Noam Chomsky On Solipsism (Does Consciousness CREATE Reality?)

Main Episode with Noam Chomsky (July 2023): • Buddhism Meets Ai: Cho...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main Episode with Noam Chomsky (July 2023): kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoLYmqalaZ5mqNE Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org

[@jedser]

Curt, have you heard from Noam? There haven’t been any recent interviews with him and I’m a bit concerned. Thought he would have done another interview with you by now

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@user-dw1jp7tp6i]

Have you seen "Pi Speaks Jesus is Lord"? If that is a message in pi it could prove your theory. I've come to many of the same conclusions just from meditating on it.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@user-dw1jp7tp6i I'm sorry but I do not knw what you're talking about.

[@user-dw1jp7tp6i]

@@marcobiagini1878 Thanks for your response, there's a video by that title.

[@marksd5650]

Noam is still lucid. I read him in the early 70s, but I think at this point Noam ought to buy a rocking chair and rest.

[@egglion7931]

He said some great stuff then he talked about AI and all his ideas fell apart because he doesn’t know anything about modern AI

[@cyrusramsey4741]

Those who contemplate the nature of reality never rest until they find the answers. It's not work it's longing.

[@5piles]

@@egglion7931 probably the stupidest thing ive read this year and this year has been dumbf as hell. congrats.

[@quack-head0]

I worked at a nursing home and the ones resting in a rocking chair in front of a TV most of the day were not the happy ones lol

[@Life_42]

I love Noam Chomsky!

[@teamhaselmyer]

Fascinating...

[@jasunvonpiano1198]

Thanks again for your show. So informative. I have a question .is it possible that the whole universe is one electron and perhaps consciousness uses the electron to pop in and out of space time?

[@michaelwright8896]

They never addressed Solipsism.

[@christianschmidt5744]

Does Professor still hold the stance that those who refused the juice shall be banished from society…. All respect, and there was a lot, lost! All

[@jonsegerros]

most likely. hes one of.. "them". thatäs also why he is fundamentally wrong about 99% of what he talks about (other than linguistics)

[@OngoGablogian185]

That's just very basic philosophical question that obviously escapes your tiny mind. If there's a deadly virus going around, and people can take a vaccine in the hope of not spreading the virus, no one should be forced to take it, but in choosing not to take it, you are thereby effectively removed from society due to the fact that you're willing to risk harm on others. The issues that you might then face, e.g. access to amenities, are your problem to figure out, given that you've already removed yourself from working as part of a community for the benefit of others, and no one is obliged to help you. That's so obvious as to be entirely uncontroversial. There's nuance when looking at this specific vaccine and this specific virus, but no one knew the facts, and all people had to go on was the scientific research coming out. People like you would rather listen to KZbinrs and act like you have all the unknown variables as opposed to thinking about something logically.

[@FRANCCO32]

I respect this man

[@svens3722]

Very novel to make fun of an age handicapped guy which just share good information

[@FRANCCO32]

@@svens3722 my intention was not to making fun of him I have very high respect for him and his kind I have spent my life caring for the handicapped But you have made me realise my words were inappropriate so I will take them down Apologies and thank you for the moral lesson

[@PSA04]

I still don't understand. What is the benefit of humanity achieving AGI?

[@markwrede8878]

People persist in reasoning about the pipe, although there isn't one, as everybody knows.

[@jyjjy7]

My highest level of confidence is in quantum field theory, which should be true of any reasonably educated person at this point. We know our immediate perceptions are largely simply wrong, and that's common knowledge. That Chomsky doesn't know these things is really odd to me

[@theomnisthour6400]

Wait till he sees what atheist philosopher's heaven looks like. Only hope they let him come back and deliver a public apology to God for doubting the plan and thinking he knew more about philosophy and cosmic politics than the first creator

[@chumbels]

Yeah. I wanna be.like.you. bundle of joy

[@justinspace1]

I like this channel and have been subbed for more than a minute. Before I listen to a word he says and I will listen to it. This guy promoted genocide on anyone that refused the jab, or complained. Hell he even said they weren't allowed in grocery stores. This dude is a fake and a liar, I'm not forgetting what you said Noam.

[@AnattaLife]

I like to interview homeless people in the library too

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

I almost got kicked out of the library when i was talking to a schizophrenic homeless looking guy.

[@Domn879]

Santa gets a bit gloomy between the holidays.

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.

[@egglion7931]

Can we use AI as a way to approach scientific theories? With the AI of Noam’s time, the answer was no, and here he says he thinks the answer is no. That’s just totally wrong though! We have used AI to make insane breakthroughs in medicine, language, and chemistry. Does he not know that or am I misunderstanding? Do we have AGI by his terms?

[@v2ike6udik]

Hard to like this fkr. Hate is such a simple feeling. Despise is accurate. Am i the only one? Am i only one awake? Lonely. :)

[@juricadogan3870]

Damn, Santa's seen better days..

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Test

[@FAA-DPE]

From the epstine revelations, this old guy still liked little boys. Seems being famous and a pedo go hand in hand.

[@jonsegerros]

replace famous with jewish

[@thed.o.o.r.5404]

I love your channel Curt but the fact that you interviewed someone who was so completely comfortable with the idea of starving people for not taking a particular medicine is a real low point for me.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Always take *all* of your medicines!! ( My former doctor would say, she kicked me out of her methadon program 5 weeks ago cause she didn't believe in me kicking the habit, 😮😅)

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Test

[@Llluuuu130]

I really hope u r not blaming Chomsky about not being humane

[@thed.o.o.r.5404]

@@Llluuuu130 Yes I am.

[@BotMx]

This old geeser was in the Epstein Flights !!’

[@barryb.3947]

As far as I know he wasn’t on the flight logs but he was in his black book and used Epstein as a banker. My issue with him is he wanted the unvaccinated put into concentration camps and left to rot. A real shame he became what he spoke against all his life.

[@808bigisland]

Nah and very few people possess rudimentary “environmental awareness”

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

No. Consciousness does not create reality. That idea is absurd.

[@aidanhall6679]

Care to elaborate? C does not create reality insofar as reality is that which exists even when we are not interacting with it, but that is or should be obvious.

[@johncollins211]

No but consciousness creates experience.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@aidanhall6679 It is a problem to assume that what exists is different from what exists. If I create what exists, do I exist?

[@theotormon]

@@johncollins211 Maybe experience creates consciousness.

[@RootinrPootine]

Sure it does

[@satyadasgumbyji8956]

Hey, Adolph Chomsky!!! No Thanks! SMGDMFH!😅 🤘🌎❤️

[@vapormissile]

Who hurt you?

[@satyadasgumbyji8956]

@@vapormissile 👹💉 NOBODY hurt me, mofo!!! 🤣🤣🤣!!!

[@resh..]

You're a strange, strange type of Human Being. But in a universe of approximately 10^80 atoms ( as far as we know )... You were bound to pop up. So welcome.

[@audiodead7302]

@@vapormissile Chomsky expressed some questionable opinions about the war in Ukraine. Spouted some anti-NATO rhetoric. Etc. Google it.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

What does smgdmfh mean, shaking my god damned mother fukcing head ?

[@jessewallace12able]

I think you ought to have a philosopher do philosophy. Chomsky is not a philosopher.

[@jaredangell5017]

Bro why you interviewing someone who went to Epstein island?

[@JimmyMarquardsen]

The scientific knowledge people like Noam Chomsky have is like an old dirty dishcloth. No, I will not explain the comparison further. You get the picture...smell it.

[@acockworkorange4301]

why didn't you ask him about his relationship with Epstein?

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Was he married to Epstein?!

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Was he married to Epstein?!

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Test

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Test