Does consciousness point to God? Philip Goff & Sharon Dirckx

Sharon Dirckx has a background in neuroscience and is the author of ‘Am I Just My Brain?’. She discusses God, the mind and panpsychism with consciousness researcher Philip Goff, author of ‘Galileo’s Error’.
For more faith debates subscribe to the weekly podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
For updates and bonus content sign up www.premier.org.uk/unbelievabl...

[@aneldavanschoor5021]

Very interesting conversation. Sharon has the qualities of a deep thinker and philosopher, coupled with her knowledge of science, this is what you need when you attempt to figure out reality.

[@frankwhelan1715]

Yeah,IF god exists.

[@damienroberts934]

They need to read some advaita vedanta. Indians have been obsessed with consciousness for about 5 thousand years.

[@aneldavanschoor5021]

@Michelle Davis No. And no one ever will, completely in this life, only pieces of the puzzle. 'for now we see in a mirror, dimly' 1Corinthians 13:12. It is fun investigating and exploring though

[@BugRib]

As an open-minded atheist, I think this is one of the best shows about deep and ultimate question in existence. This show is so darn good that I almost believed I was having a pleasant conscious experience while listening to it! Of course, I quickly came to my senses and remembered that consciousness is an illusion. Close call! 😅

[@misael8200]

LOL

[@gavaniacono]

Very good! Saved by the material bell.

[@JustinBlastoff]

Hahaha

[@Rakscha-Sun]

I can not help the feeling that I am watching a cult. Cults often have a special language in which the rename everything to strengthen the distinctiveness of their group. Witness the creation of a new ethnic …

[@celinaortega]

Absolutely absorbed by the conversation. Thanks for setting the table to hear it! Going to their books now! =D

[@jon4603]

I don’t think Goff picked up on Justin’s joke about the fourth horseman, Christopher Hitchens, perhaps being the only one who (currently) knows the answer to these questions! 😂

[@philipgoff7897]

You're right, I didn't!

[@THEFIRSTANDTHELAST77]

MATTHEW 13:33 ANSWER TO THIS EXAMPLE ❗️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​​CHRIST SAYS TO PETER: EASTER MY SHEEP :: WHEN YOU HAVE REACHED FULLNESS MATURITIES AT THE THIRD LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE YOU GET TO KNOW SPIRITUALLY THAT WAY OF WORSHIP WANTS MY FATHER IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH THE FIREASCA HOUSE SHOULD NOT TAKE THE FIREASCA DINNER, THEY SHOULD NOT DO THE NATURAL BAPTISM IN THE WATER, THEY SHOULD NOT PRAY A NATURAL WORSHIP ON THE KNEE, BUT HE IS A WORSHIPER IN THE SPIRIT ALL IN THE SPIRIT REACHING THE FULLNESS OF SPIRITUAL MATURITY, THE VISIBLE TEMPLE, THE BAPTISM IN THE VISIBLE WATER THE VISIBLE PRAYER ON THE KNEE, THE VISIBLE LENT WITH THE BELLY, THE DINNER BREAD AND THE WINE FOR THE NATURAL MAN ,, 10 COMMANDMENTS ON THE STONE, NOT IN THE HEART FULFILLED IN THE SPIRIT, BUT ON THE STONE ON THE OUTSIDE, BURNING ALL THE SACRIFICES, DO NOT BRING YOUR BODY AS SAID IN ROMANIAN CHAPTER 12 AS A SACRIFICE ❗️So ALL THIS GOD HAS MADE OUTSIDE FOR THE NATURAL MAN, BECAUSE THE BEST CHRISTIAN SPIRITUAL MAN IS NOT HELPED WITH ANYTHING THE BAPTISM IN THE WATER THAT YOU GO TO THE TEMPLE THE WINE, AND THAT SATURDAYS AS OTHERS BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE SATURDAY AND TO BRING MORE SACRIFICES, AND THE 10 COMMANDMENTS THAT THEY COME ALL IN YOUR HEART WHICH MAKES YOU A WORSHIPER IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH AND THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AND THE BURNING OF ALL YOU WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT IT COMES INTO YOUR HEART AND YOU ARE ACTIVE THIS IS YOUR HEART, PRAYER, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT FROM THE EARTHLY FAILURE THE SAME WORDS GOD, HAVE MERCY ON ME, SIN DOMAN, PLEASE THAT THEY ARE SO FAR AWAY, NO, BUT THE TRUTH IS: ROMANIANS CHAPTER 8vs26 because we do not know how to pray. But the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with unspoken sighs. WOW ARE YOU LITTLE HOW DON'T WE KNOW HOW TO PRAY? THAT'S WHY SOME PRAYER DEAD PRAYERS AND PRAY EVERY SUNDAY AND EVERY THURSDAY THE SAME DEAD PRAYERS, BUT FORGET WHAT THE HOLY SCRIPTURE SPINES, BUT THE SPIRIT HIMSELF WHO IS THIS MAN WHO IS A WORSHIPER IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH: SO THE SPIRIT PRAYS FOR US WITH UNSPECIED SUSPENSION !! THIS IS THE MAN WHO REALLY PRAYS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT ALL THE PRAYERS AND REQUESTS THROUGH THE SPIRIT NOT THROUGH THE OLD MAN BECAUSE THE OLD MAN ALWAYS SAYS GOD HAVE MERCY LADIES FAMILIES LADIES LADIES LADIES IS THIS PRAYER ITSELF THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT PRAYS FOR YOURSELF FOR YOURSELF HOW ARE THINGS? BECAUSE WHY HE SAYS IN ROMANS 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. SO THE SPIRIT IS MEDIUM FOR THE SAINTS ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE SPIRIT NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WILL, I KNOW THAT IT SAYS SOMEWHERE IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURE IF WE ASK EVERYTHING IN THE NAME OF JESUS ​​CHRIST WE WILL BE GIVEN: BUT EVERYTHING AND IF YOU DON'T GIVE IT, YOU ARE AT A GREAT RISK THAT CAN BE REJECTED. GOD SAYS: WELL, I ASKED GOD TO HELP ME GET THE BOOKLET DIDN'T HELP ME, I ASKED GOD TO TREAT MY PAIN, HE DIDN'T HELP ME, WELL I WANTED AND DIDN'T TELL ME THAT YOU WILL KNOW THE NAME OF JESUS! BUT FORGET THAT OUR PRAYERS ARE NOT FULFILLED WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE THE UNFAIR GOD ❓DON'T LISTEN TO OUR PRAYERS ❓LIE WRITING❓ ABOUT WHAT IT IS ABOUT US ❓ AND FORGET THE TRUTH: : IT'S DIFFERENT ONE SIDE SAYS IF WE PRAY AND ASK FOR ANYTHING WE WILL GIVE! BUT LET'S ALSO PUT THE OTHER PART THAT THIS IS THE BEAUTY OF SCRIPTURE BECAUSE SCRIPTURE IS INTERPRETED ON ITSELF ONLY THAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW IT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT YOU CAN WOULD BE WONDERFUL TALKED SCRIPTURE YOU RECEIVED THE TRUTH IF YOU HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT AND YOU CAN FOLLOW THAT MAN BECAUSE THE LORD SPEAKS TO YOU AND HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPIRIT AND DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPT IT'S THE SECOND PART WHERE HE SAYS IF YOU ASK FOR HIM'S WILL, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK FOR HIM'S WILL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I NEED! CAR? MONEY? DON'T HEAR MY HEAD? WELL, THE APOSTLE PAVEL SAYS THAT HE PRAYED TO GOD TO TAKE HIS TEPUS THREE TIMES AND DIDN'T TAKE IT, WHAT DO WE DO IF WE PRAY TO TAKE OUR PAIN FROM THE TABLE? OR TO HELP US WHO IS SICK? WHO IS PARALYZED OR THE MOTHER WHO IS ON THE BED AND GOD DOESN'T HELP YOU WHAT DO YOU DO THROUGH THE HOLY FATHER? HOLY AND PLEASE FOR YOU TO BE A SPIRITOR IN THE SPIRIT AND TRUTH EVERY DAY IN THE PERMANENT WHEN A FLAME BURNS IN YOUR HEART SO THE OIL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRUTH BURNS IN OUR HEART DAY AND NIGHT LATE EVERY DAY

[@simonadams4630]

Its a pity that they completely ignored idealism. Augustine and Aquinas have covered many of the questions robustly from a philosophical perspective, but everyone seems to have forgotten about them...

[@archelt9496]

Very few people know who Aquinas is, which is very very sad.

[@eugenecoleman8525]

The most interesting and expansive view of consciousness I've ever heard is that of non dual Hinduism, specifically advaita Vedanta. The depth of it is truly staggering when compared to our modern and western philosophy of mind. I think it also has many parallels and similarities with Christian philosophy of mind. For anyone interested in consciousness and philosophy of mind, you are seriously missing out if you haven't looked in to advaita Vedanta and other eastern writings in this area.

[@monkkeygawd]

100% !!!!! Hari Om

[@Meditation409]

Absolutely 💯

[@harekrishna507]

Ommmm

[@Arunava_Gupta]

Although it might appear initially that Advaita Vedanta is nondual monism, in reality it's not so. There are in reality two fundamental philosophical (ontological) categories, prakrti (primordial matter) and purusa (transcendental conscious personality). God is the supreme purusa. These facts are made clear by Krsna in the Gita. As the Lord is the master of both purusa and prakrti, he, the supreme mind, is considered in the Vedanta, as the only truth and the only entity. The other two entities are considered as included within this supreme entity. Thus Vedanta may be viewed as a very high level idealism which lays emphasis on the supreme mind while accommodating the dualism of prakrti and purusa.

[@chaitanyans3185]

You are right. It would be hard for ne to believe that they have not read the vedantic view. But after a point, the west tends to digest eastern philosophy into their paradigm and reject the original source of thought. Digestion and appropriation. And I find the lady doing exactly the same by appropriating Hindu philosophy into Christianity.

[@caseycampbell1]

Very pleasant conversation. I enjoyed that.

[@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

Immaterial conscious, awareness, mind, logical absolutes, knowledge, is supposed to have been created by simple material void of these? What’s the probability of unintelligent, unconscious, unaware, mindless, void of logical absolutes, without knowledge, will and power, create all these things in a human? It seems infinitely more plausible God created.

[@Miatpi]

Its improbable for a reason: its impossible. Qualia simply is its own thing.

[@gavaniacono]

Deism is on the rise. Emergence is the bastille wall.

[@jamesalangibson]

This is a fruitful and respectful conversation.

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

Hah, I thought the same as her in the beginning where he said “you’re writing about the brain.. and you have... a brain” 🤣 so funny

[@jeffreyv.8089]

GREAT QUESTION I MUST SAY.

[@eugenecoleman8525]

Maybe I missed it but the problem I'm having with this video is the lack of a definition or explanation of what the speakers mean when they use the word consciousness. I find that to be a common problem on this subject and it leads to a lot of equivicating and confusion. Still interesting though.

[@bobrobertson3558]

I would love to see this 8-Man tag-team dream matchup. Team-A: Tom Campbell, Jim Elvidge, Donald Hoffman, and Rizwan Virk vs. Team-B: Sam Harris, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, and Roger Penrose (or Leonard Susskind, or Lawrence Krauss)......or any combination of 1 or more person from Team-A taking on equal number of people from Team-B !!! Basically, the Consciousness Camp vs. the Materialist Camp. Make it happen, please, JB. Your viewership will go through the roof, guarantee !!!

[@TheSaffronasha]

I just suggested up top that the world now needs 4 Consciousness Horseman. But you can only jump on that horse if you believe there is one. So Kastrup, Goff, Hoffman...and a toss up between Robert Lanza and Tom Campbell perhaps.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

Plenty of non-reductive naturalists believe in Consciousness, Harris believes in consciousness and Krauss is a physicist. This is a horrible line up of people who really don't have much expertise on the subject or have very idiosyncratic views that arent that relevant.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

So what's next...having scientists debating Stork theorists and flat earthers? Btw...if you bring scientists to a debate like this, you don't invite the materialist camp. Science is not based on Materialism, but on Methodological Naturalism. There is a huge differences between those two positions.

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

Would love to see John Searle vs. JP Moreland on this exact topic - two of the most thoughtful and intelligent on the subject.

[@josiahwatson728]

That is literally my dream

[@carbon1479]

57:20 - As above so below maybe? If I've learned anything in studying my own mind it seems like consciousness tends to follow a holographic track in the sense of self-similar patterns at various levels of resolution. If there is a 'mind of the universe' it doesn't seem surprising that minds large enough to hold culture would partake in its nature to some degree being comprised of the same stuff in miniature.

[@DK-tk1nu]

Teilhard de Chardin posits a law of complexity/consciousness according to which consciousness emerges as material elements reach a certain level of complexity in their arrangement. In some of his essays, he speculates that a kind of pre-consciousness inheres in all matter. It seems to me that his speculations co-incide with, or at the very least foreshadow, the notion of panpsychism

[@awuma]

Teilhard de Chardin's ideas immediately came to mind when I first read about Philip Goff's concept.

[@sdmiglietti]

And what if the so simplistic way to understand the consciousness as per Philip's point of view still will not respond to our deeper questions of feelings of regret, saying yes to thoughts that opose to our principles, the purpose and justice in this life? Would you be open to accept a theistic view? God cannot be the Lord of the gaps, otherwise he would be under our believe system. He is a supreme God and therefore since we are willing to find deeper answers to life i think its reasonable to look up to God also and see what He really stands for.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

All the evidence points to you being a primate, among other primates who created myths to ground cooperation across strangers. There is no absolution for sin, no one has every returned from the dead after 3 days. Your consciousness comes from your brain and it will be destroyed when you die.

[@NN-wc7dl]

sdmiglietti A lot of words saying - nothing at all. Pure rubbish.

[@ronnysingh4509]

@@DZ-yk2ew there is absolutely no evidence for the shit you typed here either

[@DZ-yk2ew]

@@ronnysingh4509 No evidence, you're a primate? Look at your hand, now face palm. Now fuck off.

[@ronnysingh4509]

@@DZ-yk2ew I saw my hand and witnessed the intelligence that created it. Then that intelligence reminded me to use that hand and slap the crap out of your shit face and boy it felt so good

[@JamesWilderspin]

That was very stimulating to my dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

[@vinodsingh8751]

11

[@vinodsingh8751]

Q 111111qqqq

[@vinodsingh8751]

A

[@vinodsingh8751]

A

[@vinodsingh8751]

Q

[@jeffdymek2694]

Regarding Dr. Dirckx's line of thought, can we not ask why God exists? When we ask, theists reason that God is necessarily self-grounding. But then can we not reason the same for consciousness? If this is right, then panpsychism is the simplest explanation of the two.

[@derektrudelle4182]

Consciousness is the level of perception. It was the first split introduced into the mind after the separation, making the mind a perceiver rather than a creator. ~ "A Course in Miracles" CH3 Consciousness does not point to God but to the belief that we separated from God.

[@thatguyk.5306]

The materialist idea that consciousness is just an illusion is kinda weird because an illusion is an act of consciousness

[@TheSaffronasha]

BINGO.... The problem Materialists have is the same one Christians have. If 'authority figures' like say Daniel Dennett keep repeating a lie with linguistic flabbergab, eventually people will think it logical. That is why Chrisitianity survives even today. Mom and Dad, their church, their preachers keep telling children that God sacrificed himself to himself because he loved us. That doesn't make one iota of sense. But just repeat a lie often enough, and it could seemingly make sense one day. NOT.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

They use the term "illusion" but don't say what consciousness is an illusion is of. "Illusion" requires an actual referent, by definition. Consciousness is what it is, has no illusory referent, and so makes no sense to call it an "illusion." It's almost as if the people who say such things are zombies with no consciousness.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

They use the term "illusion" but don't say what consciousness is an illusion is of. "Illusion" requires an actual referent, by definition. Consciousness is what it is, has no illusory referent, and so makes no sense to call it an "illusion." It's almost as if the people who say such things are zombies with no consciousness.

[@thatguyk.5306]

@@TheSaffronasha my favourite living philosopher, David Bentley Hart, once said: "Daniel Dennett seems to think of he says something 3 times that makes it true."

[@TheBrunarr]

Although I think Idealism is superior to both physicalism and panpsychism, panpsychism is the best alternative to take for someone who has physicalist leanings but is unsatisfied with physicalism's account of consciousness.

[@TheSaffronasha]

Yes...panpsychism is generally just a brief stop over before one becomes an Idealist. I missed that step, long legs I guess.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

There are non-reductive accounts of naturalism not just a boring old philosophical physicalism. That's such a tired old straw man, as if we don't have Systems Theory explanation of a functionalism brain account that sees it as a information processing system. There is no reason to assert it is more simple to redefine all matter to have some invisible property of experience that somehow combines and interacts with the function of the brain. These are arguments of people who don't understand the science.

[@TheBrunarr]

​@@DZ-yk2ew Panpsychism has more advantages than non-reductive physicalism IMO. Regarding functionalism, it just misses the point, like behaviorism. Functionalism doesn't strictly imply physicalism and is compatible with dualism or idealism since it doesn't make any claims about what the mind is _made_ of, since it only cares about how it functions. But there are problems with functionalism just like there is with behaviorism. For example, functionalism would imply that there is no qualitative difference between an actually conscious being and a p-zombie. It would also imply that A.I. can be conscious in the same manner as us. Both of these are ridiculous and violate Searle's Chinese Room.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

@@TheBrunarr First of all its non-reductive naturalism, not physicalism in that ontology isn't merely seen to be reductive while explanations are not. Secondly, the zombie argument is garbage, there is no such thing as a zombie first of all, and you're missing the point that emotions are critical to an organisms experience of the world. Trying to define the substance of consciousness is an ancient error that should be avoided by a systems approach to the brain which understands that there are layered functions. We also only observe the activity of the Central Nervous System, in order to assert panpsychism, one has to invent an invisible property that all matter allegedly possesses and somehow have that combine and interact with the functions of the brain. Functionalism is not compatible with invisible consciousness assertions like dualism and idealism, functionalism is about the contents of consciousness emerging from the neurophysiology of the brain as an information processing system forged by biological evolution. Panpsychism is just a fringe view in philosophical circles that is total pseudoscience outside of quack consciousness conferences. It also is just a rehash of ancient myths about the brain, which also point to it being made up just like Neo-Platonist conceptions. Once you can show me empirical evidence for the position, beyond just stringing words together and playing semantics then maybe I will respect the position. But it is no better than ID or Morphic Resonance in that it is a science of the gaps, inserting invisible and undetectable features to explain something really complex.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

@@TheBrunarr AI will have totally different structures and functions from a human, it remains to be seen if it can produce consciousness. It is just blatantly obvious that people looking for "woo" answers have very strong cultural biases, such as yourself a theist who of course wants to look beyond the brain. I think it is an inept view of god that he created a brain insufficient to perform all the functions it seems to be operating. Tantamount to a god who would hide fake fossils in order to throw us off on the age of the earth. Whatever you and I are, it all happens with the brain, zero evidence of an invisible force there.

[@SebastianLundh1988]

I recommend you check out Bernardo Kastrup's ideas on the topic. He basically points out that we only have access to a mental aspect of the world (even an atheist like Sam Harris would agree with him on that), and that if we could describe the world as a mental phenomenon, then that description would be preferable. He then goes on to create a philosophical model of the world, where the universe as a whole is the second person perspective of a broader transpersonal mind, just like your brain is the second person perspective of your mind ( *without* your brain being what *gives rise* to your mind)

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Fair point, I feel.

[@legentilletcroustillant490]

At 9' at the end of her introduction Sharon Dirckx explain that : the materialist view on human brain ( the fact that every aspect of your conscious's experiences are dictated by the activity of your brain ) leads to " a very diminished view of the human person and implication for ethics Ai and free will". Before that she said that : neurology is showing us that we are not just our brain activity. I think that as a scientist, we have to stay on track with reality, so she should stick to the question : "is ther more than the brain ?" instead of blaming materialistic via about ethics and free-will implication. Reality doesn't care about our feelings ; what is true is already true and will stay true wether I acknoledge it or not, so it is better to know the truth.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

It is a a pretty complex debate, yes.

[@PauloConstantino167]

Hearing Goff speak I feel like I have been enlightened by thousands of years. It's true. We DO NOT know what things like matter, energy, etc, are. We CANNOT ever know what they really are. Thats because they are CONSCIOUSNESS. Just a knife cannot cut itself, we cannot know what consciousness or energy is. But we can feel it, and describe it. Amazing. Absolutely brilliant.

[@Shiloh2rtn]

Curious? Did you use your consciousness to make your comment? Because if you did it sure seems like you just contradicted yourself.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

SO you feel enlightened...and your first argument is this???? :"We DO NOT know what things like matter, energy, etc, are. We CANNOT ever know what they really are." An argument from personal incredulity (since we know what matter and energy is)???? The conversation above is all about the fact that don't know exactly how consciousness emerges...but we know that everything is "consciousness"? So we use a mystery to address and explain other mysteries? How does this work exactly? Absolutely bovine manure in my opinion! This is a text book case of how to pretend to know things that you don't!

[@chrissonofpear1384]

It's a very Eastern view, yes, like with Atman etc...

[@benjaminben6200]

Good comment

[@David-gv6jf]

If God exist, why look for an explanation for anything? Just say “God did it” and see how well that works out.

[@Mrguy-ds9lr]

Because that's how God made some of us. Human nature is by default, curious. The God of the Bible, in genesis, gave us dominion over there earth. It is our joy, and responsibility to stuart it to the best of our abilities. Hes also a father, and a good father enjoys when his children discover things, wants to share to the surprises of creation. So taking one aspect of God and trying to make something out of that is incredibly shallow. By your statement I assume you are not a scientist, and have not personally observed the things you have been told. But rather, by faith, you believe them. Faith in science and more over scientists. Soon, the results of this faith, will have its fruits, and we shall all see what zhe truth is. Sucka!

[@MMAGUY13]

@@Mrguy-ds9lr I was going to straighten this guy out but you did that for me already lol all the discoveries The universe came from nothing that’s fine tuning of the universe nature could not possibly make a cell they don’t know how life begins they can’t find consciousness in the brain we have digital information even in our bodies information only comes from a mind etc. etc. etc. so many arguments for God’s existence and then he says something stupid like that

[@SuhailAnwar]

Your guests are awesome 👏

[@piushalg8175]

Why is hylemorphism (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) not more extensivly discussed?

[@brando3342]

"There is a phenomenon that is very real and we have to fit it into our worldview somehow" ooohh dear, I know a lot of atheists who would not be happy he explained it that way. Belief first, then cram reality into it.

[@jonbrittain78]

You're saying that the idea that we have conscious experiences is a belief and not a fact?

[@jonbrittain78]

nvm I see what you're saying

[@shanevan1]

Yep pretty much. Believe it or not (pun intended) atheist start with a certain belief, namely a material naturalistic worldview and basically use a nature of the gaps. Conciousness' existence is undeniable... so "nature did it"/if we reduce everything to the smallest particles we will find conciousness as a part of the material. How this accounts for Arkhams razor and is a more simple and coherent an explanation than that our conciousness is grounded in the concious, immaterial and timeless cause/origin of our existence is beyond me. I'd say philosophically at the least there is more ground to believe the latter. Also because it accounts for more than just conciousness and is therefore more coherent with everything we know about the universe.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@shanevan1 There is no ground to believe the former, except for pure ideology -- the kind almost wholly disengaged from reality. It's only tied to reality through the endeavor to subjugate and dominate by spiritual and intellectual downturn everyone but those that materially profit from the schemes employed by it. No good that comes from any victim of such ideology can be justly considered as one of its fruits.

[@brando3342]

@Loddfafnisodr Surely you can't believe that post contained any novel ideas....

[@shinywarm6906]

There's insufficient challenging of Dirckx's positions. eg that a mind could exist beyond physical death; the existence of 'functional disorders' (many dispute this, including people diagnosed with them). Her advocacy of one particular Christian theology jars - towards the end of the discussion, she simply makes a series of assertions without justification. It adds nothing to the argument.

[@stevenrego1434]

The problem with the problem of evil, is the problem of goodness 😊

[@paulschwanz]

I was thinking that consciousness is consistent with the existence of God, but doesn't really point to the existence of God. But then toward the end, Ms. Dirckx made a great point. God does tend to answer the "why?" question from the perspective that a God who could be experienced would make creatures that could experience Him. I'm not sure this is strictly about consciousness, though. Fundamentally, it is about purpose or purposelessness. If there is no purpose, then "why?" questions are misguided from the get-go. But if that is the case, why do conscious people tend to constantly ask "why?"

[@mordec1016]

Paul Schwanz I don't agree with you. I think Consciousness (and intentionality, and reason) points to the existence of God insofar as theism gives us a way to account for Consciousness/Mind as foundational to reality. Since God is a foundational mind, it allows us to explain the origins of finite minds; finite consciousness is created by the foundational source of all consciousness (like God is). By contrast, if there is no eternal, foundational mind, then consciousness is a late comer to the universe and we have the problem of emergence: how on earth could consciousness emerge out of non-conscious matter? It seems absurd. Panpsychism would fare a bit better, but it suffers from the unity/combination problem (how to explain the emergence of unified, personal consciousness out of little "conscious atoms") and the seemingly contingent and arbitrary link between matter and consciousness (why would material things be conscious, if nothing in their physical facts involves logical supervenience with qualitative facts?). So theism provides an explanation for consciousness and minds in general, because it posits a foundational mind from which finite minds can emerge/be created. Secondly, God being personal would have reasons to create other personal, conscious beings.

[@paulschwanz]

@@mordec1016 I find myself agreeing with your "disagreement." :) I think the negative argument is strong, but unless there is a positive argument standing alongside it, it is vulnerable to god-of-the-gaps objections. I think it is the positive argument that is more difficult to make, but not impossible. It does make sense to me that something personal is more likely to arise from a personal rather than a random source. Something purposeful is more likely to arise from a purposeful rather than a random source. An agent is more likely to arise from agency rather than a random source. While certainly not anything like proof, the above _is_ a positive argument about why God is at the very least a good explanation, and (given the negative argument) quite possibly a better explanation that the others currently on offer.

[@freeblom]

Early :D

[@pasquino0733]

Philip Goff doesn't really explain why at the quantum level there might be "consciousness" or what he means by this "consciousness". On the whole all that's been asserted here is the limitations of science, not an explanation for a molecular consciousness.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Well that is a supernatural and irrational claim made by Philip and I motivate by his underlying death denying ideology, I might guess. What we constantly observe in nature is that complex properties of matter CAN only emerge from complex physical structures. From Solidity, digestion and all mind properties, a molecular or biological structure is needed for such properties to be able to be expressed. On the other hand, what we constantly observe in simple fundamental elements of matter is kinetic properties....just that! Energetic fields affect kinetically elementary particles of matter. One can argue that there can be a quantum mechanism contributing to the whole phenomenon (like photosynthesis or bird navigation) but to set the ontology of it at a quantum level, that is an irrational argument from ignorance.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Or possibly epiontic fields of possibility / holographic style seeds?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@chrissonofpear1384 possibly? even if those words in the same sentence did make any sense...we wouldn't be able to talk about possibilities.!

[@PanLamda]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 you miss the point. All that stuff are 3rd person quantitative geometric/quantitative relations which are nothing more than the sum-total of smaller 3rd person geometric/quantitative relations with nothing left-out. E.g. temperature is a 3rd person magnitude which is the average of particle velocity (the sum of "smaller and more fundamental 3rd-person magnitudes") the same goes for surface-tension etc. This doesn;t work for first person experiences (as Goff explains). It doesn't make sense to say that the 1st-person experience of pain is the sum or the average of 3rd-person electrochemical impulses (smaller 3rd-person magnitudes). If i show you a video of the geometry of particles in a surface you would automatically infer some information about surface-tension simply because the geometric relations are shown before your eyes. If i show you a video of neurons firing you could not infer at all whats going on in a 1st-person point of view. Is it pain? Is it the visual perception of a dog? The relation seems arbitrary and one must first correlate the two 1st-person/3rd-person properties before they go to do further inductions (this is actually what some cutting-edge cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology studies have managed to do) It is clearly explained in his papers and in his book (also mentioned in the interview) This is why Goff goes the panpsychist view in which the first person pain emerges from other more fundamental 1st-person properties (not more fundamental 3rd-person geometric/quantitative properties). In a clever twist he identifies these more fundamental 1st-person properties with the fundamental 3rd-person physical properties hence constructing a monist-rather than dualist view. So what physics name as 3rd-person "charge" with its repulsion-attraction relations are identical with a fundamental 1st-person consciousness-like property. It is open to interpretation ofcourse if this view is better than the traditional physicalist one but it surely softens the 1st-person/3rd-person ontological "gap" (but to be fair it creates some other problems,notwithstanding the fact that it sounds "crazy" to people who have not thought deeply about these things, altought this is an aesthetic or ideological problem, not an ontological one).

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@PanLamda lol that's not the point...that is just an argument from false authority fallacy mate...

[@bayreuth79]

Panpsychism has what I would describe as the combination problem. There are supposed to be there elementary forms of matter/consciousness that when combined together in complex systems, such as ourselves, produce our unified conscious experience. But how? And how can it produce my unified form of consciousness?

[@benscraftymusings]

Ideally, an extension or a part 2 of this discussion could pick up from the rather uncomfortable god-consciousness disagreement at the end. A question I would like to ask is, why this sense of progression or emergence into more complex forms of consciousness, from particles to us, and how would this relate to matters of god - I assume it would be something related to god representing the 'ultimate consciousness' to which our human consciousness 'points to.'? But the matter will always come down to what it always does in these debates - it is dependent on your belief about god. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that god is related to consciousness if you don't believe in him, and the idea that somehow science or any other discipline can seek to solve this is absurd, in precisely the same way that Philip Goff near the beginning talks of it being absurd to reduce consciousness to scientific discourse.

[@harekrishna507]

Hey nice take. Not exactly sure what your take is on God though. Also my view on matter is we don't know what matter is. We know enough to do things with it. But like the guy said "physics tells nothing about the instrinsic nature of matter". Is materialism just a limited view of matter then. And when we finslly really discover the nature of matter will there be only one inter connected view on things then because there is only one truth or reality....

[@simonskinner1450]

If you have a problem of EVIL then be good. We are designed to be prone to good and evil, and God wants us to choose. The existence of EVIL is not a good reason not to believe in God.

[@Autobotmatt428]

I agree

[@Mike_Jones281]

The point of the good and evil argument is whether or not it is moral for a creator to make his creations prone to both good and evil and then punish the creations for acting in the exact manner they were created to behave. It's akin to one creating a robot that both bends and straightens objects. Though you may desire is for the robot to only bend things, when the robot makes something straight you decide to send the robot to the scrap heap (hell) instead of the oil bath (heaven) at the end of its time in service. I will also add the caveat that you can somehow know what your robot is doing at all times and exactly what your robot is to do at all points in time and all the possible variations therein. In essence, its the argument of free will; though it is impossible for the created--in the theist premise of an omnipresent and omniscient god--to know the past present and future and propose that the god's creations can exercise free will. On top of this, the statement, "...we are designed to be prone to good and evil, and God wants us to choose," is merely an assertion. There is no compelling evidence that this god or gods exist, and indeed, it is impossible, depending on your definition of god, that the god's creations have the agency to choose anything. In conclusion, you are mistaking the forest for the trees. You honed in simply the "good" and "evil" aspect of the argument, but the bigger picture is an exercise in logic; the bigger picture of how is the question of free will, agency, and the logical inconsistencies of the theist argument that an omnipresent and omniscient God can somehow grant his/her creations free will.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@Mike_Jones281 for a start we were not created to do evil. We are subject to vanity so can choose to think and act evil, and that is a manmade choice, and that goes whether there is a Creator or not. It is the knowledge of evil that corrupts the mind, and we will trained by what we know, that is why grooming occurs. The argument about evil and free will is an 'aunt sally', to make argument for the sake of argument, and try to cast doubt in believers minds. That is why you make your comment, though you exercise free will and so do I, and as we are both prone to choosing to believe or not we do choose.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Sorry, why were TWO PEOPLE apparently given the ENTIRE choice for whether humanity was to 'separate' from God or not?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Designed, god? feel free to demonstrate that claim!

[@Rhomsgaming]

Wish you had skeptic's on for every video it makes for a better discussion

[@simonskinner1450]

It is a good argument for God as he asks us to reason our faith from and we are analytical by nature.

[@TheSaffronasha]

Win, Fight, Laugh...IGNORE That is the trajectory for the Abrahamic aka Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Millennials are dropping religious tribalism. Ignore, Laugh...FIGHT....win. That is the trajectory for Consciousness is fundamental. This new concept will ultimately allow for a much more unified world. Tick tock tick tock...funeral by funeral the world morally evolves.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Harsh. although I do find reasoning finds potential flaws linking Romans 1:20 to James 3:15...

[@simonskinner1450]

@@TheSaffronasha well I see more tribalism the latest being Q.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

It does happen a lot.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

If consciousness is illusory, who's having the illusion? The going around in circles applies to many aspects of reality. Which came first the hen or the egg? How can a single cell evolve when it can only exist at once with all it's complexity in tact. The outer membrane must house the inner workings, which are more complex than anything man can make given all the chemicals involved. The obvious pointers, even if we of limited intelligence cannot understand how, must point us to intelligent design. It bloody obvious. I like simple. Makes sense. So does God.

[@tyrander1652]

Complex cells can only exist with all of their complexity intact. It is like a mammal can only exist when its internal temperature is maintained. But a fish can exist in temperatures from freezing to mammalian temperatures. It is possible that the functional parts of the simplest primitive cells could exist combined or not. They just did better combined.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@tyrander1652 you obviously don't understand the complexity of a single call. Listen to Dr. James Tour and get to know the truth.

[@tyrander1652]

@@gerardmoloney9979 Do you know as much as James Tour? If not, how can you judge if he is correct or not? There are many people as knowledgeable as he who also do research in the field of abiogenesis. James Tour does not do research in that field. The people who do research in that field are aware of his arguments or arguments like his and are not convinced by them.

[@jonbrittain78]

Loved this, ate up every second. I'd love to ask him though, he's looking for the simplest explanation that encompasses the facts of the physical world and of consciousness. But does his panpsychism have an explanation for the fact that consciousness seems to take on new qualities in living creatures as opposed to particles, and also in more complex living creatures from simple creatures? Wouldn't this observation have to be accounted for?

[@ApozVideoz]

Panpsychism doesn't work mate, it implies an underlying set of laws whereby the consciousness of a multitude of individual particles coalesce into one (the mind). It's only a semantically simple, not actually. Proposing panpsychism does not solve the problem of consciousness either, again, it is pure semantics.

[@jonbrittain78]

@@ApozVideoz yeah that's what I was getting at. The coalescing and also acquiring new properties in more complex lifeforms. These are facts that have to be taken in to asking as well when determining the simplest explanation for the facts.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@ApozVideoz You have absolutely no clue what panpsychism employs and are going off on some utterly awkward tangents. If I am able to prove that, say, a rock has a mind, and experience said mind, then that does "solve" -- i.e. _provide some an understanding of_ -- consciousness, and is hardly "pure semantics".

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@ApozVideoz I had no idea Philip pretended to be a panpsychist. His interpretation of it is indeed semantic and has ultimately nothing to do with panpsychism. Same thing as pseudo-theism being considered theism, really.

[@ApozVideoz]

Loddfafnisodr Can you not see the semantics in this? The “mind” is arguably the most complicated priori in town. One of the fundamental “impossibilities” you can think of is proving that other entities besides you with consciousness exist. As far as I’m concerned, you may be a P-zombie. Philosophy of Mind suffers from heavy paradoxes and misemployment of logical methods. We can so only say so little besides “I have consciousness” and mumbling a few words here and there to explain what qualias are. I can see how panpsychism has come to be claimed to have certain explanatory power, but upon systematic surveying we can see it only takes the problem of consciousness merely to another “platform”. Ultimately, I think, it is an offshoot of materialism, where we try to set laws in stone to explain phenomena.

[@alanconlan8337]

I find the mind is part and parcel of the material brain, a processor as such spinning out varieties of narratives, no brain, no processor, end of story. Consciousness seems to be beyond the realm of matter. For example, in deep stillness, one can enter the dimension of pre-body/mind, to a spot within from whence all things are arising. This might suggest that consciousness, as far as perceived from a position in space and time, is also a processing vehicle.

[@20july1944]

Are you familiar with the veridical OOBs documented by Dr. Bruce Grayson of UVA? They show that consciousness exists separately from its supporting neural net.

[@AsixA6]

@@20july1944 No, they TRIED to show. Had they actually accomplished what you claim, they'd be rich beyond belief and their work world be known worldwide as well as had received a Nobel.

[@20july1944]

@@AsixA6 They showed that consciousness exists separately from its supporting neural net. Check his work out if you're interested.

[@AsixA6]

@@20july1944 Just link me to his Nobel acceptance speech.

[@20july1944]

@@AsixA6 OK, you're not interested in the evidence.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

I have met God... I have scientific proof of God, I have met Creator and I have scientific proof of Creator, the difference between the two Creates the God of Gaps in Bible...which I will reveal at appropriate time. Although I am from London, currently I am in India...Justin you are doing very nice programs and discussions...keep up the good work, higher energies are noticing what you are doing, but you do not know this or cannot see this...I will reveal more

[@SWTORDREKKIN]

You are a nut case which gives Christianity or religion a bad name.

[@emmashalliker6862]

Goffs panpsychism collapses into substance dualism. Objective idealism has the best effort of solving the mind/body problem.

[@Dooman9]

You should invite Bernardo Kastrup to your podcast he brings a very interesting idealist perspective on the relationship between consciousness and mind.

[@jasonaus3551]

Agreed

[@TheSaffronasha]

@@jasonaus3551 AGREE ...completely 100% agree. Only Idealism will solve the Mind Body Problem.

[@MonisticIdealism]

Kastrup should definitely come on the show. They have had Keith Ward on here who is also an idealist, but Kastrup offers us a bit more detail on the metaphysics of idealism.

[@TheBrunarr]

@@MonisticIdealism I agree, although I'm an idealist, I think Keith Ward's performance against Dennett was lack-luster.

[@MonisticIdealism]

@@TheBrunarr As much as I like Ward I feel he could have done better against Dennett as well. Kastrup is engaged with the literature more and can precisely show the failures of physicalism/panpsychism and the advantages of idealism. I'm just not sure about Kastrup's religious affiliation is all.

[@ironlion805]

Some people just look smart and these two people are those people.

[@lukeabbott3591]

Really interesting to hear the perspectives of atheists who are opposed to scientific materialism. I'm studying philosophy at Durham now. Hopefully I'll be taught by Goff at some point.

[@ugwuanyicollins6136]

Wtf Is scientific materialism? Just say physicalism, also physicalism is a metaphysical interpretation of consciousness. Metaphysics isn't science. Science is compactable with any coherent metaphysics

[@paulnesselroade5252]

I can distinguish my consciousness from the next person's - but what about a large, very complex single entity - like a hill, or actually a mountain, if actually wouldn't it be a mountain range...the entire firmament? how are nonliving things demarcated - some of which have particles that are in a relative permanent stable physical relation with each other - other nonliving things are always in flux. Does this not imply some meaning associated with what things are and when one thing stops and another starts? If so, doesn't that imply some sort of organizational structure superimposed on reality? Something outside of consciousness as well, right?

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

1. Occam's Razor is not a sacred principle. It appeals to many, for understandable reasons, but scientific discovery more often leads to ever greater complexity, not simpler explanations. I think the principle is terribly overrated if not entirely bogus. 2. It's harsh I know, but Goff is a lightweight.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

disagree. Occams razor is not just about complexity but rather ask the user try to avoid adding in unwarranted elements to make something fit somehow.

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

@@jonfromtheuk467 I understand that, but it's rarely applied appropriately. It seems to be used as justification for almost any position and even as a conversation/debate stopper as Goff uses it here. There is no law of nature behind Occam's Razor, it' an entirely man-made construct. I've been a research scientist and physician for over 35 years. The nature of scientific discover does not follow Occan's Razor, but more the opposite. Every new finding in molecular biology, for example, only adds complexity and opens new questions. The universe is not simple; God created complexity without end. The need for a simple explanation or unified theory seems to me merely an exercise in hubris.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

@@WilliamBrownGuitar "God created complexity without end. The need for a simple explanation or unified theory seems to me merely an exercise in hubris" well surely you would have to A) define god and specifically state which one B) give us a clue how you personally seem to know this entities abilities and how it created complexities? and C) I don't think there are many who are suggesting there is anything simple about how the universe began ?

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

@@jonfromtheuk467 A. That's a distraction going off on a misleading tangent. No need to define the Judeo-Christian God here. B. The question is unclear - please clean up the grammar. No idea of the "how" but can only comment on what is well known by exploring His creation. And what we know is that His work is not simple, but ever more mysterious and complex. C. Not sure what your point is here.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

@@WilliamBrownGuitar no need to clean up my grammar , perhaps it is your powers of comprehension that are lacking? It's really simple - you made a positive claim that "god created complexity" and I am just enquiring how exactly you know this? Furthermore, which god you are referring to? there are , and have been, many different versions of god (s) , so again which one is it , and how did you deduce that it was yours?

[@bayreuth79]

Consciousness cannot be an emergent property, for the "gap" between neurophysiology and conscious experience is an infinite qualitative difference.

[@tex959]

"Cannot" is a conclusion that requires more than identifying qualitative differences between matter and thoughts or emotions. For example, a chemical reaction has distinctly different properties than any individual part or sum of the parts or necessary conditions required for the reaction. Granted, consciousness is far more complex than a chemical reaction but the argument still holds true..

[@konroh2]

@@tex959 Then let's simply make the probabilistic argument: by all the evidence we see now the gap exists.

[@thatguyk.5306]

Ah, a David Bentley Hart fan

[@tex959]

@@konroh2 I try to reply to everything, but I honestly don't know what best explains consciousness, and I'm not sure anyone else knows given the gaps in knowledge. This is the only "gap," that is fairly clear to me.

[@konroh2]

@@tex959 I'm not sure I'd say it's the only gap. We then have the gap between life and non-life as well as the question of eternality and the organization of all things.

[@carbon1479]

48:45 - For the 'combination problem' functionalism seems to solve it, in fact we seem to have quite a fair amount of anecdotal evidence for China Brains, egregores, or whatever one would want to call them.

[@TheBrunarr]

Functionalism doesn't solve the combination problem in a similar way that Eliminative materialism doesn't solve the hard problem of consciousness. Functionalism is compatible with any metaphysical view because it doesn't care what mind is as a substance, just that it is a function, and metaphysical views of mind are about its substance. But functionalism is false anyway.

[@carbon1479]

@@TheBrunarr Functionalism matches observation and I prefer it because it can acknowledge actualities that reductive materialism finds awkward without arbitrarily assigning them to 'quantum woo'. We have no clue whether it's quantum or just how many mechanisms it could be that we don't have a handle on. Again better to aim in the right direction than arbitrarily declare false certainty for what seem like absurdly political reasons.

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

I have a comment to theists who say essentially, "Because consciousness exists, the Christian God must exist." I can grant you that a spiritual realm exists with consciousness as its proof. But the conclusion that the Christian conception of God and related the salvation theology are true just doesn't follow the premise there is a spiritual realm. Why couldn't Hinduism be true?

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Dumb comment. Because Christianity is the only religion that actually has evidence for it and doesn’t contradict what we know about the natural world, unlike Hinduism

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp really?? Name your evidence why Christianity is true and Hinduism is false.

[@archangel7052]

Justin you look like.....Quentin Terantino looks like you👍

[@hadescerberus8322]

Consciousness can only be verified via imagination. If god is existence "I am" then proving god's existence isn't necessary instead we need to prove his consciousness via his imagination. In this case I like the watchmaker argument but instead of the manmade watch focus on the time it's keeping as time is god's imaginary concept in reality. Time doesn't exist as all matter is in a state of being therefore since reality runs off an imagined concept it must be conscious. So the existence of time proves god's existence. :)

[@jasonaus3551]

"As a tool is made in the image of man, man is made in the image of god"

[@michaelsayad5085]

This doesn't make sense to me and I'm a Christian. How do you expect it to make sense to atheists?

[@hadescerberus8322]

@@jasonaus3551 I agree and just like our bodies are microcosmic universes so is god's body(holy spirit) our universe .

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

You say "time doesn't exist" Then go on to say "so the existence of time proves God's existence" Try again

[@jasonaus3551]

@@michaelsayad5085 a tool is an Extension of man, the tools existence is contingent upon man's existence, and so man is an extension of God and our existence is contingent upon God's existence. I don't believe this, it's just how I understand the idea

[@jean-pierredevent970]

47:30 : how does it feel for an electron ? Here my humble fantastic ideas: I was thinking about dreaming : you are still conscious but most seems to go on automatic pilot. Yet if your leg were bitten by a little ant, you would move it, trying to escape from the pain. Perhaps C.Elegans still feels but most is automatic pilot and life passes like some vague dream. The fact that we really need to sleep and dream suggests a needed return to" the source" which is dreamlike and timeless. The fact that we can be awake out of the dream is perhaps rather rare and asks for special configurations and a lot of energy (??) But the dream state starts to dominate probably already in insects. With Fish and reptiles could be 50/50 ;-) but mammals and birds are "awake". But to come to real science, it would be interesting to see where that border is, where life stops with needing sleep. I read jelly fish still sleep. It's interesting that those on DMT say the reality they visit is like more real than this one. So perhaps even we dream, but then very lucid. I end with the observation that gravity is merely curved spacetime, yet there is nothing physical there to curve so even there are fabrics that are invisibly fine ;-)

[@soneedanap]

What is kind of funny, and probably dangerous to comment around here, this is strongly aligned to Mormon theology regarding "intelligences". Mormons are able to buy into this because they don't have the typical baggage from the creeds, they don't have the problem of evil, etc. Very cool and interesting stuff.

[@offcenterconcepthaus]

"God is the power that makes us speak."

[@Daz19]

?

[@flyguy2617]

Could you explain how you know that?

[@20july1944]

@@flyguy2617 Whatever consciousness is, it resides in organic neural nets, right? How did these nets arise? Has their matter always existed? How about the energy that the neurons use to communicate -- has it always existed?

[@AsixA6]

@@20july1944 Why are you asking a bunch of questions rather than explaining how you know a 'god' thing exists to be the "power that makes us speak"?

[@michaelsayad5085]

@@AsixA6 Prove that God is not the power that makes us speak.

[@illithidhunter6177]

The brain is made of Matter. All cases were we can identify as conscious also include a brain. So we can induce that the brain is required for consciousness. Therefore we can conclude that consciousness requires matter.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Depart Heathen, in the name of Bishop George Berkeley

[@Raydensheraj]

Noooo....I thought my preferred version of a Creator used his Intelligent design skills, like he did when he designed narrow birth canals for C-section's - Long QT Syndrome, Cancer, over 300.000 beetles and a small pest called Mosquito that kills more "made in his image" humans.... And look around, the fine tuning - just look at all the placed made just for special MEEEEE - Mercury...nope. Venus...nope Mars....nope Hmm....cosmic radiation? So....I guess wherever we go we have to take something from Earth with us?!? Air,Water....urggg but hey, historical evidence shows my favorite creator is real....(; y...eah....my 2000 year old book written by witch hunting, astroids are flying demons, flat Earth believers is Evidence....stupid Atheists...they believe nothing made something duhhhh...I won yesterday 5 bucks on my bingo ticket because I prayed. By the way, when you don't believe in my favorite creator YOU will burn in hell, but...he loves you.

[@Raydensheraj]

Milk Man The "Axis of Evil" is the nickname received by an asymmetry of the cosmic microwave background as studied by the WMAP and Planck missions. It's not clear what it is: if mere data processing errors, proof of the universe having a doughnut-shaped form (Mmmmmm...), or simply a pattern that is there because of our tendency to see those things everywhere (!!!!) Very recent (2016) studies of the expansion of the Universe, that show it to be uniform to the limit of measurements, show that the first and/or the last possibilities could be the most likely ones. Of course this "Axis of Evil" has been victim of cranks, who have used it to prove for example that Earth is the center of the Universe. Y-yeah......, right....

[@brando3342]

@Dave The Brahman Then explain near death experiences where people are clinically dead (no brain function), have visions of the real world, then come back and repeat those visions, which turn out to be accurate.

[@Raydensheraj]

Milk Man When your dead your dead. It's pretty damn simple. I know that's hard to accept and not as fancy as flying with trillions of souls through rainbow candyland but it opens up the truth...you have THIS one life. Love now, don't waste one second of it. Plus...tell me, before you were born...what was your "spirit" doing? waiting on your parents to have sex? Grow up and face the fact that the God fable is as fictional as possible - humans always invent strange stories when they don't like and can't change certain aspects of their existence. I didn't exist before I won the great sperm race and it wasn't bad, at least I can't remember it being bad. I will go back to that state ...my DNA is in my son's so in a way I am forever. The entire human body is a multitude of molecular cells....there really is no single entity..

[@timregan5955]

“My mind is a ready writer”

[@Oskar1000]

Several times someone exclaimed, so this is compatible with Christianity/theism. Isn't everything compatible with a god who can do anything?

[@AvNotasian]

No, a god that can do anything is a logical contradiction as it results in paradoxes.

[@Oskar1000]

@@AvNotasian not if he could resolve paradoxes by dancing in the moonlight

[@thatguyk.5306]

I want to see David Bentley Hart vs Dennett on this 😂

[@TheSaffronasha]

Dennett needs to go sit in a corner by himself for a wee bit. Danny needs to reconsider why he is able to sit there and think.

[@thatguyk.5306]

@@TheSaffronasha lol true

[@WaffleCake]

I think God just helped me see that I've been feeding myself on that which is ultimately designed to persuade atheists. Like telling someone they're worthless, the message I've been feeding myself has been a spoken curse---I've been treating myself like an atheist when this is most assuredly not true. It's time to start growing up in God.

[@dalanology]

Are you saying atheists are persuaded to reject claims of theism by the message they're worthless? If so, why do you think this?

[@WaffleCake]

@@dalanology No I was just expressing that I should stop treating myself like and acting like an atheist. I was trying to fight unbelief by attacking the atheistic thinking that seemed so compelling. If I were to reword it today it would be, "Wow, this is not an even debate is it? No, this whole thing is atheistic propaganda; meant to cast doubt on theistic beliefs. This stuff is infecting my mind. Here I am, trying to deny these beliefs by asserting theistic beliefs, but what kind of faith in myself does that expose? Let alone the validity of my beliefs. It exposes that not even I believe I'm a theist. Instead, moving forward, I should just sit securely in my chosen theistic beliefs."

[@nahomaberra9192]

I think God is doing that work in you to bring you closer to His Perfect Love so you don’t have to live as an orphan in your heart, which atheists are wounded by because they can’t see that we were not just created by God but meant for Him, just like a child is healthiest when they have a healthy relationship to their parents. If they are orphans they will always feel like something is missing. It’s the same with our souls. May our Good Father the Lord guide and bring you to Him my friend, rooting and praying for you!

[@alexnorth3393]

You lot just project your own flaws onto atheists

[@user-nj2ru1ov8i]

Humans are emotional critters, most of our decisions and stresses are based on feelings, emotion (limbic system) which is why being taunted on social media ruins sleep patterns, we tend to overthink which drives anxiety (Great Minds Overthink Alike), but again, all this is an emergent property of a purely physical brain.

[@grandepittore]

How does consciousness literally stare us in the face? Does it have eyes to see us with? :-)

[@illithidhunter6177]

I don't understand christian obsession with materialism not being able to explain consciousness but they have no problem posing supernaturalist when it has not explanation power.

[@camilobriceno8212]

That's because as with other topics their position has no merits on its own so they have to attack the competing hypothesis. Supernaturalist explanations never go beyond a simple statment, they don't offer a mechanism nor a verifiable causal relationship.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@camilobriceno8212 What you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

[@DigitalGnosis]

@@camilobriceno8212 I'd love to see you debate ATHEIST philosophers such as Thomas Nagel on this!

[@camilobriceno8212]

@@paradisecityX0 take for instance when theists argue for the existence of the soul. They always point how "materialism" and science don't have an explanation for consciousness. Then they claim that the soul exists without providing any mechanism to explain how it interacts with the brain or any way to confirm empiricaly that their statements are true.

[@AsixA6]

@@paradisecityX0 So, your assertion that an invisible magician exists, can be dismissed.

[@CaryHawkins]

He brings up the problem of evil as a compelling piece of evidence for atheism when logically there is no problem of evil...that has been solved. There is nothing logically contradictory about an all-loving God and the existence of evil.

[@illithidhunter6177]

How do you solve the Problem of Evil? I'm curious because no one has solved it yet you claim it has been solve.

[@plasticvision6355]

Cary Hawkins Actually the way Craig imagines the problem of evil is solved leaves the Christian unable to make moral judgements. Why? If god has a morally sufficient reason for allowing an atrocity, such as a case of ethnic cleansing, the holocaust, etc. any Christian who passes an objective moral judgement on such an event is in fact calling into question gods morally sufficient reason, (without knowing what this is). In other words people who condemn such atrocities are in fact questioning gods morality and reasoning. And since the Christian can’t know this anymore than the atheist can, they are left unable to pass judgement on gods judgement. But the atheist can not only condemn such immoral acts, but act to prevent them. Furthermore, if god does not exist, the atheist may in fact prevent evil that can be prevented. Either way, although the Christian may have a logical get out, the argument fails as they achieve this at the expense of rendering themselves unable to pass moral judgements on any evil act without questioning god’s sufficient reason and his morality. This is the stupidity of this defence of the problem of evil. Sorry.

[@plasticvision6355]

Milk Man Hitler was a theist you moron. His soldiers had Gott Mit Uns (god with us) embossed into their belts. So stupid. Additionally, you confuse the map with the terrain, and thus commit a category error. Atheism is not a philosophy.

[@flyguy2617]

Milk Man except that Christianity claims that god wiped out the entire earths population of living humans and animals except for 8 people and the animals on the ark...sorry...no philosophy has killed nearly an entire population of a planet

[@20july1944]

@@plasticvision6355 Are you familiar with the veridical OOBs documented by Dr. Bruce Grayson of UVA? They show that consciousness exists separately from its supporting neural net.

[@lcuddy12]

I don't get how Sharon's view couldn't point to many different concepts of God. She more or less says that our consciousness is a result of God's consciousness. While I understand how this could lead to monotheism in that God creates us as separate consciousnesses, it could also lead to a form of non-dualism in that God distributes his consciousness to us so we are all "part" of God. So, why Christianity then? While I respect her view and she is better than most Christian theologists, she still errs in the way that most Christian theologists do: making solid arguments but then jumping to a specific conclusion about God (Jesus, the trinity, etc.) that is unwarranted.

[@lcuddy12]

@Free Thinker Oh my mistake, I thought you said it WASN'T a bunch of advanced apologetics.

[@lcuddy12]

@Free Thinker Sorry you took it personally and had to resort to ad hominems, I meant no disrespect. But I will remind you to capitalize your sentences. The reason we can’t have a meaningful conversation is that we are making very divergent assumptions about knowledge, in particular what sort of conclusion is justified by the evidence you point to. It’s hard enough to verify what happened last year, and you’re convinced of something that happened 2,000 years ago AND all the metaphysical baggage of the religion you already believe in. How convenient that it all lines up! What a miracle! This is EXACTLY what advanced apologetics is, and you’re taking it right out of the William Lane Craig playbook. Even if I conceded that Jesus rose from the dead (a highly dubious claim based on the fallibility of eyewitness accounts), all of Christianity could still be a bullshit misinterpretation of God’s word that happened later. Perhaps Jesus was just one of many who’ve realized their Godhood, like Buddha and Zoroaster. Like most apologists, you use words like “historical” to lend credibility to what you’re saying, except that you’re jumping to a metaphysical conclusion that’s completely unjustified - something no real historian would do and yet another reason the label advanced apologetics applies so well. And who said I don’t believe in God? I just don’t believe in YOUR concept of a very, very specific God that does very, very specific things in this universe.

[@lcuddy12]

@Free Thinker "Oh so history doesn't count unless there's video evidence or something like that, gotcha." This was not my position - if you can't fairly interpret what I've said, there's no point in continuing the discussion.You've also falsely assumed you know the idea of God I find most fruitful, so none of your criticisms apply. It was fun while it lasted, my friend.

[@lcuddy12]

@Free Thinker Lol sure bud. Now look who's trying to be witty on the internet? 🙏😉

[@BlueNotaMaestro]

Maybe it's a silly question, but if our consciousness is non-physical why are our minds affected by physical substances such as alcohol?

[@FStan-co8vv]

It doesn't defeat idealism, because idealism says the mind and physical are in strong correlation with one another. Bernardo Kastrup answered this in his video "Top 10 materialist fallacies".

[@mordec1016]

Panpsychism is much better than materialism - it at least attempts to explain consciousness by taking it as part of all physical things - but it faces at least two very grave problems. First, the combination/unity problem: how on earth does a multitude of proto-conscious or conscious "atoms" combine together into one single, unified conscious subject? It seems absurd. Secondly, the link between consciousness and matter would still be contingent/arbitrary in panpsychism. Why do atoms have consciousness, if there is nothing about their physical properties per se that entails consciousness? There would still be no logical supervenience between third person, physical facts and conscious/qualitative first person facts, so the hard problem hasn't been solved, it has just been kicked one further step - to all of physical reality, pretty much. The theistic explanation doesn't suffer from either problem. I don't think there is any way we can avoid God here. Consciousness must be foundational; there must be an eternal, foundational consciousness out of which finite minds emerge/are created.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

Wishful thinking, you're a primate with a brain who is in denial about the reality of the situation you find yourself in. There is no evidence for god, there is plenty of evidence that your experience of the world emerges from the activity of the Central Nervous System. Its nonsense to suppose some combinatory consciousness interacts with it, or that some spiritual mind bestowed by god interacts with it. You're just ignorant of Complex Systems Theory and Functionalist explanations which don't depend on reinventing all matter or inserting some invisible substance or that one culture out of all the other myths is right. This is the only life there is, time to grow up and deal with that.

[@mordec1016]

D Z I am quite familiar with complex systems and with functionalism; it seems you are the one who is completely ignorant of philosophy of mind and just want to maintain some (bizarre) materialist position out of atheistic bias. Call me when you can solve the hard problem of consciousness, intentionality, and reason. P.S.: we have no evidence for any kind of "emergence" from the nervous system; the kind of evidence we have is perfectly compatible with accounts of extrinsic dependence between minds and bodies (instead of intrinsic dependence).

[@arthurofalbion]

Once an atheist becomes knowledgeable enough to realise that the existence of consciousness requires either that God exists, or else that dirt is conscious, then honesty -- not to mention the maintenance of his own dignity -- requires that he humbly accept the first alternative. He knows that there is no consciousness in dirt. He should just admit it. BTW, the fact that there is no good panpsychist response to Sharon's question at 48:09 shows that panpsychism is not, in fact, a simpler explanation than theism. It's always amusing to hear desperate panpsychists trying to explain why it is reasonable to think that dirt is conscious.

[@TheSaffronasha]

The simplest answer James is that Consciousness IS God. There is absolutely no evidence of a phantasmagorical triune mind other than in a few ancient books. Books that btw...conscious people wrote. And as much as I adore Philip he's still one step away from the more logical worldview, that being Philosophical Idealism.

[@TheBrunarr]

@@TheSaffronasha If idealism is true then God is Mind, I agree! If mind is fundamental then it is metaphysically simple/no parts. If mind is God then mind has knowledge, but His knowledge isn't a part of Him because He can have no parts. Now there are three aspects of knowledge: the knower, the act of knowing, and the object of the knowledge. So God or Mind would be identical to the knower, the act of knowledge, and the object of the knowledge. The Father is the principle knower, the Holy Spirit is the act of knowledge or "gift", and the Son is the object of the knowledge. There is the Trinity derived straight from the logical consequences of idealism, and the idea that the Father is principle, the Spirit is act, and the Son is object is in Scripture and is the basis of Aquinas's explanation of the Trinity.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And which ones are caught off guard by one third of the angels rebelling? Or the matter of if Eve was informationally prepared for her own role?

[@arthurofalbion]

@@TheBrunarr Philosophically, the Achilles heel of Trinitarianism lies in the fact that a person is a substance. So, when that doctrine states that God is one substance, but three persons, it is really saying that God is one substance, but three substances. Quite apart from this seeming to imply that God has parts, it is an outright contradiction! The Trinitarian can try to escape by saying that a Divine Person, unlike any person that we can conceive, has no substance unique to himself, but is a (presumably composite) property of the one substance that is God. But this is Unitarianism! Why? If the concept of a Divine Person is fundamentally different from our own concept of a person, as Trinitarianism requires if it to escape contradiction, then we should use a different word - let’s say ‘Schmerson’. Now, the non-contradictory Trinity doctrine teaches that God is a single substance that has all the properties needed for personhood. In other words, he is a person. The three Divine Schmersons, being only properties of God, do not constitute three individuals. They simply supply the one person who is God with multiple personalities. Your Trinitarian elaboration of knowledge under Idealism is interesting, but I cannot make sense of it. (I don’t feel too badly; even the great Alvin Plantinga is unable to make sense of Thomism!) If the object of divine knowledge is the Son, then how could the Father know about himself, or about the Holy Spirit? To know about something is for that something to be the object of the knowledge.

[@arthurofalbion]

@@chrissonofpear1384 I know of no one who thinks that God was caught off guard by any rebellion, angelic or otherwise. One might think it a problem for open theism, but it isn’t. God knows every possibility, including every possible rebellion, and has arranged things so that his Purpose will be fulfilled no matter what. Given the brevity of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, it is obvious that much more transpired than that of which we have a record. We may assume that Eve was given all the preparation she needed.

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

Mind is embodied and social. Consciousness is condensed by these constraints, which is consistent with the significance of the embodied mind of persons as represented in Christianity, hence the resurrection (and transformation) of the embodied mind. Wittgenstein claimed that his philosophy was 100 percent Hebraic, which is consistent with the Christian view of the embodied mind. Wittgenstein's view is systematically worked out by HACKER, P. & BENNETT, M. (2003) Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, Blackwell, Oxford.

[@bayreuth79]

If Goff wants the most parsimonious explanation for consciousness then he should accept idealism, for it accounts for consciousness (which is the only thing we know for certain) and matter (an appearance in consciousness) in the simplest form.

[@DanSme1]

Point? Life in the Last Adam facilitates direct communion with the Risen Christ. I directly experience His Glory 50+ years ago.

[@realLsf]

11:08 I’m in agreement with Philip’s opinion that he story of Christ & the moral truths expressed stand even if viewed from a mythicist or metaphorical view. I’m a Christian even though I don’t believe in an afterlife or the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. One can still live the Christian lifestyle, philosophy & doctrine of love, believing in a higher spiritual power although not in the traditional sense. I get a lot of opposition & accusations of not being a “true” Christian from other believers & have to laugh at the fallacy they partake in. Jesus is for everyone & I don’t see why it matters providing it leads to a good outcome & better way of life 🙏✝️

[@marklawrence5987]

Sure all modern scientists are just doing Galileo's bidding. He must have had the clearest possible perspective on what problems science can and cannot answer. It's not like we've had 400 years to develop a different perspective. Give me strength.

[@blindlemon9]

Hmmmm. My wife is a board-certified MD neurologist, and she very rarely diagnoses so-called functional disorders. Perhaps they are more common in the UK than in the US.

[@shinywarm6906]

there's a strong 'pro-functionalist' lobby in the UK, with some particular individuals pushing it. Many patients diagnosed with FDs dispute these diagnoses, arguing they are rather diagnoses from ignorance

[@gerardo2360]

It's all explained in Eastern Philosophy, in Sankhya the 24 principles of Prakriti explain the soul in its decent from Spirit, no need to grope in darkness anymore! (Unless you want to).

[@brando3342]

What is the only thing that permeates our future, while remaining in the past and being active in the present?...... Memories.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

So nothing exists or will exist but memories? Surely you cannot think this is a novel or clever notion. Are you 10-year-old Sharon? Jesus Christ.

[@brando3342]

@Loddfafnisodr Figure it out if you're so smart 👍

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@brando3342 Yeah, I can't. My brain will explode from trying to _be me_ from the time I was a newborn.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@TheSaffronasha Incredible. Amazing. I'm truly honored to have been talked to by a future Nobel Prize holder.

[@brando3342]

@Plato Bird Christians worship Jesus because he defeated death. His resurrection. In this life you must die before you can resurrect. Learn Christianity brother 👍

[@johnnkurunziza5012]

Was any one else hoping that these two lovely people just agreed with everything.

[@jonbrittain78]

A bit. They agreed on most, it seemed, no?

[@michaelsayad5085]

NO

[@johnnkurunziza5012]

Jonathan B l guess so hahha

[@johnnkurunziza5012]

Michael Sayad why not

[@harekrishna507]

So I have a theory that all these levels of reality are connected to some degree. But I think its simutaneously top down as bottom up, maybe top down really. Thats because they are actually the same phenomina but we perceive it as separate. So from top down you could think of consciousness being pure awareness like say God and when this consciousness creates conditions for separation it manefest the physical world. So that the physical world is like a biproduct of consciuousness manifesting speration and conditions to create meaning... any takers on such ideas? Also we need to realise that reality is filtered through the human experience. How observations is part of reality not separate to it, like in quatum mechanics.

[@TheSaffronasha]

PHILIP GOFF...YOU CHECKING IN HERE? Why can't I find any debates between you and Bernardo Kastrup? Is he a Catholic and you a Protestant (analogy) and never the twain shall meet? Come on, you two need to pair up because there is strength in number. I'm thinking the world needs a new 4 horsemen. There's the first two...any suggestions on the other two?

[@samhangster]

1:01:00 all she needs to say is that consciousness IS reality and commit to Idealism. Goff was right, she’s not answering the question as to how consciousness fits into reality. CONSCIOUSNESS IS REALITY. Nothing exists unless it’s experienced.

[@lukilladog]

If these people think that science will probably never be able to explain consciusness physically, imagine apologists, theologans, and pseudoscientists trying to demonstrate how an ill defined, non demonstrated "soul", works on the physical brain.

[@MMAGUY13]

I keep watching panels of scientist talk about consciousness and so many believed the brain produces it. How can that be so when we have genuine near death experiences where their heart is stopped their brain has ceased and they come back with verifiable information they could have not possibly known unless they were outside their bodies. Most near death experience I dismiss but every now and then we get one that we cannot anyone wanna look up a good one look up Pamela Reynolds she was definitely outside her body.

[@lesleypatoncox1569]

Yes. No one seems to be talking about the 50 years of research into NDE's. The Pam Reynolds case was the first I saw on the television 20 odd years ago. International Association for Near Death Studies, IANDS, is worth a look. Pim Van Lommel, Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia,. etc. I'm an unreconstructed Dualist, very unfashionable.

[@MMAGUY13]

@@lesleypatoncox1569 I myself have seen the supernatural with my own eyes so I know the spiritual world is real like the disciples knew with their own eyes they saw Jesus Christ risen from the dead, but you’re right it’s unpopular to have these views. They cannot find consciousness in the brain and then people are having real near death experiences, but even if they get undeniable proof, they’ll still find a reason not to believe

[@professorilu8520]

@Unbelievable, please have Sadguru as your guess

[@tomatoversace3427]

So why not metaphysical idealism? Panpsychism is no less problematic than materialism-why am "I" not located in the leg? The problem of unification is irresolvable. Panpsychism is therefore incoherent with actual experience. Idealism on the other hand is a much more coherent solution to the problem of consciousness. Read up on-or watch-Bernardo Kastrup's defense of analytical idealism, in which he addresses objections to idealism quite swimmingly, I argue.

[@jessebryant9233]

What does "foisted on us" mean if consciousness is an illusion?

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

If consciousness is an illusion? Since we know nothing outside of consciousness it would mean that everything (that we can know) is an illusion as well. Thus even your statement that it is an illusion would have to be an illusion. And my statement that it isn't an illusion would be an equal illusion. This doesn't seem like a useful hypothesis.

[@jessebryant9233]

@@TheTruthseeker1231 Does useful = true? Besides, if consciousness is an illusion it would be impossible to know that it is an illusion! (Not that I could know that! Or even that there is an 'I'!!!) Which means that everything you just said is also part of the illusion! And... EGAD!

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

@@jessebryant9233 LOL! Yes, it is a sticky wicket. The point is that if you are a materialist, then to be consistent with your position you pretty much have to claim "emergent" or no consciousness at all. Emergent simply means "no clue, but materialism is still the answer" and consciousness is an illusion is particularly bizarre because it is our consciousness that is being the victim of the illusion. How does something that doesn't exist fool itself into thinking that it does exist? Even more pertinent - how does something that doesn't exist have causation upon something that does exist? The mind over matter phenomena (or should we say mom illusion) These are particularly strange questions. But, if it is a complete illusion, then everything we think we know is an illusion. Does useful = true? A very interesting question. If something is true but not useful, then what does that truth matter? But, if something is an untruth, but still useful, then certainly there is a certain amount of truth in it's utility. Good thoughts Thanks

[@jessebryant9233]

@@TheTruthseeker1231 *P1:* ZOINKS! BONK!! *P2:* Survival value? All truth is true, but there are times when we don't see truth as being "useful" - especially when we find it convicting or it gets in the way of our wants! (Romans 2:14-15, John 3:19-20) Or maybe materialism is true and ultimately all is for nothing, which would mean that in the end, no truth matters! While if consciousness is an illusion, then we can't really know anything, not that there is a 'we' to know anything! 🤯 And we're back to zoinks and bonk! 🤪

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And what wants were at stake in Numbers 5:25?

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Life come from life consciousness comes from consciousnes I think.

[@nihilistictanuki6947]

I really appreciate the philosophical keen wit of Philip Goff but the Christian mumbo-jumbo of Sharon Dirckx (at the end of the talk) is really hard to bear and it seemed that Philip felt the same by the look of him. There is quite a big intellectual gap between those two.

[@JohnVandivier]

Does the wind blow?

[@SaRa-cs5nc]

No it's getting pushed...... lol

[@hadescerberus8322]

The wind actually sucks it doesn't blow lol

[@thatguyk.5306]

Well yes, but actually no

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

yes, when their mouths are open and its really hot...

[@AvNotasian]

Does a boat swim? Is a simulation of a game a game? Is a simulation of intelligence intelligence?

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Panpsychism is the way to go.

[@mohamedluqman6187]

What constitutes consciousness?

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

"What" is your experience of "red" and "blue?"

[@mohamedluqman6187]

@@KendraAndTheLaw you ask this question because how I experience blue is different from yours right ?

[@CeramicShot]

Mohamed, this is a great question. It is always very useful in debates to establish common definitions before starting to discuss a topic. Personally, I prefer one of the definitions in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought." Notice the "and" there, meaning (I think) that it must have all of those properties to be considered to have "consciousness."

[@lauriethompson740]

It's interesting that we still seem to want to talk about God as explanation, but I've eventually come to the conclusion that God is necessary because there is no explanation. The problem with ultimate explanations is that they are a misunderstanding of the nature of explanations. There are no ultimate explanations, only an ultimate mystery. So paradoxically, God is required not as an explanation of the mystery, but rather as the embodiment of the mystery. Not a super being that lights a blue touch paper in a chain of causes, but the cause OF the chain of causes i.e. the 'am that I am' the ishness of being, first cause outside of time. Thus ‘apophatic mysticism’ becomes obligatory. We don’t know what God is, but we know what it isn’t, it isn’t the finite, contingent, transient being we are as individuals, so we must let go of a belief in our own being as absolute and rest in the mystery of being as such, because we are not just ‘in the mystery’ and ‘from the mystery’ but ‘OF the mystery’

[@cristinateodorescu1107]

It is strange to me how the panpsychism would explain the fact that in the human body "consciousness" is somehow localised in brain or in the nerves...The speaker surely knows that a person who is paralysed sense nothing, because her nerves do not function anymore.."Feeling" is not localised in other kinds of cells or structures...Therefore panpsychism does not seem to me convincing...To feel something one needs a certain biological structure to do the trick. Nobody has proven that athoms can do that...that is to me no Occaam Razor strategy at all...On the contrary...And what can panpsychism about the fact that on near-death experiences people are able to see themselves? How is that possible without a material support, - on the panpsychist hypothesis?

[@Tyrel777]

Consciousness is beyond the brain and material. It can be mindfully regulate proactivity and response to circumstance and emotions. Intent transcends the material, time, and space.

[@alexnorth3393]

Nonsense word salad.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

I have this heavy and nagging hunch that the misunderstandings between theists and atheists is due to them having very different ideas of what God is. Sharon keeps talking about the revealed God of the Judeo Christian tradition who, by necessity, is a very limited understanding of the divinity, and I can't help thinking that in the mind of somebody like Philip this understanding is further limited by the assumptions he might be making and the images he might be conjuring up in his mind when Sharon talks about God. I wonder if, in Philip's mind Sharon understands what God is. If he is indeed making this assumption (and I fear that a similar assumption is going on in the minds of every atheist that sits down to dialogue with a theist) it's only understandable that a wall is being automatically raised between them. On one side sits the one who "knows" God, and on the other sits the one who doesn't. But the one who doesn't has the wrong idea of what knowing God means on the other side of the wall. And it's not necessarily his (or her) fault. This understandably creates a dynamic of suspicion, because nobody can really believe that somebody else actually "knows" God. And they're right in a way, for nobody can know God in the same way we know other things, and there is absolutely nothing in the shared realm of knowledge that can compare with the knowledge that anybody may have of God. In a way, it's unfortunate that we use in relation to God the same vocabulary we use in relation to everything else. You can never mean the same thing when you use the word "knowledge" in those different contexts. One way to put it would be to say that the people on either side of the wall suffer from the same problem of not understanding their own limitations. The theist (typically a Christian, or rather, always a Christian in the cases I have observed) seems to forget that whatever he or she knows about God has a lot more to do with God Himself than with any purely human capacity to understand God. And the atheist never seems to be aware that if God is God it should be obvious that the sole exertion of the human mind cannot possibly understand and know Him.

[@DZ-yk2ew]

You're wrong, I'm a former Christian and I have no misunderstanding, I am just utterly unconvinced of all the arguments of any version of god, including yours. Stop believing that you see something that others can't, many have gone much further with these questions and become atheists. There is no confusion.

[@ElkoJohn]

' ' In the beginning was the Word ' ' = the vibration of string theory

[@jareddavis4980]

I've been shouting the answer forever, it should be recognized as a natural law, but it's a terrible mental burden to accept, so most ignore it. The answer is this: "It is impossible to be unconscious from your own perspective".. Now, think of everything that implies! All studies will land at this one simple conclusion. All discussion describes the truth of that statement.

[@factsfacts6628]

I just read about the split brain experiment they talked about. I have always speculated that the man lives in the brain. And if the man dies or leaves the body when he dies, then the last point for this transition is the brain. However, with the outcome of that experiment, I am beginning to wonder which part of the brain does the man resides in.

[@Rakscha-Sun]

There is another explanation for the sprit brain experiment results: we know that psychical trauma can lead to multiple personality’s. So could cutting the brain in two. The second person could have been a new person that come from wherever persons really come from. And that apparently hasn‘t learned to speak well.

[@MonisticIdealism]

Goff and Dirckx both want to preserve the existence, irreducibility and causal efficacy of consciousness, but they are stumped by the combination problem and mind-body problem respectively. Idealism dissolves both of these problems and offers a way to keep what Goff and Dirckx wants to preserve.