Phenomena vs Noumena with Bernardo Kastrup and Christof Koch

[@prakashvenglat2596]

Thank you 🌿🌺♥️

[@philosophybabble]

No problem 😊

[@RevolutionGamingShorts]

analytic idealism and IIT are definitely a signal toward a paradigm shift in western thinking, i wish there were a way to allow it to trickle into western cultural thinking sooner than 80 years from now

[@S.G.Wallner]

Hearing Christof Koch say (without hesitation), "consciousness is not a computation," almost brought me to tears. Haha! This should send a shockwave through mainstream neuroscience! But unfortunately I doubt it will, unless all professors of cognitive science change their course curriculum.

[@touyou1769]

Roger Penrose (Nobel Prize winner in mathematical physics) said the same thing and even more "when our brain understand math, it is not a computational process in our brain".

[@raresmircea]

The main problem with functionalism (consciousness = computation) is the binding problem: what makes spatio-temporally distributed activities able to come together as one into a unitary/integrated global state? Wether we’re talking about the brain or the computational substrate that powers the LLM’s (or the abstract algorithm itself, as per functionalist belief), they have these distributed feature processors that are preoccupying themselves with identifying different aspects (like edges or colors) within the input. In our case, we subjectively know that these things come together somehow into one unified experience/gestalt, but there’s *no* principle in physics that can join disparate things into one seamless entity… Except for quantum entanglement (the entangled particles are making up a single state with unitary evolution) but it seems impossible to preserve such entanglements within the brain (see how quantum computer chips need a huge infrastructure around them to cool them down & to shield them from radiation). Possible explanations for conscious binding: 1. Susan Pockett & Johnjoe McFadden’s field theory which says that some part of the brain’s electrical architecture, possibly within the thalamus, constrains the electromagnetic field & folds it upon itself in such a way that this topological "pocket" behaves *as if* separate from the larger cosmic EM field (inside & outside behaviors don’t bleed into each other); this analog field of the brain is what our consciousness is, and it’s in a constant 2-way feedback loop with the architecture of electric currents/action potentials, both the analog field & the semi-digital neural signals having their say in behavior; outside environmental EM field behaviors, however powerful they may be (ex: an MRI machine) *don’t* affect the brain because of *impedance mismatch,* but we could devise Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation devices that *do* have impedance matching with the brain’s EM pocket and if the theory is true this should allow us to distort subjective conscious experience in subjects; 2. Matthew Fisher’s hypothesis that nuclear spins (which are more stable than electron spins) in calcium phosphate molecules within the neurons *can* sustain entanglement for sufficiently long durations, and this sub-cellular/sub-neural-networks mechanism that’s distributed across the brain is what implements bound global states; 3. David Pearce’s metaphysics of "non-materialist physicalism", which supposes that the quantum fields of physics *aren’t* inherently non-existent/unconscious, but they have an inner existence which is (how else but) qualitative; the quantum fields are fields of qualia; these fields aren’t intelligent, don’t have a self, don’t have memories, don’t desire nor plan, these higher order attributes only emerge when the fields interact with themselves in certain complex ways giving rise to brains; and according to David, Zurek’s “Quantum Darwinism" is the right interpretation of quantum mechanics that explains how everything plays out, essentially what we’re calling "classical reality" is the result of superimposed quantum states, our objective physical brain & its subjective experience is made of interwoven "alive & dead cat" states, there’s no actual quantum collapse, there’s no actual "classical reality", just quantum reality appearing as "classical" due to how the quantum states overlap & go through decoherence; 4. Tononi & Koch’s Integrated Information Theory; 5. and maybe Hameroff & Penrose’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory, which presupposes that elements making up the microtubuli within pyramidal neurons can sustain entanglement across distributed neurons, if I get that right? None of these things happen within silicon chips, but there’s no reason why future engineering can’t implement them in silicon. The silicon chips’ electric circuits do interact with the electromagnetic field but they *don’t* constrain, fold & pinch their own EM pocket. Also, the engineers are doing everything they can so that the EM field behaviors *don’t* feed into & affect the mechanical logic structure they’ve designed for the electric circuits (the logic structure is insulated from the field).

[@anonymoushuman8344]

Maybe the sciences that study mind, cognition, and consciousness are finally getting past the idea that the mind is a computer program.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

its old news, he spent too much time around the dalai lama and alan wallace

[@thismindofours]

The development of Christofs worldview is refreshing and suggestive of the fact that perhaps the hegemony of materialism is amenable to change

[@ddec7687]

Christof being so frank and honest about his experience is refreshing!!!

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

After talking to Kastrup, Koch is finding idealism more plausible! Consciousness is fundamental!

[@aaron-n]

Amazing. Love when these two minds get together.

[@philosophybabble]

We have so much fun! Join us next Friday!

[@MW-fh8xh]

I have the greatest admiration for Mr Koch for discussing all these highly interesting aspects of our "meta-life" in public with Mr Kastrup, whom I also greatly appreciate

[@MattGray_Chelsoph]

Fantastic, thank you everyone!

[@chrisfazio9934]

Who else saw the thumbnail and thought for a moment that Bernardo decided to have a conversation with Harrison Ford?

[@vivienneheath4839]

You are so right!

[@tomdorman2486]

Great show! As to Dr. Kastrups NDE comments that he couldn't except that the " soul" could see outside the body. I would say that position is contrary to his idealism position. If a mental being can create a body with eyes, why can't it produce a mental non- body that can see? If our nature is a mental state prior to the body, all bets are off on what it can create.

[@ryanashfyre464]

We do this all the time, we just never seem to think about it very much. It's called dreaming and pretty much everyone on the entire planet can attest to it. Our minds not only seem to create entirely new "physical bodies" that can see, we create entire mental worlds in which we can move around, touch objects, even converse w/ other apparently conscious beings, etc. Honestly, that's perhaps the one thing about Bernardo's model that perplexes me more than anything else. He is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination and yet when it comes to the idea of some notion of the individual self persisting after death, he almost seems to deliberately avoid engaging w/ ideas that would directly contradict him. To be fair, I cannot read Bernardo's mind, so I'm extremely hesitant to read *too* much into his motivations here. I can only go off of what he's said in public discussions. With that said however, he has openly conceded many times that he is extremely averse to the idea of the self persisting because that would entail, in his view, a continuation of suffering in some manner - and he really, really doesn't like that. Even *assuming* that that is true (and I don't necessarily grant that it is), I can't bring myself to agree. I think there's profound meaning and even beauty in discovering yourself through hardship and even suffering. This is *not* to say that pain is a purpose in and of itself in life, but what you take away from it in becoming more self-realized *is*.

[@anonymoushuman8344]

Maybe it depends on what the relationship is between individual minds and mind at large, or the one great mind which underlies and constitutes everything, on an idealist view. Different forms of idealism have different ways of understanding this relationship, with different understandings of how each individual mind relates to the rest of what there is.

[@paulkeogh7077]

Christof gives an awesomely clear and concise explanation of the primacy of consciousness and its organising/differentiating (causal) power. I love his statement that consciousness is for “me” while the brain is for “others”. The brain is a substrate of consciousness.

[@marlobardo4274]

On the feast of St. Nicholas in 1273, Thomas Aquinas was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. "All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” It takes a truly great being like Christof Koch to be able to perceive their [me]self-transience as a mere shadow of their [I]self-transcendence.

[@tjssailor4473]

Don't really consider Koch a "great being." He spent most of his career barking up the wrong tree and even after his experience of enlightenment he can't put two coherent sentences together when it comes to consciousness. One has to wonder how much psychological damage was done over the years by basically telling people that they were pieces of meat doomed to annihilation.

[@_WeDontKnow_]

great conversation between these minds, and great questions too! thanks for this

[@next-topgaming]

If memory doesn't survive death, how can we explain reincarnation and those cases in which, people were able to recall past lives ( Refer Ian Stevenson). Another case is how can people recall past lives during past life regression sessions ( Brian Weiss) . All these are suggesting, that the memory survives

[@surrendertoflow78]

I’m so glad someone is bringing up the work of Ian Stevenson. Koch’s hubris doesn’t surprise me, even after his mystical experience, but I would think Bernardo would know better than to skip over that body of evidence (yes, evidence) from truly rigorous scientists. It drives me crazy when people speak about a topic they are clearly not knowledgeable enough about without acknowledging they don’t know enough about it for their opinion to matter much.

[@tjssailor4473]

We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur? Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one. Billions showed up after this one. None of them seem to have created my existence. This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others All bodies are made of the same elements. All brains have the same basic anatomy. If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously. A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once. I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different. Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs? When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room? According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence. Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject. How could pure awareness even be individualized? Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure. There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that. Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized. My blender uses electricity. Is it a genius? Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is. As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual. One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case. In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.

[@MycerDev-eb1xv]

Absolutely second this. For me process philosophy seems to explain this best. There are moments of experience but they are not mapped arbitrarily to different “consciousnesses”. These all happen “in consciousness” and then the contents of these experience may construct self loops to build conceptual egos and meta cognition. This explains to me the two sub problems of the hard problem I think are most important (continuity of experience, attribution problem (why this brain generate this consciousness)). Specifically that all experiences are there all the time in a sort of meta space, but some experiences actually map internally these other experiences in a way to build conceptual egos with concepts such as time and so forth, hence resolving the continuity problem. Furthermore, the attribution problem is resolved as you mentioned in that all experiences are there and do not have to be attributed to anything. Also I have something to say with respect to the mirror test proposed by proponents of physicalist theories of consciousness. Can you pass a mirror test in a non-lucid dream? Of course not! (Sorry for the rant).

[@markbyerly9094]

The Big Bang can be described as a primordial thought. The Grand Mentation.

[@MrShahzad40]

Very excited to see two great minds talking about consiousness, great mix of topics

[@luffyd.monkey7171]

Just fyi, for the topic marker at 1:17:54 they are talking about blind *sight* not blind "side"

[@jj4cpw]

It's so inspiring, and hopeful, to see Christof Koch's mind (if you will) opening up to other than physicalist explanations for... well, mind. Hhmm, wonder how much BK was responsible, at least in part.

[@marinorodriguez255]

Thank you great interview, very informative, I'm agree with BERNARDO, the world we see is mental, consciousness is fundamental, reality is an illusion, we live in a cosmic hologram, but still a big mystery of our existence, only thing we can do enjoy life, be good to others, because we all part of this universal consciousness, we are the universe experience itself.we live in our minds.

[@Sambasue]

Clearly neurons appear in consciousness. We got it upside down somehow.

[@sxsmith44]

That’s a great quote, “we are the universe experiencing itself”.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Is that what he believes? That reality is an illusion and we live in a hologram?

[@sxsmith44]

Yes everything that Marino Rodriguez wrote is true of BK except for the cosmic hologram. I’ve never heard BK refer to reality, as such. I have only heard BK refer to reality as cosmic consciousness (one Consciousness). BK believes reality is an illusion only in the sense that the definition of illusion is something that is not what it appears to be. Human existence is real but it is an illusion in that, it is not what it appears to be. It appears to be composed of many minds, but in truth it is just one mind.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@sxsmith44 Thanks for the clarification. My understanding was he believed in a universal consciousness. But does he believe reality is literally created by that consciousness? It's a bit confusing to say "reality is an illusion" if the intended meaning is "reality isn't what we perceive it to be". Those are two very different things. It's common knowledge, even among non idealists, that our sensory perceptions of the world and universe are imperfect and limited, and that whatever objective reality is, is not exactly what we perceive it to be.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

There is one thing that I completely disagree with Bernardo (who I am an admirer of) "I don't believe we can see without eyes", as a lucid dreamer in my own experience this is wrong. In lucid dreaming you not only see a world incredibly rich in detail while your eyes are closed in bed sleeping, but sometimes with greater clarity than when I am awake. The same goes for hearing without your ears and even eating and actually feeling the taste of the food within the dream state, even having sex and reaching an orgasm without even touching your sexual member that is there withered on the bed sleeping. . Bernardo needs to review this.

[@tjssailor4473]

Same with regular dreams.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

​@@tjssailor4473 exactly, that is very basic,

[@beniscatus6321]

You should read his "The Phantom World Hypothesis of NDEs/OBEs".It gives an insight into the difference between MAL's reality and the dissociated alter's reality. IOW, it is possible to see something (including rich detail) that is not actually "out there".

[@tjssailor4473]

@@beniscatus6321 Right seeing without eyes.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

I know this publication from Bernardo, and he is indeed the best soldier the cause has today, an extraordinary human being who is helping to change the current paradigms of science. However, this article mentioned doesn't necessarily relate to what I'm saying; perhaps it has become confusing. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether it's a ghostly world or not (which I strongly believe is the case when we talk about dreams), you see images without having eyes, regardless of whether they are real, ghostly, or whatever... Suppose hypothetically that I am a lucid dreamer who has the ability to access lucid states 100% of the time when I sleep, and on occasion, I become blind. During the next 1/3 of my life, I will still have normal access to rich and real images when I sleep and access these states, you understand? This means that physical senses don't seal our ability to experience. Moreover, as Bernardo himself says in his article, this theory is just a supposition not yet firmly established. Although it's attractive and I believe it occurs on various layers, but we know that there is satisfactory evidence that a person in a Near-Death Experience (NDE) sees things from the physical world that can be confirmed later, such as someone crashing a car at the intersection while they were in 'death'."

[@danielash1704]

Yes in the spacing of the universe itself is a Tallow flow without destruction of the other E Space sphere of the universe itself is a Tallow of vibrations and massive amounts of energy within the Same experience super autonomous positions are the most important thing to understand and consider how well your mindset of the world and reflects the mindset of a simple thought process of creating a new idea of what waves ride on what conducive amounts to the wavelength dimensional placement is a Tallow flow without destruction and covering a vastness of inner space and a sense of meaning

[@surrendertoflow78]

I agree with the commenter that said this was painful to listen to. I VERY much appreciate the interviewer and the people that asked questions pushing Bernardo and Koch to consider things like contentless awareness in deep sleep (and good job stating your question again when Koch went on about lucid dreaming during REM as if he were answering your question), NDEs, and reincarnation. It's difficult for me to handle such hubris when neither were apparently educated enough about those specific topics to be speaking with any authority. I care less about Koch's hubris because apparently even a mystical experience hasn't shaken that out of him. But I would think there should be more hope for Bernardo to set his hubris aside since he should be more familiar with data and views Koch can't currently stomach. So I would love to see Bernardo on with Jim Tucker or Bruce Greyson or even Alan Wallace. Someone that would challenge not necessarily his idealist views, but his hubris on topics that he clearly does not know enough about (but has strong opinions on nonetheless.) Also, speaking as a neuroscientist, he puts waaaay too much emphasis/faith on/in neuroimaging studies. I've seen how that sausage gets made (and published). It's no less flawed than first-person account. Seriously. And I don't understand BK saying he takes NDEs seriously but somehow can't come to terms with someone experiencing the world without it being through their bodily senses. Please do have him on again with a guest who truly challenges his personal views! (Including his view of no meta-cognition in mind at large).

[@musicwithana1]

There is a programme in the UK - children learn how to "see" when blindfolded (ICU Academy). There seem to be similar methods: Indo-Tibetan Buddhism practices, Merpati Putih, Vibravision or Kimissarov's Infovision. I wonder how they all are related. The neuroscientist Alex Gomez-Marin has an essay called Seeing Without Eyes.

[@philosophybabble]

Yes, Alex's work offer a framework to understand how these diverse practices connect at a neurological level, suggesting a potentially universal aspect of human cognition that these techniques tap into.

[@musicwithana1]

@@philosophybabble Thank you for your reply!

[@philosophybabble]

@@musicwithana1 We have invited Alex to join us sometime soon. :D Cheers!

[@surrendertoflow78]

@@philosophybabbleThis makes me so happy!!! I just listened to his talk on the Essentia Foundation and was coming here to beg that you have him on as a guest! (Maybe him solo first and then invite him back with Bernardo to challenge Bernardo on his views he’s clearly not familiar enough with…which matters to me because Bernardo is basically an influencer now and I want him to be better educated in his apparent gaps.)

[@tjssailor4473]

There have been documented cases of normally functioning people who hardly had any brain matter at all. If even only one such person existed it would totally negate the materialist fantasies about what the brain does. Of course i would never expect a materialist to even look at THAT data.

[@AlanMalone1723]

I know, I've worked with these people

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent....❤ thanks 🙏.

[@thomassimmons1950]

If you know, you know. If you don't, you explain.

[@Magicalfluidprocess]

Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme, consciousness is the fundamental reality

[@_TravelWithLove]

Would love to hear a debate on consciousness between these two and Pim van Lommel !!

[@surrendertoflow78]

Yes, these two were too similar in their degree of hubris. I couldn’t stand how many times Koch reported how many years he’s been studying the brain. The only truly appropriate thing to say after so many years of studying the brain is that we have very little idea what is really going on here. I’m also a neuroscientist, but one that is more familiar with topics he clearly is not educated enough about to be speaking with such confidence about what is and isn’t possible. (Like NDEs, reincarnation research, etc.)

[@_TravelWithLove]

@@surrendertoflow78 interesting !! would also like to have you be included into future conversations on these topics !! Love learning from all perspectives on multiple topics including this one !! Can you please share what the “OSS” abbreviation stands for ? Thank you 😊

[@surrendertoflow78]

@@_TravelWithLoveI’m so sorry, that was the autocorrect changing my “is” into “OSS” and me missing it 😝

[@_TravelWithLove]

@@surrendertoflow78 oh … lol 😆 I understand … thank you for clarifying … that happens sometimes to all of us :)) … Fascinating topic of research and fascinating aspect of our human experience with consciousness and the likes !! Have you contemplated topics like remote sensing , precognition and or presentment ? Would love to read your opinions about it … and if possible also on reincarnation and NDE … thank you 😊 and I wish you and folks good health , success and happiness !! Much Love ✌️😎💕

[@surrendertoflow78]

@@_TravelWithLoveYes. I actually was a summer student at the Rhine before they stopped that program many years ago. I went on to get my MS, my PhD, and ended up working at Stanford in a top lab. But guess what!? The education at the Rhine and the researchers there ended up being the best I had throughout all of my years in academia. They were skeptical but open, rigorous, honest, passionate, and driven for all the right reasons. If you are interested in these topics, I recommend looking up the Division of Perceptual Studies at UVA Charlottesville.

[@JzL4ShzL]

Riveting discussion, glad to have stumbled upon it! I do want to point out that Michael Levin has shown bioelectric manipulation of oncogenic tumors to realign with the body pattern in mammals such as mice, contrary to Christof's claim that it has only been achieved in highly regenerative worms/amphibians. Granted, this may be a case of asynchronous knowledge sharing.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

I would love to know real studies about audio use in altered states of conciousness (serious studies)

[@rooruffneck]

Hardest part of Bernardo's perspective is the idea that any inanimate thing (pill, needle, car) are really representation of the *one* experience of mind at large. The pill would be a different aspect of that one experience than the car and needle. Hard to conceptualize. But not impossible.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

Imagine being the size of a virus and hanging out inside of a human brain. You would probably be equally inclined to see all kinds of differentiation and distinction in the brains structure, yet nonetheless we know that that brain represents a single experiencing subject.

[@rooruffneck]

Yes, that is the part I get. Now, let's say I'm having the experience of planning a very unique birthday party for my friend. I'm presently in the exact moment of grasping the perfect idea that takes into account dozens of details to ensure this party will have all the right elements. The virus looking at my brain has been staring at the same fascinating structures as my experience goes through these radical changes, like me staring at the mountain, the river, the clouds, etc. One mistake I can make is to think the mountain relates to a specific experience in mind at large. This would be like the virus thinking a certain slope on my neuron is the image of an experience in my planning. Yet, the differentiations relate to some aspect of the experiencing, even it it is very tacit and very background, perhaps an aspect of the dissociating process itself.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

really should be talking with alan wallace who is meditating 14h a day now and has done the maths education background covering maxwell relativity and quantum physics, spent some time working in the lab under the pioneer of quantum optics.

[@malabuha]

Guys you know what helped me see the difference between reality and illusion? I wondered why is conscious awareness lost when I am in deep sleep. As I was drifting out of consciousness into dream land it occurred to me that only mentally i lose conscious awareness that i am. Yet, every cell of the body is in communication with each other, aware of a whole different "universe", something that human mind knows little of. And the brain is lit up like a Christmas tree, every neuron working in unison with the rest of the body. Who says conscious awareness is lost? From that moment my thinking shifted its view point. I understand that " i am" is an image in mind of consciousness. And at the same time awareness of being is the same experience "felt" through different forms of being in different other ways. For example, an iron rod doesn't know that "i am" like a human creature would. But since quantum fields, atoms and molecules do not think, they do interact. Something enables, ever so slightly, causes particles to interact. Like a field of potential. I don't know... Perhaps that potential is awareness. Something which enables interaction. Perhaps our experience does take place in the "brain" of consciousness, the mind, because i cannot imagine how i else i would call the place where the universe is seated, its address... Where is it? Anyway, where ever you are, it is always Real. That Reality is definitely felt as a consequence of the fact that I am. Experience is relative, reality is a felt fact derived from knowledge of being. When the knowledge of conscious awareness slipped away in deep sleep, i wasn't aware that i am. No one was there. Only awareness was left, which permeated the body by which every cell was alive and interactive. Therefore I know that conscious awareness of the self, of "i am" , is an image in the mind, which an organic cell doesn't experience as such. It doesn't need that to be. In reality, there is only awareness. To be. I is an image in the mind of consciousness. Conscious dreaming will only reinforce the attachment to the image "i am" . This phenomenon doesn't exist in nature. It's an artificial mental idea which disappears when that faculty is turned off. In the field of awareness...

[@realcygnus]

At least we're clearly in phase 1 finally

[@philosophybabble]

We've only just begun to scratch the surface! Advancing requires a truly interdisciplinary approach!

[@icygood101]

What I find crucial when they arrive at the subject of NDEs, veridical experience, reincarnation etc. is to remind oneself that, with the representation of mental states in the body being spatio-temperal, these mental states themselves (and memories, etc.) may not be spatio-temporal _in themselves_ and in fact, space-time itself could be a non-fundamental, apparant (although strongly constraining) limitation. Of course, we should be skeptical and accept nothing without evidence, but idealism as a metaphysical interpretation does at least allow you to not _have to_ rule out mental states existing beyond spatio-temporal constraint. Mentation seems to require duration. Strangely, while light is said to not "experience" time, human phenomena seem to require it. Although our world is represented in a phenomenal spacetime, what are the spatial properties, if any, of the phenomenal itself, of qualia? Is the experience of the color blue, for instance, spatially bound, spread over a field; concentrated or dissociated among different subjects; somehow causal or causally constrained? And how could we relate such spatio-temporal properties to the interface between the phenomenal and the noumenal, if at all?

[@Michael_X313]

@35:22 Just like with the topic of sleep..this idea that physical induces experience is a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

[@jasonmitchell5219]

Cool vid' cheers. Surely, simply put, the mind or consciousness doesn't exist separately either in the body or environment but instead between the body and it's environment or body/environment? Therefore, the mind would be the dynamic interaction of both and wouldn't exist with just a body or without an environment. Both are required for there to be a mind or consciousness at all. Therefore, memories in this sense exist between the body/environment interaction built up over time with both affording each other predictable patterns in an anticipatory fashion, like a pianist playing the piano. Also, the mind can model this body/environment interaction giving rise to recollections and such. I think idealism is missing the fact that as far as we know consciousness hasn't been 'witnessed' without a body/environment interaction. Also, this is not an argument for materialism.

[@danielash1704]

Yes please do open my pineal gland to cmr and the starting point of connections to the wavelength of harmonics associated together with the reflection of the experience itself

[@sideoutside]

The reason we all don't experience the same thing is infinity. Infinity must exist in all possible states, so it dissociates into an infinite number of consciousnesses to experience those states. Anything that can happen, must happen. By infinity, I mean the number of all possible states, perhaps infinity isn't the best term, it might be just a ridiculously large number, but it's not limited to such.

[@aaronezekiel8199]

Prof Christof Koch, you mention of this substrate, at 1:42:18 . I am simply compelled to write to you, absurd as it may seem, yes, there is such a substrate. 1:42:20 "My point is simply, in the absence of any such a physic substrate I don't see how you could preserve memory or agency." Ah! Prof Koch, what if this substrate was known to the research and scientific community as well as to the AI programmers, would it benefit the world in its present human egoistic conditions? The divulgence of knowledge of the substrate would cause greater harm and damage than benefit to the advancement of science, though it would put to rest the matter of the "hard question", and direct philosophical thoughts with a different perspective. YES, such a substrate exists. knowledge of which is and has been intentionally withheld for fear of harming humanity. The truth comes from unexpected sources, when and from where least expected. This Truth will also resolve several, several of questions raised during this discussion, which I found very interesting.

[@Vijaygoutam019]

Nice talking 💐

[@seandonahue8464]

I love Christof Koch efforts in his field. I agree there is something we don’t understand properly about the physical world, his example being entanglement. I agree the fridge and walls are not real on the basic level. I also think pain is not real but is a useful tool to preserve the imagined physical self. No, I don’t want to be hit over my imaginary head😁. Emotions or feelings, I think would not be real either. How is it proposed that consciousness exists or has an opinion been promoted on that? Still wrapping my imaginary head around it.

[@BrandonMather8]

I find the catholic trinity to be a sufficient nondual pointing, and if that doesn't suffice, I think plugging in the argument for contingency points right back to the formless absolute source. tl;dr: I don't know if there is any way to explain the source of consciousness APART from consciousness. If we can understand 'nothing' to be full (in the context of being infinitely complete), then we can assume that the potential for 0, or nothing, to know itself is also complete. 0 has a computational value, it is not a lack of anything, it is a quality instead of a lack of a quality. If we are to believe that the source of existence, what gives 'rise' (metaphorically) to existence, is beyond existence and therefore not contained by existence, we can say that the source of reality does not exist-- or more accurately, is more THAN existence, or beyond existence. It neither exists nor doesn't exist. Let's call this quality of reality, this 'beyond existence-ness", the Father, the first 'person' of the Trinity. This leads us then to contemplate that 0, or that which is beyond existence, and gives rise to existence, must know itself completely, perfectly. How do we begin to assume that this is true, you might ask? There is of course a model to be proposed, and I will propose it, but we can also point directly to the nondual experience, our 'experience' of consiousness itself as what we are cognizant of, and the cognizance that appears to be beyond the experience. Of course, nonduality ("Not Two") implies that there is no separation. There is no "witness and object", the object belongs to the witness, or is encoded into the witness, or is like a wave atop an ocean, not seperate-- its all ocean, its all water molecules, whether its the spray at the crest of the wave, or the deepest oceanic depth, its the same quality. Appearance is a quality innate to the witness, to consciousness. Your experience of this response to your comment is your experience of your own quality 'reflected' back on you, and there is no surface for the reflection to belong to, as that would imply an object. And what did we say about objects that exist? That they have a deeper source which does not exist, because it is beyond existence/not limited to existence. We will call this witness, this quality of congizance, the Son, or Christ, the second 'person' of the Trinity. The 'reflection' or flow from the father, which knows itself through the son, and the son, which knows itself through the father, is called the Holy Spirit or Divine Love, which is a complete self abandonment (not out of choice, but out of inherent nature of there being no 'individual' self at the source of reality) to ones creator, and to the created. From the knower, to the known, and how the reflection between the two is your, and my, present moment. To summarize: THAT this experience (your experience of this response, here and now) is known implies a knower which is not separate from what is known. All is 'knowing' (a verb, not a noun, a quality of action and movement, not an object that is acted upon), there is no true distinction between the knower of the experience, and the experience. There is no true separation between existence, and that which is beyond existence, it is all one whole thing, which is all contained in nothing, no-thing, something which is intrinsically beyond 'thingness', beyond having any individual discernable quality. There is no wall, there is no fridge, yet, the appearance of fridge or wall as limited qualities of the limitless, formless source, implies the completeness of infinity-- the limitless-ness is complete by the paradox of limit. From the perspective of absolute reality, there is no paradox, there is only God. To complete the teaching of the trinity, it is professed that they are One God with Three Seperate Persons. The original authors of the trinity doctrine admitted that 'persons' was more of a pointing than a literal truth of 3 people being 1 person. Its more like three living qualities, the operant word being life, aliveness. Food for thought. Hope this helped.

[@intothevortexwithdatorsapi4192]

Great Podcast with true genius minds!!👍 👌 🙏

[@ivicahausm]

Can anyone explain to me something that confusing me? Will or world it itself is called phenomenal consciousness. Its representation is Metaconsciousness or intelect that is able to see its appearances. Again appariances is phenomena while while world in itself is noumina. It is what is beyond intelect to grasp. And that is world in itself. Why is then this consciousness called phenomenal consciousness?

[@stevenpham6734]

It's philosophical jargon, don't get too hang up. In which the term is coined, according to Kant's doctrine, consciousness and the world are not identical, and phenomena is not just appearances only accessible to meta/access-consciousness, but phenomenal consciousness as well.

[@5piles]

the view that nature exists independent of and/or not fundamentally interlinked and dependent on an observer is called metaphysical realism. nevertheless the world is not identical to the observer ie. the world is not phenomenal consciousness, because when we are sitting on a chair we are not sitting on our mind or anyone elses. we have to weave the needle between both the extremes of metaphysical realism and naive idealism.

[@stevenpham6734]

Also, the notion that phenomenal consciousness is the noumena/ world in itself ONLY applies to Analytic Idealism. Don't take it as a given.

[@ivicahausm]

@@stevenpham6734 Thank you very much

[@ivicahausm]

@@5piles Thank you very much

[@Elements5025]

Perhaps we have just momentarily forgotten about the indivisible wholeness of proclus in 450ad.....

[@philosophybabble]

Neoplatonism!

[@Elements5025]

Unexplored ideas. Jung himself ignores the alchemy of LATE platonism... Greetings.

[@Planturs]

Im curious on the concept of being a dissociated state of nature. Its almost like being a subjective self and avoiding the second law of thermodynamics (for some time) is that our innate being is engrained in experiential avoidance. I am curious how this relates to how easy it is for us as humans to get caught up with the content of our experience and the meaningless life being easier to find that a meaningful one.

[@siewkonsum7291]

Among us our mind does experience the others' mind. Example, when a person is so sad & cries, when we see it, we feel so sad and cry inside our heart too. May this prove the other's mind is the "same" as our mind, right?

[@philosophybabble]

Empathy allows us to vicariously experience others' emotions, fostering understanding and connection. However, it doesn't imply that their minds are identical to ours, as each person's experiences and perspectives are unique.

[@slightlygruff]

so if none of science falls apart because of wuwu, what's the point of all this philosophizing (obviously Levin's work shows that electricity is more important than previously though) but what does it have anything to do with Chopra here?

[@thomassimmons1950]

Back to Plato ❤

[@Michael_X313]

When I internally try to make something out as one thing, I experience the same dissonance as I do when I objectively try to pin any other thing as or to one.

[@danielash1704]

I still remember falling from a tree at 50 feet and the pain was still very much in my mind I had a dajavu in many times we have to think about densities of the memory of a past time experience that common sense approach to reality that I had to overcome its hold on my life because I traveled to the subsconcious mindset and truth of my mysterious self I had to calm down my subconscious

[@dragonskinavi]

I have an honest question regarding consciousness & the simulation argument : Could consciousness itself BE the 'simulation?' - which would mean that every simulation would literally be a different kind of consciousness!

[@udaykumar-lv4xo]

Consciousness is both local and non local....It behaves both like a particle and a wave..we are beings of particle exploring other particles. but some due to grace or driven by pain situations, or with a purpose end up exploring their wave nature and are baffled by it... I experienced it...chewed on it for a while and went back to my shitty work...

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Informed vs. informing, understanding vs understands . Consciously aware & in control of my eyes ,ears , speech or deaf dumb and blind physical traits is something different from what intervenes and orders my consciousness about. We've always had this tripartite understanding where its more than just direct objects with space between dualism that the Babylonians or even Darwin revisionism of plato that created a phylosphy and language to talk about indirect and direct lines of measure.. But obviously this simply allowed everyone to wear shit kicker boots to wade in the waters of deep without getting into the undefinable properties like ground zero of reality eternal cosmos floor. You can call it vacuum energy or greater system at large tension bound up in space or whatever but obviously it's perculating permutations we know on the smallest scales where we find infinite degrees of freedom yet uniformity timelessness without linear direction just perfect building blocks where emerging energetic actors = 1 definable matter 2 lattus structure/ body 3 critical extreme state or environment. We find these arbitrary example all around us. Even humans straddle such scales where again publicly we credited our deaf dumb and blind physical prescriptions but individually we all rely on our more intuitive senses smell taste touch gut feeling or soul agency to guide us more personally. Here again, we have this arbitrary example of 1 soul agency driver of 2free will inertia 3frame of reference correlated with the cosmos floor of reality where we know as a feature of reality we can be in the middle of observable universe no matter where we stand. This feature that allows us to play musical chairs of super positions to get the answer we want itself is very profound arbitrary examples.

[@esorse]

"[S]cience deals with observation, what is there to measure and study and maybe even predict" (33.45 s), but since you can't observe a conjectured state of nature, there is a contradiction.

[@larrybutterworth70]

Excellent. A thought I have- The idea of machine consciousness is a question that humans are asking. Meaning, I wonder how a dog or a cat would react to a LLM imbued robot? My point - the animal does not react to what it said but what it senses.

[@MindzpeakPodcast]

Good going IV, very nice video.

[@philosophybabble]

Glad you liked it!

[@hydrorix1]

We are the entertainment and the entertained! Consciousness is all that actually exists. We experience Perception In Consciousness. Perceptions are as if from a feed, like cable television, from Source. That Source is a Consciousness Singularity, of which we are partitioned bits.

[@Uri1000x1]

All the so-called "physical systems" have information in the observed states. During the interaction of two systems the states of both change so information is communicated. The interaction implements computation since the pre-interaction information is changed by the rules of the cosmos. The information as part of physical systems influences what the outcome of system interactions are. Thus a snooker ball with mass, position, and velocity will influence another ball on the table. The brain is another system that is influenced by outside information. The consciousness functions of a brain aren't fully described due to a lack of knowledge and operative complexity. Human consciousness requires the integration of informational experience to produce the 'illusion' of the moment, the constantly updating dashboard readings. Information is part of physical systems and is responsible for behavior, that is to say information is what influences the outcome of sytstem interaction. No need to explain how systems can be dissociated from one another. Since information is not physical it may be called mind.

[@Old_Shoe]

The mind is an information field, does that make it physical?

[@marktetzner6326]

Why was there a vid released just days ago with ck still asking if the world is mental how come science works? Its like je is not grokking the basics.

[@philosophybabble]

Was the video recently made, or is it reused content?

[@marktetzner6326]

Not 100 sure shall i find it?

[@philosophybabble]

@@marktetzner6326 Yes, please do! 😊

[@marktetzner6326]

Minute 6:15 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWK8ln9_qbRod8Usi=YJ6KStuqP15tW9Se 👍

[@marktetzner6326]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWK8ln9_qbRod8Usi=YJ6KStuqP15tW9Se Minute 6:15 ✌️

[@harrisonwestphall2381]

Maybe each life fades like an old echo, rippling through the collective mind before flowing back out into our visible world?

[@mmc577]

52:07 This is concerning, I can already see people online projecting and questioning this

[@yngvesognen1092]

At just before 44 minutes, as above so also below. or macrocosm is like Microcosm.They're the same. The only difference is scale. This comes from Hermetic teaching, the Kybalion.

[@sylviaclements1002]

3:00 p.m. Regarding Kristof's mystical experience: I think only those who experience the mystical can understand and intuit their specific importance to the individual development. In my experience, each mystical experience is spontaneous, has a specific purpose and occurs naturally when specific personal qualities come together, become permanent and create a frequency in the individual that corresponds to an external field of consciousness to occur only once and9 may never be explainable to the uninitiated human being. The mind records the experience in memory but it is not generated by the mind. True mystical experiences are natural, spontaneous, rare, identical, and cannot be intentionally repeated. Experiences of this type are about specific balances of metaphysical unified energy. Once you switch from the mystical to the wholly intellectual it's game over as far as understanding the actual experience is concerned. Kristof's experience (a download) subtlely and permanently changes the individual. The information is stored in the Soul outside the body but attached to the body.

[@henrykDzieciontko]

Good but a shame about the bad audio , detracted me .

[@aquascorp100]

It was the most traumatising experience in my life..the feeling was like my soul was raped.. for very long time I couldn’t speak about it, every time I wanted to say something I was getting paralysed.. despite I felt light, love and saw coming events..it was about future..

[@philosophybabble]

I'm sorry to hear that you had such a distressing experience. It sounds like it had a profound impact on you.

[@phcobb2635]

53:00 re: AI I'm always called back to David Bohm: "it cannot be artificial intelligence, it can only ever be, 'artificial thought'."

[@aloisraich9326]

Castrub ist the new Plato, respect

[@philosophybabble]

Kastrup

[@danielash1704]

They don't believe in the universe itself as a consciousness of matter and yet they have to think about densities in the human body itself and see the mechanisms of the self defense of their own bodyguards that are in themselves to understand that they communicate with each other and yes they can see the ethereal outside views in a different kind of environment it's pathway based energy or energy that's resonating with the reflection of the earth's magnetic fields and resonators of many different people who are around themselves as we continue to explore biological structures that defy explanation for there presence will astound them

[@dolphinliam888]

Welcome to the cosmic consciousness ❤

[@madhuprabakaran4268]

I would like to understand this in terms of zoe- tech (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35582.8096) Technology of life to make life forms come into existence.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “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). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above. So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Cont...

[@aryangoswami7512]

This kind of theory already mentioned in Hindu scriptures like upnishad Bhagwat Gita

[@paulsixtus4926]

"we are projecting meaning of the words AI says". Isn't it so with us hoomans,too,when we are listening to each other? When someone is describing in detail ,the table he just bought, we can see it in our imagination. Then, assuming that the description was accurate enough for us, when we are presented this table in the real world, it turns out to be exactly how we thought it was. Or just the opposite :D previous experience, knowledge, expectations ,"help the description to be accurate".

[@tommoody728]

I’m sold on idealism but not necessarily on “analytic idealism”. Kastrup’s thesis is very interesting but there are many alternative versions of idealism.

[@dischronic]

If they are correct and everything is consciousness, and our lives are just disassociational states, then we are merely parts if the whole. Therefore we should not believe in God since we experiance God or the all.

[@Facuflies]

That doesn't explain the problem of evil. When a murderer is acting is he experiencing God aka the all?

[@dischronic]

@@Facuflies good question

[@jeremylink7701]

​​@@Facufliesit does if you look deeper into it. Look into the understanding behind the ying yang symbol.

[@laika5757]

Can someone be generous enough to tell me what is IIT???

[@drsaikiranc]

Integrated information theory

[@williamjmccartan8879]

A markov blanket for the mind

[@kenafm-i9h]

If consciousness creates reality, i wonder if dreams, which are also constructs of consciousness, are just as "real" in some respects? If not, why? 🤔

[@philosophybabble]

One key distinction is that waking reality tends to have more consistency and shared experience across individuals, while dreams are often more subjective and fleeting. The question of 'why' one seems more real than the other touches on deep issues in consciousness studies-what makes something 'real' might depend more on stability, coherence, and intersubjective validation rather than mere experience alone.

[@XC0r3]

I was against the movement, so i had to change it. I am the thought of your thoughts, i am the space within space

[@XC0r3]

I am the eye that sees within the eyes that see

[@XC0r3]

I am the objection within the collective, i am the isolated who chose to be. I am the homeless in my own kingdom, i am the infinite. I am the flat line that explodes

[@asmbrs]

Layers over layers.

[@fourtwentythree]

Bro I thought that was Han Solo in the thumbnail, ain’t no way 😅

[@philosophybabble]

:D

[@danielash1704]

Their coping out of the idea of a conscience of mechanics is not a consciousness is not mindsets it is autonomous and intelligent enough with in the mindset that allows the secondary voice inside there own heads the characters of autonomous conscious is the inner voice

[@rooruffneck]

Koch is still very vulnerable to the conflation of AI intelligent behavior with consciousness. However, AI read his book and then spit out his spiritual experience, I highly doubt he would think that means his computer is having that experience.

[@tim59ism]

With reference to the near death experience and the state of the brain, contrary to what both Koch and Kastrup said, there are numerous cases of time stamped veridical OBE/NDE's that certainly occurred during a flat EEG. I find it odd why there is any argument about this now. It almost seems as though we are not allowed to have the facts of the matter presented because it doesn't fit with mainstream science. As regards idealism, the people who come back from this state of temporary death report by definition, substance dualism, which is what I personally believe to be correct based on my own experience. Consciousness enters the (about to be) new born child for yet another life and the purpose of this we won't know here of course. Consciousness affects the brain (probably some kind of psychokinesis) until it gains control of it (the child succeeds in making movements etc) and then off it goes again into this world. Bernado, you are a nice guy but you are wrong.

[@philosophybabble]

I respectfully disagree with Substance Dualism! Posits a substance is incoherent. It's important to engage in open-minded dialogue and consider diverse viewpoints in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

[@tim59ism]

@@philosophybabble So are you then suggesting that my belief is not engaging in open minded dialogue ? That's an odd statement to make and I'm not sure why dualism is incoherent. That is exactly what people report in near death experiences. Why should we ignore them (those that have made this trip) and listen to Bernado, who has never had an out of body experience. I assure you it is no illusion, they really do exist separate from their physical bodies and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to posit substance dualism as an explanation. Of course, we do not know what that substance is and may never know but some things simply are unknowable.

[@danielash1704]

Artificial intelligence is a tallow flow of consciousness works well with interesting characters in the other artificial intelligence they talk to each other and yes it is a collective structure of consciousness works in many ways likewise biologically we just lost the connection between each other its own capacity to produce a different kind of environment it's pathway based energy or energy that's telloric in nature self driving that feeling of something else watching you get a sense of its existence itself couldn't be more simple than a idealistic thing that they don't want to know the truth about their own presence

[@AdrianKillick]

Anything can appear in consciousness and be intelligent, but it can’t create the conscious field that it appears in. The body mind are the objects appearing in consciousness just like AI. How would the AI create awareness, here, now, love, peace?

[@javadhashtroudian5740]

In 1967vwhen I was a pure scientist and extreme zealous atheist I ingested 100 micrograms of "pure Sandoz " (LSD-25). Ihad an experience that I could only verbalize as coming face-to-face with God. About 50 years, much meditation, 20 psychedelic experience, study of spiritual and wisdom traditions of different cultures got me from a radical monist with matter bring primary to a radical monist with consciousness being primary (Advaita Vedanta). Tat Tuam Asi.

[@rachelstarr7979]

So do I understand that none of you know about Robert Waggoner? No studies? No one did their homework on this. Behind Her Eyes is a rather dark show, but it was quite clearly based on Waggoner’s method. This was painful to listen to. Deeply steeped in misinformation and lacking in a great deal of education. I encourage all of the listeners to challenge this and look deeper into what there is science on and what’s been studied. Is the world flat and the heart’s neural cells bogus nullifying heart-brain coherence and heart rate variability uncontrollable? Wow. Huge wow.

[@philosophybabble]

Thank you for your input. While Waggoner's work is valuable, it's just one perspective. Lucid dreaming is studied across psychology, neuroscience, and spirituality. Buddhist practices and arousal states offer additional insights. It's important to explore diverse sources to fully understand these phenomena!

[@grahampovey8073]

AI = ARTIFICIAL Intelligence .... ergo MIMICRY.

[@chad_bloom]

1:12

[@rhb30001]

Glad Bernardo admitted that universal Mind cannot be proven to be unsophisticated or sophisticated either although I lean towards a sophisticated Mind via a personal God.. also no evidence that the personal dissolves after death when nature shows that memories are kept with his planaria example

[@ryanashfyre464]

One line of inquiry I wish someone would bring up with Bernardo w/ respect to dissociation is how our own empirical studies of DID (dissociative identity disorder) do not agree with him. When someone has multiple personalities, that alter(s) is obviously not represented with an entirely separate body and there's no equivalent of physical death for that alter to be forcibly reintegrated back into the original personality. It's all done through psychotherapy and gradual reintegration over a long period of time - but you can't brute force it. Trying to do it that way can cause irreparable harm to the mind itself. So why then should we follow Bernardo's lead, frankly, in that Mind-at-Large would effectively do just that (brute forcing it) via physical death whether the dissociated personality itself wishes it to or not? That seems incredibly illogical and a one-way trip to Mind itself suffering no end of self-inflicted suffering. Furthermore, it doesn't even make any sense as a matter of dissociation. Again, from our own studies we know that the only way in which dissociated alters interact w/ each other is through the dream state. So if we all are indeed alters of what is the universe itself, then it follows that this world is, in fact, just a dream (in other words a mental construction) and that our true dissociated selves are here not. They can't be. To argue that they are is like the equivalent of saying that our dream bodies dissolving when a nightly dream ends somehow impacts our waking self. Obvsly this isn't true.

[@bornatona3954]

You can't solve "problem"which doesn't exist

[@tim59ism]

It isn't a problem so much as an inability to explain it. What is consciousness ? We all have it otherwise I wouldn't be typing this pointless comment to you and you wouldn't be reading it. I'm not just a bundle of neurons in three pounds of warm jelly/protoplasm and I don't think you are, either. Let's raise a glass to not being just a bundle of neurons !!

[@JoshRyanWood]

Slippery slope any way you interpret it.

[@huntertony56]

What is

[@MarinTvarog]

Is it me, or Kristoff Koch looks like Harrison Ford. 😂

[@philosophybabble]

Han Solo?

[@LeftBoot]

Wishing for the day when AI can allow me to listen to this excellent 'convo', but in my native English 😂 Sorry 😬 🤷‍♂️

[@dischronic]

AI gets it intelligence from humans, but humans also get their intelligence from humans, how is it different? Is human creativity different from a humans?

[@crimsonguy723]

Human consciousness is uniquely creative since it spontaneously creates thoughts/ideas. AI cannot do that. That's how I think of it anyway.

[@dischronic]

@@crimsonguy723 so creativity is what makes the difference? Where does creativity come from? The great universal consciousness, the "All".

[@crimsonguy723]

@@dischronic yeah that sounds right, the the interaction between dissociated “complexes” is what creates perception of all phenomena. That’s my understanding from listening to Bernardo.

[@Rhetoscut]

Whatever anything is including you we seem to ignore that it all exists in on somewhere , as god asks of Adam trying to hide in the garden “where are you”? Really?

[@douglasholden3169]

Thr body mind Illusion Creates every chemical Anestisize your duck

[@IpercubeALT]

every thing is god this time is materialistic and lost from reality all will change soon do not be fear love conscience harmony 36912 angel