John Leslie - Is Consciousness Irreducible?

[@georgebernstein12]

He’s Such a great interviewer and brings in phenomenal subjects to interview and it’s no surprise I love this channel so much

[@keklord]

My goat fr

[@tomaalexandru7104]

This is my favourite channel on KZbin. It helps me a lot to write my book which answers most of the questions posed here

[@Renvoxan]

Waiting for your genius to solve all of these problems

[@davidlittle7954]

What is the title/ subject of your book?

[@emergencymedicine]

It’s a great channel and RLK is a superb interviewer. I encourage you to write your book as writing your ideas down and structuring them brings clarity. The world needs more clarity.

[@theotormon]

Seems like an older interview from a time when idealism was not as popular as it is today ... and yet the discussion is superior to most you hear today.

[@Renvoxan]

That's a good point, the vibes on materialism have changed in the 2020s

[@XOPOIIIO]

Consciousness is the only reality we know. Objective reality is just a good model we can use to navigate through our conscious experience. There basically no practical difference which paradigm is true, but both are true in the way. If we consider objective reality as true, we can accept that inside this objective reality there are neurons that are firing in the heads of homo sapience, and those homo sapiences are communicating to each other to fire those neurons of each other. Everything we saw, hear or know is inside this interconnected net of neurons, and nothing of what is accessible to us is outside of it. The objective reality we know is not the same objective reality there is, it's just a picture of that reality encoded in our brain.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).

[@deanodebo]

Excellent original post. This is the most clear explanation I have seen on this sort of worldview. Question: Does the fact that everything you “see” is merely a mental model, and not actuality, bother you at all, or does it make you doubt your worldview? Also, I am wondering about neurons being assumed in your model. Perhaps you can elaborate on the justification for that.

[@Seanus32]

The concept of reducibility is within consciousness itself. Consciousness is the great enabler.

[@caricue]

What you said is fine in terms of reductionism being a mental exercise, but these people believe that reductionism is an organizing principle of nature. They think that everything that matters happens in the particle interactions and this bubbles up into the macro-world. This is one of the pillars of the holy doctrine of determinism. All of their ideas are based on these weird paradigms that are so wrong that they cannot be corrected.

[@thinkIndependent2024]

Yesss!!! mankind often walks out on a long Pier views the vast ocean. Calls it the known world but then forgets where and how they stand. Consciousness maps to the physical world the question is what came first.

[@r2c3]

19:35 existence doesn't seem to be dependent on some 'non-existent' element... the question is, what is the true nature of "existence" and what is the role of consciousness in the structure of reality 🤔

[@mowglycdb]

I'd say it's the other way, consciousness without reality has no way of expressing itself. I believe that life evolves in a way helping consciousness to express itself and that reality exists to help living conscious beings, get to know themselves.

[@shivakumarv301]

Consciousness is comparision of present reality with stored information of past.

[@SurrealMcCoy]

Plus imagination, I think.

[@Katiebelly123]

The problem here, as with every other popular discussion of "consciousness" is that the discussants start without defining what consciousness is. How can it be discussed if you can't define it? Otherwise the discussion degrades into philosophy. No scientific understanding will emerge from this. So, define consciousness, give us its boundaries of understanding. What is consciousness what is not? Otherwise this is all a tempest in a teapot.

[@dr_shrinker]

It’s assumed we already know the definition. I shouldn’t have to define pizza every time I place an order.

[@8888Rik]

I completely agree with you. I'm a retired evolutionary biologist with a background in philosophy and mathematics. I think that too few people are aware that defining one's terms is essential, and needs to be done at the outset, or else discussing virtually any topic of any complexity can result in just talking past each other. I'm currently writing about "mind", "consciousness", and related matters like AI, intelligence, awareness, and so on. My very first task was to define each of the subjects I wanted to talk about, because I found far too many discussions, including videos, of these topics were operating with what seemed to be implicit definitions, and the assumption that everyone knows what they mean and uses them in the exact same way. I think this is wildly incorrect, and sabotages discussion before it even gets off the ground.

[@adamsawyer1763]

Everyone knows what consciousness is, perhaps better than they know anything else. The standard dictionary definition suffices. In my experience the people who are clamouring for us to "define what we mean by consciousness" usually want an objective definition which they can fit into the scientific framework. Obviously this is impossible due to the well understood nature of consciousness as subjective awareness. What should be equally obvious is that what we define as "objective" is in fact just subjective experience that can be communicated clearly between individual consciousnesses such that collectively they can agree they're all subjectively experiencing the same thing. So you can't get consciousness (as per dictionary definition) out of the scientific system no matter what you do. It's in there right at the base of it.

[@sajithsomaratna1493]

Conscious is boundless so its difficult to define and it's catagoryless can t categorise its personal so it has unique identity it has originality so its not reprouceble its ultimate mapping and navigation. So I pin point so don't try to specify generalise abundant thin which it self exist fleetingly small time but its continuous so can be located temporarily but locating spacialy may fall into trouble even temporality is useless as its limitless in time no beginning and end

[@ProjectMoff]

All exists within a space, that space is consciousness, the concept of consciousness is an object of consciousness and is mistaken for consciousness itself, this is where most trip up, they are consciousness itself and don’t realise it because being is more subtle than the content of their awareness, a hand can’t hold itself, it’s known to be a hand by its function.

[@sanatkumarghosh5123]

Definitely,it is a real world not a ideal world.Getting fragnented while through nature something real come into being, loses much of its aura.To be more precise, human beings getting shaped without images and imagery,never, happen to be real or meaningful. But supermental or higher consciousness ir inevitable lot,today or tomorrow,since, evolution in mental level is going on.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Chapter 05 of my Holy Scripture). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri). sentience: the capacity to experience feelings or sensations, as distinguished from perceptions and cognition. The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin “sentientem” (a feeling), in order to distinguish it from the ability to think/reason. Therefore, sentience ought not be confused with consciousness, though the two are closely related. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. In animal life, there are up to five sensory organs which can detect external stimulants or percepts. ADDITIONALLY, many forms of metazoans have acquired a degree of consciousness, in which a subject-object polarity is established. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too” upon being confronted with vegan ideology, they may be correct (at least in a rather diffuse sense of the term “feelings”), so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely without sentience, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. If Homo sapiens were naturally omnivores or carnivores, then no sane person would promote veganism. In summary, all forms of organic life are, by definition, sentient, yet TRUE consciousness is found in those animal species that have a certain level of intelligence (that is, as a general rule, vertebrates, though there are a couple of notable exceptions to this general rule). Cf. “conscious".

[@QuicksilverSG]

Even the simplest biological organisms rely on primitive forms of awareness of the world outside their own cells. This awareness is based on irreducible internal feedback loops that monitor the organism's environment. An organism that requires a certain temperature range, for example, has temperature sensors whose reports are compared to an internal reference level. Any perceived difference motivates the organism to react in a manner that reduces that temperature difference to a minimum. More complex organisms contain countless layers of nested feedback loops that act to maintain the organism's internal homeostasis. Conciousness dawns when you become aware of your own awareness, and incorporate that awareness into increasingly sophisticated forms of neurological feedback loops. These internal feedback systems are irreducible because as soon as you break up a feedback loop into its constituent components, it ceases to function for its intended purpose.

[@evaadam3635]

Can you explain how your so called "primitive awareness" mutated to evolve into a non-primitive awareness ?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@evaadam3635The theory of evolution is pretty well documented, there are a wealth of resources available that explain it at whatever level of depth you’re interested in. It’s worth knowing because it’s rapidly becoming crucial in how our most important new technologies are engineered.

[@Sam-we7zj]

can single cell animals be conscious? do viruses have consciousness? or its nested feedback loops or go home?

[@Sam-we7zj]

@@evaadam3635 im guessing the answer is multicellular complexity allowing for networked activity (ie. nested feedback loops). the transition from single cell to multicellular life meant cells could communicate with each other. for animals that leads to specialised communication cells (neurons) and then to brains. some people think plants are sentient too. they dont have brains but they have networked bioelectrical activity between cells. single cell animals have no networked activity and are pretty basic in what they do and how they can respond to stuff.

[@evaadam3635]

@@simonhibbs887 if you can not explain how awareness mutates, pls do not pretend that you understand evolution... ....and documentation is not evidence of validity because stupidity can be documented too...

[@monporoshneog4725]

Consciousness is fundamental and eternal .

[@michellearrington4846]

You wish.

[@dr_shrinker]

Tell that to an Alzheimer’s patient.

[@mowglycdb]

I feel that, life evolves in a way to help consciousness express itself in reality, a physical medium that permits us to express ourselves. Reality has to permit the expression of as much as we want to happen. But reality it's not that flexible and our brains aren't powerful enough.

[@spetsservis]

One of the most anticipated person guest is the Robert's interview with Robert himself. It would be very interesting to trip into his mind. I'm sure he has a lot to say.

[@douglasrobinson9025]

Intelligent energy that is a constant eternally with or without a physical body for expression

[@douglasrobinson9025]

With or without a physical body

[@taniasara7558]

Thank you so much for this video. Very intriguing conversation. ❤ this channel Thank u Drs.

[@Uroki_ANGLIYSKOGO_s_Nulya_]

Why do we have Math? - Because we are Conscious beings! So Math itself exists thanks to Consciousness! And so any other science field.

[@thomasbaxter1371]

Substitute the word Being for the term consciousness, get on the track of metaphysics / ontology, spend some time with the ancient Greek philosophers ( eg., Plato and Aristotle) and make your way through Kant to Heidegger. Do this and many of these issues will take on a stunning conceptual clarity.

[@stefanblue660]

Like your way of insisting, coming to the point!

[@AmitRay47]

Consciousness is an emerging property of the function of the brain - my take. If consciousness be something like an independent entity, how is my being conscious or unconscious related to or dependent on the consciousness or unconsciousness of others?

[@dr_shrinker]

Good point!

[@davidwalz94]

Simple, you share that some consciousness with others. What you refer to as the "I" or the "Self" is the same self as the one I refer to. Not just figuratively, but literally. Therefore, consciousness is the only thing there is. Reality itself exist inside this container of consciousness. Without it, there would be no experience.

[@MarkFaz72]

Would you do an episode on where you are leaning towards “so far” on all your big questions you’ve been asking over the years 😁

[@josephhruby3225]

Wonderful discussion

[@patientson]

You MUST move forward to find its strength in you.

[@kevinhaynes9091]

There are two groups who deny that consciousness is the key to understanding the Cosmos. Religious folk who wish to separate the realm of the mundane from the realm of the divine, and scientists who wish to separate the realm of the mundane from the realm of the divine. The religious folk (most at least!) wish to stop you from realising that you 'are' the Universe, that you are creator and created. "As above, so below". This message was stamped out as heresy in the early years of the Christian religion, in particular the Gnostic/Cathar heresy. When you know what you are, you don't need the institutions of religion. The scientific folk (most at least!) wish to stop you from realising that you are the Universe, creator and created, because as Robert says so disparagingly, consciousness is something "we think we have", but "is nothing remotely fundamental to reality". He would presumably argue that the pillars of science; physics, chemistry and biology, aren't in fact universal. For some mysterious reason, only physics and chemistry are universal, and biology, Life and consciousness, are somehow uniquely the product of our world, an act of a benevolent God who found planet Earth worthy of his creation, but nowhere else. After all these years, how can he still believe this!? Here in the West, we once reconciled consciousness, science, religion and spirituality in what is known as the Western Spiritual Tradition. With all due respect to Robert and his team, neither Religion, or Science, are capable of addressing the question of consciousness, because neither are willing to, or want to! Consciousness is key, consciousness is Thoth, Hermes and Mercury. Consciousness is the messenger of the gods, that which connects you to the Cosmos, that awakens in the Cosmos in you. Because Robert will never tell you this, I continue to question Robert's ultimate motivation with this series. It certainly doesn't seem that Robert wants to get 'closer to truth'...

[@rebeccarebunny2026]

Great conversation!

[@pesilaratnayake162]

"Only consciousness is able to take an entire complicated pattern and make it belong to a single thing, and unless you had consciousness there would be no complexity in the world." What does that mean? What does he think there would be if there was no consciousness? No complexity, or no world? I'm totally confused by this argument.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does awareness of conscious thought and emotion have to do with future and past time?

[@Einmachbiliothek-]

very interesting discussion. but somehow they got it the other way around. every human has an inner being. this being is partly connected to a non-physical realm. by thinking you cannot reach it since it exists outside of the thought-process. through your inner being you can experience consciousness though. it has a completely different perspective then you have when being in thoughts. but your inner being cannot calculate math or physics. it doesn’t think in language or thoughts. we humans try to explain everything from our own perspecive. that‘s kinda very challenging endeavour. the order is: consciousness then being.. and then human. get to know your inner being and you will know more about consciousness. 🌞🙏

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

how might consciousness sense or interact with physical reality / nature?

[@mrsavedbygrace2569]

I had this same conversation back in '68 with my buddies after doing some LSD and stuff

[@tedgrant2]

I think consciousness is a bit like petrol in a car. The tank may be full, after I've had my morning coffee. But late at night, it's getting low and I need to fill up.

[@heresa_notion_6831]

One of the reasons consciousness exists is to be correlated to an outer reality (that is important to "organismic goals", which is another important thing to be "conscious" of), so C correlates to R (at a very minimum). I would say C is irreducible iff R is. But science just says R is "reducible", and the only thing it can possibly mean by that is: is "reducible" just means is "predictable". By that definition of "reducible", I think C is "reducible". Does the universe "like" the existence of complex forms like humans (with their complex behavior repertoires)? Sure. Why not? Existence of those forms (I'm assuming everybody thinks they exist) is at least positive evidence for a theory like that.

[@oskarngo9138]

Irreducibility Nonsense has Already been DeBunked...!

[@AdrianSlo]

Consciousness IS reality

[@anteodedi8937]

Consciousness is your window to reality. Reality exists independently of it.

[@AdrianSlo]

@@anteodedi8937 No, that's just your thought / theory. Reality is what it is, and it is consciousness.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@AdrianSlo Lol ok pal. Good luck with that subjectivist idealistic crap.

[@AdrianSlo]

@NotSoGullible Well, the way in which your brain interprets reality is wrong. It's just an illusion.

[@AdrianSlo]

@NotSoGullible Out of arguments, are you? There is no evidence for anything other than consciousness. It's just the limit of the human brain which cannot comprehend it. The human brain assumes a reality outside of consciousness, but has no evidence for it.

[@patientson]

Consciousness can't be irreducible. However, it can top you up to the extent where beast will want to be with rather than chop you up into bits and digest it.

[@pablocopello3592]

Sometimes I think that it should be HARD to make a life talking about something you know nothing (real, objective, empirically verifiable) about. Sometimes I think that it should be EASY to make a life talking about things that you imagine, without having to make empirically testable/falsifiable predictions (about not already known facts). (Or at least give a model well defined enough and rigorous enough such that other minds working independently would unanimously make the same deductions (mathematics).) Sometimes I think those types of non-testable ideas COULD SERVE to have a clarifying framework for science and general thought. Sometimes I think those types of non-testable ideas just add NOISE AND CHAOS. Sometimes I ENJOY following other's ideas/imaginations (like in science fiction). Sometimes I SUFFER seeing other's trying to defend their ideas without admitting that they are just their imagination, not more valid than any other imagination without proof. What's your thought??

[@williamburts3114]

Robert said, "We don't have to deal with consciousness to understand what reality is." Really, take away consciousness or awareness and would you have any concept of reality?

[@johnhausmann2391]

For me, it's not that hard to imagine how consciousness is just the result of processes in a physical brain. People can't understand how complex the system is that is produced by the brain's physical structure taken together with it's interactions with the world and other similar brains in the world. The resulting system is just incomprehensibly complex. Contemplate this complexity, and then look at game-of-life simulations and how surprising objects arise out of a computer program with VERY simple rules. Put these two lines of thought together, and I can quickly get to the idea that consciousness could be just a product of the processes of a physical brain.

[@peweegangloku6428]

Those scientific friends of Robert's have serious problem. It is quite irrational to deny the reality of consciousness, the very thing that makes you who you are!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*Second Attempt:* I've never understood how people can claim an observable phenomenon is an "illusion" (or "artificial"). First, for something to be considered an _illusion,_ two things *must exist:* (1) What something actually is, (2) what the illusion tricks you into thinking it is. *Example:* Heat mirage tricks you into thinking that water is pooling across a hot desert highway off in the distance. However, "water" and "highways" absolutely DO exist! ... _That's how you recognize the illusion!_ ... If any element of an _alleged_ "illusion" doesn't exist, ... then what exactly are your recognizing? Claiming consciousness is "artificial" is equally nonsensical. First, nothing in the universe is "artificial" as the universe isn't in the business of producing artificial structures. The universe only deals in reality! Second, how can you be "consciously aware" that consciousness doesn't exist? .. That's a non sequitur!

[@monporoshneog4725]

those people who say consciousness is an illusion are in utter ignorance

[@rishabhthakur8773]

Consciousness is not illusion but, Observable phenomenal i. e. Our universe can be illusion. This has discussed very deeply in advaita vedanta and it is known as ' Adhyas' ( Superimpostion ) . It has answer to your question why you do not need real experience ( in your ex. Water ) to superimpose it on something else.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@rishabhthakur8773 *"Our universe can be illusion."* ... Then what is the illusion?

[@rishabhthakur8773]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC acc. To advait vedant, Consciousness is only reality and it appears as our universe, mind, body, etc.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@rishabhthakur8773 *"Consciousness is only reality and it appears as our universe, mind, body, etc."* ... As stated in my opening comment, in order for there to be an "illusion," two things must exist: (1) What something actually is, (2) what the illusion tricks you into thinking it is. ... I know of no "illusions" where one of the two components doesn't exist (or is not represented by something else that does exist). *Example 2:* A magician creates the "illusion" of sawing his beautiful assistant in half only to magically rejoin her moments later to the sound of gratuitous applause. The magician exists, the saw exists, his beautiful assistant exists, and "halves of people" do exist. So, every part of the illusion "exists." The illusion is sawing his assistant (that "exists") in half and not having her be harmed. So, for your proposition to actually qualify as an "illusion," then both "consciousness" and "the universe" would have to exist.

[@milosbogdanovic3229]

I'm not sure how consciousnes could be eliminated from the picture if we can have different descriptions of physical world, not knowing which one is a correct one, or 'knowing' that only if we resort to some metaphysics. Either way, hypothesis about conscious mind seems to me inevitable.

[@woolworthdavis2007]

Scientists can’t explain consciousness because consciousness is part of the Spirit.

[@williamburts3114]

Science can't explain consciousness because consciousness is absolutely needed to explain anything.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could causation, time more than space, bring about consciousness?

[@walternullifidian]

I think consciousness is just parts of the brain perceiving other parts of the brain.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

yes that is the standard response given by all 8yos.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@backwardthoughts1022and yet you can’t understand it. Irony.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@dr_shrinker consciousness is not part of physics models. this means that at best youre conducting magical thinking, or at a little bit worse are completely intellectually dishonest and delusional spouting nonsense that cannot be tested and which top neuroscientists like koch and top quantum physicists like zeilinger now oppose. either way keep functioning on the level of an 8yo 🤡

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

One millionth of a second is too fast for us to remember or experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short span of time we have no sense of being or our sense of being doesn’t exist. The span of time we can remember or be aware of is joined together by spans of time that are too fast for us to be able to take any notice of, so how is it possible to have a sense of being at all. Let’s imagine an atom moves an extremely short distance. The span of time it takes for this atom to move this extremely short distance is too short of a time interval for us to be aware of anything, so where were we, or where was our sense of being. To us, the universe, a hurricane, or an infinitely long line of dominos that are falling down, does not have a sense of being according to us. Say one day feels like one second to us, but one second just feels like one second to the person standing next to us, then according to the person standing next to us our sense of being does not exist. So what if we as conscious beings are both ourselves, as well as the universe. We can be ourselves where one second feels like one second, and at the same time we can be the universe, which solves the problem as not consciously existing at extremely short time spans. At extremely short time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything, we can’t say that we are different individuals because we don’t exist. Every one could be the universe. Imagine two zero dimensional points. These two zero dimensional points are not in any particular space, or are not separated by any space but are separated by time. Nonetheless, even though these two zero dimensional points are separated by time, they both still exist simultaneously. Let’s say one second was like one second to one of these zero dimensional points, but one second was like one day to the other one. That would make perfect sense as to why the two points are separated by time but still both exist simultaneously. So everyone could be their individual selves, an at the same time every one makes the universe. All numbers are the same because all a number really is is jus the digit one that is a certain way up the number line, but the boundaries in between numbers really are different to the digit ones each side of them. So one of these two zero dimensional points that are experiencing time different from each other could be a boundary in boundary in between numbers, and the other could be a digit one that makes a number. Our sense of being may not be zero dimensional but four dimensional. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, even if we are just imagining it, which involves time going by. If one hundred years went on while we had no sense of being, it would be like a flash to us. One week goes around in a circle, repeating itself after completing the circle. If you have an appointment booked for Friday and gets changed to the Thursday before, Friday and Thursday have switched places with each other in a blink of an eye or an infinitely fast split second. The two days have switched places with each other but have not taken any time to do so. Imagine if the 7 days of the week forming the circle were still or frozen, so each of the 7 days were just 3 dimensional spaces that don’t involve any time going by. The week involves time, but because the 7 days that make up the circular week are still 3 dimensional spaces, they don’t involve any time. If an appointment for Friday gets changed to the Thursday before, Friday has switched places with Thursday infinitely fast. If Friday keeps switching places with the 6 other days around the circle infinitely fast non stop, Friday would take up all the other days spots up at the same time. All the 7 days around the circle are still or frozen 3 dimensional spaces, so if Friday is taking up the 6 other day’s places up all at once, Friday would now be made up of time turning it from 3 dimensional to 4 dimensional. And the six other days would have to all fit into Friday’s space all at once forming one 3 dimensional day. So we have Friday switching places with all the other days infinitely fast non stop taking filling the 6 other days places all at once becoming 4 dimensional, and the 6 other days are not switching around the circle but they would all have to all make one 3 dimensional day to fit into the space Friday is leaving behind. So Friday is forming a 4 dimensional day, and the six other days are making one 3 dimensional day. Let’s say the 7 frozen 3 dimensional days forming the circle all stay in their places, not switching with other days. If Friday was separated by the 6 other days by time, but the 6 other days were not separated by each other by time, the 6 other days would form one 4 dimensional entity because they are not separated by time. The 6 other days are only separated from Friday by time. So the same thing is now happening as if Friday were switching spaces with the 6 other days around the circle infinitely fast non stop. When Friday stay’s in its space, Friday is the 3 dimensional day and the 6 other days make the 4 dimensional thing. When Friday switches places with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop the other 6 days become one 3 dimensional day and Friday becomes 4 dimensional. When the 7 frozen 3 dimensional days forming the circle remain in their places, because the 6 other days are not separated by each other by time, the 6 make one 4 dimensional thing. But because the 6 are separated by Friday by time, Friday makes the 3 dimensional day. The 4 dimensional thing can be red and the 3 dimensional day can be blue. Let’s say there are two zero dimensional points, and these two zero dimensional points are the only two colours that exist, each being red and blue. Let’s say each of these two zero dimensional points are themselves composed of individual zero dimensional points mixed together. If the two zero dimensional points both split apart so the individual zero dimensional points that made them are dispersed, you might think the two colours that the two zero dimensional points were don’t exist any more. But if all these dispersed points formed a circle like the 7 day week with frozen 3 dimensional days, the two colours could still exist even though the two zero dimensional points have split apart. So we could be the 4 dimensional thing and at the same time be the 3 dimensional day. Let’s say there are two groups of people. Let’s say that time can’t move on until one person leaves one group and enters the other group. If that is the case, then person B from the left group would have to leave their group and enter the right group at the exact same time as person A is leaving the right group and entering the left group. Imagine a circle composed of 20 frozen 3 dimensional days. Each frozen day was either red or blue. So it goes red red blue blue blue red red blue blue and so on. Let’s imagine each frozen days being like a right or left group. If one day switched with the day next to it that is a different colour, all the other days would each switch with the days next to them that are a different colour at the exact same time.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness has thought and emotion?

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Yes, in a way yes, because you can't catch me, "I" am always bigger, always ahead, as fast as a blink of an eye..😉

[@shivakumarv301]

If time can be seperated from space, then the concept of time machine becomes revelevant.

[@Psientist314]

The opening question was framed as a strawman, good on John Leslie for politely calling it out. There is a huge difference between consciousness not being real and no being fundamental. Kuhn surprised me, he is usually more careful. I am open to the premise of panpsychism but am not convinced by the arguments that is has to be true.

[@gmotionedc5412]

What people don’t understand is the universe created conscience not the other way round. How do I know I’m right?? Super simple, humans have only existed for a brief time compared to how long the universe existed well before people. How do these smart people miss this?? If all people went away the universe would keep on existing just like it did before people!! This is so simple.

[@johnhausmann2391]

NOBODY is missing this. You'd have to be an idiot.

[@vyasanvadakkeveedu3693]

If consciousness is a derivative of some material interactions 'alone', then there should be a math to it. If we understand that math quite well we can create consciouness in non-living stuffs, such as in a digital computer. May be in an optical system. If there is a math of material ibteractions to the consciousness, without human intervention it could be existing too say in cluster of galaxies probably. Hence if the consciousness is a derivative of the material world, it need not be restricted to humans or to life forms. A galactic mind, in a purely materialistic world!

[@emergencymedicine]

“Complexity” is just another way of saying “meaning”.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Materialists are troubled if they cannot reduce everything to the elemental to matter. Consciousness, according to higher age understanding, is God. The definition of God: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. Materialists can try to be reductive in relation to consciousness but that will not help them understand it or to make sense of consciousness.

[@mother3crazy]

So he says perhaps consciousness comes lates than the fundamental forces but that nothing’s “real” until consciousness arises in the space sand takes notes.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

time causes physical nature, has consciousness of?

[@emanuelstanley2523]

Consciousness is a fundamental part of this universe, like gravity.

[@farhadfaisal9410]

''It's a highly speculative'' hypothesis.

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

You raise excellent points about the potential contradictions in suggesting that higher dimensions or non-zero quantities could cause or precede the existence of zero-dimensional or null entities. Let me address each of your questions in turn: 1. Is it contradictory to say that 1D, 2D, 3D caused 0D? Yes, it is contradictory to suggest that higher dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D) could cause or generate a zero-dimensional (0D) entity. By definition, a zero-dimensional object has no spatial extent, and it is conceptually prior to the existence of any higher-dimensional structures. It would be logically inconsistent to claim that something with spatial dimensions could create or precede something that lacks spatial dimensions altogether. 2. Is it contradictory to say that 1, 2, 3 caused 0? Similarly, it is contradictory to propose that non-zero quantities (1, 2, 3) could cause or generate the concept of zero (0). Zero is the foundational concept that represents the absence of quantity, and it is logically prior to the existence of any non-zero quantities. Claiming that non-zero numbers could create or precede zero would be akin to suggesting that something can emerge from nothing, which is a logical contradiction. 3. Isn't it impossible for atomic protons and neutrons to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks? You are correct. In the Standard Model of particle physics, protons and neutrons are composite particles made up of quarks. Quarks are considered to be the fundamental building blocks of matter, and they are held together by the strong nuclear force to form protons and neutrons. Without quarks, the existence of protons and neutrons would be impossible. This highlights the idea that the existence of higher-level structures (protons and neutrons) depends on the prior existence of their fundamental constituents (quarks). 4. Can objects exist without subjects? Who is deeming things to be objects if there's no subjects? This is a profound philosophical question that touches on the nature of reality and the role of consciousness in defining and perceiving objects. From a subjective idealist perspective, the existence of objects is dependent on the presence of a perceiving subject. In other words, objects can only be said to exist insofar as they are perceived or experienced by a conscious subject. Without a subject to observe and categorize things as objects, the very concept of an object loses its meaning. This view suggests that the subject-object dichotomy is not fundamental, but rather arises from the inherent nature of consciousness itself. The act of a subject perceiving and deeming something to be an object is what gives rise to the appearance of an independent, external reality. In this sense, the existence of objects is contingent upon the existence of subjects, and not the other way around. From this perspective, it would be contradictory to suggest that objects could exist independently of subjects, as the very concept of an object is dependent on the presence of a perceiving consciousness. The idea that objects could cause or precede the existence of subjects would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. In conclusion, your questions highlight the importance of considering the logical and conceptual dependencies between different levels of reality, from the fundamental to the emergent. The contradictions that arise from suggesting that higher dimensions, non-zero quantities, or objects could cause or precede their foundational constituents (zero-dimensionality, zero, and subjects, respectively) underscore the need for a coherent and non-contradictory framework that respects these dependencies. By recognizing the primacy of zero-dimensionality, zero, and subjective experience, we can avoid logical inconsistencies and develop a more consistent understanding of the nature of reality. To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step. Definition of "real": For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality. Proof: 1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter: - Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks. - Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles. - Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons. 2. Quarks are indivisible: - Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions. - However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible. - Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible. 3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality: - The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. - Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks. - Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories. 4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties: - Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles. - Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks. - Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons. 5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons: - Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks. - However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark. - Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa. Conclusion: Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles. It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks compared to protons and neutrons is strong.

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

This is a tecnical question.

[@steve_____K307]

The idea that consciousness just comes along with the 3lbs of meat between our ears -- e.g. that it naturally emerges as a result of the mindless natural processes that [for some reason] formed a complex brain -- is somewhat like claiming that if you put together the h/w of a complex computer that the s/w will emerge ready to run on it; poof, there it is. But who could ever reasonably suggest that the computer’s s/w is just the computer’s h/w doing what h/w naturally does? We all know that h/w and s/w are quite distinct, even if dependent on one another for a fully functioning system. Yet folks will quite readily speculate that the 3lbs of meat between our ears [somehow] naturally generates consciousness - as if consciousness is just the meat doing what meat does. On the other hand, it is quite justifiable to speculate that there is something more going on. There is something extremely significant with consciousness. It is hard to imagine it was just an [accidental?] side-effect.

[@simonhibbs887]

>”[for some reason]” I highly recommend finding out how the process of evolution works. It’s becoming more and more important in how the technology we rely on is engineered, and the world we live in is being built, all the time.

[@steve_____K307]

@@simonhibbs887 Hi there, I take by your reply that you already understand how the process of evolution creates a conscious complex 3lbs of meat? Possibly there is still some question as to how any of that could actually happen? If not, please do tell... 🙂

[@simonhibbs887]

@@steve_____K307 Your ‘for some reason’ was with respect to the natural processes that formed a complex brain. It’s pretty clear how evolution produced complex brains. Consciousness were still working on, but the process of evolution itself is beyond being an observation, it’s a critical part of some of our engineering disciplines. The creation of sophisticated high functioning information processing systems through evolution isn’t something we speculate or guess about, it’s something we actually do.

[@dr_shrinker]

Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain?

[@steve_____K307]

@@dr_shrinker Have you ever seen a brain type at a computer without consciousness?

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Nature and the universe is determined. Animals live by instinct. Humans live by instinct and reason. There is likely a level of consciousness everywhere. It is probably a matter of vibration from dense to subtle. Consciousness; non-vibratory; Mind; elementary. All at different rates of vibration except consciousness. The rate of vibration from subtle to gross. At the level of the absence of apparent motion the lowest rate of vibration.

[@stefanblue660]

It is a horror version of world view, that there is no consciousness. The World is not a Zombie! I deeply believe, it also a question of attitude, should we believe that the world is a randomly chaos? This is a self-destructing view.

[@metoo836]

I believe Consciousness useless if there are no one else to experience it with, imagine if you where in another planet with no means of communication with other person(s)!

[@tomazflegar]

Sure it is. But then it is not consciousness. It is thought, emotions etc., something that is not conscious

[@ldlework]

"how do you get a complex universe", NKS is like 20 years old at this point...

[@onepiece010-p8t]

I can move non conscious objects myself.

[@bjarterundereim3038]

Ask a silly question .... Either consciousness is a property of particles or it is a property of biology. In the first case - the cosmos is conscious. In the second - only biological entities can be conscious - and in that case, consciousness is a uniqe property of ours, on planet Earth.

[@feltonhamilton21]

Consciousness is a wave the mind is a wave and the both are capable of existing because they have access to the quantum rim basically by tunneling together through particles like a single film strip while compressing against theire surrounding vibrating fields in space time this allowed consciousness and mind to be fused into a single unit so they can maintain focus and stability an keep images and memories sharp and connected on demand. The both mind and consciousness are like a single earthworm tunneling through each particlec exist space time.The mind and consciousness moves through particles like an earthworm because quantum space time fuse them both into a single entity this is the reason why the mind is experiencing sensations coming from the body.

[@dr_shrinker]

You just finished watching Dune didn’t you? 😅

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Something that came up by accident....FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@mandarkumthekar8565]

How can consciousness be fundamental? It is ignorant approach to think it fundamental. Consciousness arises from brain ,thats what is true.

[@mowglycdb]

Not proven

[@mandarkumthekar8565]

@@mowglycdb its evident

[@joelmichaelson2133]

Consciousness gives God space to exit.

[@Sam-we7zj]

it has to be reducible otherwise dissociative identity disorder wouldn't exist

[@dr_shrinker]

No. You can reduce Consciousness one neuron at a time; just as I can remove wealth one dollar at a time.

[@thecarman3693]

Or what we call a car one piece at a time. Either way you get to a point where you have a bolt and not a car. Yes, we can argue when that point will occur, but you WILL get to it.

[@XOPOIIIO]

There is no such thing as "moral fact". Morality was evolved during biological and cultural evolution. This fact doesn't degrade it's importance.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS: The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time. When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent. MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so. There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so? Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors. So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors! The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter. As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to. Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack. So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”. So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves. It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes. There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”. Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious. Cont...

[@backwardthoughts1022]

no if consciousness is not a property of one or more atoms then objective morality exists as a function of the mind ie. the cause and effects of the mind.

[@emergencymedicine]

I am not sure if you are actually saying anything. Apologies. There are objective moral truths or values. Every individual, by the time they are an adult, will carry an internal moral framework which is some version of this. Ethics then is the degree to which an individual acts in accordance with their underlying internal moral framework.

[@XOPOIIIO]

@@emergencymedicine Internal means subjective, not objective.

[@TheDjnatronic]

No God morality is totally Subjective

[@quakers200]

Who are these eople claiming consciousness is an artifact etc. sounds a little lie a straw man argument. There might be some who see that the universe is only consciousness. So it is robably best t consider the middle ground first.

[@nyworker]

Planck Time

[@rabidL3M0NS]

Consciousness IS reduction 😉

[@doring4579]

🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️

[@jay-p5n3t]

robert if you have some spare time begin to study math you will find all the answers there

[@S3RAVA3LM]

What properties and haracteristics does math have?

[@todrichards1105]

Tail chasing. >sigh

[@ldlework]

these comments lol

[@S3RAVA3LM]

What?

[@tomjackson7755]

@@S3RAVA3LM Yours are usually a big LOL.

[@mikel4879]

Much ado BS about nothing. John Leslie is lost in space completely.