Is creativity essential to understanding the universe? | Roger Penrose and Iain McGilchrist

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you think science leaves room for imagination? Let us know in the comments below! To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/imagining-the-universe?KZbin&+comment

[@tomgreene1843]

How would science function without imagination ?

[@blijebij]

Yes, without creativity you won't be able to have outside-the-box imagination. To see perspectives that are not taught.

[@bastin270]

3:10 3:11 3:12 3:12 3:13. Subconscious is us in the future... Unknown knowledge of the universe...all u have to do is simply the logical cheat code

[@anyfriendofkevinbaconisafr177]

I appreciate the effort in as much as it is, but I do wonder what a mild, pro forma sort of question is doing here. How can Western society graduate from the depressing lack of faith such pallid efforts reveal. The children will surely suss us out. And being deceived so, will shortly hang us from the closest flagpole of whatever skeptical and idealistic religion they devise. Perhaps a more important question comes from a riskier stance? Indeed, how does science survive the hubris it promotes?

[@ManifestWistful]

👀Planks Constant we already proved has problem... Isn't it 😊

[@TheOneArmadillo]

Iain McGilchrist is on of the greatest, if not THE most learned philosophers of our time. And it's really hard to be one in our time. What a G.

[@kammonkam4905]

No, he is a windbag. Typical of his kind, generalists good at serving up word salad. He is not even in the same league as Penrose. A psychiatrist is not a scientist, psychiatry is not a science. The most sophisticated scientific tool in the field is just statistics. The lone genius came up with great breakthrough might have happened only once, Einstein's general relativity. But even that might not be true. Creative people just create, they don't philosophize about creativity. In the same way critics are people with no talent in art so they only talk about it.

[@tomgreene1843]

Reading his ''Matter with Things' at the moment ....great fellow indeed.

[@Robinson8491]

I thought all his work was shown to be figments of the imagination?

[@christianfarina3056]

He might be, but he is just spewing nonsense here.

[@sonarbangla8711]

If I were Penrose, I won't discuss the problem with a philosopher, because he considers that which is fundamental, where as Penrose thinks physicists deal with the incomplete and inconsistent. Philosopher believes consciousness qualifies matter and consciousness helps our thoughts take us outside our universe and into the realm of multiverse (Penrose probably doesn't believe in multiverse but many physicists do). Neither a physicist nor a philosopher knows how matter gives rise to consciousness, they even less knows the proof that cosmic consciousness created everything. It hits me as strange that eastern mystics thousands of years ago knew just that.

[@iFluxyy]

Roger Penrose is such a gift to the scientific community and humanity as a whole.

[@TheLuminousOne]

Please stop fawning, publicly.

[@iFluxyy]

@TheLuminousOne please stop talking, eternally.

[@smlanka4u]

The mind is like the collapsed state of the wave function. There is matter outside the body that touches the body and make the matter of the mind called Chittaja Rupa (Mind-born matter/form).

[@virtuerse]

Nice pfp dude

[@jaazielgarcia3938]

Love roger.. he's definitely been an inspiration in so many levels

[@richardbennett109]

I think imagination is like the logic we might find in a dream. A way to combine disparate, even contradictory ideas into an experience which somehow "hangs together", and, as in the best dreams, reveal a new insight. I don't believe science leaves room for taking non quantitative ideas seriously. The way forward is to invite value and feelings into the realm of science. We should acknowledge our human intentionality rather than exclude all things not quantifiable.

[@anmolagrawal5358]

I think imagination is not necessarily distinct from what we define as "logic". It just passes through lesser "checks" so is more free to be tested in different frameworks befor being "cooked" to an output which is then consistent with the model of reality of an individual. So it is a continuum really. It reveals new insights because it trades higher failure rate with scope of exploration. Scope and accuracy are inherently inversely proportional for a given amount of energy / synaptic connections is what I believe

[@sonarbangla8711]

Physicists has a theory that is admittedly 'incomplete', but Iain pins the issue brilliantly by exposing that we can't directly experience matter, but only through through consciousness. If we keep 'lumpen matter' for a million years it might turn into consciousness, doesn't explain how the transformation takes place, or what is consciousness. The philosopher suggest consciousness emerges out of matter like 'spectrum of light out of a prism' and matter can only be felt by consciousness and understanding the universe depends on it but not on creativity as physicist wants us to believe. Brilliant.

[@Jonathan-xo2gb]

The universe is alive and we are part of its collective consciousness creatively.

[@romulus3345]

GOD created the universe.

[@Jonathan-xo2gb]

@romulus3345 You are right and we are all part of God collectively

[@romulus3345]

@@Jonathan-xo2gb GOD made Himself known to man throughout history. GOD is Triune.. GOD - Father Son & Holy Spirit in PERFECT union as ONE divine essence.. GOD the Father is the source, the Son eternally comes forth from the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.. GOD - 3 distinct Persons 1 Being.

[@arodvaz1955]

Romulus, you of all people should know that God or "gods" is a subjective cultural conception 😄. Ask Jupiter!

[@KravMagoo]

@@romulus3345 The trinity is not a Biblical concept, primarily because the Spirit is not a person. The Spirit is God's spirit, His vitality and power by which He exercises His will in creation.

[@stevenverrall4527]

For a peer-reviewed novel nuclear model that does not require renormalization, see "Ground state quantum vortex proton model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023.

[@localverse]

What's the gist of it?

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@localverse The article presents a physical ground-state model that calculates the proton magnetic moment and charge radius more precisely than existing models. Importantly, this model transforms into the standard quantum chromodynamics model at energies above the ground state.

[@futures2247]

we've no idea what is going on

[@stevej.7926]

And thats okay

[@vapormissile]

Amen. It seems like we aren't allowed to - ​@@stevej.7926 Positive waves ❤

[@MrJohnQCitizen]

@@futures2247 a rave by the sounds of it

[@rubelrahmanbabu6875]

Roger Penrose is one of the greatest physicist ever!!!!.

[@rubelrahmanbabu6875]

@@SRCX.ClimateResearch why?!!!

[@MikePaixao]

Without imagination, how can we dream about the future we want, or even have a goal to aim for? 🙂 If left right hemisphere was a thing, how does someone lose a large portion of their brain matter yet remain completely unchanged? 🤔

[@arturhashmi6281]

Who told you that people remain unchanged after loosing parts of their brain? Macgilchrist wrote whole book about this topic - "Master and his emissary" and first half of it is full of examples of people after strokes of right or left hemisphere and how they experienced world after that.

[@MikePaixao]

@@arturhashmi6281 it's more like the neuro plasticity of the brain let's it adapt and form new pathways to rebuild lost functionality, so it's not strictly limited to right/left hemisphere, but where the left and right side are physically split (a treatment in some extreme cases of migraines) interesting things do happen 🤔can find more info in medical science eperiments and ER accident reports 🙂

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi T I o A & I, listening to these two and Ian's remarks about the relationship between material and consciousness as if consciousness is the only experience throws up a question!. Is the physical impact of a human body with a bit of that lumpen material stuff a physical event or just a consciousness event?. While I am quite happy to accept that my assertion that there is a material universe that does exist with which my entire body has a physical relationship is just an axiom, not one for which I can offer any exact evidence, it is however one which allows me to engage with that material universe in ways that rely on the strict consistent adherence to whatever the universe's governing principles are, thus I can build and mend my house, grow my food rear and butcher my animals, all of which I can apply my consciousness to but none of which are controlled by my mind!. Cheers, Richard.

[@david_porthouse]

Well Bell’s Theorem makes it clear that we need a nonlocal theory of quantum mechanics for sure. Let’s pick up the low-hanging fruit in the superluminal world by noticing that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. I would suggest that one way is associated with wavelike behaviour, and the other way with particle-like behaviour. Maybe quantum mechanics is not such a mystery after all.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Wavelike behavior, yes. I see that. How so, though, with that which is particle like? Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might feel up to sharing.

[@david_porthouse]

@@AnHebrewChild There is a tachyonic Wiener process in the other way which ensures a breaking of the symmetry when the entity interacts with two or more detectors. This is one for computer simulation.

[@notreallydavid]

Imagine having a mind that can be turned to any problem with a mathematical component. I'm glad that there are people like Sir Roger in the world. (Anyone with a high opinion of themselves who pulls the 'Do you know who I am?' number with store/restaurant staff, and yelling at check-in people at airports - if Roger Penrose can conduct himself modestly despite his colossal attainment and vast reservoir of understanding, why can't you?)

[@xenphoton5833]

If more people had the propensity for thought and the ability to think honestly for themselves...

[@stationary.universe.initiative]

The universe is God itself. The universe is NOW. Eternity is NOW.

[@stayhungry1503]

nice.

[@jbrink1789]

creativity is part of the interconnectedness

[@kallelundahl5784]

I would be grateful if somebody could help me decipher what Dr. McGilchrist says 3-4 min from the beginning. He seems to say: materialists undervalue matter because according to your theory: If you leave matter alone for a few million years, it will start producing B on passion (?), for that lump of matter to do so you’re forced to accept that matter and consciousness are not entirely distinct.”

[@cumulonimbus4273]

Bach’s St John Passion. I think he’s pointing out that, to consider the human mind as simply a byproduct of a lump of matter that has nothing more to its existence than its material form, is not sufficient to explain the mystery of consciousness. He goes on to suggest that perhaps matter is a phase of consciousness, or more broadly a phase of some kind of bigger reality/universe. He uses the wonderful creativity of Bach to illustrate the point.

[@kallelundahl5784]

Thank you, now I get it. @@cumulonimbus4273

[@voyagersa22]

Thanks I was puzzled by that sentence too

[@hansjohansson66]

What does Iain say at 3.28? Matter will produce vast amount.....

[@connectingupthedots]

He's telling everyone what an idiot he is

[@treegreen6]

Excuse me if im missing the point as im a childs mind in relation to Roger and Ian but as i study the esoteric sciences i find that the effect of "will" on the material world is a way that we can induce a reaction in both within the material and ethereal realms. Or an individual's perception of consciousness can create or alter the material universe. Rupert Sheldrake explains these concepts more distinctly in his theory of morphic resonance. My apologies for thinking allowed.

[@boremir3956]

You are certainly allowed to think but I suspect you meant "thinking aloud". As for the notion that "will" or "the perception of consciousness" is somehow important or has an effect on the universe, I would say that such a statement requires evidence. It has to be shown that either of those things can somehow influence matter. I don't think that is the case. A change in perception of the world might make you behave differently and produce different results in your life, but ultimately that is just a predictable change in behavior producing a predictable change in outcome, nothing esoteric about it.

[@richardasmus9426]

Creativity is essential to make us think that we will one day understand the Universe. We need it to make up stuff like the big bang to bang our heads around. But to be really conscious of the cosmos we must understand that to know that we will never understand the Universe is to understand the Universe. Knowing that this does not need to proven is Cosmic Consciousness. Prove me wrong.

[@justinlinnane8043]

I love , admire and respect Sir Roger Penrose but someone needs to take charge of that combover !!!

[@ToeMass123]

What does he say when I think he says matter produces "vast st John passion" after a few million years???? Thanks

[@real_ozzy]

The Cosmos is addicted to the path of least resistance.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The Ability to SEE behind the Stuff-side, is Intuition. We can't see with the Intelligence.

[@bobdillaber1195]

If we mortal beings ever came to understand the universe, we would conclude we were smarter than the universe and the universe was too smart to let that happen.

[@advaitrahasya]

QM is indeed weird, just as epicyclic motions of planets were weird. Discarding the paradigm of Geocentricism got rid of the weirdness and woo of planets being embedded in inter-penetrating nested crystal spheres. Likewise, when the paradigm of atomism and timeism is discarded (topologicaly inverted) , no woo is required, and understanding the mechanism which fits maths and observations becomes trivial.

[@KravMagoo]

You should contact the Nobel folks...no doubt they have a fat check with your name on it.

[@advaitrahasya]

@@KravMagoo a common misunderstanding. Physicists have no interest in understanding, just advances in data-fitting. It isnt like the copernican understanding of orbital dynamics found swift acceptance. The understanding of the fundamental mechanism will have to pass through decades of ridicule before it becomes obvious.

[@KravMagoo]

@@advaitrahasya I'm just saying that if your assessments are correct, get it out there and let the world know you are either a genius or a clown.

[@advaitrahasya]

@@KravMagoo There are those much better placed than me, who might get heard if they dedicated their lives to it. But, no one seems up for what one actually gets - which is not Alfred's prize, but the far less pleasant Galileio experience. Also, given the urgency with which scientific understandings get weaponised … another century of physics wallowing in woo might be a really good thing.

[@user_user1337]

The price for the best haircut ever goes to: Roger Penrose! The guy is totally non-threatening and looks like a theoretical physicist ought to look like, also with his overwide jumper.

[@real_ozzy]

Pentrose is a soldier of knowledge. He is not concerned with such petty things like hair and fashion.

[@stayhungry1503]

@@real_ozzy the collapse of the wave fashion.

[@hedgeclipper418]

seems like these people aren't understanding each other

[@ladyperegrine8564]

Creativity is a part of being human. Its essential. Thank you for your info.

[@TheLuminousOne]

Creativity is a part of existence, a part of our universe and all lifeforms.

[@gigisonishvili7146]

Yet most people are not creative at all, in fact actual creative people are very few.

[@thomasdelaney4898]

it's* because you're trying to say "it is".

[@stevej.7926]

@@gigisonishvili7146i would argue all people are, actually, they just haven’t yet identified how/deny it in themselves for a variety of potential reasons

[@ladyperegrine8564]

@@gigisonishvili7146 There are parameters to being human. We are living in reveling times. Heads up eyes open.

[@shankarbalakrishnan2360]

Dont know the answer but i know there will be only two choices with AIs usage think or abuse nothing grey❤❤🎉🎉

[@aperson2730]

Sometimes i think that there is only work and that all else is illusion. Does anyone have any thoughts on this ?

[@kadim6578]

Good morning, We know our universe is fine tuned with fundamental constants. Also professor Roger Penrose calculated the chance for the universe in low Entropy state was incredibl mathematics number: 1 to 10^10^123 Our universe follow the mathematics language. With all these information is not enough following our Logical Mind : Impossible our fine tuned universe came by Chance!! But only by Higher Intelligent Unique Merciful Creator!! Thank you..!!

[@alistairmurray626]

That's like saying "the water in that puddle is exactly the same shape as the hole it is in, what are the chances of that happening??"

[@kadim6578]

@@alistairmurray626 Philosophy nothing to do with science. Please if you have scientific answer on my comments you are welcome

[@alistairmurray626]

@@kadim6578 My point was that a "fine tuned universe proves an existence of god" is an argument from ignorance. The only life we know of is our kind of life and if parameters were changed, our current understanding of life couldn't exist. There is no evidence to show that other forms of life would not occur with different parameters. We barely understand our own universe, but now you are assuming the capabilities of differently tuned universes?? How life can exist is determined by the parameters. NOT "life can only exist within these parameters". The puddle of water fits perfectly in the hole not because of coincidence. You talk of "Higher Intelligent Unique Merciful Creator", yet you only want scientific answers. Where is your proof of a "Higher Intelligent Unique Merciful Creator"?

[@nickc9223]

Not impossible, improbable. Considering only 43% of Earth’s dry land in habitable - much requiring science, engineering, and agriculture to make it so - and the rest of the planet is ocean, I’d say your creator did a terrible job. If anything the universe is fine tuned for non-life to exist.

[@kadim6578]

@@nickc9223 Sorry, did you understand the meaning of the number's Penrose calculation: 1 to 10^10^123

[@PaulHermanpainter]

Why must gravity have a particulate manifestation if it is not a force but only the effect of mass on space?

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@pyarahindustani8553]

I am not so much intrigued that we are conscious, but how did we become conscious to begin with.

[@alex79suited]

I'm with Professor Penrose i'm afraid, but I like to listen to most. As long as it's not jibberish. Peace ✌️.

[@matthewwilliams8969]

Who was have that great party upstairs?

[@ManifestWistful]

Matter is there ur right sir

[@lawrencesynalovski9671]

If I remember well the experiment of the particles being watched acted differently, in a certain way proves matter has consciousness or the atoms of a specific composition according to it's attraction laws would interact with some elements and no with others. This I believe categorized matter as being conscious!

[@kammonkam4905]

There is no such thing. You are talking nonsense.

[@kammonkam4905]

There is no such thing.

[@theoschijf8155]

Here is an idea … we are missing something (Penrose) our theories are self inconsistent. We have been accepting this for a 100 years now … it is time for another meeting of great minds of today to come up with a new set of ideas for future scientists to put their teeth in. Yes, and make a nice picture with a 100 people in it, some of whom will be remembered in the future. Most scientists today have accepted what should not be accepted. Get to work please in stead of lecturing about the past incomplete ideas.

[@robertwhiteley-yv1sy]

Is there a concert next door. Audio is horrible.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

neither of then answered this ridiculous question. probably because they didn't expect the question could be this dumb.

[@inkfrogrfx]

The answer to the overarching question is, yes.

[@ReginaJune]

4:00 matter provides experience for the 5 senses - why else get so excited about stuffing a little source consciousness inside 8+B people?

[@ToriZealot]

just speculation

[@davidjones500]

The mind is a quality of matter that separates itself into "mind" and "matter" by nature of its subjectivity. In reality they are the same thing - both and neither; there is no distinction between the false concepts of substance dualism. Neutral Monism is the correct ontology.

[@TheOneArmadillo]

One can get very far to understand what Iain is saying, by contemplating entry level calculus, differentials, approximation - what is a line, a "straight" number - and the curve which involves an unknown number of harmonics of a circle, the constant [pi] has still not been approximated to it's end, with the best computers we have, it seems to keep going and going beyond the decimal point and to "do" so with seemingly perfect irregularity.

[@kammonkam4905]

Sorry that sounds like a bunch of gibberish. Iain is the master of word salad.

[@alistairmurray626]

pi has no end, it is irrational. If we really wanted to humans could spend their time and resources to build a computer that can compute pi to more and more decimal places, but the computer would end up having to be the size of the universe. What's the point when most engineers can get away with using 22/7. even on vast scales of the universe 15 decimal places is more than enough for accuracy.

[@justmbhman]

Huh?

[@michaelszabados3245]

what was it Dr. Samuel Johnson said? Dualism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, was it?

[@aaronbaca]

Can you miss this??? My profile photo is of a minotaur behind the left ear on the Statue of David. The black spot is the eye, it has a nose ring, hairy horn, big bottom lip and a goatee.

[@SkyDarmos]

What Penrose doesn't know is that general relativity is wrong in a much more serious way than quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is essentially correct. He got it the wrong way around.

[@KravMagoo]

You should contact the Nobel folks...no doubt they have a fat check with your name on it.

[@ReginaJune]

Is Roger wearing a hospital wrist id? Or did he just pry himself out of a pile (of hotties) at Mick Jagger’s place and that’s his pass?

[@real_ozzy]

He and Jagger go way back

[@babbarr77]

You’re missing Buddhism.

[@alex79suited]

Separate the infinite ♾️ vacuum space from the matter-verse, if you do this you will be working inside the infinite ♾️ vacuum space and this issue will disappear for you. Separate the 2 properties as they should be. Infinite ♾️ vacuum space/ matter-verse. When done with this let me know if you've run into any issues and i will help you. Peace ✌️

[@joostgolsteyn3193]

Mumbo jumbo 😂

[@thstroyur]

What are we missing? Being quite annoyed at the rejection of my letter on an alternative framework for a gravitational theory I just received this morning, which I'll now have to submit elsewhere, allow me to vent a bit and give you a glimpse of the publishing industry's standards; here's what the objective reviewer had to say: _Referee: 1 Comments to the Author The author introduces a new theory effectively replacing GR. The author should keep in mind that GR is a highly successful theory that describes basically all existing experimental results with highest accuracy. Any model that contradicts GR first has to show the same level of predictivity and accuracy. This is clearly not the case here. Furthermore, the author fails to demonstrate where the established theory fails, and his new theory gives a better description of nature. Even worse, as the author states himself, the model yields results that are not in agreement with GR and thus not with experimental data. The "arguments" brought forward by the author with respect to this are by far not convincing. The paper does clearly not comply with the required scientific rigorousness as expected by [redacted]. I cannot recommend publication._ That sounds bad, doesn't it? Well, for comparison, here's the abstract of the manuscript being lambasted without any real prospect of rebuttal (beyond a merely formal appeal that was not even addressed): _Based on the equivalence principle and guided by the geodesic equation in Minkowski spacetime, an alternative geometrical view of gravity is proposed, and within this framework the Newtonian limit is considered. The resulting transport equation is solved, and the deviation of its predictions for three key general-relativistic effects (namely, the gravitational redshift, the deflection of light, and the precession of perihelia) are quantified; in terms of the ratio of the present predictions by those obtained from General Relativity, the results are 1, 1/2 and 1/3 respec. The discrepancy in the last two is attributed to post-Newtonian contributions that have as of yet not been accounted for. We conclude with some brief comments on how this theory interacts with questions of astrophysical interest._ What are we missing? For starters, I could be a crackpot, or simply wrong; barring that though, there's the slight possibility that there might be some gatekeeping going on in academic circles/publishing houses - perhaps a risk-averse stance that is afraid of proposing and exploring new ideas, mired by a Procrustean vision of how scientific research is to be conducted and communicated? I'll leave you to decide.

[@ywtcc]

The politics of academia isn't always very democratic, and sometimes has features of an aristocracy. Having said that, at least you got a review! Did you consider trying metaphysics instead of physics? I try to contribute to the academic debate, but because of my perspective (and expertise), my kinds of physical theories are going to be more metaphysical than physical. It's a looser, more artistic standard, but physics is still downstream of metaphysics, believe it or not.

[@thstroyur]

@@ywtcc "Having said that, at least you got a review!" And I only had to wait a whole month for it - and even though it's only 5 pages long, the response doesn't convince me the reviewer bothered getting past the abstract; siiiigh. Speaking of metaphysics, yes I do care about it; I model gravity not as a metric tensor or tetrad field, but rather as a connection - much like it's done with _every other known force in the Standard Model._ It would be nice to get it published on a more philosphically-oriented place, but as luck would have it an editor of one such journal explicitly told me he'd straight up dispense the same treatment given here. Everywhere you go, it's always this same condescending attitude towards 'outsiders' - the same perish-or-publish, rat race mentality that produces no innovation in the foundations of physics. And these outlets have the _gall_ to lecture us on "Diversity & Inclusion", when you read their guidelines! So much for that!

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

​@@thstroyurThere's a lot of evidence that gravity doesn't obey the same "rules" as the rest of the standard model. Try emailing Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute. Also, in your paper if you didn't propose experimental TESTS to validate - or to take the Popperian view, falsify - your theory, you're probably not going to get far given the sheer VOLUME of crackpot submissions these journals get. I sympathize with your view but, alas, you are not the first (nor last) scientific explorer to have his ideas rubbished by the academic establishment only to be vindicated many years later. Einstein, believe it or not, went through this very same problem for several years. Max Planck apologized to the Berlin Academy of Sciences in his letter recommending Einstein to the Academy, stating something along the lines of "he must be forgiven for sometimes missing the target of his speculations as with his work on light quanta, for no great science can be accomplished without risk." (I'm paraphrasing, th exact quote deviates a bit but that's the gist). Planck unwittingly was giving Einstein, not himself, primacy over the idea of light quanta because he ASSUMED it just HAD to be wrong. (Something you are kind of dealing with by referees who didn't bother to assess your paper with any real rigor). Bohr, the great Danish physicist, made fun of Einstein's idea of light quanta, thinking it was preposterous, quipping that if Einstein's idea of light quanta turned out to be true, he would "congratulate him by sending him a telegram." The joke being that Telegram technology relied on the premise that light/EM was a wave and NOT a particle. Or even Einsteins paper on quantum entanglement (the famous EPR paper) which was rebutted by Von Neumann who purported to have shown that quantum mechanics was inviolable - only for the great Von Neumann's paper to be debunked by a brilliant female physicist (who was ignored for years because of her gender), only for later scientists to realize "wait, this Von Neumann paper is actually wrong." Gate-keeping is definitely a problem and seems to be a circular phenomenon. As Einstein said: "To punish me for my contempt of authority, God made me an authority." 😂 Keep at it bro! Publish in metaphysics journals, publish it on Reddit. Try to develop a rapport with physics professors (who, surprisingly, will email back if you display some recognition/familiarity with work they've published). Because they might actually take it seriously and go "oh wow, he's actually on to something." Peace bro.

[@drummersagainstitk]

Matter, consciousness, creativity, flow, perception... Language being used in a very archaic way. This is called babbling.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

materialism: a tradition of thought in which all things that exist are made up of matter in some way. To update this theory it might be restated that all existence is made up of energy in some form, since matter is a form of energy; a form of philosophical monism that holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. Materialism is closely related to physicalism - the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, the term “physicalism” is preferred over “materialism” by some, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous. Cf. “Idealism”, “panpsychism”, and “monism”. Essentially, materialists believe that human consciousness and its emanations - the ability to travel outside our planet, the sublime compositions of Bach and Beethoven, the great Sanskrit epics of ancient Bhārata (India), superhuman mathematical aptitude, sacrificial love, mystical experience, and ingenious technological inventions - are ultimately the consequences of some kind a physical particle of tangible matter, or possibly some kind of physical field (or strings). In other words, materialists/physicalists are deluded, abject fools. “Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself.” Arthur Schopenhauer. matter: that which can be perceived by a subject. See also the entries under “gross matter” and “subtle matter”, below. Cf. “physical”. matter, gross: any physical object, that is, any object or set of objects which can be perceived via at least one of the five sense organs of the (human or non-human) body. Cf. “subtle matter”. matter, subtle: the three subsections of consciousness (i.e. mind, intellect, and pseudo-ego). Cf. “matter”, “gross matter”, and Chapter 05.

[@dewiwilliams4821]

Says the chap who can't even use archaic in correct context, don't be so pretentious all your life.

[@jewulo]

@@dewiwilliams4821 What was wrong with the sentence? Could you offer a clear explanation of what he did wrong?

[@dewiwilliams4821]

@@jewulo I did, first sentence

[@drummersagainstitk]

Accuracy in place of intellect. Archaic: Having the characteristics of LANGUAGE of the past (50's-60's) and surviving chiefly in specialized uses. Chap. Pretentious indeed. @@dewiwilliams4821

[@Parasmunt]

Roger Penrose comes on and the question is 'is everything in the universe material' and a minute later everyone is woaw wtf is going on? No disrespect to the great man but he does go off on tangents like the stereotype professor.

[@michaelfried3123]

what's the deal with the hip hop music playing in the background? how am I to take this talk seriously when it sounds like a party is going on nearby? thumbs down.

[@kevinpruett6424]

That's just the collective pulse of the crowds' anticipation and exuberance!

[@michaeljacobs5342]

The brain of man is a product of universal higher inteligence the universal unifying field of all nature is the same unifying field that combines the various functions of the brain being both digital and analogue, a particle being a detail of a wave.

[@MontyCantsin5]

What exactly do you mean by ‘’universal higher intelligence’’? We have no evidence whatsoever that something exists in the universe that is capable of greater levels of intelligence than the human brain.

[@TheLuminousOne]

@@MontyCantsin5 are you blind. Look at the works of nature.

[@tomdocherty3755]

And of course we are nature, a product of the Universe.

[@TheLuminousOne]

@@tomdocherty3755 yes, an idea, a conception, a design of a Universal Intelligence/Consciousness.

[@michaeljacobs5342]

@@MontyCantsin5 The brain of man is not the creator of intelligence, but a processor of information that must precede development, that is what intelligence is, knowing in advance of formation. Every element of the human anatomy first exists in nature, this information is then processed by the brain that is connected to the universal unifying electromagnetic field as the mechanism of the unifying bond of creation.