Keith Ward - Why is Consciousness so Mysterious?

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

I'm not a believer in Christianity or other similar religions, but I resonate with views of this pastor. A diversity of views to chew on is a great thing about this channel.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Though there is too much of a focus on interviewing popularisers/celebrity figures

[@shinymike4301]

and yet we must ponder Conciousness with the very Conciousness we are pondering. Lots of Fun 👍

[@blijebij]

Question is, we assume we experience consciousness right, but to what degree? For example in sleep most of us are out cold. So how good are we as observers for observing our consciousness from within. As Eastern yogi can witness at least the inner states of sleep (wich cost then decades normally of training), wich is prob also not all we might be super shallow awakened and trained to witness our own consciousness.

[@vroomik]

for me the question is - can I outsmart myself? With the advent of AI systems my bets are bayesianly changing

[@thomassoliton1482]

Finally - someone I agree with. Start with “knowledge is what we are conscious of”. But can you know what consciousness is? Is C a form of knowledge? And if so, is the “knowledge” of consciousness itself? If I ask you “are you conscious”, presumably you will say yes - but how do you know you are? To say you are is to reflect on your memory of your conscious experiences and realize that a few moments ago you were experiencing something else. But where are you mentally when you do that? In your past / present. Your present experience of your immediate past. When you reflect on the past you are neither in the present nor in the past. And, as the Firesign Theater put it, “How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all?” You cannot “know” that state; it is not an objective form of knowledge like seeing a car or remembering driving your car this morning. Still, you experience that state all the time, everytime you think about something that’s in your working memory or in your past - and you know everyone else has that same experience. So we collectively have come up with a name for it - consciousness. It is never (or rarely if ever) the same for anyone, and you cannot recall it because that is precisely what it is - recall. So, to sum up, you can know what you know, and you can know what you don’t know, but you can’t know what you can’t know - and one thing you can’t know is consciousness.

[@ReynaSingh]

Before tackling such difficult questions, we should be clear on what is meant by consciousness

[@davidbrydon4288]

Go on then. Lol jk Do you think we should define it by physically or philosophically?

[@elonever.2.071]

@@davidbrydon4288 That is a good question. Similarly should a radio be defined by the physical apparatus or the signal? Max Planck said that matter is a conscious construct. So trying to understand consciousness from the firing of neurons in the brain is quite similar to examining the radio. We can see how different stimuli effect those firings and how damage to an area of the brain can interrupt the process of the neuron firings but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding what consciousness is. I think we should take Planck's statements to heart and start looking at consciousness as fundament and everything we see and talk about is a 'derivative' of consciousness. Our focus should be on the processes and functions of consciousness in such areas as thought, goal setting and achievement and how conscious observation alters the results of some experiments like the one sending photons through a double slit. It may be that we have to start out looking at consciousness philosophically until we gain some objective insight into what it is and where it originates.

[@simonhibbs887]

I'm a big fan of the common meaning of the term used by ordinary people, that's reasonably well captured in dictionary definitions. A decent attempt is "Awareness by the mind of itself and the world". This of course implicitly draws a distinction between consciousness and mind, these are not the same thing, but I often find that the Deepak Chopras of the world confuse and muddle these things up together. Consciousness is an activity, it's something we sometimes do to varying degrees. We are conscious while awake and to some extent while dreaming, but every night we go into deep sleep where we are completely unconscious. If you've ever been anaesthetised you know what I'm talking about. Yet we still get people claiming that consciousness is fundamental despite the fact that we literally stop doing it every night.

[@davidbrydon4288]

@@elonever.2.071 I agree but I'd like to add that if we study the radio waves enough we will see patterns and learn to interpret them. It's being done today in many different ways. My current favourite is the stent electrodes they place in your brains blood vessels which much better than drilling holes in our heads and putting in needles/electrodes. I suspect at the end of the day consciousness is nothing particularly special and we are lucky enough to have more than other species. We should probably use it for good.

[@michaelshortland8863]

I think the problem with consciousness is that it can not be observed, we might see effects that we subscribe to consciousness but consciousness itself is more like a belief than science. We have not observed it or weighed it, and do not really know what it is or were it comes from, so a lot of the theories about consciousness are more akin to religion than science.

[@daybertimagni4841]

Very true. Consciousness is more real than the physical as the physical is perceived through the filter of our consciousness. This is not an idea or theory, it is a fact. And, true for everyone.

[@0ptimal]

We have a major blind spot somewhere thats keeping us from seeing further. The answer to the consciousness riddle when reasonably understood is almost certainly simple, yet still profound. It surely aligns with already known fundamental truths, but in ways we are not seeing. Someone, or many someones, know through intuition what we will all know one day, but their voice is kept to a whisper because its simply not currently provable. Listen to the whispers, dont disregard the seemingly far fetched.

[@davidbrydon4288]

My pick... Blind spot = The Ego

[@simonhibbs887]

A lot of people are whispering a lot of vague platitudes, most of them very poorly thought out. How do you suggest we filter out the useful whispers from the nonsense?

[@dare-er7sw]

Consciousness is not of space and time. Life after death then becomes possible. It's all in the mind and mind exists in consciousness alone.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@dare-er7sw sure, but physicalists such as myself see no reason to assume life after death, so that argument is not compelling to us.

[@dare-er7sw]

@@simonhibbs887 Correct but then there are some pretty compelling near death experience accounts of people like Dr. George Ritchie, Eben Alexander, Betty Eadie, Dannion Brinkley, etc. I mean, how do you probe consciousness? It's not something physical. These accounts are maybe our best bet on what consciousness and nature of ultimate reality is, they say it's eternally existing life, an alternate POV where consciousness is the substance of reality. I know it sounds fanciful and ridiculous but could be true.

[@Ranca666]

This channel is a DELIGHTFUL constant source of mindfucks, and i am all for it.

[@playpaltalk]

My reality is telling that that picture hanging on the wall behind Dr. Kieth Ward needs realigment.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I can only speak for myself when I say consciousness is totally unique and MORE than brain. How do I know this? Well because I've had 3 Out of Body Experiences and various Lucid Dream states, whereby my consciousness was NOT inside my head. It was non-local, so to speak. Therefore, as much as I cannot convince the skeptics, and I wouldn't wish to anyway, I am 100% convinced Consciousness is very unique and fundamental in the universe. I never used to think such things as OBEs were possible. But it's real.

[@GS-wz9np]

Fascinating! :) But how can you know that your OBEs weren't just some kind of dream?

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@GS-wz9np I have dreams every night - I know the difference :)

[@horstschafer2378]

@@Dion_Mustard Me too!

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@horstschafer2378 you have had OBEs too? :)

[@kallianpublico7517]

Interesting tension. The "...pursuit of the good and the beautiful.." versus the search for coherence or foundations. Desire versus reason. If reality is a bargain between consciousness and self-consciousness, mediated by the insinct of "survival", then desire and reason are the time and space of reality. Desire implies the starting point by giving the destination: foundations; while reason navigates the way using pretexts/purpose: coherence. Are electrons a particle of matter or a desire to get somewhere from someplace else. Similarly, where are all those photons going? They're bouncing off of everything imparting and absorbing energy? Don't they get tired? Is there a place they all end up - the great photon attractor?

[@evaadam3635]

The fact that you have the power to even ask why consciousness is mysterious screams loudly that your consciousness is in fact mysterious... ..because, if indeed you are just simply physical matter driven by physical laws beyond control, not free like a programmed clueless robot, there is no way possible you would be free to ask any question while being bound by material science or physics all the time.

[@brothermine2292]

Or not free NOT to question.

[@simonhibbs887]

We already have software systems that can use heuristics to generate behaviours to examine and test the systems knowledge about the world. So software can generate questions in a meaningful sense. GPT-4 can be trained on a data set, and then generate questions that would meaningfully lead to answers that would expand that data set. We've got a long way to go with such technology but the basic principle of automatic systems asking questions to improve it's knowledge of the world is already verified.

[@123duelist]

​@@simonhibbs887GPT-4 can't do this without the aid of human consciousness. It needs human consciousness to be able to do all of that.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(3:45) *KE: **_It's not really a big surprise to say that human consciousness is connected to a wider, cosmic form of consciousness."_* ... It only takes one small cognitive step to think of consciousness as *information.* And if you can, then all of "Existence" opens up to you. Instead of thinking, _"What came before (fill in the blank)?"_ and _"What is more fundamental than (fill in the blank)?'",_ you simply accept that everything that is logically conceivable represents *information* (including consciousness). Then you use that big, physical brain of yours to deduce what the most minimalistic, logically conceivable representation of that information can be, and you start from there! The least amount of information that's logically possible is: *Existence = 1* *Nonexistence = 0* Everything has evolved from that basic archetypal assessment, and your self-aware consciousness is just the latest stage of its ongoing evolution. The same logic that gets you to a starting point of *0* and *1* also tells you that everything that follows must be _interconnected._ In other words, *_"What happens in existence stays in existence."_*

[@browngreen933]

True, because it has no other place to go.

[@markfischer3626]

Everything is mysterious until we understand it. We still don't understand gravity even though Newton discovered it over 350 years ago. We know what it does but not how it does it. When I was in my 20s, I thought about a question I couldn't answer. Having studied so many areas of science and engineering I'd learned, used, solved problems with using thousands of equations I'd been taught, memorized, developed skills with. But then I realized every one of them told me what would happen but not how things worked to make them happen. That's when I realized I didn't really know anything and it was no comfort to realize that neither did anyone else. But we keep trying. The first step to gaining knowledge is to admit to yourself what you don't truly understand which is just about everything. This is why it is so easy for me to challenge people who actually think that they know something. The deeper you probe them with questions, the more frustrated and angry they become. When they have nothing left to respond with except to call me names, that's when I consider that I've won my argument. Do you understand how networks work? Any networks? If you do then you should understand how they fail and how a failure at a single point can cause an entire network to collapse. I had to confront this question as part of my job 15 years ago when I was a director at a company that engineered mission critical data centers. The solution was expandable to explain how in 1965 the failure of a single transformer in Niagara New York brought down the entire northeast power grid of the United States and how 38 year later in 2003 the failure of a single electrical feeder in Ohio caused the same failure. The answer has ominous implications for the vulnerability of all networks including neural networks. The only defense I can see is massive reduncies and rapid containment of failures and controlled transition of surviving elements to prevent cascade overloads resulting in global network collapse. Those trying to economise are creating a real risk. However, in the case of biological networks including neural networks, unlike man made networks so far, they may be able to heal themselves. It was long believed that they couldn't but now we know we can generate new neurons to replace those that died while surviving neurons recircuit themselves to take over functions the dead neurons performed. Oddly this can be stimulated by human intervention using biomolecular science.

[@roberbonox]

when u say that "We know what it does but not how it does it" about gravity, and to be clear, Newton not "discovered" gravity, he materialize a rigorous mathematical explanation about the force of attraction but he said that the understand of how it actually communicate through vacuum was yet to be understood because he couldn't. In 1915 Einstein presented his general theory of relativity explaining how that "force" actually works and the solution is that it isn't a "force" rather is the bending of space-time due to energy and mass on that space-time fabric, so when u say that we don't know how it does it i'm a little bit confuse..

[@markfischer3626]

@roberbonox If you don't know the structure of space time how can you understand how it's bent? What's more it can't be reconciled with quantum mechanics. Based on our calculations of the observable mass of galaxies they should fly apart. There isn't nearly enough mass to hold them together. To fudge an answer the hypothesis of dark matter was invented. What is it? Where is it? What does it arise from? Nobody knows. So basically we don't really understand gravity yet. One of the most interesting things about physics is that more powerful instruments show us things that our most strongly held theories can't explain. Discoveries by the new James Webb Space Telescope is sending us images that both fascinate physicists and at the same time drive them nuts. In 60 years I've yet to encounter one that wasn't. My college roommate for two years was one.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@markfischer3626 I believe that a coherent Theory Of Everything is most likely achievable, bridging quantum mechanics and relativity. Even that won't answer your most fundamental question though, because we can always ask why that TOE? Why this kind of universe with this many dimensions as against some other? So I agree with you on that. I think this is just a fundamental philosophical limit. A lot of people, both scientists and those skeptical of science think that science is about discovering ultimate truth, and that 'physical laws' are somehow proscriptive and that these 'laws' are the reason why the universe is the way it is. I'm a physicalist and a determinist so I'm fully on board with the scientific project, but I see science very differently. For me scientific laws are purely descriptive. The physical world is persistence and consistent, and undergoes consistent physical transformations. The 'laws' we create are simply consistent mathematical descriptions of physical states and transformations of those states. That is all. mathematics doesn't dictate anything, it describes things. Some of it's descriptions correspond to real physical relationships, and most don't. It's the same with any language. So I don't have the ultimate answers, and I doubt they are achievable, but I think this perspective sets reasonable expectations of what science can or cannot do. The rest is philosophy, which I used to dismiss as fanciful speculation but since I seriously engaged with it Ive found it actually does offer some useful ways to think about and approach problems. On network effects, absolutely. Our civilisation is vulnerable in ways that are hard to quantify and reason about. I work in IT building and supporting highly complex critical systems as well. It's a tough challenge. Reading about chaos theory back in the day was really eye opening.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics: yes the CAUSE of gravity.

[@geralddecaire6164]

All of those physical discoveries could be hypothesized in principle. You cannot, even in principle, elaborate an explanatory, mechanistic and physical explanation for consciousness. I'm convinced that when the world looks like a scene out of Star Trek 1000 years from now, they'll still be debating the topic of consciousness.

[@User-kjxklyntrw]

What the relation between physical and conciousness, when we down the neurons to energy vibration field level, what the connection

[@SandipChitale]

It is unbelievable how many times people discuss the importance of the fact of their self awareness and ability of introspection and mistake it to say the obviousness of consciousness and its fundamental nature, and forgetting that their brains have to be in proper working condition when they discuss it. If their brain was under general anesthesia or was injured or dead, it is trivially true that they will not have self awareness and ability of introspection, duh, but also won't be able to discuss it in conversations like this. Try having a discussion of their consciousness with a person under general anesthesia or a dead person. And this obvious fallacy is understandable because for obvious reasons they can have these kinds of conversations only when their brain is in a functioning state. It is a self selecting situation. It is like the fact of working brain is hiding in plain sight. Some may dismiss this as a trivial point, but if you think about it, it is very fundamental to discussions like this. And idealism is worse because when under general anesthesia an individual is not self aware and conscious but others are able to see their brain albeit in not-conscious working condition.

[@browngreen933]

Very true. Not many dead brains post comments here. We are temporary biological entities with super monkey brain consciousness. But our imagination lets us think like gods.

[@ianwaltham1854]

A damaged brain can cause difficulty and confusion for the conscious mind but that does not prove consciousness is made by brains. As for general anesthesia and individuals who were temporarily dead with a flatlined brain. There is a lot of NDE testimony where people report that they were conscious in these situations. Examples: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKXElH6lfNuJqq8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpqzmaV6ha1ri5o

[@SandipChitale]

NDE is just that, Near Death Experience not after death experience. Biological death is not same as legal definition of death. When a person flatlines, they may be declared legally dead assuming CPR was either not administered or did not succeed. Some organs may biologically continue to work after declaration of legal death. And in fact, by definition the persons that report NDEs did not die. A traumatized brain, with possible low blood and oxygen supply that accompanies near death situations may generate hallucinations. There are no reports of NDE like experiences after a person is dead for 48+ hours.

[@ianwaltham1854]

​@@SandipChitale True, but NDE testimony is described as like being wide awake and clear headed. That is not the experience you would expect of someone who has stopped breathing. Lack of oxygen causes confusion not lucid experience. Also bear in mind the case of Howard Storm. He found himself walking about next to his hospital bed observing his own unconscious body. If you think consciousness is generated by brains then where did his mind get the information needed to construct an exact replica of the hospital room and the other people in the room? His body was apparently unconscious. The information wasn't coming from his eyes.

[@SandipChitale]

@@ianwaltham1854 Brain is capable of generating all kinds of imagery like what happens in dreams.

[@ezreality]

Good one Bob... Thank you...

[@alecingram4669]

could it be time to consider that consciousness is not a product of the brain, but the brain and matter instead just a product of consciousness? it could explain quantum theories and the weakness of gravity in some ways to other dimensions clearer than the ways we see now

[@simonhibbs887]

To be fair this is a very ancient view from Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. You will find plenty of commentators here that believe this. You'll also see me occasionally debating with them on CTT comments sections. I'll just comment on the relationship between consciousness and quantum theories, there really isn't one. Not in quantum mechanics itself anyway. Some people believe the other way around, that quantum mechanics plays a role in creating consciousness. Some people seem to promote both views by turns. whether it's coherent to hold both views simultaneously is left as an exercise.

[@davidrandell2224]

QM classicalized in 2010: Forgotten Physics website. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity.

[@vroomik]

@@simonhibbs887 “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be “Shut up and calculate!”

[@murraytoews5353]

Wouldn't it be prudent for the materialist to look into the enduring phenomenon (and claim) of a philosophical view of consciousness as an essential component to generating reality? Why would the materialist universe even bother with consciousness in the first place?

[@mikel4879]

murrayt5 • You're correct in your last sentence. The Universe does not "care" about consciousness at all. The general dynamic of the Universe doesn't favore it. Consciousness appears only in places where the local entropic processes are highly favorable.

[@djsahilking3807]

​@@mikel4879 you fool even to explain this you need consciousness 😂

[@simonhibbs887]

Well, of course the physicalist view simply takes our perceptions of a consistent, persistent world of our perceptions seriously. It says that we really experience actual perceptions and really are aware of things. It says that conscious perception matters, because it provides genuine knowledge of an experience that is real, and which has consequences beyond the moment. You can call the world we perceive whatever you like, 'the physical universe' or 'the world' are just labels. Physicalism simply says that we should take the knowledge our senses provide about this world, and the results of our choices and actions in that world as being significant, and apply reason to those experiences.

[@evaadam3635]

The freedom to ask questions can not be a property of a stone, or a rock, or any physical matter driven by natural laws. This is not what material science, or physics, taught us. The fact that consciousness is free to ask questions clearly proves that it is not physical, not bound by natural laws. That is why it is mysterious, as mysterious as a non-physical supernatural loving God, because it is free.

[@tajzikria5307]

He is absolutely on point

[@OfficialGOD]

Yes 🎉

[@missh1774]

Someone once said to me, "sometimes there is no reason for anything". It had taken nearly 16 months to understand what that means to me. I dunno what that say's about consciousness though.

[@Shivam-Kushwaha369]

Let me try to guess, so here *sometimes* is a situation and in that situation *there will be no reason for anything* , I think this is possible in the world of spirituality specially I am Hindu so here all materialistic things are just a part of matrix ( Maya) of God creation and when you'll focus on Spirituality all these things will have no value cause you'll understand the reality, a reality of Matrix and to get over it means we say it Moksha which mean freedom from all the things and get free from the cycle of getting born and dying because our Soul never dies it is our physical/materialistic body which dies and then that soul take birth into new machine (body). That's quite lengthy but hope I'm able to share my thought about this to you successfully.😊

[@kallianpublico7517]

Around 5:55 he states that "true human wisdom consists in bringing our consciousness into alignment with a greater consciousness..." and that to this end desire is more fundamental than reason because "...the pursuit of the good and the beautiful.." is the only thing that aids us on this quest. Reason helps you navigate a map in order to get to your destination. Whether you want to get there fast or take the scenic route. Reason doesn't help you though when deciding where to go. Only your starting point and desire helps with that. When your desire becomes a purpose reason again pops up. Everyone's starting point and desire are not the same. It would be a dull world if they were all equal.

[@MonisticIdealism]

People find consciousness mysterious because they try everything to explain consciousness rather than using consciousness to explain everything.

[@MonisticIdealism]

@@saigopala Through the metaphysics of idealism, which holds all of reality to be consciousness. I have videos if you'd like more info.

[@Promatheos]

Consciousness is the only thing that can’t be an illusion. Your body, your perceptions, your thoughts…it could all be a dream/matrix/hallucination. Awareness itself must be real. Awareness cannot be a fiction. That is why the only satisfying answer to what consciousness is must place it as the primary, fundamental reality and build from there.

[@Promatheos]

@Sai Gopel I personally use the words “mind” and “awareness” differently. Just as a candle illuminates many objects, awareness illuminates many minds. Your mind is your point of view, your thoughts, your perceptions…and awareness is the witness to all of it. It is the witness that stays the same when all thoughts and perceptions are always changing. I believe we are one awareness experiencing life through many points of view. I’m not a solipsist because that is the belief there is only one mind. There isn’t only one mind, you and I have different points of view. But when I say “I am” and you also say “I am” that is the same “I.” We should treat and love others as our self because we literally are one. The left hand and right hand can have a separate experience, one hand can be feeling something the other doesn’t, but they are witnessed by the same self. That is the analogy to our minds. Two minds can have separate experiences but are witnessed by the same awareness.

[@b.g.5869]

That isn't an explanation of consciousness it's just an interpretation. I think I might know who you are. Did you do a podcast with Bernardo Kastrup? Perhaps you just mirrored it (I'm pretty sure I saw a podcast with Kastrup on your channel but perhaps I'm mistaken). I'm familiar with Kastrup's views and find him very interesting if ultimately unconvincing. I think the whole materialism versus idealism (or any other school of thought that essentially argues that mind is fundamental etc) is to a large extent much ado about nothing. I think there are problems with materialism as an ontological framework; we don't really know what matter _is_ ontologically, we just observe what it does. In the final analysis however what it does is what's relevant, and the neurological correlates of consciousness are so strong and predictable I think it's absurd to argue that our personal conscious experience is not dependent upon brain activity, even if other things are involved. This is true regardless of whether we think mind or matter is ontologically fundamental. I would also argue that materialism is not only quite viable and robust as an _epistemological_ framework but is really the only practical framework available to us. Of practical necessity, a philosophical materialist and a philosophical idealist are both going to act the same as one would under the presumption of materialism because that stuff we call "material" is all we have to work with regardless of what is actually ontologically fundamental. We do science as though all that exists are atoms and the void so to speak, so we're practical materialists in the lab regardless. I think it's all a lot more to-may-to to-mah-to than we tend to recognize.

[@aiko-aini]

👍👍

[@johnsiegfried]

yes, i agree. about 8:00 Ward is saying that consciousness is more fundamental the the physical world. Just because of advances in understanding of the physical world and technology does not change that. Philosophy for centuries has held that. When I dream at night my consciousness creates me in the physical world that when I awaken I know does exist..

[@simonhibbs887]

I suspect the consciousness first view will be looked back on as the geocentrism of philosophy of mind. It’s the instinctive belief that where I stand, or that the personal perspective itself is special.

[@MrSanford65]

The question shouldn’t be whether the brain creates consciousness; the ultimate question should be does the earth create consciousness, if we did indeed come from the Earth. Because if you can’t create consciousness out of dirt, mud and rocks-then you can’t create consciousness from the brain either

[@alecingram4669]

absolutely. and those elements that make up the earth, the soil, and our brains are indeed those found in the cores of stars and the rest of the universe, therefore we are the same as it. so maybe it could be that consciousness pervades the whole universe?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Good point. And because our physical bodies are made up of the 4 chief elements, had it not been for the Sun, no thing would have life or had come into being. Ah, the Sun. So, if we are to question further consciousness, the Sun has an important impact upon every 'thing'. The Sun was always a symbol of GOD, too. More properly put: The Sun, the Spiritual essence of GOD.

[@MrSanford65]

@@S3RAVA3LM I think what it also shows is that the brain itself has to be a transitory portal of consciousness because of brain cannot create consciousness no more than a body can create itself

[@simonhibbs887]

Quite right, which is what some in AI research are interested in doing. After all silicon is a constituent of rocks. I think we have good reasons to think this is possible. After all conscious experiences are clearly processes on information. Our perceptions are information, memories are information, our experiences of those perceptions are information, qualia are information about or own reaction to those perceptions and experiences. Even feeling an emotion is information about our body's reaction. So whatever else consciousness is, it is clearly a process on information, and so far as I can see there are no aspects of consciousness and conscious experiences that are not informational. Well, we certainly know how to build information processing systems. We can build systems to do mathematical calculations, to sense things in the world, to identify objects and recognise people, even to generate complex and sophisticated responses in natural language. If consciousness is a kind of process on information, eventually it seems reasonable to think that we'll eventually figure out how to do it.

[@alecingram4669]

@@S3RAVA3LM and not just our sun, but every other star in our universe as a result. everything comes from something in some form. i find people nowadays focus too much on the earth being the centre of the universe, without realising we are a part of everything else as well.

[@stephenkagan]

Why do they start from the position that consciousness is essentially a single unified or uniform thing? And when you go down that road it leads to an assumption that there is an on off switch.

[@kallianpublico7517]

What is the will? Is consciousness the freedom of the will and ignorance the doom of that freedom; or is consciousness the domain of the constraint of the will and ignorance the domain of escape from this constraint? Depending on the will discovery is, therefore, violative of constraints; or bidden by constraints. Man is either Hercules who frees Prometheus or Sisyphus. Ignorance is either memory recalled or memory forgotten.

[@NeoFrontierTechnologies]

It is only mysterious if you do not know the perfect logic behind it, or refuse to accept the perfect logic behind it. So what is the perfect logic behind it ? Those who will accept the logic behind it will also know what it is sooner or later. You must figure it out yourself. Prove yourself able through willingness to do what it takes. When you know the absolute truth you do not need the agreement of the masses nor the agreement of anyone or any minority. Those who will know the truth does not need a teacher. A teacher can accelerate the learning of a willing one, but a willing one will find the truth anyway, with or without a teacher. With that said I wish the willing ones all of the best.

[@chayanbosu3293]

God Sri Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1.Gross body 2.Subtle body mind, intellect and ego 3.Soul .Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.

[@browngreen933]

Does any of that survive death?

[@stephenzhao5809]

1:26 ... so I think consciousness has an absolutely fundamental role to play in human knowledge because knowledge is what we are conscious of or it's certainly based upon an attempt to explain that which we are conscious of 1:40 okay. can something follow from that or is that just a personal introspection that has no independent effect. KW: I think quite a lot follows from it because if you say consciousness is a fundamental element of reality. You don't have to deny of course that there are physical things in brains and that there have been millions and millions of years without any consciousness of at least in this physical part of the universe. so you have to ask question well how does consciousness originate is does it just suddenly spring into being for no reason why is it spring to be when the brain says that we're ready for it I mean you get questions about what's the relationship between the brain and consciousness now. If you starting from the postion the consciousness is a fundamental element you're as it were prepared ta take the position that whole reason the evolutionary process led to the development of the central nervous system in the brain is in order that consciousness should come to exist in this specific form. 2:49

[@murraytoews5353]

Good observation- challenging the assumption of "universal consciousness"

[@tookie36]

Western thought has a problem bc “introspection” for westerners is extremely shallow.

[@DoniusBelgius]

May 31, i933

[@patientson]

The ACE of wisdom is in doing.

[@gettaasteroid4650]

I don't understand Dr.Ward's claims about Plato, Plato seems very unlikely to claim consciousness as fundamental, consider Book X of the Republic: "We say that a maker of an image - an imitator- knows nothing about that which is but only about its appearance". I pretty sure that Plato would go so far as to suggest that human consciousness itself is imprisoned within a tripartite body. Aristotle also seemed to inherent this deflationary feature of consciousness from Plato because Aristotle would make claims like imagining a stone hand is no different from imagining a dead hand.

[@gettaasteroid4650]

Hegel easily fits Dr.Ward's description here, Kant should be given more consideration since Kant equates judgement and consciousness as totally the same, judgement is however purely subjective and therefore deflationary, but does Kant ingratiate consequences, consequences imply information about the inflationary world, as part of judgement? I think he does.

[@tajzikria5307]

Human consciousness or the microcosm is part of the universal consciousness or macrocosm.

[@mrnessss]

Finally, an idealist perspective! I love you Robert but you’re barking up the wrong tree with materialism. That’s why you never seem to get any “closer to truth”.

[@joyjoy442]

Sheer arrogance of us that everything can be proved using so called science is what is limiting us from getting answers on consciousness.

[@jayrob5270]

Its an epiphenomena derived from a material pattern which has evolved to survive over billions of years, We only think consciousness is special because we experience it. To hand wave that away is incredibly arrogant or ignorant, take your pick.

[@simonhibbs887]

I would say an emergent phenomenon, but I don't think it's epiphenomenal because I think it does have causal power. For example I'm drinking a cup of tea, so I'm experiencing qualia of deliciousness. That experience of that qualia is causing me to write about it. If the qualia was not itself causal, I wouldn't be able to tell you how nice it is. But anyway, high-five for physicalism! There aren't many of us regularly on the CTT comments.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@simonhibbs887 Yes, emergent, but emergent is not all of it. Constructed, evolved, nurtured, taught needs to be included. Perspective also plays a role. (Subject object unified). (Looking in the mirror one cannot be certain whether what one sees is the reflection or the real one (Borges inspired)). The reason a conscious being is an agent is that the logic of the material based process of being conscious is the same logic that we think with, i.e. the logic of the synapses IS the logic of scholastics.

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...I would like to inject a thought. I have been thinking that between reality, conscience, Time, and Perfect Now, there is an abstraction that will not allow, categories & definitions to specifics. Also, a big variable is in each person's life experiences, we draw different definitions. Not only words but also describing to another what we experienced, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...

[@michelangelope830]

I don't know much, but I know what I know, and I have lived long enough to know the Nobel Prizes are given to friends and relatives. Do you understand the seriousness? I claim I have discovered the nature of addiction, God and money many years ago and not in my wildest nightmares I would have imagined how reality truly is. Do you think it is easy to think for yourself being honest seeking the truth? I find obstacles and I expected thank you for helping to make the world a better place to live in. Who benefits censoring knowledge? Who benefits not allowing disagreement or different understandings of reality? Humanity are living a lie dying deceiving oneself censoring knowledge.

[@grijzekijker]

I don't understand your indignation. The internet is overflowing with uncensored knowledge. Millions of 'truths' about millions of 'truths'. The world is awash with disagreement and different understandings of reality. Western democracies are all struggling because of it. Perhaps your theory is unable to become afloat in this ocean of information. I never heard of it. Your youtube channel offers no insight. Maybe a short course of marketing could help you out.

[@evgiz0r]

I like how he starts moving uncomfortably when he doesn't like an answer lol

[@djsahilking3807]

you're acting like you become very comfortable when you don't like questions😂

[@jacksonvaldez5911]

I think neural correlates of consciousness exist eternally, they are necessary truths. For example, a certain objective process will give rise to a certain conscious experience and can't give rise to any other conscious experience. I don't think these correlates exist solely in advanced information processing or complex life, but also in lowest form of complexity which leads me towards a panpsychist view. I do believe that my water bottle and other inanimate objects are conscious, but in a very very boring way. It has no perception of the flow of time or the perception of space. It has none of the 5 senses, but it is still conscious.

[@browngreen933]

Kuhn's remark at 3:20: "The consciousness that our little Earth has produced here" is truth in a nutshell. Life and therefore consciousness too are the products of local conditions acting upon elements of this planet. Mysterious yes, but no Fairy Dust involvement. Nor are we as biological Earth entities connected to some greater universe wide consciousness. That's unicorn stuff.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

"Life and therefore consciousness too are the products of local conditions acting upon elements of this planet". That's an extraordinary claim since you have no conditions to evaluate anything that's happening out there in the Universe, after all, you have only your experience on Earth to take into account. You just cannot speak for the rest of the universe. Since that's an extraordinary claim, you need to provide the extraordinary evidence that supports it. Do you have it? What needs to be understood is that consciousness in this hypothesis is a whole, hence yes, if it's fundamental (and this hypothesis has not been ever refuted thus far), of course our little Earthly consciousness is the same as it is in any part of the universe. Just like time would be, if it were fundamental, which is not. So if consciousness were fundamental, the material world would be an epiphenomenon within the realm of consciousness and not vice-versa. And if it's so, it's just like a dream, I mean, of course ALL the elements of the oniric universe are connected to the dreamer's consciousness. How can the dreamer be by any means separated from the whole dream? Separation would be the ultimate illusion of consciousness. Who's the dreamer then? That's another issue, but if we expand the hypothesis, the whole universe could be conscious and dreaming itself, that's panpsychism, but there are many different hypotheses. In this sense, the same being that is typing these words here is the one reading there.

[@browngreen933]

@@RogerioLupoArteCientifica Actually you're the one making the extraordinary claim of some kind of universal cosmos wide consciousness -- if I'm understanding you correctly. The Kuhn statement (which I agree with) is very simple and not extraordinary at all. That life and consciousness are local phenomena arising where conditions are favorable. That same process may have happened throughout the universe. But since consciousness isn't connected between human minds or between humans and animals, some kind of universal connected consciousness seems to be too much of a stretch. We are creatures of this little planet, born and restricted to this place. We can look outward and project radio signals, but our consciousness is restricted within the confines of our skull. We can think like gods, but we aren't gods.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

@@browngreen933 I'm not making any claim, I'm reporting the hypothesis that's currently the ground of idealism which is the background field of work of many scientists these days. From that, I'm inferring the consequences that ensue. So that's not a claim, but a hypothesis, and I refer to it all the time as "if it were, then it would...". I don't ever say it IS like this or like that. I'm saying it *could* be, and no one has proved otherwise so far. So it's not a claim and you didn't get my point. your claim - "our consciousness is restricted within the confines of our skull" You cannot prove that. You have no evidence to support it. Please provide a paper that refutes the idea that consciousness is free from our brains and expands outwards, one that proves otherwise. Do you have such paper? If not, yours is again an extraordinary claim based on mere common sense. My experience has shown me plenty of evidence of a connection between humans, and between humans and animals, and I'm not alone in my conviction. *But* *anecdotal* *evidence* *isn't* *of* *any* *value* *here* The fact here is that your claims could be just wishful thinking based on a hypothetical illusion of separation (please notice I'm not claiming anything, just taking all possible cases into account). Just because you cannot see the connection, that's not a reason for a certainty that "consciousness is confined inside our skulls". "It cannot be this, so it should be that" is not enough evidence. Provide me with a refutation of idealism and I'll be happy to read it.

[@browngreen933]

@@RogerioLupoArteCientifica Actually you're the one who has to prove that consciousness can exist appart from the brain/body and can expand outward. Everything science knows about the brain/body interface suggests that consciousness ends with death. A million hypotheses won't change that. I wish it were otherwise.

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

@@browngreen933 I'm not defending any hypothesis, but only *presenting* what science has on the table, so I don't need to prove ideas that I don't claim to be real. You do, and you do it based on assumptions that don't find evidence in science, at least not thus far. Claiming that "what we know about the brain and mind suggests that consciousness ends with death" is quite a fragile claim that has no evidence to support it. What we know is related to the brain and mind, and not to consciousness. Mind and consciousness are totally different things. A computer can have an artificial mind, the thought process may be very similar to the brain's process. But is it conscious? Does it experience qualia? We have no idea. MIND can die, but does consciousness die? No idea. Imagine a medieval guy that receives an electrical system and feels the electricity, but has no idea what it is. After the system is broken, he concludes that electricity is generated by the system. Is that true? Yes and no. Electricity didn't "go" anywhere, it is potential. But the fact is he has no idea what he's dealing with. The same goes for consciousness. We have NO IDEA what it is or how it's generated. We just ASSUME it's generated from brain activity, but we cannot prove it. I'm not claiming this is not the case. I'm claiming we just can NOT claim anything, let alone with the certainty you do it. Consciousness might stem from the brain, of course, but we don't know, and the brain might stem from consciousness, but we don't know either. The electrical system example is not to defend idealism, it's to provide you with a metaphor because you seem to miss the point of idealism. My point here is not that idealism is correct and materialism wrong. My point is that you have no tools to be sure of anything, yet you continue to make extraordinary claims. Nobody has any idea what consciousness is, how it appears, and whether it ends after death or not. When the slightest evidence comes out, it'll be huge breaking news.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@davidhunt313]

Could _pain_ exist without consciousness? Could biological cognition happen without pain,.. and still thrive much less prosper?

[@MegaSudjai]

"How can the mindless microscopic particles that compose our brains ‘experience’ the setting sun, the Mozart Requiem, and romantic love?" This statement assumes that microscopic particles are "mindless".

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Chuck again. I would like to add one other thought. We all currently live life inside of the Multiverse. I would venture to say there are Infinite Realities taking place at the same time which adds to all the other parts. Everything we choose to do will have a direct effect on all other aspects, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...

[@keithwalmsley1830]

I think the importance of consciousness cannot be over-estimated, it makes everything possible and the workings inside a Black Hole pale into insignificance compared to it to me, yet we still don't have a plausible or even remotely satisfactory explanation of what it actually is, what makes something alive? And obvious the material exists? I'm not so sure, I tend towards more Holographic/Simulation theories myself but where did they come from??? My brain hurts!!! 🤔

[@tedgrant2]

God will make it clear when we get to Heaven

[@S3RAVA3LM]

If all the body's relations with and functions of mind: sensation, perception, mentation, emerge from brain, how does one explain intuition, telepathy (the 'i was just about to call you' phenomena), synchronicity? What allows for this connection that is beyond brain or skull - that which goes beyond its circumscribed area? Souls place and purpose is here. We acknowledge Soul as the signal for the radio(body), and the broadcast(GOD). Some people try to damage control the 'God' inquiry saying, " you're just afraid of dying". What i study and from what i've learned, seeking GOD is more terrifying than an unscrupulous belief in denying God.

[@eagledon7199]

When you can't be convinced, you can be confused!

[@JoseBarahonaes]

I never took into consideration that the physical world is an interpretation of my senses.

[@whitefiddle]

I wonder if Kuhn _can_ be that serious.

[@abdelchemami6964]

Heavy questions ❓️ ❓️ than brain & consciousness (themselves) 😮😮😮😅

[@billvokey4221]

Welcome to mind mount clinic take a number and be seated. Your mind will be mounted momentarily

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Consciousness is Logic, mysteries is Lack of Logic.

[@brothermine2292]

We should find the person whose consciousness is responsible for creating the Lorentz contraction and give him a good thrashing.

[@patientson]

Since you know about the physical, remain there. I know mothers and children know better than all the Doctors that ever existed, including the ones in existence today.

[@abdelchemami6964]

Why the following likelihood is discarded ? : earth with all its contents is a huge open sky lab, and we as humans we are just cobayes😂 the supposed question then: what are the expected outcomes ??

[@kumar2ji]

It is not mysterious. It is in plain sight with all its abilities.

[@jimtruscott5670]

@kumar2ji. I think this is correct. Wittgenstein did not agree that there was a” hard problem “. My friend the Italian philosopher Sergio Moravia also questioned it’s existence .

[@kumar2ji]

@@jimtruscott5670 Indeed, insightful observation reveals a great deal.

[@DecodingUniverse]

❤

[@niranjansaikia9379]

Human are the only creature who denie to be who realy they are..😅

[@dwoopie]

Consciousness is a human construct it has nothing to do with the pillars of creation...

[@SomeChristianGuy.]

The material is clearly real, not sure about the rest, says the conscious person, without which he wouldn't know it.

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

My consciousness is, alas, full of triviality.

[@grijzekijker]

Man is more than a fleshy machine acting on impulses. If I observe fellow human beings, much of their behaviour I can explain away by them following their drifts. They pursue food , shelter, mates, trends, etc. But some fight these urges and try fasting, drifting, celibacy as intellectual or spiritual exercise. I think a large cause for consciousness is memory.

[@simonhibbs887]

There certainly does seem to be a strong connection between consciousness and memory, yes. It seems that consciousness has many functions, but one is that conscious awareness is a filter that helps us choose which perceptions and experiences to commit to memory.

[@grijzekijker]

@@simonhibbs887 yes, and on the basis of perceptions & experiences previously committed to memory I partially decide on future activities. It’s been a while ago that I went to the beach, the weather invites to go, no employer demands me to work today, no financial overlords limit me to go, I have transportation, so in a few hours my consciousness could be aware of a large amount of water. But there is an alien witness video in Las Vegas that I may prefer to analyze. Thus, the cursor on the command line in my brain keeps blinking and struggling with priorities.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@grijzekijker Right, we make decisions for reasons. That’s all determinism says.

[@grijzekijker]

@@simonhibbs887 Before we make those decisions, we usually feel that we have several options and can choose according to our own free will. Afterwards, however, any choice can always be construed as otherwise determined.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

brain aware of consciousness in time?

[@JungleJargon]

You are a god in the sense that you determine things that happen. Some of us are more powerful than others. Our existence is a real life thought experiment put into effect. There has to be judgement and justice for what we do. We are all witnesses in the great judgement. We will all testify to what happened. It's the reason for forgiveness of each other's shortcomings. We will all be condemned if we fail to forgive each other. Everyone does what they do based on what they believe and the vast majority of people don't even know the truth in order to believe the truth. The absolute truth is that only our Creator can perfectly cover for us Himself and remake us again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

We mistakenly divide things like light, illumination, sound, waves, energy, gravity electricity... we make up too many dimensions and divide further more things. Part of what's Spiritual or relating to Spirit is the very phenomena of all things. We make up a division between Matter and Spirit: sure, the corporeal organism is matter, and the mental functions the Spiritual. Without this Matter the Spirit wouldn't have been able to c9me through or to life.

[@jamesconner8275]

Consciousness is a simple product of the brain. What is the mystery?

[@arsalanadil14912]

Then prove it how bunches of neurons in brain exchanging ions give rise of complexity like awareness, feelings, emotions, free will etc.

[@ianwaltham1854]

​@@arsalanadil14912 I agree. The materialist can describe measurable brain activity and correlate it with conscious experience only when the patient verbally describes his experience. You cannot decode brain activity into the thoughts and images that we experience in our minds. That cannot be done.

[@brothermine2292]

​​@@ianwaltham1854 : Actually, that decoding can be done. Recent experiments have translated neural signals into images of what the person was looking at.

[@brothermine2292]

The mystery is: Assuming consciousness is a product of the brain, how does the brain produce consciousness?

[@jimtruscott5670]

James Conner. Isn’t consciousness simply the activity of the brain or “ what the brain does “ ?

[@John-uh8kl]

Go to Stuart Kouffman, before rigour mortis sets in watching this.

[@tunahelpa5433]

Sounds like, seems like, Mr Ward is a philosopher. Okay I checked and yes, he is a philosopher, not a scientist

[@sirtom3011]

There is nothing mysterious about consciousness

[@richg2881]

There is no such thing as consciousness.

[@SandipChitale]

In the sense that it is not the independent thing in itself. It is a conventional shorthand for a class of functions of brain like structures, and in mid-near future be reproduced in descendents of Chatgpt like AIs.

[@b.g.5869]

​@@SandipChitale Language parsing predictive algorithm like those used by chat bots will never be conscious because they're ultimately just an implementation of decision trees. There's nothing a chat but does that in principle couldn't be implemented as a football stadium sized warehouse of books exhaustively describing the decision path to take based on the input and database contents, so thinking a chat algorithm could ultimately be conscious is precisely like thinking a book could be conscious if only it were long enough and had the right content.

[@SandipChitale]

@@b.g.5869 never say never. And I said descendents of current AIs.

[@richg2881]

@@SandipChitale "class of functions of brain like structures" sounds very challenging. Too much for me.

[@b.g.5869]

@@SandipChitale You literally said that you think "mid-near future" descendants of ChatGPT like AIs; I don't see how that can be interpreted other than meaning that with more tweaking in the same framework they could be conscious, and there is literally no chance of this because it's not even possible in principle. It's just a predictive language parsing algorithm that is essentially just an automated process that would be exactly the same if implemented using warehouses of hand written instructions. It's like thinking if you could draw a really really really good picture of an apple it would actually be an apple. You shouldn't conflate AI or even AGI with consciousness; they're fundamentally different things. Something could be intelligent in the computer science sense and not conscious (e.g. all current AI) and something could be conscious and not intelligent (e.g. most sentient species). People are generally very naive about AI but the current hype cycle is particularly ridiculous. ChatGPT is essentially search engine technology presented in a slightly different way; it's not the game changer it's being hyped as.

[@ProjectMoff]

I think the idea of “fundamental” relating to reality is a complete misconception, to say one part is more important, I think it’s a problem of the human phenomena of value, it’s made up, it’s relative to us, in reality it’s not that all has value, nothing has value or parts have value at varying levels, I think the entire concept is incompatible. To ask if consciousness is fundamental is to ask if it has to be here, the fact that it is shows that it is “fundamental”, all that is is how it has to be. This should be obvious.