Solutions to the Mind-Body Problem? | Episode 505 | Closer To Truth

Are human beings purely physical? Evolved at random and destined to die, extinguished forever? Or are we something more? A spirit or a soul, with existence beyond? What's the relationship between our brains and our consciousness, between the stuff in our skulls and the essence in our minds? Featuring interviews with Ned Block, Dean Zimmerman, Colin McGinn, Charles Tart, and Henry Stapp.
Season 5, Episode 5 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth 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.
#Consciousness #Philosophy

[@vu4y3fo846y]

Robert steady churning out quality existential crises 👌

[@carlosgaspar8447]

finally a proper use of the term "existential". the meaning is quickly being bastardized and as john mcwhorter has pointed out (in the atlantic) to have lost its meaning; and i like using the example that existential does not imply existence any more than confidential implies confidence.

[@stlkngyomom]

I think not,since Tom Campbell figured it out already,watch:Tom Campbell Marseille. Supporting evidence:Wim Hoff,Terrence & Dennis McKenna, Allan Watts,Bruce Lipton, Garry Null,Robert Waggoner,Jeffrey Mishlove,Donald Hoffman,George Smoot,* Honorable mention: Chris Hedges:Empire of Illusion:The Rise of The Spectacle and The End of Literacy John T.Gatto:Underground Jostory Lesson Robert Anton Wilson explains everything Mark Passio:Natural Law* *list shall be edited as I take my brain

[@keithmetcalf5548]

Bobby's the man!!! ⚡⚡⚡

[@georgegrubbs2966]

I have great admiration for Robert Lawrence Kuhn and appreciation for his efforts to come closer to truth. CTT has been and is a great public service.

[@EonTide1111]

This show is so remarkable on bringing to light, some of the most difficult questions of consciousness and philosophy

[@BBStub3]

Lawrence, you're such a smart guy. I love you so much

[@Alex-bl6oi]

Best channel on KZbin 👍

[@danielpaulson8838]

Great episode. More of these, please.

[@user-dc4bl1cu2k]

Taoism is a great religion & philosophy. Very peaceful and respectable.

[@micronda]

At the moment of death, the physical senses drop away. Your mind encapsulates the universe and sees it as an object to be reflected upon. It sees something else too. It sees some light shapes, which it cannot define. You have to relinquish your will to hold on to the universe, in order to go with the light shapes. Its a euphoric moment but a petrified moment. I felt no love from the light shapes but I did from my memories of the universe. I did not want to go into the unknown without love. There was no angel welcoming me. If the light shapes were the angels they didn't speak English. My curiosity made me want to go to the light shapes but it was outweighed by my earthly bonds. I guess I chickened out. I was only 20. I was too young to know how valuable the universe was to just let it go so I was returned. Its now 40 years or so later and my world just gets tougher and I guess I will be meeting those light shapes again sometime but this time I can look them straight in the eye. Why? ... because I am closer to the truth... yer just a little and I no longer fear the unknown, like I did when I was 20. Why am I still hanging on? ...because the truth is out there guys, that's the game, to seek the truth, to find it is the goal. Never give up. When I can look back at that universe without attachment I will have found it and will have truly lived... but why? ... Why not? :)

[@vu4y3fo846y]

Did you take drugs or actually almost die?

[@micronda]

@DOC TOR Spot on DOC

[@micronda]

@@vu4y3fo846y No drugs. A crushing effect on my right lung, took me to the floor in excruciating agony. I 'blacked' out, all senses down, even the feeling of pain gone but I became aware that I was still conscious, even so I felt certain my life was over. I was surprised I was being taken so early! It was a euphoric free feeling. I assumed I would now be totally snuffed out quickly and that would be the end of it but instead that choice awaited me.

[@m_alcoves]

Absolutely amazing video about a subject so mindblowing (no joke). The quality of this work is fantastic, thank you so much

[@Trp44]

It really is.

[@todayscodes442]

Thank you - getting closer to truth all the time.

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

Hmmmm doubt it

[@azsx299]

I'm with you and Charlie Tartt. Glad you talked to him too.

[@GlossRabban]

Well if you are in, I'm out!

[@azsx299]

@@GlossRabban why is that Kim?

[@GlossRabban]

@@azsx299 Ohh. It is just a joke. Try looking up Ryan George - if he's in, I'm in. 😁

[@azsx299]

@@GlossRabban You son of a gun. I have been known to eat grated mozzarella out of the bag myself.

[@GlossRabban]

@@azsx299 Grated Mozzarella soft cheese. Taste of Italy Mild and creamy grated mozzarella that melts into a rich topping. Mmmmm:)

[@ericpalmer3588]

The “physical world” is one part of our conscious experience. Trying to believe the physical world is fundamental is wrong. Experience is fundamental. There is no mind body problem. No separation. Just experience.

[@ericjohnson6665]

I had this dilemma cleared up for me by celestials telling us in The Urantia Book, that "mind" is a 'something' unto itself. (I can't say 'thing' as it's not material, which 'thing' implies.) They tell us that not only is there "mind", which we all use, but that there are also adjutant mind spirits that our minds have access to that help the mind to function: the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of worship, the spirit of counsel, the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of courage, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of intuition-of quick perception, in descending order. Thus, this question becomes way deeper than even Robert is aware. But to entertain those thoughts, one has to abandon materialism as an exclusive model for existence.

[@freedommascot]

Henry Stapp, yes!

[@leahdereka]

this is awesome. and “so long as it’s not made of the same kind of bits…” interesting word choice

[@growgoodco]

Thanks for this. Great work! It would be interesting to also see some conversations with other groups. What about Eastern and Western religious thinkers, indigenous communities etc. It seems that just hoping that we in the West can solve this alone might be a harder path.

[@gr33nDestiny]

I know your a sceptic and I like how you argued this point, with precision

[@naturalisted1714]

"Everyone is "I" to themselves" - Alan Watts As long as there's new organisms born in the universe after you cease to exist, then death will always be followed by a new "I". The "I" of one of those new brains.

[@ZeroOskul]

Recent research posits a dark photon or antiphoton. It would behave exactly like a normal photon except that it radiates backward in time. It has been proposed as a candidate for Dark Matter but I think it could also explain consciousness. Survival modes are subconscious and autonomic.

[@joshuaadamstithakayoutubel2490]

I've thought about this as a way a traditional soul wouldn't be required for "reincarnation" to occur.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

It is the same 'I' that We all refer to, there is only the same eternal 'I', and that is the only 'real steady point' behind the Motion-Ocean.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@DOC TOR Science’s blind devotion to the gods of chance and automatism condemns its myths to hollowness.

[@MonisticIdealism]

Idealism offers a way to dissolve the mind-body problem while preserving the irreducibility and causal efficacy of consciousness. The mind-body problem is generated by assuming mind and body are distinct, but idealism negates this assumption by reducing the body to the mind. So the physical is just another mental phenomenon, and there's no worry as to how the mental interacts with the mental.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Totally agree! Well said “Science’s blind devotion to the gods of chance and automatism condemns its myths to hollowness,” Because...”we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup) The fact is that it is materialism that postulates an unproven metaphysics. It is actually materialism not idealism that states that the real reality, that is the reality outside your head has no shape, colour, smell, taste as they are all generated by your brain inside your skull. This “real” reality of the materialist is a completely abstract realm akin to sets of mathematical equations which has none of the qualities and concreteness of experience. In contrast to (idealism/consciousness) materialism is profoundly metaphysical, unknowable and unprovable. Ironically the belief in ghosts is actually less metaphysical than the materialistic world view because at least they believe there is hope of actually experiencing this realm after death. No one has ever “experienced” or (observed) “matter” without concrete experience, that is mind and consciousness. In contrast to the popular materialistic belief/dogma the belief in the fundamental nature of consciousness entails that reality is what it seems. Consciousness is not an unproven metaphysics as it is concrete. Consciousness is a quality of experience because concreteness is a quality of experience and reality not of abstractions such as those postulated by materialism. Materialism is based an the incredible assumption that those who believe in the fundamental nature of consciousness are arguing that consciousness is deceiving us by simulating a materialistic reality. However, consciousness is not simulating a materialist world as consciousness is simply doing what it does and what it does happens to be the universe. The fact that consciousness generates the universe requires no more complexity no more extra assumption than that the laws of physics, that are also irreducible, generate the universe. In the same way that the “laws of physics” are believed to generate the universe because of they’re own nature because of what they intrinsically do and are, in the same irreducible manner consciousness generates the universe because of its own nature unfolding according to stable patterns and regularities. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@Sam-hh3ry]

Yeah these discussions always forget that sensory perception is mental just like thoughts and emotions are. We normally assume that the matter we perceive corresponds to something that is itself non-mental. As soon as we reject this unfounded assumption the hard problem and the mind body problem disappear.

[@MonisticIdealism]

@@Sam-hh3ry Exactly.

[@jasonjohnson3175]

@@georgedoyle7971 I never thought I would find one of the best arguments for idealism as the fundamental nature of consciousness while perusing through KZbin comments!

[@richardatkinson4710]

Absolutely right. But Idealism went out of fashion before modern science, and the need now is for a modern idealism fully aware of, and consistent with, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, biochemistry, neurology and information theory…

[@philippemartin6081]

Dr Lawrence, this show is so good an closer to thrue. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎🎶

[@joshuaadamstithakayoutubel2490]

Added to "| Best Closer to Truth Episodes |"

[@wagfinpis]

Saved the bay area for last. 💚

[@Sasuser]

Materialism tries to answer the question by pretending there is not a question...

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Materialism is bad. They think the physical created the physical. The Sun for example, which is Spiritual as the qualities it has is beyond the physical and even the sun's creation is beyond the physical -- it would have to be. The Sun's qualities: -- light -- energy -- vibration -- manifestation -- force -- form -- photosynthesis The sun is iron and gasses. Light is photons and light particles. What kind of explanation is that -- considering we humans and life as we know it manifested through the Sun. Looking for God may be found through the Sun like scriptures say opposed to looking to outerspace.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Strangely enough, theism does too. Somewhere between those two points is reality I presume.

[@Dion_Mustard]

the materialist argument is slowly deteriorating..some of the greatest scientists and philosophers of the mind..such as david chalmers don't support the materialist theory anymore..many scientists agree there is something special about consciousness..not just merely a product of brain chemistry...and I for one doubt chemistry gave rise to awareness..

[@Sasuser]

@@Dion_Mustard Chalmers has the right idea!

[@gure1686]

@@Sasuser then animals also have counscious if counscious is different substance than phycalism then why this counscious only evolved in human not in others animals?if counscious could affect phycalism?

[@moses777exodus]

RLK, it seems that the mind-body problem can be resolved very simply. Let's talk.

[@deniserichter5372]

I had an experience that proved to me that my consciousness can survive outside of my body. I found this channel in an effort to better understand what happened and now I'm hooked!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

'Experiencing' is synonymous with 'being conscious of something'. It is obvious why we don't say 'my experienceness'. We ought not say 'my consciousness' for exactly the same reason. There is no such thing as consciousness. Being conscious is a process. Process is an abstract notion. An abstract notion has no physical location so, in your terms, consciousness has no location and hence is neither inside or outside of your body.

[@Eric123456355]

Mind and body is one . Problem resolved

[@Trp44]

Robert Lawrence Kune Your talent for focus has brought many wise impressions clearly into view, I am a painter with the perspective of a bachelor less degree, Yet we share so much already, it would appear and still I find such opportunity between the words I hear, if not shared may be lost I fear. I live in the Bronx, if time allows perhaps I can paint and you can poke at my truth. I live on the east side of HighBridge… the bridge is a walk across and there’s a trail (croton trail) that winds through a lovely little enchanted forest on the West side… Late afternoons are good

[@mockupguy3577]

15:13 Charles Tart. Psychic abilities are real 🙄

[@basilfranguiadakis2103]

we will never be able to explain what consciousness is, because consciousness is only a personal thing that relates to feelings and emotions. feelings are from the thinking and from dualism, emotions relate to the body and words describe just the tip of the iceberg, the feeling about "being human" is more than just the describtion of it. if you whant to know about consciousness you have to find out by your self..watch your own mind!

[@Mentat1231]

I wish so badly they could finally get Peter Hacker onto the show. There is no mind-body problem.

[@richardatkinson4710]

Hmm. I didn’t really get Hacker. I think - like so many philosophers - he lacks a convincing ontology.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How does physicalism bring about conscious experience of mathematics, which is not considered to be physical?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

nice music in video

[@bluebee5266]

6:59 Block fails to answer the essential question and Kuhn doesn't press him on it.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Dr. Kuhn, I agree that the mind will be replicable in other substrates one day. I believe there is only the brain, and I primarily base this upon the work of Dr. Anil Seth. Henry Stapp however, seems to have an odd understanding of quantum physics, IMHO.

[@drchaffee]

It would be interesting to correlate the proposed mind-body solutions with their ability to support or deny the existence of abstracta. Does a commitment to the existence of abstracta imply that one is ultimately a dualist?

[@richardatkinson4710]

That is a great way into the problem. Max Tegmark and others think the universe is derived from mathematics. But some great mathematicians - finitists, nominalists, constructivists - believe that any mathematics beyond counting is “Menschenwerk”, the product of minds, a late product of the universe. In physics, Wheeler (and Hawking) pointed out that the equations don’t “fly”, they don’t create the things they may be used to describe. Einstein stated that the continuum of field theories and relativity was too problematic, and therefore such theories were not fundamental. We have to go back to Bishop Berkeley for a solution: idealism. Of course Berkeley was only a finitist at the worldly level: he believed God was infinite. What we need is the Berkeley minus the Bishop, an idealist account of reality which is atheistic.

[@richardatkinson4710]

I should add that Schrödinger, the father of the wave equation of quantum theory, was himself a finitist, and believed all his life that the apparently continuous laws were ultimately stochastic.

[@drchaffee]

@@richardatkinson4710 I lean more towards materialism, and don't consider abstracta to have "substance", but I certainly agree with respect to "minus the Bishop". :) I think number is the abstracta of quantity, and equations (like PV = nRT) are not merely Menschenwerk, but legitimate abstracta comprehended by minds, correlating with (instantiated in) reality.

[@richardatkinson4710]

@@drchaffee Well, that was the point of my Schrödinger afterthought. All of these continuous laws are analytic extensions of digital functions, and as such they include y values for impossible values of x. For example, they typically have (very small) values all the way out indefinitely far towards infinity. Of course the area under a probability curve is unity, so all those impossible values exist at the expense of the central parts of the curve, which must be depleted. The example at the start of Wigner’s “Unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” paper is a good example.

[@aldenzane9118]

Apparently to one who is accustomed to thinking a lot, every new thought that he hears or reads about immediately appears as a link in a chain. And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.

[@user-wt7pi3np1w]

I've read the last 3 lines of that before, do you know who said it?

[@aldenzane9118]

@@user-wt7pi3np1w F.N....Men who think deeply appear to be comedians in their dealings with others because they always have to feign superficiality in order to be understood." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[@ZeroOskul]

I want two more stanzas and a couplet out of you! You can't just quarter-form a sonnet and expect to get away with it!

[@aldenzane9118]

@@ZeroOskul I sent one but it was censored.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3msdJdor7Z1ppY&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR26KzvnWWT_eq05wu8enLZCQrpEhd1zyOyJdCva1Nu1SWU5c9PZGIzTy50

[@ZeroOskul]

@@aldenzane9118 I was responding to the Neetchuh quote but wrote concerning the poem in the spirit of that quote. I don't really go around forcing people to be more thorough prosodists but I am glad you did write more; sorry you can't publish. The metric for a sonnet is aa-bb-c, dd-ee-c, ff-gg-h, ii. That was a cute video.

[@jamesnasmith984]

Thousands of inputs encountering billions of connections: what else but emergence of mind?

[@Patrick-qd7ye]

These are all interesting views, but here’s my take. First off, let’s define consciousness. I view it as being unified subjective qualitative experience. It’s the awareness that “the lights are on” from the inner perspective of an agent. My view is that consciousness is fundamental, irreducible, and metaphysically simple for the following reasons. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property that arises intrinsically from neurons themselves or from the propagation of action potentials amongst the vastly complex neural networks in the brain. If it were an emergent property, than it would be rational to conclude that it would be ontologically epiphenomenal, thus being incongruent with the indisputable fact that we have knowledge of our consciousness and thus, are able to share its qualitative contents with other agents. We have epistemic access to our own consciousness and to imply that it is a dynamic emergent property, would require top-down causation which we have no evidence for in the natural world. Moving onwards, consciousness cannot be identical to brain states, or by extension, the neuronal correlates of consciousness. Despite a wealth of empirical evidence that showcases material causation on conscious perceptions such as color, sound, and tactility, it is hasty to rule out a causative role for consciousness, given the fact that we have knowledge of its existence, which should dispel any epiphenomenal claims. Moving onwards, consciousness is intrinsically intertwined with intentionality and semantics. The very relational aspect it ascribes towards certain subjects, form the core of its ontology. Consciousness cannot be an intrinsic or emergent property of computation. Computation deals solely within the domain of algorithms. Put simply, a computation matches an input to an output in accordance to an algorithm. In other words, computation is involved with the manipulation of syntax, not semantics. Intellection, which can be described as the ability to comprehend abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, and beauty, requires a distinct and separate ontology that is not congruent within the tenets of computation. Regardless of how complex an artificial intelligence program becomes, it will never possess the qualities of intellection as it can only deal with syntax, not semantics. A good philosophical thought experiment showcasing how computation is incompatible with intellection is John Searle’s “Chinese Room.” Thus, it is rational to conclude that the attribution of a relational quality to a given subject requires a non-computational entity to do so. This is what I view as being the core function of consciousness. Assuming the existence of conscious agents beyond one’s own subjective experience and avoiding any solipsistic notions, humans and other animals could have been non-conscious biological automata carrying out virtually identically tasks to their conscious counterparts. There is no reasonable evolutionary advantage for a complex multicellular organism to be conscious and comprehend semantics, although it does not mean that there has to be. But, to state that consciousness itself evolved over the course of our evolutionary history seems to be at odds with its non-computational ontology. If consciousness is fundamental, irreducible, and metaphysically simple it cannot be quantified, thus making its evolution over time seem rather implausible. Although you can increase or decrease the number of qualitative experiences being experienced by a conscious observer, such as through the evolution of new sensory organs, it does nothing to explain the ontological evolution of consciousness itself. In conclusion, I think that it is a category mistake to label consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, as doing so would lead to an incongruent notion of epiphenomenalism, which contradicts our common sense notion of having knowledge of its existence. To claim phenomenal emergent consciousness, would indicate top-down causation which we have no evidence for existing in nature. In addition, equating conscious states with brain states is equally as fallacious, since it fails to address how computation enacted within the substrates of biological or non-biological neuronal networks is compatible with semantics. Computation itself is insufficient for explaining how abstract contents that possess relational attributes other than itself ie. intentionality, can be encoded in individual neurons and their myriad of connections. As I’ve stated previously, computation involves the manipulation of syntax. It is not ontologically equipped for semantics. As preposterous as this may sound, I believe that there may exist a fundamental mental reality that is abundant with semantic attributes that cannot be reduced to physical attributes. It’s as if mental attributes such as qualia, and abstract concepts seem to “wrap themselves” around physical substrates, such as neurons in the case of humans and other animals in some incomprehensible, non-spatial manner, whenever we see correlated neural activity in the cerebral cortex. I acknowledge that the onus of proof falls upon me to be able to empirically validate this claim, in addition to addressing a bi-directional causal mechanism that can account for communication between the mental and the physical substrates, such as neurons. However, given my reasons for why consciousness is non-emergent, non- computational, and not equated with neurons and their connections themselves, I remain unconvinced by other philosophical scenarios that can account for addressing the mind-body problem. Thus, I view consciousness as fundamental, irreducible, and metaphysically simple.

[@EonTide1111]

Makes me wonder how psilocybin induces multidimensional type states or experiences of them. Sometimes hallucinogens create a sense that consciousness or some awareness is permeated everywhere and into everything in some kind of fractacality of vibrational mental states.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

If thought in time dimension, then thought could interact with matter in space-time, which also could describe the causation between thought and matter?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How is causation described? Is causation physical, non-physical, a combination of both?

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

And the capability of human brains

[@GlossRabban]

It is really nice to

[@jeremymr]

2:27 "Duelist philosopher"

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is it possible that physical brain signals in neurons create waves that somehow interact to bring about consciousness? Perhaps such waves sense non-physical outside the brain?

[@georgedoyle7971]

“Perhaps such waves sense non-physical outside the brain” Interesting hypothesis because no one observes consciousness without neurons and brains just as no one observes neurons and brains without consciousness, that is without being a conscious observer. It’s like the chicken or the egg scenario. Equally, Einstein suggested that physics demonstrates that time is relative and is not linear as such.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How does neuronal activity in brain become or interact with quantum mechanical mind?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Do quantum waves in the mind have thoughts and emotions about information processed in the brain? In particular, can mind quantum waves interpret causation from information in the brain?

[@a.g.hustlegarland4197]

Read Dr. Joe Dispenza KZbin

[@tedgrant2]

I recommend drinking 10 bottles of whisky in an hour. Just as a mind-body experiment. It's very educational.

[@dalegriffiths3628]

I’m a physicist - in the material world there’s plenty we don’t understand, even in normal particles. We don’t really know what an electron is and certainly not a quark. We don’t understand how or why fundamental particles interact the way they do, only have some incomplete models that maybe crunch some of the numbers. Then you can talk about dark matter, dark energy? What the hell is that? So if we don’t understand what is going on out there with all the tools at our disposal how on Earth are we supposed to understand what’s actually going on with all the mushy grey matter in our heads. Science is underpinned by experimentation and this requires kit/machines. There is no machine that can ever exist that can explain what a thought or a conscious experience is or how it can possibly occur. When we look at an fMRI of a brain all that can tell us is blood flow activity of the brain in certain areas at certain times. What the hell is causing the blood to be shunted around like that. How the hell could that give me the conscious experience of tasting a strawberry? So what do I know from personal experience? 1) There seems to be something rather than nothing. 2) There seems to be a ‘self’ here that is aware of conscious experiences happening. That’s it!

[@williamburts5495]

Here's the reason consciousness is irreducible to me, lets say you could determine what someone is thinking about by some brain correlation and lets say you could know that the individual is thinking about his or her mother, that still wouldn't explain consciousness because consciousness Isn't the thought but is the awareness of the thought. Your subjective reality is exclusive to you and can't be revealed objectively by any machine and that is why consciousness is irreducible. you just can't bottle up awareness and display it objectively.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can the human mind observe external physical world and internal subjective consciousness?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is there energy in quantum wave function, and how would energy from quantum wave function process in brain?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When a person consciously experiences, like a sunset or music or some form of art, the human brain not only takes in and processes physical information, also the energy(s) that go with that physical information?

[@hermannrueppell508]

Unfortunately, you weren't able to interview Karl Pribram.

[@deepshikhabanerji9732]

The question is we do not know the nomological danglers is what Charlie says, but is it possible.

[@magicmjk09]

Amazing talk. But there is a gap in the chinese room argument that is not addressed here; The man in the chinese room is not representative of the whole mind. He is equivalent to just two parts of mind in which the process of reception and action happens. In this thought experiment, the mind must be considered as the whole room with the man, the computer and everything else in it.

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Still too many unknown, exists, about human brains!

[@mediocrates3416]

I dunno: seems to me there must be a wave chamber type dynamic going on (Steven Lehar) but, where and waves of what? Electrotonic waves, seems obvious: that's >electroTONIC< ("Solotonic conduction of electrotonic signals in neural branchlets with polarized microstructure"; R.R. Poznanski et. al.). The space is pointed to by structure, between the Pia Mater and the surface of the cortex. I'm pretty sure i can see them if i close my eyes and examine the darkness.

[@mediocrates3416]

And the "electrotonograph" presents: recording the electrotonic environment by placing microtubules where a driving signal should slow.

[@lindal.7242]

These fundamental questions will never get answered correctly if we continue to lend priority to the solutions of naturalist scientists. Most people know there is more to humans than meets the physical eye.

[@vu4y3fo846y]

Nah. Anything which exists is part of nature. The terms "non-physical" and "supernatural" are oxymorons, as is "multiple-universes". If people actually had souls, scientists would do experiments about them and they'd become a part of physics.

[@lindal.7242]

@@vu4y3fo846y we are more and science is painfully and slowly finding this out.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Well said Linda you are right. It’s quite ironic that materialists presuppose that “nature”, that is the fundamental nature of reality is non “physical” when methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. No one has actually proven that “matter” is fundamental to reality not consciousness or both. “Matter” is actually a theoretical abstraction of mind and even if we couldn’t discover new laws of physics using the materialistic framework from a philosophical perspective it still provides absolutely no evidence that the world of “matter” is the only world that matters. It’s just a materialism and scientism of the Gaps fallacy. (Scientism: “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities” (Merriam Webster Library definition). Nevertheless, the fact is that most of our “physical” theories and metaphors to describe the world of “matter” have been progressively falsified and replaced by what appears to be immaterial probability waves and quarks that are invisible, bi locational, non locational, timeless, unmeasurable and collapse at the wave function during measurement due to the observer effect suggesting that consciousness not “matter” is fundamental to reality in some way. According to the eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel “It would be an advance if the secular theoretical establishment, and the contemporary enlightened culture which it dominates, could wean itself of the materialism and Darwinism of the gaps.” (Thomas Nagel). All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Robert, if you have a mind-body problem, then ask your doctor to help you.

[@torbjrnsivertstl3548]

About dualism and consciousness. The messianic Hebrew David H. Stern translated the whole Bible especially for Hebrew: “Complete J_w_ Bible” (CJB). In the introduction he said: “ The philosophical underpinning of the Western World are centered on two cities - Athens and Jerusalem. The Greeks developed philosophy in a rational manner, but largely on the expense of separating heart and head. Many psychological and spiritual ills stem from this separation (one can also speak of this separation as between head and soul). The J_w_ kept head and heart, body and soul, together, and the Bible reflects this unitary view of human nature. The head has its way of knowing and the heart has its way of knowing and neither should be ignored.” When I read my Bible I realize that this became a problem for the Hebrews also, but they got the solution in God’s mercy and that is fulfilled in the gospel of Christ. In the second creation history in Genesis2 it is said that God formed Adam from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living being. So is said in CJB, in some translation it is said living creature, in some it is said living soul. It is said that the soul is in the blood. When a new-borne human or animal starts to breath, it gets more oxygen to the brain, so that it becomes conscious. This is used symbolically, God is spirit and breaths his Spirit into us so that we become aware of him inside us and this nature inside us that becomes aware of him, we call our soul. God gave Adam his Spirit and woke him up to live in society with him and talked to him and did his work with him and his surroundings. I understand it this way, that he got a wider perspective in space and time, so he and his wife represented a whole people and god created also by development. Here is dualism in harmony. What is the dualism, body and soul in harmony, but matter and God’s Spirit is more fundamental. But after the fall of sin, God said to Adam: “you are dust, and will return to dust”. Similarly God’s people fell away from him, but the High, Exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy, said to them: “I live in the high and holy place but also with the broken and humble, in order to revive the spirit of the humble and revive the hearts of the broken ones. For I will not fight them forever or always nurse my anger; otherwise their spirit would faint before me, the creatures I myself have made.” (Isaia 57,15-16). This is how the gospel of Christ is, but it is for the gentiles also. Sin separated humans from God, but with one offer Jesus took it away once and for all. When we search God on the basement of the gospel, then we may be reminded of sin, but when we confess it for Christ, his blood cleans us from it, so we can forget about it. He fills us with his Spirit and it reveals Christ for us as our savior and Lord. In this way we get a new mind and with this new mind we become able to live for him and serve him. In this way we find a deeper meaning of life and it is firs of all valuable to ourselves, then for the people we meet and talk with. God is Spirit and there is harmony between him and the dust he has created and it becomes harmony in our hearts also, between heart and brain, body and soul.

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Before, we became pragmatic, our minds, order’s, to accept, to thinking that ways.

[@cosmikrelic4815]

Please don't contaminate the comments section with drivel.

[@BugRib]

This thread is hilarious if you think about it. 😂

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does parapsychology, ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance and psychokinesis use energy?

[@zgobermn6895]

I like the insights of the last person interviewed, Stapp (a mathematical physicist). He basically argues, I think, for a Superintending Mind behind it all. He prefers the term 'psychological processes' to avoid unnecessary reactions like, 'aha, intelligent design!' or 'aha, smuggling theism!' There are two views here, that indeed a 'Super Intellect' (Hoyle), basically classical theism, is behind it all. Or somehow, by some strange something, it's evolved human minds far into the future that is influencing the past. I heard somebody seriously make that argument. I go with the Super Intellect.

[@lateesjp]

Could a much deeper understanding of the nerve cell reveal profound answers to the mystery of consciousness? 🤔

[@lateesjp]

@DOC TOR 🤔 hmm

[@rotorblade9508]

I think the functions of the neurons that help for consciousness to occur are already known: like the short term and long term memory mechanisms and the interconectivity (dendrites, axons) for all types of neurons but to replicate functions that lead to consciousness we need to interconnect cells in a certain way in a special configuration. We can have virtual neurons or physical chips that act as neurons. The real ones can operate independently at frequencies up to 200Hz and they fire when need, so emulating billions is not easily with a single processor but hardware networks look promising

[@lateesjp]

@@rotorblade9508 Yes, and I think there's still more yet to discover. As research technology continues to advance and other scientific breakthroughs occur, we'll be able to dive even deeper into this area of research and make discoveries we're not even thinking about now 😊.

[@audiodead7302]

Surprised they didn't interview David Charmers. His formulation of the 'hard problem' of consciousness still provides the clearest definition of the problem. Personally, I don't care what the answer / solution is. I am comforted by the old quote by Voltaire: “It is not more surprising to be born twice than once; everything in nature is resurrection.” I think this logically must be true. If it is possible to be come into conscious existence once, then it can't be impossible to come into conscious existence again.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Well said! I liked that quote from Voltaire it really makes sense. I agree David Chalmers would have been good to interview as well.... “Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.” (David Chalmers). Thanks for sharing. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would a functional view of the brain require programming, or can learn from experience?

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Not sure what you described in the first 30 seconds is what philosophers call the mind body problem. It’s more so the denial of death via belief in an immaterial soul mistake.

[@georgedoyle7971]

“It’s more so the denial of death via a belief in an immaterial soul mistake.” Fascinating hypothesis. We all want certainty I suppose and some kind of reassurance, especially if you’re a mother who’s lost a child who hopes she will be reunited with her loved one in some kind of afterlife. However, I think it’s important to respect people’s beliefs as long as they aren’t harming anyone. This quote from the brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky speaks volumes... “I don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately. I won't lecture her on the philosophy of science.” (N.C.). Nevertheless, if you analyse it logically and suspend your preferences for the materialistic paradigm it actually depends on what you mean by “immaterial” because no one actually knows what “material” is, that is no one actually knows what “matter” is (Richard Feynman/Roger Penrose). The fact is that “Matter” is a theoretical abstraction of mind and consciousness. Consciousness is a different matter as consciousness is concrete. Interestingly when Einstein’s close friend Michele Besso died, Albert Einstein wrote a letter of condolence to the Besso family, including his now famous quote: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” (Albert Einstein) Equally, “we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup) This suggests that consciousness could have been there from the beginning as time isn’t linear or time could as Einstein said be an illusion. It goes against our instinct and intuition regarding how humans perceive time but if Einstein is right consciousness could not have evolved and may have been there from the beginning as an infinite, intrinsic, irreducible, unassailable fact of nature just like the laws of physics. Perhaps the faster we come to terms with this fact, the more likely we are to understand its relation to the qualitative subjective experience of love, altruism, our care for our families, our children, our community, meaning and purpose, that is consciousness. And also the reason why all these things are unbelievably valuable and precious. No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

@@georgedoyle7971 we can be frank about the fact that we die at the end like all other organisms, and still be kind, loving, and have a sense of meaning, purpose, wonder and empathy. in fact, even more so via existential honesty that generates authentic intimacy and compassion and valuing of truly being alive. for me the ideas that 1) somehow false beliefs that fit under the heading of "religion" should be respected and not critiqued is a widespread but deeply odd and dishonest and 2) that these kinds of false beliefs are somehow necessary in order to avoid nihilism and despair in the face of reality is again strange and deeply dismissive of a deeper faith that being human is enough.

[@emmashalliker6862]

Read the Ethic by Spinzo.

[@HussainBuAdam]

The first scientist looks like Noam Chomsky.

[@joedellatorre31]

my speculation and intuition is that consciousness and "spiritual" experiences/phenomenon are linked to the same place where quantum particles pop in and out of existence; maybe more sensationally, the stuff before the big bang. it's the place where quarks go after they annihilate. it's the empty space that is not empty at all. maybe, God, the Tao, Brahman, etc...is our vain attempt to describe our experiences with a field of sorts that exists "beneath" the level of matter and energy but affects the physical world in measurable ways, e.g. quantum entanglement or religious experiences of oneness with all things. this eternal "field" would probably benefit from a third category between physical and spiritual because those seem to be insufficient. this field may be "physical" but certainly not in the ways we have always understood matter and energy.

[@Jinxed007]

Using the argument, "I don't believe that or even entertain that because if it's true than what I believe isn't true" sounds an awful lot like a religious argument to me. Once we rule out a set of possibilities based primarily on whether or not we "like" the implications of those possibilities, we color our results and they can no longer be trusted.

[@TheDeadlyDan]

It strikes me that the debate between dualism and physicalism could be solved with a resolution of time being either linear or block. I'm told that consciousness is a roughly 100ms spread of activity inside the brain. In a block time universe, that spread would be our soul. It only exists in our own "now" - not in the past nor the future. That makes it separate from the biology - that long pink millipede of humanity from birth to death through time you hear of. That 100ms spread of consciousness would ride through time along the body, but would be distinct from the body. A soul. This type of universe would also give rise to a mechanism for such things as time travel, telepathy and clairvoyance, or Life as a field in one or more of those dimensions M theory says are there. As well as an "afterlife". Further, since there would be no "now" it would be completely unknowable if you're traveling your human form along with everyone else around you. It really wouldn't matter and there would be no way to know. Dualism. Alternately, if time is linear then all "nows" exist at the same time and what used to be is being transformed into what will be. The only time that exists is now. No past and no future. Mind and body are one and those zombies are perfectly do-able. Physicalism.

[@simesaid]

It's not often that I agree with Robert, but I do here. If one rejects dualism then how, exactly, _would_ a non-biological substrate differ from that of a biological one? I can accept a certain dualistic account, or a purely physicalist one, but further separating that later description simply makes no sense.

[@TheExpertstrategy]

So according quantum mechanical view of the brain there is free will

[@cherenkovradiation3541]

a first quantum mechanics seems quite intelligent counter argument against determinism but a well researched determinist can easily counter them too. Though quantum world is random and probabilistic but still it's outcome can be predicted when one know all the variables, so it works under deterministic domain.

[@CM-qd6px]

We are not conscious enough to understand consciousness?

[@user-xn4wq4sv3r]

How can materialism explain chi energy?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

If consciousness is energy, could exist in less dimensions than space, from two dimensions of information in quantum wave function, to one dimension prior to quantum wave function?

[@Gleesonglee]

Neurology can't be understood without understanding evolution. Our relationship to people who lived 75,000 years ago is a billion to the power of 100. Complexity is involved but no one seems to consider it. Even our consciousness is the result of a billion billion synaptic events every second. At the cellular level, we have been alive for 3.8 billion years. The answer can be determined, but requires becoming a polymath rather than a specialist in one aspect of the question

[@RobertCookcx]

consciousness is to life as red is to color as color is to electromagnetic waves as electromagnetic waves are to energy as energy is to mass as mass is to gravity and time. we ask questions within the context of very limited sensory perception and understanding of the nature of life. The universe is alive.

[@cmacmenow]

Idealisim?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could energy processed by the brain produce consciousness? If energy processed by the brain produced consciousness, would that be physicalist or dualist view of brain / mind?

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

No matter if you believe it or not .

[@GlossRabban]

Jesus My New KZbin aqaintance. You cannot write comments like that, without putting in some context. 😁 Like believe what? I have so many questions 🤪

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is there any brain or body activity not physically related or measured?

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Any questions has the answers, now or later !

[@BugRib]

True. Very true.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can the mind cause neuron signal activity in the brain?

[@torbjrnsivertstl3548]

On the basement of the gospel we come into such a relationship with God as humans were in before the fall of sin, but now Christ is the last Adam, who is from heaven and for us has become a life-giving Spirit. He is the head of the man and the man is the head of the woman and in this way Christ is the head of the Church that is his bride. God creates us in Christ, then he creates us in his image, in accordance with the creation histories in Genesis1-2, for he is still the same. By faith we understand that God has created everything with his Word, so that what is visible has been made of what is invisible. That’s why the nature is understandable. By mathematics we understand quite a lot and I believe it is because God created us in his image. So when I study real sciences I praise God who has created it all and this makes it even more interesting. When I wrote about this Jesus answered me through the translation of speech in tongues that I am loved by a three times holy God. Jesus gives me Spirit and life from heaven and I praise him for it, I praise him as my savior and Lord. This also makes me praise God as my creator and for having created everything. Some nature sciences, like biology, do not need so much mathematics and traditionally women like that better. These subjects also have their rationality and I think they also need the rationality we find in the Bible. Jesus has said he will add a new praise to my praise and I believe and hope it is by giving me a wife who is a biologist. She is a bit different from me and thinks a bit different and in this way becomes a good help for me. The task is still to cultivate and protect God's garden. I talk with Christ and praise him my way. She may also talk with him and praise him her way. God is love, we love because he loves us first (1.Joh.4,8&19). The hope of the glory of God does not let us down, because God’s love har been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom.5,5). God loves us in Christ and I believe he loves her through me, so I turn to Christ and thank him and praise him. When I believe in Christ with all my heart, the Holy Spirit let me know that Jesus lives inside me and he loves her. Then God loves her through me with the genuine love of his own. Then dualisme is not only about me and God, but it includes her too.

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

Being with this issue for less than 10 years now, my limited knowledge thinks that creating a sentient being requires it to be alive. We take our energy from the environment. Our body utilize energy from our environment in a cleaver way. This is why biology of matter matters. Biology keeps the organism going. To able to create a thing like us, we need to solve its energy problem so it can live and have energy to perform its function. Then functionalists approach to brain would do. No need to solve the ‘hard problem of consciousness’.

[@caricue]

I agree that only living things can be conscious, and the brain is what processes our perceptions into a coherent picture. The brain also stores memories and generates emotions instinctively. But it is the living cells that experience feelings and sensations. (Maybe)

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

@@caricue a sort of panpsychism? I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean by cell experiencing feeling..

[@caricue]

Panpsychism says everything is conscious, alive or not. I am agreeing with you that only living things can be conscious, but we live in a physical world. All information or processes are instantiated in matter, or carried by energetic particles like photons. So the only physical location for experience to be instantiated is living cells since cells are the basic unit of life. In your brain they seem to be daisy chained together to produce a unified mind and consciousness, but it can only be the living matter of the brain that is experiencing being aware because dead stuff doesn't feel anything.

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

@@caricue my definition of alive is not associated with ‘living’. By alive I mean ‘in motion’. We stay in motion by our goal of obtaining food. And food is available in my environment. If a machine can reach this level of independent mobility, I might consider it to be living thing as well.

[@caricue]

OK my friend, we are talking about completely different things. I would suggest that you tighten up your definition of a living thing since you could send your Tesla down to the charging station to eat and no one would mistake it for being alive.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe quantum probabilities are non-matter that can interact with physical world, as quantum probabilities can be measured into physical matter?

[@deepshikhabanerji9732]

So many, alternatives, yet we choose one, while another chooses another. Why should we differ,we are all physical.

[@upendraverma]

When would we understand that past is not related to true future. When we say want to copy human we always want to copy future into past I.e. decide future before hand. True future can never be copied and that is what is residue that is left between biological silicon copy and real human.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could energy be mind? Maybe brain / mind is the exchange of matter and energy through E = m * c-squared (Einstein)?

[@secullenable]

The cheek of the second last guy using the words data and parapsychology in the same sentence! You can't drag some people out of their delusions - they'll believe what they want then claim that you're stupid not to agree.

[@cheesypotat0es]

Lol ned block...great name

[@jaspreetdhillon3880]

You can’t make or destroy consciousness, you can study all parts of this human body including human brain, and that’s it, consciousness is what we all have in common and that’s what the ONE is, not mentioning any names here, we all know that who that one is, got thousand names, so that one is the consciousness, even animals have it, but human kind had it in way more refined manner,

[@babaji4415]

exactly consiousness is dualism. Matter and energy concept lies here,the material we percceive is encoded in our brain as consciousness .u will ask me how?If u drink water the material ,ur quinch/thirst get relieved and u will be satisfied .The urge to drink and the thought of mind for water,finally get solved.The mind problem is actually solution of body problem i.e.dehydrating and and have dried tongue and throat. Quantum mechanics is applicable as biomechanics.But i have not heard this term used by others. Tq

[@brydonjesse]

You are the universe viewing the world through a filter. Human, bird, tree, the brain is a filter.

[@ezbody]

For pressing answers always go to those, who know the most about everything -- i.e. consult the ignorant people -- they will tell you everything you want to know, in the way you want to know it. As for the rest of us, we'll just stick with the "I don't know, let's wait till Science figures it out".

[@tomorrowmaynevercome3171]

Science is to understand what happened in distant past but I don’t believe that it can provide answers as to how things happened,knowing how we got to be here shouldn’t mean that a Creator is not needed even if science fails to find God.

[@GlossRabban]

Well I _don't know_ about that. Let's Wait Till science figures it out.

[@cosmikrelic4815]

You mean the people in the comments section?

[@caricue]

If you say you are going to reproduce consciousness in a non-biological substrate then you must make this other thing alive, but we only know of one way for life to work, and we don't really understand that one. Consciousness is a property of life. What good would consciousness be to a dead thing?

[@rotortiller1]

The grass took energy and material and provided new energy and material combining to become the milk which nourished the off spring and as this off spring grew it fertilized the ground again and new life forms again and then the grown calf sheds its energy while being consumed and again becomes as building material recycling into non time while the energy that grew that calf is transferred endlessly. This process works the same as waters memory and is our God connection.

[@frrankdesilva6504]

Consciousness and special relativity The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions. Consider the phenomenon of a conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events. Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than 1 point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events. Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved. Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon. If it is a physically explainable phenomenon, such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS tianweb.com/eventsTodualism.pdf

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

That’s very interesting, thanks.

[@D.A.-Espada]

Intro music so loud. Voices so quiet

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

I suggest that the solution to the "mind/body problem" is in the realization that the body is the metaphorical equivalent of a "seed-pod," and that at the moment of death, the mind (soul/spirit/consciousness) will emerge from the seed-pod and awaken into a transcendent context of reality. All of which begs the question: What is it that we are the "seeds" of? And the answer is that we are the literal seeds (offspring/progeny/embryos/familial replications) of the Creator of this universe who are each imbued with the inherent potential of creating our own universe out of the living mental fabric of our very own being, just as the Creator of this universe has done. Easy-peasy. _______

[@GlossRabban]

So we are seeds, that turns into Gods, when oure flash body dies. Gods with God like powers, given oure own universe where we can do as we please? I dig that. 👍

[@thebacons5943]

I don’t think most people (or anyone, really) dies ready for that. What you’re describing sounds like a science fiction story called “The Egg” which is any interesting thought experiment if nothing else

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might oxygen recohere neuron energy into quantum fields to develop measured mathematical mind and future subjective probability?