Consciousness and the limits of Science - Boundaries of the Knowable (1/10)

[@Danzo1212]

RIP Professor Russell Stannard

[@Nomaken2]

I was like "Nuuu don't hurt the worm. Don't hurt the worm." And he didn't hurt the worm! I'm so happy.

[@mik99D]

He actually taught me and YES he is a very nice man.

[@K_32483]

These videos are literally gem. The paradigm shift after you watch will be noticeable when you'll find yourself having different approaches to problems and everyday matters. They should be viewd by more people. Let's share the playlist guys.

[@HarryJVaughn3]

Amazing! His tone and delivery on subjects that are at the root of humanity is so perfect. Like your grandfather sitting you on his knee and having a little chat about life.

[@eltiburongrande]

I'm finding Prof. Stannard's style of explanation very zen.

[@boodlewoodle]

Well Russel, finding you on utube was the best thing that has happened to my brain this week. I am dyslexic and you really helped me understand a great many things so thank you very much.

[@voicemint]

I really like the way Professor Stannard thinks. Nice objective approach with a dusting of gentle humor. Definitely seems to be worth exploring this man's videos further. I agree that we will hit a limit, one of both scale (logistics) and materials (resources), and this will leave many questions unanswered for a very long time, if not indefinitely. What will possibly help us leap beyond this is A.I. The "bigger brain" we've been craving to have.

[@MysticZefer]

This whole series was amazing. Thank you. I wish there was more.

[@RPKGameVids]

This guy is just great to watch and to listen to.

[@qcon81]

thank you milllion times , respected professor. u r an excellent man!!!!!

[@whiteblow7840]

Man i love this guy

[@cshields987]

We need more people like this on KZbin!

[@thealphabetist]

he's just brilliant! i could listen to him for hours and hours :)

[@rezamohamadakhavan_abdolla8627]

May God bless you and keep you and may God grants you a long long life and a perfect health. Thank you a million times.

[@seraphale]

I was looking for something to sleep to, but every time he starts talking, my brain wakes up and wants to listen to EvErYtHiNg! So fascinating!😄

[@tinahenry3814]

Good stuff! I enjoy and can understand his video's, thought provoking an easy listening. I think this one is my favorite

[@BUSTINMOVER1]

I like this guy , i love comedy and he has wit as well as intelligence ...

[@DanHowardMtl]

This is an awesome playlist. Thank you.

[@ntofed]

best episode of Mr. Rogers EVER

[@AlisonBryen]

This is the sort of thing I think about on the train to work each morning!

[@lmos26]

Brilliant!! A+ Prof. Stannard!

[@castlebravo6658]

I blame these videos for making me miss my bedtime. Then again maybe it wasn’t a conscious choice.

[@DiGiTaLdAzEDM]

I nos sure I agree that there will be an end to science some day precisely because of the reason that there will always be that which is beyond our knowledge. We will always keep formulating new theories to address the gaps in our knowledge as long as those gaps exist.

[@avedic]

This guy is cool..and has a very calm but engaging demeanor. The notion of consciousness is..fascinating. Imo, the #1 mystery in all of science. We can explain HOW consciousness operates..but we have utterly no idea WHY there should be an experiencing subjective self..at all. Nothing necessitates a passive awareness. Can we conclude a computer is unconscious? There's no NEED for it to be so, but the same is true of us. Maybe consciousness is fundamental..and emerges out of any system? Who knows?

[@eleonoramustafaeva1303]

Hi

[@johnwhitehead7619]

Extremely thought provoking

[@golhandincmen]

I am a fan from the first video ! Keep em coming, if possible.

[@Ram0nAlan]

Finally I found this series. It took some years.

[@Sarah-nk9js]

I admire this guy

[@buitrami]

I love this guy! Lol...He is so humble but very brilliant and the same time. What i wanna be...

[@jm096]

A wouurrmmm 😂 2:30

[@jamescrowther1234]

THIS GUY RULES, AND I DONT KNOW WHY

[@REDBLADE2012]

I love this Physicist!! Anymore videos??

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 In that sense, I am regarding Consciousness as the state of sensing “I”, and Memory as the Continuation of that Sense from one moment to the next. Now when physical integrity changes, e.g. a living being dies, this continuing stream of Memory as the “I” (who was the organism) May cease in that body. How is it known as to if the Consciouness, i.e., the “I” does not, say, appear in another point as another “I”?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Saying "The Sun may Not be Functionally Conscious as far We can See it" is quite agreeable.

[@eIectrostatic]

Anyone knows the name or author of the desktop background picture @7:34 ? The one with the gathering and the guy holding a bow...

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 "how can you know i'm experiencing consciousness?" Exactly! I may infer it from external observation and then Functionally conclude on it (though in reality it actually remains an inference), but I never will Realize your consciousness.

[@Tiggermk4]

With regards to the brain/consciousness...perhaps we should apply Bohrs theory about not asking "what is..." but "How does it behave when we observe it..." (c.f. episode 9)

[@TreeGreenOak]

This guys is awsome!

[@nikas2007]

Cool lectures/stories :) Thank you :)

[@MaxSafeheaD]

Could we consider the universe as one consiousness? Consiousness simply being the reaction of one object to a stimulus.

[@farisha13]

@farisha13 By pointing to the “intrinsic unanswerability” of this question, Prof. Stannard seems to imply that we do not, from our human limits, and I tend to agree with that.

[@donnyv78]

@Liusila The fact that we have such complex brains has immensely improved our genetic fitness. So, in the "biological sense" we've done extremely well as a species.

[@1simonmatthews]

@Lunis Do you think some sort of ability to think must have been in existence all along then? Or was there a point where everything was mindless?

[@izrealestness]

since matter act like waves when its on observed you can send them invisbly threw space around and around till they reach the type of speeds you need to figure out what holds all together

[@88Cortex]

I'd suggest everyone interested in this subject to read 'Godel Escher Bach'.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 I do agree with the level of scale you stated about, and I do agree about the functional unreasonability of Either extreme (I do not see where a "hardline" comes in what I have said). But isn't then the determination of "X being conscious and Y being not" from a human POV, a functional arbitration, i.e. do we actually know the true existential maxima and minima of this scale?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Why can it not be a Part of Existence, of which the externally observed is the physical and the externally unobserved, (Not Separate), is Consciousness, moving over from one physical continuum to another as the physical identities change?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 I agree that from a human POV, it may functionally Not be conscious, but does that cover the whole scale of conscious possibility for all of existence? My question was if we are capable of ascertaining the actual level on a scale of consciousness, and if we can know the True limits of such a scale, within our human limitations, to which Prof. Stannard at 10:39 seems to imply that we are not capable of this, and I see sense in that.

[@revolutionaryjake]

I wonder why do we need to question things to the extreme eventhough we know the right answer already... what good can we gain from reaching it? this vid explain some of it thank you!

[@DiGiTaLdAzEDM]

Would that be the same as to say that consciousness has primacy of reality over matter i.e. that matter arises from consciousness? Or would that be to say that consciousness and matter are two distinct realities?

[@Packforpackgaming]

consciousness is what limits us from our true potential.

[@Packforpackgaming]

+Iron Osiris deh iluminati

[@Packforpackgaming]

+Iron Osiris XD

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 “if you melt a computer into it's component parts does the logic allowing it to compute still exist?” A molten computer is no longer the physical entity called ‘Computer’. As such the logic to compute in the externally observable , which it acquired in the first place because of the integration of systems into a formed device to conduct binary operations, is no longer observable in that form. However, though its form may change, does the logic itself disappear from nature?

[@RiverBlakeful]

The David Attenborough of quantum physics.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 While it may definitely be true that further biology as a unitary organism cannot continue as in the deceased body, how can that prove that Consciousness, knowing the "I", ceases at that point? Is it not merely perceived by the external observer to have ended in the deceased body? Likewise, does not the arguement that Consciousness does not exist in an inanimate object make an arbitrary, closed assumption from the point of view of the external observer?

[@andresalejandro9991]

Which studies show the presence of consciousness in "brain dead" patients? I would love to read about that. Thanks.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 I do not refer to Consciousness here as something necessarily having to feed the development of Thought. Taking your reference on a "scale of consciousness" into account, why can a rock not have the sense of "I"?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 The physical structure changes over to another physical structure, to ash, earth and so on, why can not the consciousness change over as well? How does that imply that “consciousness is some magical thing seperate from physical world.”? Rather, I ask why should the externally observed physical integrity of a particular form be the essential Unit of consciousness?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 How is it recognized by the external observer that the rock has no sensory perception, when it is not recognized as to how its sensory system is constituted?

[@farisha13]

Actually, at 10:39, Prof. Stannard Does state that the question about understanding Consciousness is "(the first of the questions) that are intrinsically unanswerable and at the boundaries of the knowable". That makes sense, because there isn't (at least not yet), a method to Realize the subjective experience of consciousness in the Other. Does not that imply that the doubt about the consciousness of the Sun remains, Valid?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 I am definitely not stating: "everything is true until YOU disprove me". Is Learning or Doing, or any such animation for that matter, a necessary criterion for consciousness? There is an assumption in such an argument that Life, as defined in common the biological sense, is a necessary prerequisite for Consciousness, perhaps judged by the total cessation of animation on Death in living beings.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Correction again: My default position in Not "The Sun must be Thinking", because that is something I cannot experience. My question is: "How can we conclusively state that the Sun is Not Conscious?" It may well be not , but how will we, the external observer, ever know? Anyway, I guess Prof. Stannard has already looked into that at 10:39, so the point at 03:50 may be just an arbitrary contradiction put in for the ease of explanation.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 “what would it mean to be an "I" what identity would it have beyond all the atoms?” Why may it not be the subjective functionalizing identity for any entity? The aspect of existence that makes everything in the universe tick the way it does?

[@herrorarra]

Is there any extended lectures anywhere online of this guy?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Well, why can it not? How do we ascertain to the contrary?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 If the Sun, a Rock or any other inanimate object is Conscious, i.e. perceives its own existence, one may not, as an external observer, be able to perceive that object's conscious state. Does that mean it is not conscious in reality?

[@donnyv78]

@bkp1956 Your response is an attempt to refute ideas I did not even express. What I said: from a gene's eye view, we are remarkably successful as a species, thanks to our complex brains.

[@davehendricks4824]

WOW!

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 In Alzheimer's, the neurodegeneration causes damage to the Continuum of consciousness, i.e. memory, and thus Cognition, the processing of information obtained from Consciouness is affected. Thus, for humans, the brain is indeed a component to Maintain the continnum of the cognition of Consciousness. But does the Consciousness itself degenerate? Does the body not continue to basically function, even though the Physical Cognition of the Self may be disrupted?

[@patrick4091a]

@matatanXtreme oh my, did you mistake them for creationists intelligent design-ists? ;D

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Do we know Why the sponge came into being?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 A baby may definitely have have less thought rumination (stemming from memory), but doesn't its consciousness still make it function as a baby (cry of hunger, and so on)? As such, does not the basic consciousness remain?

[@idicula1979]

While there is A LOT that can be explained by science. Science almost by deffinition has limits, since each new discovery uncovered or query being answered leads only to more questions.

[@theforestero]

This guy does not bore me like politics and society....

[@farisha13]

03:50 "The Sun..oh, definitely not the sun!" Why not? How is that ascertained?

[@lucassmith4524]

Where did he find the Einstein Action Figure???

[@Aficionados9]

Genius

[@zezt]

did he cut the wom in half. I pushed video foreward. I am curious cause in last bit he seems to have been kidding?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 This is not the invention of a concept. Just questioning the validity of data obtained from external observation on a phenomenon that seems, as yet, purely subjective in comprehension. I totally do agree on Occam's Razor, but has Science as yet comprehended the complete nature and purpose of Consciousness? If it has, then why has it not been able to comprehend or explain the fundamental question of how and why everything is the way it is?

[@LiberatedMind1]

Hes like an old wise turtle

[@patavinity1262]

My thoughts exactly

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Unfortunately reductio ad incommodum does not help prove your point, since you have not been able to define How one may Realize the subjective consciousness of another entity. Hence, the question remains as to how the external observer can ascertain the absence of subjective Consciousness in another enitity, be it a sponge, an atom, the Sun, or any other. Therefore, once again - (3:50) "The Sun...oh, definitely not the Sun." How do we know why not?

[@1simonmatthews]

I think that Darwin's theory may be missing something. If evolution is directed just by survival needs then I think things would be a lot different to the way they are. Life would consist of just solid, mindless things. But there seems to be something else driving evolution. It's as though the universe is trying to wake up, trying to become more conscious. It's learning, not just to survive, but to become better. That's why we can think now. We can help make it better by using our minds.

[@notepool2]

@farisha13 Yes, it is quite possible, even likely, that 'logical thought' is only a miniscule part of conciousness, maybe only expressed in biological life. I would never assume that celestial bodies aren't conscious, especially bearing in mind that a biosphere is supported by a solar system. I also wouldn't assume that conciousness occupies physical space. I do consider that maybe the seat of consciousness is beyond space and time and interacts with physical bodies, biological or celestial.

[@KEYPHYSICS]

All subjective and objective scientists from time immemorial investigate and realize to some extent only how nature functions and never why the nature functions the way in which it does. The simple reason is it is impossible to investigate the cause of all causes with the sophisticated equipment (i.e. the intellect) that is available with us which is a mere minute limited effect of an infinitesimally small part of the cause itself! When we are students, we study a book (let us say). But when we become master over the subject we discover the limitations of the book. That is not going against the book but finding ways how that can be improved! Similarly when science matures that itself will find its own limitations and will find out if there is any way to overcome them. That is called progressive realization of ignorance :-) Till now in science we ask WHY but become satisfied with an answer which explains HOW?... The full article is available at : www.creativesolvibrations.com/how-and-not-why/

[@LAlba9]

"...only how nature functions and never why the nature functions the way in which it does." To ask why in the context of science is a redundant, impractical question to ask---(for all intents & purposes, impossible.) It is like, after learning with phenomenological certainty 'how' the sky appears to be blue, asking--- "so then why is it blue?" At that point, it is a query requiring completely redefined boundaries of inquiry.

[@KEYPHYSICS]

True. It is redundant today. But the rate science progresses very soon and in fact it has started to redefine its boundary of inquiry! Thanks for sharing your thought.

[@LAlba9]

YW. Like your web page and its mission.

[@KEYPHYSICS]

Thank you very much!

[@VanKlaunch]

Aha, finally, a diamond in the mindless regolith of KZbin!

[@1simonmatthews]

@Liusila But I was brought up in a family of proud meat eaters, and as I have become older, and I will say more intelligent (for which there is much evidence, which I could elaborate on), I have learned that living off other creatures will never bring peace and have thus become a vegetarian. So if one person can think that way, maybe others can? Maybe there is hope?

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 "how were you aware of your conciousness before you were born? you had no memory or learning capability. In fact the 'you' didn't exist anything more than perhaps random bunch of atoms." The Memory of possible consciousness before birth may certainly be lacking in the in a living organism post-birth, but how does that negate the possibility of Consciousness in the "bunch of atoms". Why shouldn't they know themselves? Is it not just the identity that becomes different?

[@1simonmatthews]

@Liusila It certainly seems that way. I hope not though. Perhaps in the future some group of intelligent and good people, or whatever, will intervene and sort things out for the good of the planet. I'm thinking that it would only take a relatively small number of super minds to change things.

[@MyNameisWatt9]

Fundamental scientific discovery could also be asymptotic, building better and better equations more closely approximating the truth. In that way it could go on forever, assuming we never find the ultimate answers. Perhaps our mathematic axioms are different and will therefore never fully capture the truth, but simply get better as time goes on.

[@steve37405]

Can an ape understand calculus? Now, can you see why humans might be limited in what they can know?

[@ChrisApao]

I wonder... did the people who knew only the physical sciences... levers, pulleys, and so on, think that there had to be an end to new discoveries in science? What about the advent of electrical discoveries... now the end seemed farther away, because there was so much to discover in this field, but surely that would be the end of what was discoverable... wouldn't it? But we seemed to go on finding new things to study and making new discoveries about what could be done. Now, take quantum physics, there is a lot of territory, and it expanded the boundaries of what science could learn considerably. Every time we think there is an end to the reach of scientific expansion, a whole new field of inquiry comes up. There are a very many diverse fields right now all going furiously in their own directions, and yes, there might come a time when those fields are so thoroughly understood that there will be only minor tweeks and peaks left, But... by then might we not have already opened up new, unthought of, fields of inquiry? As long as we have minds that question, and the desire to answer those questions... as long as we have imaginations to delve into the not yet seen possibilities, won't we have to keep opening up new frontiers... new realms of science? As long as man exists, I don't think there is a real end to discovery, not the ways to observe it, understand it, use it or measure it. And when you add the mind sciences, (not brain science mind you) there is no end in sight! Am I an optimist? Yes. Do I have an imagination? Yes. Is it running away with me? I really don't think so.

[@LAlba9]

Knowledge is layered like an onion. The history of science is the record of peeling that onion. Are we at the core yet? Doubtful. Why?---the cosmos is a dynamic, expandng onion , adding layers of complexity as fast as we study it. @Lary9 Science Tutorials ---all academic & practical levels from K-12 through university. ---arranged by private appoinments...reasonable rates.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 “clones. do they share half a consciousness?”... may be a question best answered by a clone. But, even though symmetrical physically, is it not a new separate form with its own functional existence. So does it have to share? “why is consciousness so important from the universes perspective.”...I am Not stating that it is, just Asking as to why consciousness cannot be as integral to the universe as its physical existence.

[@Sueezedtight]

Science comes from the root "to know" and the purpose of mankind is to know one's self. Our brains are a wet-wired construct that serves as a receiver-transmitter of knowledge. As a focal point of our awareness, it resonates with the energy that flows to and from our psychic centers. What we observe is part of our self-correcting and elevating function. Our attention is drawn to those aspects of existence that we need to fulfill our function which is to become a complete consciousness of self.

[@lostinmydreams4561]

Im glad he didnt cut the worm. Just goes to show that all life is precious (even if it wouldn't have killed the worm)

[@swlabrtyr504]

I wonder what Ray Kurzweil would have to say about all this.

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 "So far you've put forward the argument of inherent 'I-ism' into every atom but that's question begging. " I have Not arbitrarily stated the presence of inherent “I” in everything. I have only pointed out that it would be just as Fallacious to Assume, what you have stated previously, that the Sun or the rock is Not Conscious, given that there is no way (at least, as yet), for one to Realize the Conscious Experience of Another Entity.

[@Citizen_J]

he keeps worms in his stash box? pretty sweet stash box too!

[@MareIngenii]

That's a cool dude. He almost hypnotizes me when I look and listen, and he reminds me of Peter Lustig, the former German children's television genius.

[@lunis6898]

@1simonmatthews No. Having a brain does have survival value for many reasons. Being able to communicate has obvious survival value, and you can't communicate if you don't have a mind. Even creatures like worms have a small number of neurons in order to navigate and do other things. The only thing driving evolution is how the changes in your genome affect your levels of reproduction. But it's also not true that every characteristic of our brain was specifically selected for; but are by-products

[@farisha13]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 "(Consciousness) is a PRODUCT of physical makeup." How is that necessarily true?... "until you account for how dualism could be true you can't use it as an argument against physical ism." Please note that I am Not saying Consciousness is a separate thing from the physical. I am Asking as to why consciousness has to be a Product of physical makeup. Why can it not be a Part of such existence, like an as yet unrecognised side of the coin for the observer?