How Consciousness Emerges in the Cosmos

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main episode with Matthew Segall: kzbin.info/www/bejne/epa3nmeciL2jmK8 As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe

[@rolovolo]

Consciousness des NOT "emerge" from anything. It IS the Source of Everything.

[@esasakkinen8505]

Separateness is the manifest nature of existence. When evolution can select better possibility paths for new combinations of separations, favoring diversity, that is consciousness.

[@pablo4409]

The cat figured this stuff out ages ago he's just chilling now.

[@Wesinhuman]

That is actually true…

[@GeneralSulla]

​@@WesinhumanI choose to believe the cat knows everything there is to know. 😂

[@leolacic9442]

Evolution -Right:" Ništa neizgubiti i negubiti ništa", Left: " Negubiti ništa i ništa neizgubiti"!!

[@ScreamingCelt]

The dog is the same...

[@funnycwill91]

The art of submission. When you awaken to the force that maneuvers. I believe the alternative is almost a self destructive rage seeking control and identity. A way to be other than the whole/system.

[@cukoobajube]

To say consciousness is an illusion is idiocy. Doesn't illusion require consciousness?

[@emergencymedicine]

Agree. However there is often confusion between the words “consciousness” and “self” via the statement “The self is an illusion.” Interviewee is interesting nonetheless.

[@VukLazarMusic]

Are insects conscious? Most people say no. But insects trick each other all the time with illusions such as camouflage or mimicry. I guess it all depends on what you mean by illusion and consciousness and idiocy and require.

[@MrJPI]

Exactly, Illusions are equally mysterious to materialists (others too) as consciousness.

[@thelmaviaduct]

So it's not a self created illusion? I find that difficult to believe. I see it just like how a fin became a leg. It helps the creator live for a purpose, so they live longer, so they can procreate and carry on the long story. There needs to be motivation for anything to last.

[@mrjebiga7540]

do you know the infinite tsukiyomi? madara wanted to cast it onto all shinobis and humans to allow them to live in their ideal dreamworld... pretty cool guy tsuje!

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics. It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

[@subplantant]

All the "parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points" are directly connected by the electromagnetic field, on which exists an irreducibly complex, unique pattern of activity for each consciousness. Even if you think this has no explanatory power whatsoever (I know some do), you can't deny that it's true, can you?

[@marcobiagini1878]

​@@subplantantYou are wrong. The electromagnetic field does not connect anything. Furthermore, the separation of the electromagnetic field of the universe into distinct sets (each separate brain) is a subjective cognitive construct that relies on arbitrary criteria independent of the laws of physics. Since both cognition and subjectivity imply consciousness, the existence of consciousness cannot be explained as a consequence of such cognitive constructs. In conclusion, your attempt at an explanation not only has no explanatory power whatsoever, but involves a logical contradiction.

[@subplantant]

@@marcobiagini1878 No, the "separation of the electromagnetic field of the universe into distinct sets" is an arbitrary property emergent from the second law of thermodynamics. This is why humans intuit dualism.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@subplantant Utter nonsense. I see no reason to continue this conversation. Best regards.

[@subplantant]

@@marcobiagini1878 Consciousness is just an entropy pathway and you know it.

[@jhayes42]

Consciousness is an observation system and provides a hint about the world around you but only in the scope it is allowed to

[@pavelholub4206]

such is in my framework, thanks

[@NoahThiel-cn2en]

Yes this is Whitehead’s argument, and William James’s also. It is the mode that apprehends patterns and contrasts.

[@CalamityStarForce]

I would love to see a timestamp of where these clips are in the main episode. I find myself listening to your content several times and being able to know what is where in its context would be dope :) Thanks for your work!

[@notanemoprog]

Download the subtitles and perform the word search

[@Srsbzns_5150]

Maybe he'd rather have folks listen to the whole thing 🥸

[@SaveTheFuture]

The toroid diagram for the thumbnail was such a tease 😂

[@JohnDoe-ef3wo]

i was hoping to see some on that.

[@stephengee4182]

By the uncertainty principle, every space time freeze frame contains massive regimes of open possibility within which free will could reside, since certainty in any one conjugate variables would mean infinite uncertainty in its conjugate state.

[@sinclickbait6023]

Great you had Matt on, looking forward to seeing the whole interview!

[@rolovolo]

Consciousness des NOT "emerge" from anything. It IS the Source of Everything.

[@alcohalic6338]

well said

[@PetraKann]

Perhaps

[@Blasphemism]

@@rolovolo - …all the way down to simple motility.

[@CrazyRealm55]

Nailed it!!

[@Palau_Legend]

I seem to be the only person utterly confused.

[@martinmclean4801]

Very, very thought provoking. Thank you Curt and Matthew.

[@bjosson]

In process philosophy consciousness isn't an "entity" or "property", but an event. Big fan of Whitehead's work.

[@mrjebiga7540]

yeah, i like work from white heads also more

[@panic_diver]

Changing how you define free will. The mind at large actualizes one of the potentialities based on the previous relations, doesn't mean you as a part of the network could have made any other choice. The decision you made arise as a thought as the absolute mind manifested as this reality transforms.

[@notanemoprog]

No free will.

[@gingerballsjosh1]

Not exactly true. You can actualise possibilities based on real time evidence - freely. Plenty of evidence to show we make choices based on ‘knowing’ it will be a bad consequence for us. And ultimately is has negative causation. That’s effectively going against survival and evolution, which shows it has some form of free agency

[@stephengee4182]

​@@notanemoprog My guess is that the science of small things arises in such as way as to allow self to exist with the possibility of free will in the wave to particle essence of reality. Self is defined by how one judges in this universe and biology what is right from wrong.

[@MrJPI]

That black cat looks very similar to my precious one. :-)

[@stevesharp6138]

Very thought provoking 👍👍👍👍👍

[@HarlanEllisonlives]

Back in the real world we have bills to pay.

[@demio22]

The the ambiguous implications of the term "observer" has already derailed many layman.

[@Ivan.Wright]

I wish they'd referred to it as the "Interacter". The measurement device is not separate from the measured by nature of their interaction.

[@asabristol]

Consciousness seems to be a wave, a field. The more life & complexity that exists in one place creates some sort of self perpetuating feedback loop with the field of consciousness itself.

[@MikeWiest]

This is extremely helpful to me, thank you! Much more concise yet relevant than other commentary about Whitehead I’ve found so far. Incidentally “organismic realism” and the quote “all relations are subjective” is another way of saying quantum panpsychism is the solution to the phenomenal binding/combination problem, via quantum entanglement. (What’s the reference for that quote?!) And the potentialities turning into actuality maps beautifully onto Penrose and Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of consciousness. Also the experimental evidence for Orch OR is growing…

[@cemerson12]

At 8:15 he discusses, about mind, the relationship between the actual and the potential … and the “decision” about which possibility to actualize. To me, that is the key to understanding the flow of natural world. That devision may be deterministic or it may have some element of non-deterministic, but the key to focus on is how decisions that appear to determine future social behavior are actually made. Wants become values; collective interactions determine collective wants … which in turn at least in good part determine hum outcomes.

[@cemerson12]

In 1993 I wrote this “Do Survival V alues Form a Sufficient Basis for an Objective Morality: A Realist's Appraisal of the Rules of Human Conduct” scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1974&context=ndlr

[@eddyimpanis]

Consciousness isn't emergent, it's transcendent.

[@demio22]

Transcend what?

[@eddyimpanis]

@ The physical universe, including time.

[@emergencymedicine]

I do not think that “emergent” and “transcendent” are mutually exclusive.

[@demio22]

@@emergencymedicine I think the main point here is that it simply goes against many people's intuition that arbitrarily complex systems can and in fact do emerge from simple rules. So they then bring in hypothetical magical/esoterical unknowns for a possible "explanation".

[@Lmaoh5150]

What would you see is the nature of this transcendence? As in what constitutes the relation of what transcends and what is transcended?

[@chrishicks8347]

The water in your body is billions of years old do you realize that?

[@theostapel]

This burp - is now new. Your insight - is way better than mine

[@audiodead7302]

​@@theostapel But your burp emerged (phoenix like) from the ashes of ancient stars. Burps are all made of stars.

[@notanemoprog]

@@audiodead7302 No. Stars are made of burps.

[@theostapel]

@@audiodead7302 Well excellent insight - I thought it came directly from me oddly cooked beans. Stars - eh ?

[@theostapel]

@@notanemoprog Hee hee - cosmic joke of some pedigree

[@davemarko8731]

I saw that cat walking from behind and I thought, ‘that cat is coming in for a cuddle.’

[@MarkThomas-hm3ju]

Was that due to determinism or freewill of the kitty?

[@glennpaquette2228]

Is that Schrodinger's cat?

[@TurnAwayFromKnowledge]

How the cosmos emerges in Consciousness

[@GIBKEL]

Man…the clips you can pull out of this one. I could have easily been listening to a physics podcast.

[@TikiTDO]

Oh hey, that's starting to feel a lot more accurate. The only thing that still feels missing is the structure of the underlying relations. People still seem very insistent on viewing these things through a very simplistic lens, without paying heed to both the hierarchical as well as loosely connected nature of existence.

[@Braun09tv]

As long as memory can't be located in a precise manner, one has to assume that it might never ever be detectable within our physical systems.

[@JungleJargon]

Can you define an angel or a god? How intelligent are we. Is this there a higher level of intelligence? Can we be more intelligent? Can we change what would be an ordinary outcome? Of course we can break free from the ordinary outcome. That’s what science is all about.

[@jailai6531]

Perfection becoming more perfect...

[@paulmoston70]

Up isn’t down and down isn’t up. The end

[@2nd_foundation]

Consciousness is like inertia in a kind of machian view of the universe. It is only one, and we all feel it, for example, an acceleration being all in the same mobile. Consciousness is the RIGPA.

[@cukoobajube]

Insects certainly are conscious.

[@chrishicks8347]

Nose funny when he said mathematics in history together. Because all mathematics is history you just haven't learned what it is yet. And the only way you can learn it is it has already happened. All science has been discovered you just don't know the answers yet. But then again that's what makes evolution so beautiful. Have you ever looked at evolution as an intelligent design? It would probably help humans go forward and not build weapons of mass destruction.

[@xenophagia]

You say that as if human beings haven't gone to war, and committed great atrocities over religion. Even in-fighting of people within the same religion; destroying each other over their interpretations. All of which believe in intelligent design. Belief in intelligent design hasn't stopped anyone from making WMDs, and it never will. I won't even bother addressing the tangled up mess of everything else that you said. Anyway, I hope you have a great Christmas!

[@chrishicks8347]

@xenophagia intelligent design wouldn't stop it. Intelligent design only works with free will free choice. You choose one path or the other you are no longer here or you exist. Evolution is nothing but choice One Way or another free will.

[@PetraKann]

Mathematics and science are not related

[@chrishicks8347]

​@@PetraKannmathematics and science are exactly alike what are you talking about. They do the same thing they write a problem and figure out the answer.

[@chrishicks8347]

​@@xenophagiaand humans go to war over money materialism not God they just tell you that. Why would God need land that as dumb as a thing as human could say. The creator of all needs that land and people are dumb enough to believe it. I can't help human stupidity. Humans kill God doesn't.

[@odiolost2394]

wow been following footnotestoplato for years, didn't expect to see him here

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

He seems to be conflating potentiality with probability, and while there is some connection between those concepts they are very different things. A potential is not one of many probabilities, it is a inherent latent actuality requiring contingent causes to actualize from its latent state. A potentiality is a real, objective feature of the system that awaits actualization. Probability, on the other hand, is a measure of the likelihood of an event occurring, based on statistical averages and not necessarily tied to any inherent propensity of the system. This view resonates with Aristotelian metaphysics, where potentiality (dunamis) is seen as a real, objective feature of being that can be actualized (energeia) through appropriate causes. Potentiality refers to the intrinsic, objective propensities or tendencies of a system to realize certain outcomes. It is a concept that goes beyond mere statistical probability and is often associated with the de Broglie-Bohm formulation of quantum mechanics. The quantum potential is a key component in the de Broglie-Bohm theory's version of the Schrödinger wave function equation, where it guides the deterministic motion of particles. This theory introduces non-local hidden variables to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena. So we can understand that there is an intrinsic entanglement, which Bohm called non-local hidden variables, between the superposition/wavefunction/state vector and the environment, which is made up of quantum systems/wavefunctions/state vectors...so therefore we have to question this probability and think in terms of the actualization of a potential that could not have been actualized any other way.

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

I agree that space and time/sequence emerge from (or better concomitant with) what he calls quantum events, which I will call emergent linear causality(linear meaning as cause and effect) but this is emerging or explicating to a perspective, or frame of reference, from at totality of compressed i.e non-local, non-linear/atemporal, already existing total information/deep causal structure existing in a frame independent holistic manner.

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

he wants an emergent space and time but no frame independent substrate to the frame dependent space and time...then where are the actual occasions, which we can view as explications of already existing information. coming from...he will say the past, but then he is trapped in a linear cause and effect and if space and time are frame dependent, as we know they are, then so is sequential cause and effect...there is no absolute linear cause and effect...we know this from relativity. Whitehead, in effect denies any ontological objective independent reality, which is the denial of an objective truth. objective truth is whole, all complete and nothing can be added to or substracted from it...all phenomenal information within a view is a limited perspective of it, that is explicated dependently on that perspective...it is contingently explicated to a view, but already exists in the absolute frame independent state. Objective truth cannot be in a view...a view is, in principle from a frame of reference. existence is already what it is...nothing can be add to or substracted from it.

[@dondattaford5593]

First statement shows consciousness should be viewed as information the kinds that cannot be destroyed

[@Rope_Adope]

Probabilistic determinism is fun

[@ChrisH575]

Just my opinion but I think the question you want to ask is how does the cosmos arise in consciousness.

[@theamberturner]

'I am' (the now) is the alpha and omega. The now includes both the 'past' and 'future'. The 'I am' collapses all 'time' into one moment.

[@HarlanEllisonlives]

Gee that was so profound

[@calvingrondahl1011]

I need honest science more than a dishonest religion.

[@Uri1000x1]

Systems with information in their state interact locally over time periods. After an interaction, the states of both has changed. The only information is in there states. Whitehead says the physical systems feel like themselves and the particles decide how to behave, whereas it is determined based on their nature, or how the implement nature's laws of behavior.

[@phaedrus24]

"Consciousness is its content" (Krishnamurti). Therefore, in my thinking content develops with memory. Memory grows with experience, or age. Hence, newborns seem to have limited consciousness - mostly limited to taste, touch and voice of the mother, like any other newborn animal. Memories also store personal "feelings" or qualia of things. It used to be simply good/bad and safe/dangerous memories, but memories have expanded with brain evolution. We can see brain evolution, so it shouldn't surprise us that feelings or personal experiences have also advanced to include wonderment at the color red, or a sunset or whatever is beyond just good/bad and safe/dangerous. No?

[@dimitrioskatelouzos2947]

You say that time is an emergent quality, emerging from PROCESS, but I don't understand this : How can you have a process without having time?

[@Footnotes2Plato]

Clock time or measurable time is emergent. Process is qualitative becoming, a transition from possibility to actuality, and is not captured by what clocks measure.

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Newtonian interpretation within the rules of relativity does not rule out free will.

[@MIKE_THE_BRUMMIE]

The deterministic crowd I find inhuman. Our choices might be finite and the probability matrices are influenced by our hardware, however that still leaves so many variable outcomes. On a different note, what is a concept before it is actualized....where do the laws of the universe exist and have they always been embedded within the universe, the blueprint of stars existed before the first fusion accrued

[@randomizer2240]

Yet it is the idealists that are inhumane in their actions. Unsurprising, that a belief in ideas such as societal prime movers & other exceptionalist shite, from 2500 year old philosophy would make one an individualistic brut. Or a "Freewill" that is somehow detached from the conditions that formed a person. The person is who they are in a moment of choice because of everything that came before it.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

In addition to "actual" and "potential" (substances/ causes), which already exist, there could also be "latential", which could only appear after any individual interacts with a CoG (Center of Generation) of elementary particles fixed in space, of which the Centers of The Earth and of The Sun are just 2 out of infinite in the universe.

[@MarkThomas-hm3ju]

Your location, environment is rich with an inertial component from all the near and far things that allow consciousness and its carrier (biologic) to interact with it. This translates to information that requires gravity for there to be sentience. AI on the contrary is limited to its computational space and feels no coupling with the outside.

[@alexyakyma1479]

Word salad.

[@Mikey-mike]

Good one

[@audiodead7302]

I don't have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. But we know that phenomenal consciousness correlates with states in the brain. So consciousness must be emergent from the complex interactions in the brain rather than a fundamental feature of the universe. We can also see how consciousness performs a function (in evolutionary terms). It allows humans to display sophisticated behaviour (e.g. building technology) which gives a survival advantage. I don't see how consciousness would perform a useful function (in evolutionary terms) for an atom.

[@Matthias-b7q]

Consciousness, or rather proto-consciousness, in an elementary particle such as a photon, neutron, atom, etc. fulfills a very similar function to that of the brains of animals or humans. Elementary particles collect information by interacting with other elementary particles and react to this information in a passive way. This happens in a continuous flow. Elementary particles with their own rest mass, i.e. other than photons, also have internal processes of information interaction. The "useful function" and the evolutionary driving force is the same for elementary particles and brains. It is the increase in entropy, an increase in complexity, the basic driving force of all processes in our universe.

[@audiodead7302]

@@Matthias-b7q I'm not sure that makes sense. If an complex organism makes a bad choice, it doesn't survive and doesn't create offspring. Particles don't evolve, they don't die, etc....and for that reason, they don't need to think or make decisions. That's why we regard them as fundamental.

[@adaptivealph8052]

We are all atomic clocks collapsing quantum waves like a distributed miner Bitcoin network solving a non-local hash target but with the quantum machinery taking place below and above the General Relativity boundary.

[@Andres-m2u]

American scientist found out... (a bad joke since 60 years..) ...that they urgently need a new business model.

[@derekwarren1548]

Money might put you on the cutting edge of the present, but poverty will make you travel time. -Master of Shadow Boxing

[@steinar9579]

Amen

[@AksilRebis]

Are you 40 now, Curt?

[@mrjebiga7540]

the way i understood transmission of feelings: when your gf is in a superposition of them all feelings and you try to infer the feelings, but your system can only measure two eigenstates of ,,making out,, and ,,she needs time for herself,,, while the rest is traced out as an environment... you never guess right

[@chrishicks8347]

If you want to understand the universe you understand the water. Because it all works the same way planets float in an ocean of gravity. Now I do have a weird theory that the Earth is actually water more than magma because I believe that the water in the corresponding the opposite of the ocean you would still get gravity created with the electrical type of charge it's hard to explain. Think of the land as the ground rod. And all the lava is is the mass of speed of the water hitting the rock creating molten rock. But without knowing what's actually down there I can't really give an accurate perception. I hope you're able to look at water definitely.

[@PrescottValley]

That was absolute nonsense. Absolute madness bro.

[@chrishicks8347]

@PrescottValley how? Prove me wrong.

[@robtdocher8051]

the opening statement he made is nonsense.Robots producing copies of themselves is just as valid as any theory Consciousness is the rock they all perish on and boy does it annoy them

[@alex79suited]

Consciousness becomes through the collection of different organisms trying to survive. It's an outcome of the system working. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@ejenkins4711]

Classical objective Quantum subjective Consiousness rhe bridge between CGJ

[@SamuelDimitrij]

I've only heard 3 minutes of this, but to me, it sounds almost new-age-esque. 1. Determinism does not undermine science in any way, and if it does anything, it's rather the opposite. Science, done by a deterministic subject, requires a cause-and-effect structure. So, if you follow the evidence, you will (hopefully) eventually reach an evidence-based conclusion. 2. To say that atoms have agency because of quantum effects is complete nonsense. The randomness in quantum mechanics refers to the probabilistic nature of where particles are likely to be found, not any form of decision-making or conscious action. 3. This guy seems to believe in some form of dualism, which neuroscience has largely ruled out (it makes me interested of his thoughts about sleepwalking). He also fails to take into account the countless studies that show the conscious experience of a choice often comes after the brain has made the choice subconsciously.

[@milesgrooms7343]

You are the first person to mention “Sleepwalkers” as a prime example, and glaring evidence that the sense of self is deterministically/indeterministically interdependent on the functional structure of the brain in complete concert with environment. What naturalist and materialistic always fail to mention is the interdependence that the brain and body have in regard to “environment”. Dementia is another horrid example of how the “self” or “free will” becomes exposed for the process (or illusion of self) that acts upon us, without any singular, atomized direction from a “self”. Our existence is far more insufferable and meaningless than we could stand other wise.

[@ShireTasker]

Wolfram

[@MikeWiest]

Not

[@Rmeggedon]

How can we take you seriously if you cannot ask your cat politely not to interrupt during your talk?

[@schiacciatrollo]

to be or not to be

[@dondattaford5593]

There is no such thing as time what we call yesterday is what and how matter interacted at that moment nothing is lost it transformed example a bar of gold from hundreds of years ago is still the same gold today maybe disfigured but it's still here

[@roflkartoffeI]

few have the imagination of reality

[@Warp9pnt9]

Now is not now, here is not here, this is not this. Within this elastic mesh of nodes of reality emerge patterns, some of which become capable of self recognition, self reference, and self modification. This is my crude yet effective conceptualization. Of what value does further abstraction yield? As abstraction increases, tangibility, provability, and influence over the mundane lives of average people diminishes. No great enlightenment, changes of behavior of individuals or social systems arises. The practical influence on quality of life is zero. Perhaps if such things can be incorporated into systematic approaches to rearranging thoughts and behaviors and organizations, we might repair or improve existing conditions, or conceive of new systems. But I continually feel that this is pointless navel gazing into the abyss of the delusiory rather than the realm or the practical and the subset of the beneficial.

[@chrishicks8347]

Okay here's a problem you don't actually experienced the now you experienced the then. No matter what you humans ever think you cannot technically see the now. Your brain can't process now it can only process it through Time. So everything you experience happens and then you realize it happened. Your whole world is actually a few microseconds behind what you realize. So technically you cannot see the now. A few microseconds pastor now yes but you cannot see the present. It's just a little faster than your thinking is.

[@seabud6408]

That is .. assuming what science “believes” about the nature of being/reality. The universe as a whole system is likely conscious and alive (organismic) .. it’s just that from our perspective we can’t grasp this .. despite the fact that the Universe literally grew Einstein from big bang Plasma, without the aid of a single human thought or scientific theory. Regarding being .. you would listen to The/A Buddha before a technician reared on the syrup of materialism. If not why not? Who knows what about what?

[@chrishicks8347]

@seabud6408 no as long as time exists evolution is always going to exist. So if time doesn't exist then there won't be any evolution but other than that there's always going to be evolution and time. That is a description of time to move forward evolve. You never even on the same spot ever again that you ever were right this second.. because the planets moving and it's moving around the sun and the sons moving around the Milky Way galaxy we're always in motion always an evolution.

[@chrishicks8347]

​@@seabud6408the one thing that connects all life on this planet is water a plasma. And the fact that it was able to create a creature that could split water and create oxygen with its waste product is beyond amazing. In humans aren't that advanced so I don't know why you would even think humans are advanced. You're kind of primitive. But then again all you are is water trying to escape itself. No matter what you're going back to the water. Can you show me one life form on this planet that exists without water. So I would pretty much say the water is what helps cause the evolution of Life wouldn't you? Antioch water hasn't changed all that much except for creating life. . And I do love how you close science because science said the Earth was flat one time. And science said driving a needle into your head was a good idea to get rid of a psychological problems. Did you ever know scientists are wrong a lot.

[@QuickCanon]

Oske Vanji

[@MagnusGalactusOG]

We all need *Jesus*

[@Bpaynes]

I for one would like to invite you to our lord and savior Cthulhu

[@High.Desert]

I do my own Gardening. It's actually very invigorating.

[@Flerg3]

Who did the people who came before Jesus need?

[@xenophagia]

​@@Bpaynes I concur, brother. *_Joinnn ussss! The whispers of the Old Gods beckon you._*

[@PetraKann]

​@@ComommonlyCensoredso it doesn't really matter who or what a person believes in as long as the time is right?

[@bradharris1062]

The others book

[@mrjebiga7540]

this bro makes talking about physics his forplay method and job.. u must be getting sum.. maybe i should study philosophy.. i can only talk like this when im drunk (or i think i am talking like this, in my infinite possibilities or smth he said)

[@MoonContradiction]

Bro science

[@neuroopticon]

That opening statement is pretty iffy. In Bell inequality, two dials each labeled A,B,C both measure binary attribute two different entangled particles at two different places. If the knobs chosen are different, they disagree 75% of the time when chance says max is 66.6%. (Two outcomes 3 knob positions, 1/rd chance 2 chosen agree) Claim: local realism exists with particles and measurers are determined to choose disagreeing positions. Status: irrefutable possibility. Point: quantum thinking makes us consider possibility that measurement choices are also dictated by laws, observed science may be visible manifestations of a metascience where laws can be broken, but possibility of observing them being broken may be 0.

[@lewisknight6819]

I feel like Consciousness is just a fundemental Force of the Universe. Even though the Forces of the Universe are physical, you could imagine Consciousness as a 'Non-Physical Force'.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

Delusional materialists have long been refuted, by science and philosophy. Move on, already.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

YT channel Darwinian Universal. Darwinian cosmology. Matter is self organised and Darwinian evolution is the mechanism

[@priortokaraew7569]

Sick of hearing the word newton.

[@HarlanEllisonlives]

Speculation no evidence.

[@dadgrowscapsaicin4341]

EVERY theory ever derived was speculation before there was factual evidence. Loosen up a bit maybe?

[@HarlanEllisonlives]

@dadgrowscapsaicin4341 nahhhh to much of this crap.

[@notanemoprog]

What do you mean "imagine _almost_ anything"? Tell me one thing that you can't imagine

[@saganworshipper6062]

Free will makes zero sense. Determinism is true, as much as I wish it weren't so. That is just reality.

[@buglepong]

in a purely materialistic universe, youd be right. but you cant prove that

[@dadgrowscapsaicin4341]

Depends on definition of "free will"

[@lynnpoole7830]

Much ado about nothing.

[@lambdaprog]

All I heard here is a bad characterization of epistemological obstacles. Almost every sentence is bound to semantics that are unfit for the subject. On a positive note, at least we know there's something we can't fully represent with our current scientific language.

[@chrishicks8347]

You want to know how it's all connected that's easy. Y'all came from the water. All life on this planet is is evolution of water. Where do you think you came from where do the plants come from where do the animals they all came from the water. When life started something in the ocean said I don't want to be a part of the water anymore and became life. On this planet. You are 70% water that is the same water that was at the beginning of time. Somehow the water is a computer chip I'm not sure how it works but it is a chip of some sort it's Crystal. But that's how you humans are connected by the water you're connected to the trees by the water to the land by the water you're inside a giant bowl of water. You breathe water in the air humidity it rains on you you sweat water you are nothing but 70% water. But at least 70% of you is immortal. You are drinking the same water that your ancestors came out of the ocean. You are just evolution of water.

[@logicbomb8977]

That’s not how it works. Read a book

[@chrishicks8347]

@logicbomb8977 where did you come from?

[@chrishicks8347]

What is the human body created in right now when it's in a baby form? And tell me anywhere that a human can survive without water?

[@chrishicks8347]

@logicbomb8977 are you one of those people that don't believe in evolution?

[@chrishicks8347]

@logicbomb8977 tell me how evolution works? And yes you did come out of the water you were nothing and then somehow the water created you. But explain to me how you didn't come from water you didn't come from themselves in the ocean you didn't walk on land you weren't the Crustaceans on the land and the dinosaurs. And I don't care about my punctuation. Bayou pecking on it just shows your argument is so weak. Show me what you think evolution is.

[@chrishicks8347]

Evolution. That is exactly why everything does but everything does. What's so hard to understand? Except for you have to have gravity around it to hold it together so it doesn't exist alone does it? You're feeling evolution. Look except one thing and one reality and you'll get along the world a lot better. There is no such thing as empty. Will you refer to as empty as never been empty you call a dark matter I call gravity it's the same thing. Those little Adams also pay attention to the frequency of gravity. And everything in space is held together by that gravity you know dark matter. Now you can literally do this with simple atomic clock and lifted off the Earth and you'll see A change is as it goes up because the gravity is changing with it. But you will never see a void because the gravity is constant. Or everything would fall apart I would think I'd be pretty obvious. If you look at evolution the way Christians look at God you would understand evolution a lot better. Because they are the exact same thing. No matter how this whole weird show started evolution was the first thing that happened. and evolution will always be the meaning of life because without it there's no reason to move forward no reason for time no reason for existence if you have it all you have nothing. So if you look at what you feel is just evolution it's just the holy spirit of God the same thing. Helping you to move forward and evolve and quit making weapons of mass destruction because they're stupid. The only thing dumber than weapons of mass destruction is money. You want to put your brains to work you figure out how to get rid of money. Because money holds science back more than anything.

[@xenophagia]

Meth is one hell of a drug.

[@xenophagia]

*Amphetamines.*

[@chrishicks8347]

@xenophagia dude I wouldn't do them they're bad for your brain. I mean you do what you want but they're not good for you.

[@V1brationCanine]

as there is no absolute space, there is no absolute time; all are relative and everything is a sequence - in humans the most common sequence is the grief process