Robert Stickgold - Why did Consciousness Emerge?

Follow us on X for news and articles, plus connect with other viewers: shorturl.at/imHY9
There was a time when there was no consciousness in our universe. Now there is. What caused consciousness to emerge? Did consciousness develop in the same way that, say, the liver or the eye developed, by random mutation and fitness selection during evolution? Inner experience seems to be radically different from anything else. Are we fooling ourselves?
Watch more interviews on consciousness as emergent: shorturl.at/ygbYu
Support the show with Closer To Truth merch like T-shirts, hoodies, and mugs: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Robert Stickgold is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Register on CTT.com for free to get members-only benefits: closertotruth.com/
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@gerardjones7881]

its not emergent, its fundamental. we evolved to orchestrate it better. but it was always there...wherever "there" is.

[@valuemastery]

The question "Why did consciousness emerge" presumes that it did emerge from something else, which might not be the case at all. So the question itself may be flawed and only lead to misinterpretations of consciousness.

[@shawnewaltonify]

Expert meditation practitioners may argue that they have proof that it did emerge from zero. Zero or the void is what expert meditators touch several times a minute and it is otherwise known as total dissolution of self. The only reason this is not more well discussed is out of respect for the tradition that has protected this knowledge and allowed it to be passed on from one generation to the next. More specifically, it is respect for the tradition enough not to argue with the claim that the self and the world is illusion even though these experts continue to return to the same body, self and world which is qualifies as a repeatable experiment. At some point the hard problem of consciousness will need to be addressed and made to agree with psychology field of research in some kind of new Buddhist denomination that is given some kind of blessing by some Buddhist masters. Maybe, non-duality philosophy, for example.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

Beginning at 0:06: "To understand it from an evolutionary perspective why did it emerge, what is it about, the internal feeling and sense of qualia, the redness of red, the smells, the feeling of consciousness, why was that important, why did that select for?" This is asking why the highest most advanced most complex level of human level self-aware consciousness exists without understanding that consciousness began at a vastly simpler level where the idea of a smell or color did not exist.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Correct the correlation is survival in respect to behaviour the others follow suit. What the confusion could be is this , what we call or define a being ' Conscious' is nothing more than behaviour of the biological life form to survive in its habitat or environment. You see this in other biological life especially its this survival from within the structure that is most important or which is being expressed. You can attach any word you like to it like soul, spirit, consciousness it makes no difference at all God the after life also. All refer to survival as a projection or as from within the biological structure, the more complex the structure then the higher degree of survival from within it.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

You are starting to look at it from a non human perspective or historical contextualization which will send you in good stead for your future developments of thoughts about survival. I don't want to give you all the answers.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur I've been looking at this from a non-human evolution of intelligence since 1977.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur consciousness is very simple, extremely simple. Consciousness is the act, the process, of any intelligent system actively being aware of something over which is applies its intelligence and thus the intelligent system is conscious of what it is aware of. The real question is "WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE"?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 Another way to approach the problem is with this extension of survival itself and it goes as follows, take a human who is injured or is 'unconscious' now attach a 2week or 4 week time span to this where the individuals capacity to behave has been disabled by being 'unconscious' you exists but cannot behave with environment or it cannot partake in the activities to survive as this has been disabled or is inactive or taken away the ability to decide, make choices, move, or behave. You exist as such when unconscious for this 2week or 4week period the survival capacity or the requirements needed to be meet the criteria cannot occur or have been disabled and you will not survive because the ability to survive or survival itself has been injured or cannot proceed. Or the behaviour of survival the process into which it expresses itself has been disabled so you cannot meet the criteria needed to survive or exist if this 'Unconsciousness' is valid for a 4week period, you will need support in some form to survive from others because the internal function has been disabled which is the ability to survive in environment from within the structure. This is the easiest way to describe what we are trying to postulate with the term 'Consciousness.' This is the reason why Soul, spirit, consciousness ,God the after life all represent postulations of survival of some form or in definition terms or language however they mis represent the true nature of an individual which is the ability to survive in environment with 'Behaviour'. Soul is the postulation of survival from within the structure or human being survival, spirit is another linguistics trick or term for survival from within the structure, God is Immortal can be reached with survival of postulated soul after survival has been disabled this world, the after life is a similar postulation of survival with soul or spirit required to survive death or an extension or postulation of survival into the future however with no 'Meat on the Bones' or no correlation to the physical unlike the survival reality from within any given biological structure. All postulate survival of form or biological structure and this does not consider weather other biological life forms have souls, spirits and are available for the after life or historical bio life or biosouls or dinosouls can meet the required criteria for the after life based on the survival behaviour they exhibit, Good or Bad meat eater or herbivore. Also we must consider the historical context meaning that these entities or bio creatures existed or evolved before man existed so in actual reality would be available or would be earlier additions to the after life if they indeed had souls or spirits considering they evolved before humans existed. The more logical perspective is this, the survival behaviour or need to survive is expressed from within the biological life forms structure and this is why in the past we have postulated other language to describe the true force of nature which is survival from within the structure being expressed and explaining the words soul, spirit, consciousness and other postulations such as God, Jesus or the after life. Note the ability to survive has been disabled when 'Unconscious' coupled with the behaviour to survive. You will exist but only in reference to a particular time span because the ability has been lost or disabled from within the structure to survive. This is the logos. Do not be fooled my friend this is the 'Meat on the Bone or in a Sandwich' Watch the Charlotins. I prefer my meat on the bone. How do you like yours? You will now realize how many poor souls or spirits have been swindled into believing make believe or lies, we must enlighten these brainwashed souls before they can reach the after life. The dinosouls and biosouls are waiting for us to arrive. Got to love a Good dinosoul story. Enjoy.

[@ianwaltham1854]

1:25: As I suspected, the existence of consciousness suggests free will is real. If consciousness had zero effect on our actions then what fitness advantage would it give? Why weren't we outcompeted by unconscious automatons? They'd make far more efficient hunters: No fear, no worry, no problems. They'd have wiped us out.

[@simonhibbs887]

Fear is a highly useful evolutionary trait, for reasons I hope are obvious on reflection. So is worrying, it helps us focus our attention on high priority problems.

[@ianwaltham1854]

@@simonhibbs887 Sure, emotions can both help or hinder by influencing our decisions for better or worse. But that suggests free will. An unconscious biological robot wouldn't need any of that. It would simply and efficiently act in the best interests of its own species.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@ianwaltham1854 I think it suggests that emotions evolved as proxy goals. As biological neural network evolved they didn't have the sophistication and logical analysis capabilities to understand their environment directly. Instead they evolved groups of behaviours that worked out to be effective, without knowing and working out why they were effective. It's just that organisms that developed certain behaviours survived and others didn't. Evolution don't know why tis is the case, it doesn't need to, it's just what works for whatever reason survives. Emotions are the carrots and sticks of behavioural evolution. Our ancestors that were afraid of dark damp cold paces were more likely to survive than those that didn't because such environments harbour disease, it's hard to spot dangers, and are unlikely to contain food. Our ancestors that were attracted to wide open spaces with good sight lines (beauty spots) had an advantage, because such positions prove good views of potential approaching dangers, and resources in the terrain that might be useful. So our emotions evolved as a shortcut to having to work out such strategies rationally, which our early evolutionary ancestors didn't have the mental resources to achieve. Instead functional useful behaviours driven by basic responses like attraction and repulsion, which aided survival, are the ones that survived and we inherited. We have developed much more advanced cognitive capabilities and we can rationally work out strategies and behaviours that are optimal, but we're the first species to have the cognitive resources to be able to do that well enough for that to work on it's own.

[@kirillsleptsov1680]

I don't think consciousness and chemically induced fear has anything to do with each other

[@simonhibbs887]

@@ianwaltham1854Emotions are an evolutionary shortcut. Our evolutionary ancestors didn’t understand the principles of geography, ecology, environmental resource distribution, etc so couldn’t logically plan their activities and behaviour from first principles. So their behaviour evolved based on what worked and what didn’t. We fear dark, cold, enclosed spaces because they can conceal hidden dangers, decay and disease. We enjoy wide open views of a varied countryside because they give good visibility of possible dangers and terrain features that might contain useful resources. Our ancestors that feared the former and enjoyed the latter were more likely to survive, so those traits got passed down. We find people beautiful because the those traits are associated with good health and advantageous genetics. Emotions are the carrots and sticks evolution developed to poke and prod our ancestors into effective behaviours, without having to know or work out why those behaviours are effective.

[@fireside9503]

It’s interesting that in many individuals who have experienced the NDE phenomena, their brain was said to be in a vegetative-like state. Meaning the cerebral cortex, known, and widely accepted as the seat of consciousness, was damaged or rendered incapable of conjuring memory or coherent thought. Tyler Henry, the famous psychic medium, also had his brain monitored while he actually gave a reading. During which, his brain also exhibited a similar sleep-like state. So on the surface, it appears that when the brain is incapable of thought processes, it is producing experience. And in terms of the NDE’s, it is producing wildly vivid experience that is vacant of our worldly rationalization. An anecdotal observation, but an observation of consideration none-the-less.

[@simonhibbs887]

All the NDE studies I’ve looked at have been terribly flawed. They assume that zero EEG readings mean no brain activity, but that’s not the case. EEG can only reliably detect activity over regions of the brain involving millions of brain cells, anything below that won’t always show up, and the authors of those studies must know this. More modern techniques such as fMRI has shown that dying patients can have spikes in brain activity much longer after loss of blood pressure than previously believed, invalidating these NDE studies.

[@nicholash8021]

If you are correct, I'm curious why being under anesthesia doesn't produce any NDE-like experiences. I've been under anesthesia for surgery five times and never had any experiences.

[@fireside9503]

@@nicholash8021 general anesthesia has been associated with NDE’s. Not all have the experience, however. Just as with an NDE associated with trauma, not all will have the experience.

[@nicholash8021]

@@fireside9503 But this doesn't explain the myriad anecdotes where people with NDEs could describe things that happened in other rooms or even distant locations accurately which could not be explained by simply imagining those things unconsciously.

[@willie5578]

Again, anything that reacts is showing awareness. An awareness of what is outside of it. Consciousness is fundamental to reaction so it seems to be if matter is fundamentally vibratory energies, prior to observation, this would be the foundation of consciousness. Particals(energies) reacting with themselves......" I don't know Arbies is pretty cool"

[@valuemastery]

But there is a difference between "awareness" simply regarded as information processing ("mechanically" acting on sensory data from outside) and "consciousness" regarded as "having inner experience" (or qualia). Before we can draw any conclusions, we have to clarify which of those we are talking about.

[@peterrauth118]

Consciousness as yet, cannot be explained as an algorithmic process

[@dr_shrinker]

Sure it can. People who don’t understand brain science just like to argue.

[@peterrauth118]

@@dr_shrinker Not according to Sir Roger Penrose.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@peterrauth118 who cares what Penrose thinks? Without offering any evidence, appealing to authority to argue a position is a logical fallacy

[@peterrauth118]

@@dr_shrinker I offered nothing, merely made an observation. But I would be happy to stand corrected, if you would care to show me the algorithm that determines consciousness.

[@dr_shrinker]

⁠@@peterrauth118I couldn’t show you the algorithm that demonstrates how Mac or windows works, or the blast radius of a Supernova; but I can tell you they exist as physical constructs and are measurable. However, neurologists can record and playback a person’s conscious experience, it’s been proven. That means consciousness has an algorithm and is tangible.

[@ravingcyclist624]

Who says that everything is not conscious. To assume that only humans are conscious is the height of conceit! I just watched a wren build a nest in my hanging basket. The nest is a work of art. She worked very hard to feed the hatchlings and get them off to their lives. They all came back the other day and visited the nest. A sort of home coming. How does a wren know it's a wren? How does it know it's female? How does it find and mate with a male? How does it build an amazing nest? Etc. Totally brilliant! Her accomplishments challenge the capabilities of humans.

[@PaulHoward108]

The bidirectional underdetermination in nature implies every noun is a soul.

[@guaromiami]

Yeah, without the burden of actual evidence, you can claim all sorts of things.

[@bodhihouareau-rose8964]

​@@PaulHoward108Are you implying that a rock is conscious?

[@peterrauth118]

Many animals are self aware. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever had a pet.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@bodhihouareau-rose8964 Yes, but not very conscious. Wanting to minimize one's consciousness can lead to an incarnation as a rock.

[@tedgrant2]

I can't remember being a single cell inside my mother. But I have been told that I was, so I guess it's true. Months later, my consciousness emerged.

[@DrGBhas]

Consciousness can also be considered from the point of view of entropy as explained by Max Tegmark in Life 3.0 There are many models of consciousness, but before going into that, we must first define what we are trying to explain or understand . Then , there is the plane of reality at which we are trying to explain consciousness. Also, what are the cognitive limitations to our knowledge of consciousness ?

[@potheadphysics]

These poor dudes who don't understand we live in a simulation. Of course we need consciousness to render the sim.

[@OfficialLaurielynn]

Yes, it Is all a simulation ❤❤

[@potheadphysics]

@@OfficialLaurielynn yay finally someone gets it.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life and Consciousness is Eternal, Life is Creator, Consciousness is Creating-Ability. The Life-Desire, (Motor) and Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles, (Compass) want Renewing and Development, and through the Circuit-Principle, develops a whole New Language and Consciousness, (in beginning was the Word) so from a Eternal Perspective, 'Emerge', is of local and temporary nature, in the Cosmic Order.

[@baldeagle-cq2jl]

" Ask me again in a thousand years", is about the gist of consciousness. We may understand a smidgen more?

[@HawthorneHillNaturePreserve]

First of all, define consciousness. Second of all which organisms do you feel have consciousness and which don’t? Only humans? I questioned the idea that consciousness is emergent, or is it fundamental?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

The ability to behave in environment for survival purposes especially historically present in early biological life forms millions of years in the past, or the evolution of survival from within the structure itself as an evolved state or composition of reality represented as 'Being Conscious or 'Being in time' ' You don't actually need the word soul, sprit or consciousness God or the after life they are all empty, invisible, incoherent, have no correlation by definition to anything physical itself. Survival in behaviour does not lack these weaknesses is true and real or exists, can be classed and defined, can be correlated to biological life, is a force of nature, is inherent, is abstract, and has 'Meat on the Bones or in a sandwich'. Thats a start.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Survival has 'Meat on the Bones' the others do not and are historically inaccurate in language or definition. What do Soul, spirit, consciousness ,God the after life all have in common which survival does not? And are all these other descriptions early mans postulations or projections of survival from within the given structure or why is survival required in all these postulations of definition or descriptions? Never rely on something which cant be seen or which is empty of substance.

[@simonhibbs887]

Consciousness is a mongrel concept, it is a collection of different activities and capacities that can occur in different degrees and combinations. This is often true of mongrel concepts making them hard to define precisely. We can only infer the presence of consciousness from behaviour, so we believe that some animals that display emotional responses, social behaviours and can perform many cognitive tasks similar to ours may have similar experiences of doing so. After all if these faculties all originated in a common ancestor of ours, it makes sense that the cognitive processes behind them are similar to those in us.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@simonhibbs887 Going to have to agree with that and it makes good sense which is vital. You are correct, it does infer to behaviour but it is also a representation from within the subject or biological life forms because our brain is within us and the brain is a vital organ for survival itself as you cannot survive or continue to exist without it which is important. I think it is a representation or extension of the ability to survive from within any given structure and it is complex survival behaviour. Ill try and extension it now from within or elaborate a point of reference.[ If you were say Unavailable ,Disabled or Unconscious because you were injured for a 2 week or 4 week period you would be disabled from activity or disabled from participating in the cognitive aspects which enable survival to occur or you could say that the ability to survive is disabled for the time span of 4 weeks or is disabled that is survival itself.. This would mean that you could not survive because you cannot partake or function in reality itself which is the process to survive by various means. It would also mean that you could exist but not survive for that time span of 4 weeks so it is a requirement of survival at a minimal inference ]. However I can take this further with survival because it is a process itself which one must adhere to, and it has ' Meat on the bones or in a sandwich' Survival is ingrained in life it is in within the structure of biological life or a strong inherent force and so it naturally wants to extend this outwardly from within but the force or nature resides from within as all parts physical or abstract which survival or bits have are survival in intent, shape, and with disposition and it is historical or a strong force. There is not one individual part or body part which is opposite to survival or was not created or it did not evolve for survival purposes of structure, this includes teeth, nose, ear, arm, leg, heart, eyes, tendons, ligaments, bones, veins, blood and our best creation for survival the brain. I try and separate existence and survival because you cant have one without the other. My comments above show more details. This could be the extension we need for the dinosouls, they are waiting for us to arrive. I use soul, spirit, biospirits or souls dinosouls or dinospirits and make a correlation with survival postulations about the after life, using other historical bio souls to show how important not merely existence is to these creatures but how important survival is within any given structure coupled with behaviour or availability of the after life as a postulation of survival itself into the future based on the behaviours of dinosouls or biosouls in a historical setting. This way I can refer to why they would need to be ' concious' to survive with the behaviour they exhibit. They could have souls or spirits but I think survival is more plausible as a concept to behaviour. This is the good and bad behaviour postulation of ancient entities, historically they existed or evolved before us or so we are later editions to soul or spirit and the after life itself or when did it first occur in biological life or is it a 'Manmade' postulation of survival. I think you know. Thats a bit more detail about how or why I got to that postulation of ;Consciousness' coupling with survival and behaviour. Soul, spirit, consciousness God , the after life are all invisible, empty, without substance, without definition or correlation to physical objects, survival does not lack this qualia or problem it has 'Meat on the bones or in a sandwich' I like the bone. Many poor souls have been swindled into believing make believe we must rescue them from the brain washing before they get to heaven. The after life is a good place for dinosouls.

[@bodhihouareau-rose8964]

​@@simonhibbs887even a single cell has multiple sense receptors. Where do we draw the line? Individual RNA molecules?

[@BuBil71]

Did we give a primitive name to conscious as we did to time?

[@alex79suited]

Are we making a mistake? Are we talking consciousness or intelligence? There's a distinction between them that's being overlooked, I think. Is that the difference, I think. A cat is conscious, and so is a mouse 🐁. What defines the definition of the word. Being alive is consciousness. What does the ER doctor say to the paramedic? Is the patient conscious. So, the definition defines the meaning, and the meaning is aware. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@cynthiao.543]

Wow…..what are the foundations of these speculations? How did he come up with these ideas?

[@Magicalfluidprocess]

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

[@gordonquimby8907]

My suspicion is that his suspicious is wrong.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

Suspicion is based on gut feelings. This guy argued with plain logic. I doubt you'll ever bring up a more coherent story. Do you?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Some of it is true some of it is nonsense.

[@Truth_Seeker_55]

Everything is suspicious and suspicions.. or this is when you talk without any evidence... Humbug

[@mobiustrip1400]

I love the way consciousness is asking why consciousness arose😂

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

This is beyond knowing for us, but it began with elementary particles forming a swarm which has not yet formed matter as we know it, and that swarm had conscious intelligence at a very, very simplistic simple level, quite likely the most primitive simplistic level.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Not at all it is quite easy to understand.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur incorrect. We are limited to the Observable Universe, but we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the beginning of consciousness, where consciousness actually first emerged, happened prior to our ability to observe. That makes it unknowable for us.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 Unknowable to the ignorant you mean.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur anyone who thinks they know what is beyond the Observable Universe, as opposed to guessing is delusional. Now, if someone learns a lot about the Observable Universe they can make educated guesses, but they would still be guesses.

[@williamburts3114]

When are these people going to understand that "why" is always an internal interpretation and not an objective fact.

[@simonhibbs887]

That’s the basis of empiricism. I don’t know if he’s an empiricist or not but many scientists are, and I don’t know how you’d tell from what he said in this interview.

[@williamburts3114]

@@simonhibbs887 He said, he believes consciousness is an accident of evolution but you would have to be able to show that the "hard problem of consciousness" Isn't a "hard problem" anymore before you could say that.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@williamburts3114 Before he could say he believes that?

[@williamburts3114]

@@simonhibbs887 Right, better to say before anyone could prove that.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

I believe there is an objective from our point of view, which is not objective, but still, from everything that we can observe within the Observable Universe, there is an 100% certainty that consciousness like ours would evolve.

[@rossw1365]

if you think about the alternative to consciousness, it's computation ie, taking numbers - the quantities of sensory and perceptual signals - and processing them simple signal and response functions operate this way but they operate this way bc the hardware and software in signal-response are simple the hardware and software needed to compute more complex behaviors are not so simple you basically need a computer and software to integrate large quantities of data and that is prob harder to evolve in organisms than consciousness and it is not as effective bc, as the old saying goes, "a picture says a thousand numbers" a picture integrates large quantities of numbers in a single experience and bc animals must respond in real time to what they see, it is faster and therefore more effective ie, it confers a survival advantage

[@rossw1365]

consciousness is quality over quantity in fact, consciousness is one of the few instances where the universe is qualitative the rest of the universe is quantitative that's what we mean by "objective", viz, "can be quantified" consciousness cannot be quantified it is qualitative

[@rossw1365]

the other instance where the universe is arguably qualitative is life there is something that it is like to be alive that cannot be fully captured by numbers except for a few edge cases, we don't talk about "quantity of life" something is either alive or it is not rather, we talk about "quality of life"

[@rossw1365]

note: the other advantage of qualia is it is top-down and enables the organism to use its natural agency computation, on the other hand, is bottom-up and denies the organism its agency so one reason computation would not naturally evolve for more complex behaviors is it works against agency, at precisely the higher-levels where organisms have agency ie, it is unnatural

[@rossw1365]

and it is not effective bc you can't a priori program responses to every contingency an organism will encounter the organism must be able to improvise and conscious experience lets the organism improve by enabling its agency it's top-down, not bottom-up

[@infinitygame18]

Conciousness emerge wherever there is awareness and awareness arise where ever light emerge and light is the by product of dark energy and matter , intelectual is simple if nerual network is connected with love❤😂

[@balagopalramakrishnan8048]

Consciousness, though, the elephant in the room, has to understood, like any other knowledge by the use of an instrument of knowledge. The Upanishads are the ONLY one. Like telescope to view distant objects. To use the instrument one has to be qualified. Hence to grasp and understand the CONSCIOUSNESS, the elephant in the room, the qualification is - 1. Knowledge of the temporary and permanent, overall. 2 Detachment that will be a spillover from the above situation 3. Well developed discipline in both the mind and the physical. 4. Intense desire to know the TRUTH. The above will happen only when one has literally done with the world and its matters and concerns. He has lived well and hence no more interest in worldly matters. Once a person reaches this state he will find a teacher who will teach him the ultimate TRUTH from the Upanishads, the ONLY INSTRUMENT OF KNOWLEDGE for knowing that Truth aka Consciousness. Until then enjoy the journey by crapping nonsense.

[@germanaruberto5840]

La coscienza non dorme She Win

[@tunahelpa5433]

I agree with this guy. It's like the conscious something or other is/was there, and at some point some animal accidentally made use of it in some way. So consciousness fundamentally is not an emergent phenomenon, but the use of it by living animals is emergent.

[@Truth_Seeker_55]

No consciousness No "WE"

[@MrModikoe]

I still hold that the basis of consciousness is not biological..

[@simonhibbs887]

Behaviour consistent with consciousness has only been observed in biological phenomena, so far.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

The burden of proof is on you. Go for it!

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Its biological and not biological.

[@MrModikoe]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur what?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Survival needs biological life or material itself to realize its potential or reality, existence alone is weak, and is not enough you need a comprehensive force or nature to continue the existence itself or existence itself is worthless.

[@frederickbaugher8361]

In my opinion, evolution occurs when a species encounters an environmental challenge that could lead to its extinction.

[@brianlebreton7011]

There are no examples of unconscious “by accident” human beings that persist or exist. I think it’s logical to assume that it’s more likely closer to being something fundamental to being human rather than an added feature. And what is lucid dreaming? Conscious and unconscious realities in cooperation/collaboration?

[@highvalence7649]

Maybe consciousness didn't emerge. Maybe it always existed.

[@kalmanjulianne]

Not all humans have consciousness.

[@DavidMaddams]

Why is it assumed that consciousness emerged from anything? How can it be known that there was a time when there was no consciousness? This is an unproven assumption, little more than a faith-based belief in the physicalist paradigm.

[@dr_shrinker]

It emerged because it requires a brain.

[@petermerelis7355]

nonsense. still assuming consciousness is a real thing in the physical sense and assuming it confers adaptive benefit. based on what?

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...If I may I believe the real value is in our ability with free will to develope more excellent gifts and talents to share with our fellow man, less fortunate, and to learn to love as GOD Loves. This way Heaven will have all the Beauty of Heaven, without the trails, pains, greed, all of the flaws of man...respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings, Love, Joy, & Peace...

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Correct.

[@francesco5581]

Can we conceive a reality without consciousness ? There was ever the possibility that our reality would have been without any conscious observer ?

[@simonhibbs887]

If conceiving things is an activity of a consciousness, then of course consciousness is necessary to conceive things. The question is do we have evidence that there were always conscious observers, and we don't.

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

It seems to me that we CAN conceive a reality in which consciousness NEVER occurrs, unlike THIS reality, in which consciousness evidently does occur intermittently. Our ability to do this IS our ability to ask WHY consciousness (and/or entities WITH consciousness) ever emerges at all. However, we obviously have no access to (or evidence of) such a reality ever existing, and for this reason, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get any kind of reading on the causal power of consciousness. If we didn't have this ability to imagine a reality forever devoid of consciousness, there simply wouldn't be any puzzlement on issue.

[@francesco5581]

@@BLSFL_HAZE So we are talking of an agent capable to experience a reality. Is a question that have just 2 answers , yes or not. I dont care if in a reality without consciousness no one was able to raise that question, i want just to know if that reality really had a chance. A materialistic stance cannot remove the possibility of a reality without consciousness.... And to me that is an absurdity.

[@francesco5581]

@@simonhibbs887 The question is : there was the "risk" of a reality without any kind of consciousness ? Because from a materialistic standpoint, yes, there was that risk.And to me that is absurd.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

... which would change absolutely nothing. A conscious observer does nothing to influence the development of the physical world beyond merely observing. Everything else is a blatant misunderstanding of quantum phyiscs.

[@XOPOIIIO]

We need to feel the redness of red to differentiate it from other colors, so our surrounding can be analyzed through our consciousness. You don't need to be conscious of automatic actions, but to plan your actions you need to feel and think.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Realization of spirit or the divine isn't so much evolution in itself but a recollection in soul; what has evolved is the brain, but when you observe nature and all things that participate in her one notices there's a kind of mind and an instinctual impulse in all things, as if a collective, which you can argue evolution but something more prominent is here like a cosmic mind and a 'good' that all things aspire after thus their becoming, as in change or evolution, is being perfected, even the microcosmic minds of beings, and greater realizations, or more properly, recollections are had.

[@jatinkhare4231]

The biggest question is for whom brain running dreams and who is experiencing it

[@rogermathura]

I agree with Robert Stickgold 100%. Life emerged from pure energy, over billions of years, and consciousness emerged from life, by evolution, to enable life to survive the next 10 billion years.

[@francesco5581]

by chance ?

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

@@francesco5581 Evolution is not about chance. It's about the outcome of two different choices.

[@francesco5581]

@@obiwanduglobi6359 choices made by who ?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Any structure or created artifact in a biological life form is for the soul purpose of survival of that particular structure, this includes any extension be that be physical or postulations on other such as abstract within the structure itself. He is also not quite correct in his postulations and shows a need of negation within his language structure.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@obiwanduglobi6359 Evolution is coupled with survival. Or 'Survival Behaviour' it is ancient in historical terms dating to before the dinosaurs existed or dinosouls survival extensions in body parts. All body structures are representations of not existence but the force which enables survival as existence is empty without survival. Do not be fooled.

[@tomazflegar]

You mean how the feeling of being conscious emerge. Feeling of being conscious and consciousness are two different things 😛

[@jamenta2]

The real question is why did Kuhn emerge?

[@doctorjay1976]

To become closer to truth

[@jamenta2]

@@doctorjay1976 Yeah as long as agrees with his reductive materialism. The guy censors and marginalizes anyone who has a legitimate different viewpoint. Much like Wikipidia and Twitter. It's deceitful.

[@tomazflegar]

He thinks through thoughts, feelings, emotions. It's matter of perspective. Those reductionists are mainly reduced only to the content, they do not see the whole picture ...

[@jamenta2]

@@tomazflegar So do other people. But real scientists do not smear other scientists like the Skeptic's society does on Wikipedia. And censor legitimate opposing opinions. What is being practiced here is a type of fundamentalism - that insists their one truth: reductive materialism is THE TRUTH and anyone else, including myself, can be censored at will. This is despicable and arrogant behavior, and makes Kuhn's approach disingenuous and dishonest.

[@jamenta2]

@@tomazflegar My reply here to you Toma was just censored. So here we got guys who insist on the 1st amendment - but now will censor anyone at will that doesn't agree with them. Isn't that true - whoever is censoring me right now? You're not an American - you don't believe in fundamental rights. You're a traitor to this country and a traitor to free speech.

[@waitwhat9669]

Asking all the wrong questions

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

It was a combination of wrong questions wrong answers.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

In the beginning there was the highest consciousness, in the end will be the highest consciousness again, the same who was in the beginning..

[@SandipChitale]

Consciousness is not a binary ability, it is a spectrum. As Michael Levins research shows even single cells gas notion of self, for self preservation. That is rudimentary consciousness. I'm not sure why the discussion pretends only higher level animals have consciousness.

[@simonhibbs887]

They act to preserve themselves, but automata like drones can do that. See my top level comment for an account fo the different levels of awareness and consciousness I think organisms have.

[@SandipChitale]

@@simonhibbs887 I think the difference is that automata can generally handle a specific situation, vs. even the smallest unicellular amoeba can deal with varied situations it or its genetic heritage may not have ever seen before. At least they try to, but may not succeed. Sure. And like I said they may thus have an attenuated consciousness, and that is why I said it is spectrum. You should really look into research by Michael Levin, Nick Lane, Manollis Kellis etc.

[@esod6527]

I don’t think that is accurate when he mentions that we don’t have control of what’s going on when we are dreaming because lucid dreaming is a real thing and you can teach yourself how to do it. Lucid dreaming is a part of Tibetan Buddhism

[@chayanbosu3293]

We are spirit souls and conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

I bet you're not able to prove the existance of an entity called "the soul"?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@obiwanduglobi6359Survival soul related to evolution .Dinosouls and biosouls is survival within the structure of a biological life form historically, present and future. The comment is fallacious or trickery.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Soul is the spirit of survival from within the structure like 'consciousness' however is based on behaviour to survive in environment. If you cant behave you wont survive that's why the brain controls behaviour and it is our best choice for survival.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur Do you concider your text as a scientific proof for an entity called "the soul"? I don't. Imo, It's just a statement without any empirical value.

[@AdrianSlo]

Hold on, you don't know that consciousness emerged. That's an unfounded assumption. The space-time universe is an experience in consciousness.

[@simonhibbs887]

I like it how you then immediately follow up with an unfounded assumption.

[@zak2659]

⁠@@simonhibbs887it is the case that space and time is how apes perceive reality. Space and time, so far, has only ever been found in experience. In fact, it would be impossible to find that which is outside of our conscious experiences. It is literally a true statement that space and time are descriptions of experience. Without consciousness, space and time are meaningless concepts that require a “view from nowhere” to make sense of.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Unscientific discussion.

[@patientson]

The soul or organs uses walking as fuel and oil for its 7 systems. Running is the worst kind of exercise training for the three major muscles.

[@shivangigaur4149]

Microbiome (Bacteria) is conciousness . Body is apparratus to percieve and project

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Its only the behaviour which determines consciousness in accordance to survival of that structure or formation.

[@jollygreen9377]

Wow! So scientific. It just “emerged.” Lol. We’re made with a soul and consciousness from the beginning. God designed us that way.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Correct. Dinosouls are early arrivals in the after life like all biosouls. They are waiting for you to arrive. They evovled before humans existed and are the earliest souls in the after life. God chose them first and likes them more than us..

[@ptkettlehatsandthegang]

3:20 Look I bet this comment won't get pinned or liked, reply and I'll do absolutely NOTHING.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Survival and behaviour coupled with evolutionary survival. Spirit ,soul , consciousness do not exist or are empty, invisible or have no meat on the bones or in a sandwich. All biological life has a tenacity or need or expression to not only exist but survive in environment. If you take away the ability to move or behave say if you were 'unconscious' or had a brain injury for a 2 or 4 week time span you would not survive or it would be impossible to survive as the mode is disabled for survival or survival by participation or activity is disabled or the function to survive is disabled. What is being described is the activity to survive in environment with survival or representation of behaviour to survive, no soul no spirit but the disposition or evolution of survival itself within the biological structure which we call being conscious. Survival itself is abstract and has meet on the bones or can be seen to exist within the biological structures behaviour because it comes from within the structure itself, survival can be correlated to the physical, is true, is invisible or empty and is a force of nature because of existence itself which is different to survival by participation or behaviour. Another simple question you can ask is this. What is the force within a human or another biological life form which tells it or prevents it from death or self destruction, or blowing itself up into smaller fragments or pieces. Is this what we class as being conscious in relation to behaviour. Its survival within the biological structure at different stages of survival, Or soul of the survivor or spirit of the survivor projecting itself into the world or becoming reality from within. Soul and spirit give good clues to the true nature of survival from within the structure. Dinosouls and biosouls methods. Or meat on the bone or in a sandwich.

[@arindamghatak]

Consciousness didnt emerge. It is fundamental, eternal and all pervading, as per Hindu texts.

[@dr_shrinker]

Nah. You can’t have consciousness without a brain.

[@arindamghatak]

@@dr_shrinker The jury is out on that. No one knows for sure. And since consciousness is not a material thing, not sure if scientific measurements can ever be made on consciousness. Even nonliving objects have consciousness at subatomic levels, apparently, from whatever I have understood from Closer to Truth videos. Plants certainly have consciousness, even though they do not have a brain per se. Consciousness is that Primordial Energy (Adi Shakti) that manifests as matter as well the various forms of energies. And it is this same Primordial Energy that infuses life force to any organism.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@arindamghatakconsciousness is a material thing. And have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? 😅

[@arindamghatak]

@@dr_shrinker Plants are conscious, but they do not have a brain. Micro organisms are conscious yet they do not have a brain. Dead people have a brain, but no consciousness.

[@arindamghatak]

@@dr_shrinker Plants are conscious, but they do not have a brain. Micro organisms are conscious yet they do not have a brain. Dead people have a brain, but no consciousness.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think a key moment in the evolution of consciousness is when an organism is able to do more than just react, but can persist an internal representation of it's environment, can update that representation, and can make predictions about future states in the environment based on it. This allows an organism to make planned actions. there's a huge range of degrees to which an organism can have this capacity. The next significant step is when an organism can have a representation of other beings in the environment that themselves have such representations, and can reason about what those representations contain, that is what those other organisms know and what they might intend. A step beyond that is when the organism has such an internal representation of it's own state of knowledge, and can reason about it's own knowledge and behavioural processes. This enables the organism to recognise when it makes mistakes, when it lacks knowledge it needs, when it makes decisions in ways that could be better in future. This allows the organism to self-modify it's own cognitive processes, by deciding to change how it thinks and behaves.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"A step beyond that is when the organism has such an internal representation of it's own state of knowledge, and can reason about it's own knowledge and behavioural processes. This enables the organism to recognise when it makes mistakes, when it lacks knowledge it needs, when it makes decisions in ways that could be better in future. This allows the organism to self-modify it's own cognitive processes, by deciding to change how it thinks and behaves"* ... Taking a page from your past arguments, a "machine" without consciousness can be trained to reason about its own knowledge, recognize its own mistakes and learn to make better decisions going forward. However, that machine is still an orchestrated byproduct of an intelligent being who already possesses a consciousness that does all of those things. So, as I always say, ... it would merely be _"human consciousness via proxy."_ At least you know I am consistent in my thinking.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC It would be a being created by humans rather than a being created by evolution. We’re all created somehow, I don’t think I have always existed. If these beings consciousness is proxy to ours, isn’t our proxy to the process that created them? The way I see it if something exists and performs an activity, then that’s a fact about the world. Why it’s a fact about the would doesn’t change the nature of the thing or of the activity.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"If these beings consciousness is proxy to ours, isn’t our proxy to the process that created them?"* ... Well, I've always posited that a *minimal amount of intelligence* is woven into the fabric of existence, so I can see that same rudimentary intelligence playing a crucial role in our orchestration. Likewise our intelligence plays a role in the orchestration of machine intelligence. What we can't say is that we are in any way 'special' because we are intelligent nor that our intelligence evolved from nonintelligence, right? If you're going to play the regression game, you have to go back all the way until you run into a barrier (if one exists). *"The way I see it if something exists and performs fine activity, then that’s a fact about the world. Why it’s a fact about the would doesn’t change the nature of the thing or of the activity."* ... And here's where we differ. When you juxtapose two items that demonstrate similar activities and abilities (i.e., man and machine), then their origin is critical when evaluating the two items. If one item is responsible for the existence and function of the other, then this becomes a noteworthy distinction. That means the resulting item's existence and function is *solely dependent* on the actions of the orchestrating item. When you juxtapose the two *without having the knowledge* that one is totally responsible for the other, then the two may "appear" as the same overall. However, if you *have that knowledge,* then you know more about the two items and that one would not exist without the other. That creates a "causal-chain hierarchy" that you can use to better understand how consciousness works.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC If the actions it depended on is in the past, then how is it relevant to nature now of the entity? Suppose we learned enough about biology to be able to manufacture biological organisms, and built a human embryo from scratch, and raised it to adulthood. In your view it would have consciousness by proxy, yet would be identical to humans generally and presumably conscious. It might have children with a natural human, would the children have consciousness by proxy?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"f the actions it depended on is in the past, then how is it relevant to nature now of the entity?"* ... I understand your point, but a "hierarchy of causal events" is obviously important in evaluating whatever evolution ultimately produces. How could anyone fully understand how consciousness emerges if the causal chain is not included in its evaluation? *Example:* AI is now creating beautiful artworks. Many see AI as creating art that's even better, faster, and more complex than what humans have been producing. If we only consider the AI as a "standalone entity" and don't factor in its human origins (intelligent orchestration), then one could easily misconstrue that machines can create better art than humans, when in actuality, it's merely taking previously existing human art and reconfiguring it via proprietary algorithms that humans also developed. If you removed an AI's access to all forms of human art and intelligence, then what kind of "art" would an AI produce? With current AI merely _"moving around and repurposing"_ already existing human art, then it is totally dependent on its creator and not deserving of the level of praise that a stand-alone entity (like a "human") would receive. Without that posteriori knowledge of an AI's origin, one might mistakenly think that a mechanical lifeform that can create art is, ... well, .... _just like us!_

[@michaelmckinney7240]

At 5:48 Robert Stickgold makes a statement that clarifies his position entirely when he talks about "a biological basis for consciousness' needing to be found. There is no biological basis for consciousness because "consciousness" is not an emergent property. Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. What is an emergent property is the capacity to "experience" consciousness through cognition. It's erroneous to speak of consciousness as an evolutionary adaptation the brain produces to enhance survival. If this were true then what evolutionary value is promoted by having a deep emotional response to beautiful music or a stunning sunset? If one accepts that our brain is generating the "consciousness' associated with these very personal and subjective experiences and consciousness is a utilitarian function whose purpose is to make us more fit for survival then it makes little sense. Why would evolution makes us sensitive and receptive to beautiful things like art and music. One might think this sensitivity comes with a risk. It takes time and immobility to savor a beautiful sunset, and contributes nothing material to our survival. It also leaves any observer more vulnerable to predation. The evolutionary adaptation is not consciousness, it's the brain becoming larger with a concomitant expansion in its ability to experience, inhabit and grow into consciousness that was and is already present. I don't like the phrase "universal consciousness because it smacks of "New Age" or what some skeptics regard as "fringe" thinking, but it's essentially accurate. Because this lucid form of universal energy flows through our minds both in a waking and non waking state, its easy to assume the brain generates consciousness but this is a fallacy. In order to understand consciousness we need to try and see this powerful phenomenon from a "non human, non local" point of view or to put it more accurately from a detached and objectively analytical frame of mind. This is not entirely possible but can be partially achieved with enough convincing logic to inform our opinions on this difficult question. So let's try. If "universal consciousness" is real, it would be reasonable to see this quality reflected in the way our cosmos came into existence and how it functions, and we do. Our universe has an undeniable capacity to self organize into ever higher levels of complexity. This mystery is inexplicable and completely baffling if one discounts the supervening and operant reality of universal consciousness being present at a fundamental level. If universal consciousness is real we might expect rare occurrences when consciousness "spills over" or is fleetingly shared by two minds since both minds are separated by their individual experience and individual thought, but are linked in the larger back ground reality of universal consciousness. This is exactly what happens in "paranormal" events like extra sensory perception, clairvoyance and mental telepathy. Before skeptics begin scoffing at these well documented occurrences they need to learn more about them. During the Civil War, men having premonitions of their ensuing death was not as uncommon as one might think. Were these repeated experiences all just imagined? Skeptics do a disservice to this issue when they obtusely lump this phenomenon with things like astrology, and voodoo. However, it makes perfect sense if we see these things as the natural expression of shared universal consciousness. I give Mr. Stickgold credit when he rightly says at 2:50 that we have "no way to even begin to ask the question" as to the origin of consciousness. No materialist or empiricist will ever solve this mystery because they're wedded to a methodology that denies anything beyond their strict and exclusionary mode of inquiry.

[@catkeys6911]

When you start talking about the reason for consciousness, you have no choice but to start reasoning in circles, it seems.

[@arain1234]

Wrong question. Consciousness did not "emerge." Consciousness is an inherent property of the Creator, therefore it is present in all of creation from the beginning (temporal or ontological). You modern and post-modern people are allergic to the idea of God because of the term's association with the Christian concept of trinity and Jesus as God. Perfectly understandable. For a proper definition of God, you have to look outside of the Christian or post-Christian West. The first thing to realize is that the essence of God in un-knowable and undefinable. From a Quranic perspective, Allah is the name of the One Ultimate Reality that cannot be defined by definition. The name is a place holder for the undefinable. All the properties of creation are thus properties, qualities or "Names" of Allah, in their infinitive aspect, because nothing can exist without Him/Her/It. All manifest qualities have their source in Him, including consciousness. Consciousness is thus present in creation from the "beginning", both temporally and ontologically. The more complex the material form, the more complex the consciousness associated with that form. That is not emergence. It is Self-manifestation.

[@HyzersGR]

LOL

[@paulneelon8343]

IMO - all wrong. Evolution is a force of nature that has it's own laws, just like physics and chemistry. The first law of evolution is a force to produce more species - it uses (primarily) genetic morphology and genetic behavior-instinct- (over huge time scales) in the crucible of natural selection to produce small changes in populations that eventually become new species. Evolution "discovered' that incipient consciousness (memory and primitive awareness) allowed animals to adjust behavior more quickly in order to end up with (over substantial time) - new species. The continued success of this approach eventually resulted in a partially free-willed, individual consciousness in Homo Sapiens, with little instinctual behavior. In humans, instinct has become buried in the (genetic) subconscious and exerts massive control over our thoughts and feelings (subconsciously of course, so you do not notice them) - dreams are the mental review process where the genetic subconscious urges are reconciled with the actual human experience/self, so that he/she continues to behave in line with his genetics. Why do you think that dreams are usually difficult or impossible to remember?

[@mutwa_0]

Questions on consciousness makes scientists sound like layman.

[@halcyon2864]

Another stupid question

[@davidcasagrande267]

Consciousness is " the ability of existence to know that it exists " . To say that there could be existence without consciousness is ridiculous . How could anything exist if nothing knows it exists . Consciousness did not EMERGE , it is the force that created this existence . Consciousness is eternal , and it created this universe . This is where eternity spends eternity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@MrModikoe]

beautifully said...consciousness being conscious of itself.

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Consciousness didn't 'emerge' - it's an imherent property of reality.

[@Green-Dragon206]

It's more than a property, it's basically what you are, without the concept of what it is.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

No survival is the correct language or postulation you swap soul, spirit, consciousness and replace it with 'Survival Behaviour' early biological life were like this and we still are.

[@tunahelpa5433]

I think what he's saying is that Consciousness fundamentally is not an emergent phenomenon, but the use of it by living animals is emergent.

[@dr_shrinker]

Except reality shows that consciousness is the result of brain activity and that’s why it’s an emergent property; like the digestion of pizza is an emergent property of the stomach

[@PaulHoward108]

It's annoying to see this show unwittingly promoting false assumptions in practically every episode.

[@bodhihouareau-rose8964]

I think it's good to hear diverse perspectives. Doesn't mean you have to believe them, but at least you'll know where other people are at.

[@HyzersGR]

It's annoying when people complain without explaining their specific qualms or their reasoning.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Maybe realism is wrong!

[@xxxs8309]

Animals are conscious too

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(1:00) *RS: **_"There might have been a better than 50/50 chance that Evolution would have gone along just fine without ever coming up with it"_* ... "Nature" would have gone along just fine without it, but "Evolution" wouldn't have. Evolution is the movement from "simplicity to complexity," and it's never satisfied with the status quo. Consciousness is simply the next level of complexity to emerge after "life." "Existence" is like an artist. An artist generates a volume of works that _seem_ aesthetically pleasing to the artist, but sooner or later, the artist needs an *outside observer* to establish the true value of the art that's been generated. ... Consciousness is all about *Value Judgments.* We, and our self-aware consciousness, are tasked with taking everything that has existed over the past 13.8B years, establishing value, and placing it all into *spectrums* ranging from best to worst. ... Consciousness is like an internal review for "Existence," and we are the official _arbitrators of value_ in this regard.

[@codymarch164]

No. Evolution is always towards what's better and more efficient, adapting to environments becoming proficient in traversing terrains in prowess ways. As things do evolve, and for the better, there is a good, that all things seek aspire towards, and the nearer things and beings come to this good the better do they become and are refined. This is most wonderfully and clearly evident and known. Things are not becoming more mechanical and complex - this happens when one seeks to 'lord it over' all things, trying to replicate and mimic nature so taking control, and building artifical algorithms.

[@codymarch164]

"....and we are the official arbitrators of value in this regard." Of course you would think so along with your boyfriend Simon. Sure, buddy... whatever helps you feel important.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@codymarch164 *"No. Evolution is always towards what's better and more efficient, adapting to environments becoming proficient in traversing terrains in prowess ways."* ... I'm addressing "universal evolution" and not just "biological evolution." Everything moves from simplicity to complexity as that is the most logical progression. However, since you've posited that "biological evolution" as NOT observably moving from simplicity to complexity, I'll remind you that "life" evolved from rudimentary, single-celled prokaryotes and "evolved" into self-aware humans whose brains are *deemed by science* to be _"the most complex structure in the known universe."_ ... Sorry to burst your biological bubble, man! *"Things are not becoming more mechanical and complex - this happens when one seeks to 'lord it over' all things, trying to replicate and mimic nature so taking control, and building artifical algorithms."* ... Now that is funny! I'd like to see our 2024 human society juxtaposed with an early human society from say 300,000 years ago to see which one is the most complex. ... I seriously doubt chucking spears at wooly mammoths would be considered a "more or equally complex" society than navigating through our modern-day society ... but, hey, you're free to believe whatever you want. *"Of course you would think so along with your boyfriend Simon."* ... Simon has better taste than that.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC you're clueless and a coward for not naming your sources. You really think you're all that wise and intelligent?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC how can Simon have good taste when he believes that matter is energy? The fake is an anti divine science corrupting freak.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

The biggest mistake: assuming man is the center of all and believing everything has to fit in man's shoe for any such information to be coherent and plausible. Truth is: God is the center, the Primordial Cause, of all ultimately, and we start from there working down in seeing nature and how man came to be and all multiplicity. Because if you deny the cause, ultimately, all such one is after is falliable. In science always is the onset from the universals working down to particulars. For some reason modern science fools neglect this criterion.

[@simonhibbs887]

It’s an interesting question as to whether we infer universals from studying particulars, or whether we are born already knowing universals and fit particulars into that pre-existing framework. It’s quite possible our minds come primed with certain generalised cognitive frameworks, but are there examples of the discovery of new classes of universals from inference?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@simonhibbs887 Metaphysics and physics are the same. A coin is just a coin, if observed there are two sides, and yet, it remains one. Once again you show you are not about genuine science. one can only do metaphysics from having a good understanding of physics.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@simonhibbs887properly understanding nature is metaphysics. The things that exist haven't given themselves existence. Talking about how matter forms requires a more profound understanding of nature that you know not. You and you're anti divine touch, thinking you know science. You think you can claim science and turn it into something degenerate just like you are.

[@patientson]

Consciousness exists cause of heat. With heat, things and beings beginning to communicate. Jesus knew that words created heat but a limited kind. However, He converted that thought of limitation into a broader, everlasting form of building both deepened breath and stacked strength from the top and down of himself.

[@patientson]

You can't rush and not get burnt. You MUST follow a steep, regimented approach that involves all three major muscles before in symbiotic synchronicity or tandem. Today, only babies and the armed forces follow this steps. Caleb in the old testament obeyed this instruction and then was rewarded with a piece land, in the old testament.

[@juanferbriceno4411]

total nonsense