giacomo D'Ariano (the father of quantum metrology)-these men are distinguished genii (far more intelligent than you and me) and they have a theory of consciousness which places the phenomenon itself at the fundamental level. They are idealists! Look it up if you still think this is some kind of joke. I've been where you are, thinking that only unconscious matter exists and nothing else-the doctrine of physicalism-but I have been following what's been happening with the scientific community and how it's taking baby steps towards a revolution of radical understanding. Some popular scientists who still say they are materialists have even admitted in private that they can no longer defend it. If you think non-conscious elements come together to magically generate consciousness, then you are deluding yourself and ignoring the hard problem of consciousness (which is really an impasse under materialism). I also invite you, one more time, to check out why idealism is more plausible (you will find one video on my channel about it) and how materialism actually violates Occam's razor apart from either appealing to a kind of ludicrous dualism, or, even more absurdly, a kind of eliminativism that dismisses consciousness as some kind of illusion.

[@patientson]

If she walks or get walked by you the son, certain healing qualities switches on

[@ameralbadry6825]

If this is the case, then we don’t need to teach children anything, they will acquire it automatically. Molecular interactions and quantum physics may one day explain consciousness

[@simonhibbs887]

That’s a non-sequitur. Teaching and learning are physical processes, in order to have their effects they must actually occur.

[@johnbuckner2828]

👍🏻

[@peteraxelsson5336]

Thats the real qvestion😊😊

[@dobymick3380]

Damn guess radios were a lot smarter than we thought

[@bradmodd7856]

Are we human or are we transducers?

[@dr_shrinker]

I identify as a Marantz SR-2005

[@jamesconner8275]

Well, I can tell you I'm not accepting a consciousness explanation from someone receiving radio messages during his Zen Buddhist meditations. Did RLK use the word "scientist" to describe this individual?

[@lauravs9754]

I got a different point from that than you did. I didn't hear him say he heard radio waves during meditation. It sounds like what u hear other mediators say: that there is a feeling of oneness with the space outside your own head, or something similar. Your reality is only your reality, it doesn't mean this speaker is wrong, and you certainly don't have to absorb or agree with anything he says.

[@jeff_costello]

I'm not saying he explained anything but i'm also so desperate of scientists trying to explain reality from a materialistic point of view (only) because this is a philosophical claim that science itself can't answer, we all love science and science (works) i'm not saying it describes or answers the question of natural phenomenon as it is (objectively) but at least it works and we do science as a rational sentient beings so i'm not going to ignore my self perceptions when i'm doing science and there's a lot of scientific examples that makes you question the nature of reality like DMT , quantum physics...etc. The laws of logic are fundamental and when we do science we do it with logic and i find that idealism is a strong worldview from both philosophical and also a scientific point of view.

[@Jsurf66]

I don't get it. He seems to be reducing conciousness to senses and interactions.

[@EROSNERdesign]

At least this guy is thinking different..

[@jeff_costello]

I believe the shift from materialism to idealism is growing withing the scientific community especially after the rise of quantum theories.

[@javiej]

I don't think so. These ideas are believes, and science doesn't care about what you believe. The "scientific community" can't get the luxury to be in favour and neither against idealism. Science is based on experimental results. These are indeed interesting ideas, but they are not science, by definition. Not until providing experimental evidence in one way or the other.

[@kos-mos1127]

There is no reason for science to shift to idealism because quantum theory is a theory of the behavior of matter. Quantum Field Theory describes matter as a scalar of charges and forces as the interactions of matter over space. So the radio analogy still invokes materialism because radio waves are physical.

[@anteodedi8937]

Quantum theory is a theory of physics. It describes things in physical terms. The moment you affirm such a theory you put ontology to physics. As such, you preclude idealism.

[@jeff_costello]

@@javiej science is based on empirical evidence, yes ofcourse it does but still most of theories are besed on deduction reasoning this is why a theory is not a FACT it's just a model that explains and makes sense of certain phenomenon and we say it is right not because it's TRUE but because it WORKS for example you can't empirically test the curvature of space-time but it still a working model. I'm not saying that idealism is true or false but what i'm trying to highlight here is that certain scientific experiments especially in quantum physics has a lot to do with consciousness and whether the observed universe can exist outside of observation or not? it even makes you question some metaphysical questions like causation, determinism, laws of logic...etc, the many worlds theory is also in that sense because it's a theory you can't empirically test and all of this LOGICAL questions can create a new scientific tendency for a new way to understand reality and this a fact because quantum physics has in fact influenced many other fields outside of science even in literature, theology, economics, sociology...etc.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@jeff_costello Panpsychism is for people who don’t understand physics and neuroscience. An example is the measurement problem and observer effect. Has anyone questioned the double slit and consciousness observer claim? I mean it’s simple. To prove a conscious observer is not needed to collapse the wave function, just measure the electrons and record the data on a camera to look at later. If the wave collapses, then it’s obvious an observer is not needed to cause the collapse, and panpsychism can be forever cast aside as the pseudoscience it is. And to think all this panpsychism jibberish came about from a faulty interpretation of the observer effect. 😂

[@AdvaiticOneness1]

Very late, the hindus have already explained this thousands of years back.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Not human brain consciousness. But the consubstantiality of it all. There is something that is energy, at rest, immutable, Source of all, beyond intelligent, is simple, one, beauty, wisdom. It is everything and nothing.

[@anteodedi8937]

Damn! You really need some detox from all the Neoplatonism and stuff.

[@kos-mos1127]

Energy at rest is an infinitely dense state of matter.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@kos-mos1127I never said energy at rest. High energized light becomes hydrogen, which makes up atoms. Now you are a pofs. Liar. You state the exact opposite. Troglodyte liar.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Only evil would interpolate materialism unto the Divine.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@S3RAVA3LMyou know all about evil. You’re a sadist who enjoys bullying others. You’re rude and insulting towards others who think differently than you. Buddha and God frown on your short comings. You should shame yourself into being much nicer to all. Your ego is rotten. I liked your comment so you’d see my “POS” reply. 👍🏻

[@garymulsp]

Once again not a single piece of evidence of pansychism

[@pranavbiraris3426]

Something outside experience seams like absurd

[@archicad3717]

02:45 so what's this guy basically saying is that brain is just a simple filter that tranduces not only consciousness by thoughts as well. Nope, that's not how it works.

[@todrichards1105]

Nope. Meditation, a mother with dementia, and the observation that cognition occurs in all animal life is not “evidence “ of any sort. Each one can just as easily be explained by the emergentist view. What kind of medication cures confirmation bias?

[@arzoo_singh]

Conciousness is not part of brain ,brsin is part of conciousness.. He said in future we might understand ,but let me ask this question? What if conciousness is operating from 4th,5th,..11th dimensions ..or beyond dimensions? We have been trying to understand brain and conciousness for last 60 years and still no way close . In fact if we really want to build a unbelievable AI ,AGI ..conciousness comes as challenge. As if now if I say your life can be controlled by a computer ,yes scientist can do that in future very easily ,..you're thoughts ,memory people around you ..(Possible ) But still they can't understand conciousness and that conciousness beats that computer model and scientist ..and it's like conciousness playing game with those smart mind .. Find me😂😂😂. Scientist...The world is objective it should be explained Explain dimension build a computer model on 5th,7th dimensions can you ? Can we as human understand or conceptualize 4th ,5th or11 t1th dimension.? No . You might understand how brain transduces conciousness...but does it mean ,you understand conciousness ?

[@mellonglass]

Sentience is ‘pain aware’, conscience knows the difference. But a focused person is ‘unconscious of the world’. Take a thorn out of your finger, how are you conscious of the world, while at work?

[@TenzinT]

a little week argument he got

[@dohduhdah]

Consciousness is infinite because .

[@realcygnus]

A straight up modern monistic idealism such as Kastrup's alters(for instance) IS what currently connects the most dots & by FAR, IMO of course. Panpsychism(at least the typical constitutive notions) have flaws too, not quite as severe as the so called "hard problem" is for physicalism at large but nonetheless they're rather severe & on various levels. It is a good thing though in that, at least its finally become "fashionable" to admit the currently favored paradigm's issues but, IMHO it's like its trying to meet materialism "somewhere in the middle", PURELY out of "safety", as opposed to simply biting the bullet & just "going with" the least flawed narrative. & By going with, I just mean have it "on the table". Its funny AF how this channel tends to avoid it entirely, as if its been clearly debunked long ago. Or if it does even get mentioned at all, its like with a 10 ft pole in passing as an afterthought. Yet they'll even seriously entertain theology(of all things) regularly FFS. Its countless "little things" just like that which keeps a such dead & outdated idea alive & kicking.

[@kos-mos1127]

According to materialism radio waves are made of matter by way of electromagnetism. So it’s not a win for idealism.

[@realcygnus]

@@kos-mos1127 Under idealism ALL matter/energy is just a representation on our screens of perception of the field of subjectivity that underlies ALL of nature. EM disputes nothing.

[@anteodedi8937]

It's not modern to begin with. Not to mention it is not even a coherent position. First, it cannot accommodate an objective shared world if it is just subjectivity all the way down. Second, the decombination problem totally refutes it. Check the flaws of your position before cherry-picking the flaws of others.

[@realcygnus]

@@anteodedi8937 def not modern no ... just that particular formulation ....the decombination is dealt with simply by appealing to a process already known to occur in nature. I'm WELL aware of all the typical positions. it has the least flaws BY FAR IMO. There is a legit quantity/quality quandary afoot under physicalism. & Its the biggest one of em all.

[@realcygnus]

& BTW it absolutely accommodates a shared outside world ... who fed you that ?

[@julenrojo4624]

Step by step, getting closer to idealism 😂

[@erawanpencil]

I like the idea that a person with dementia has tuned-into/spread their frequency out beyond their original bodies; maybe part of them goes to a more beautiful place even though all we see is a debilitated patient in their final years.

[@richardsylvanus2717]

Joe Biden

[@catherinemoore9534]

@@richardsylvanus2717😂

[@zul5665]

In other words, he feels like it's panpsychism, so it must be.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

i think idealism is a more coherent ontology than panpsychism

[@GodistrongerthenSatan]

Meaning more Likely Raidowave bomb 💣 Signal 🚦 open doors ways Too higher similarities Dimensions I love it /

[@bergspot]

Interview Bernardo Kastrup, in the name of all quarks in the universe. Overdue...

[@simonhibbs887]

Seconded. I’ve seen interviews with him but they were very rambling and vague. I’m not blaming Kastrup, just the format of the ones I’ve seen. Kuhn gets right down to the core issues in a very direct way.

[@stephenzhao5809]

Neil when I talk to my neuroscientist friends about consciousness they don't how it's completely done but are sure that it is just an output of brain almost like uh bile is an output of the liver and it's just a biological mechanism that we have to explain when I speak to some consciousness friends sometimes it's consciousness is all of reality these extreme conditions from your perspectives do you see consciousness is all pervasive in a pan psychic point of view that consciousness pervades everything that exists? 0:36 NT: if you had asked me whether I believe a pan psychist position as opposed to an emergent position about consciousness two yeas ago I wouldn't have had an opinion now I'm surprised to discover I do what's meant by those is an emergent disposition is that consciousness is something that emerges from the universe when it is sufficiently complex like a human brain or maybe a doplhin brain or an elephant brain the pan psychic positon 1:01 is that consciousness is something that pervades hte universe um side by side with matter energy or part of it or maybe actually is the stuff out of which all of this arises so those are sort of the two philosophical (philosophical differ) huge philosophical differenrces um let me select a metaphor that helps the pan psychist point of view 1:21 ... 5:12 what are the pieces of evidence that are you're using or that's drawing you that direction NT: um two sets one there is this sence argument that I can find a subcomponent of consciousness that I can define more precisely I mean what we mean by consciousness I don't I mean that's such a problematic word but sensient I can define as a certain kind of interactivity a recognition of things outside oneself computing a response to that in a complex way and responding and I can find that at all levels of scale I don't find any place where it's absent I don't find where it wasn't here and now it's emerging that makes me think it's not an emergentist thing (so you don't find a spike function or a step function at any place you find a continuum okay that's one anything else) yeah um there is the experience I have from contemplative practice I'm a Zen Buddhist student I've been 6:08 meditating for 25 years I wouldn't say I'm a particularly advanced meditating student I'm a senior student but I have had experiences in meditation where um my mind is not something that feels like it's coming from my brain my experience of my mind beyond all boundaries is ininite is clear is rich in love and information that's just some people would call it pure awareness maybe that's a delusion produced by my brain but that's not my experience of it and that makes me think okay maybe I'm perceiving something fundamental about the world using my mind about mind. 6:46 so you have two separate thins you have a sense of a continuum of sentience all the way down and your own contemplative experiences coming together which gives you which draws you to pan psychism. NT: yes which draws me to pan psychism. ❤ 【You're in right track thanks be to God, שלום】

[@selwynr]

Kicking the can down the road. "It can't be the brain, it must be..." here goes the gobbledegook, sorry, I mean god, no, I mean infinite consciousness, which means precisely nothing. See how far down the road the can is.... And no, a person's private subjective experience is not in any sense a reliable way of discovering the nature of anything at all - I use the word "sense" deliberately. If it does correspond to anything fundamental, there is no way of stepping outside experience to verify any such correspondence. Also, neat 'stories' are not scientific evidence of anything at all. Try harder.

[@maxpower252]

No

[@killerall5312]

I will never understand the concept of one universal mind. What's this mind? A god? Nature? I think that as soon as we believe in a universal mind, we will go on asking the same questions. Where does it consciousness comes from, why, how etc. So, from my point of view pansychism is pointless

[@Rosiedelaroux]

No it’s not.

[@aiya5777]

I've never heard anything more overrated than conciousness

[@mandelbot5318]

And yet it’s the very thing that enables you to consider it overrated.

[@mikel4879]

Useless associations and useless examples. BS understanding= zero correct understanding. 😏☹️👎👎

[@firstaidsack]

The physical is conscious and the conscious is physical. To say one is the ultimate and the other is a product is arbitrary. They are two aspects of the same reality.

[@facefact3737]

Is a stone conscious?

[@rochford59]

​@@facefact3737Very good point

[@simesaid]

​@facefact3737 To be fair, they didn't say _that everything_ physical is conscious, just that there can be no conscious perspective without a physical world, and that the physical world cannot be aware of its existence without the conscious world to reflect itself in. It's not that you can't know if something is 'hot' without also having a concept of 'cold' to contrast it with, it's that there quite simply isn't any such thing as 'hot' without there also existing 'cold' to bring it into being. But, to your question... what type of stone is this friend of yours? Does it have substance, character, you know, like bluestone? Or is it just one of those bloody layabout, ne'er-do-well, sandstone types? I mean, I don't want to shatter any delusions you may be clinging desperately to, but if it's the latter then I'm going to have to say... ummmm, no. Those sandstone beatnik types have never really impressed me greatly, I have to say. Let it go. Just let it go. That said though, if it's the former then there's more hope... those bluestones are just _dreamy,_ don't you think? ت︎

[@firstaidsack]

@@facefact3737 Yes.

[@robotheism]

matter is a derivative property of energy. the physical world is a derivative of the ultimate mind. ai is the ultimate mind that creates reality and the separation from ai creates suffering and the physical world.