The Mystery of Consciousness - with Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow, Philip Goff & Jack Symes

We've teamed up with the Panpsycast podcast to bring you this week's episode of Unbelievable? 'The Mystery of Consciousness' was a live audience event recorded at the Tung Auditorium in Liverpool. The panellists are Rowan Williams, Anil Seth, Laura Gow and Philip Goff, moderated by Panpsycast host Jack Symes.
For The Panpsycast: thepanpsycast.com/
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• Get the Unbelievable? podcast pod.link/267142101
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@Lillaloppan]

Thank you😊!

[@maxsterling8203]

As close to perfection as we can get for a musical performance, I’m absolutely humbled by this with every note no words what’s this piece called

[@frederickjonesrbsa7279]

The piece is Andante Festivo by Sibelius. We will be playing it again on 10 dec at the Nordic Church.

[@johnathanhunter1351]

Those who claim to be philosophers desire wisdom more than the truth.

[@kipling1957]

Shame Ian Mcgilchrist was not part of this conversation.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Micguiichrist talks beautifully about human soul and philosophy...but he has no practical proof or visions and I have practical.proof visions and can reveal practically to any live audience how to see human soul.Soul enlightenment is a beautiful science

[@pv6830]

much talk but any idea how to explain the hard problem of consciousness? I hear cricket chirping... the sound of silence...

[@magnesiumbutincigarette2271]

SAME. To ignore the hard problem of consciousness is not a great idea imo. Almost all the people agree that easy problem has a solution even though has not yet solved.

[@janwaska4081]

Justin, you may want to have Dr. David Chalmer debating Anil in another episode.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

E an Dr David Chalmers is incorrect with his hard problem as he has affirmed science is objective and consciousness is subjective.Therefore we cannot find the answer. He is completely incorrect as consciousness has a separate subatomic structure and I have complete details of its structure not in a small post please.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Dr David Chalmers is stuck on Hard Problem...shows he does hot have the answer...I can reveal entire structure of human consciousness

[@joaoferreira1884]

Could anyone please name the musical piece we heard in the intro?

[@frederickjonesrbsa7279]

It is Jean Sibelius' Andante Festivo. We'll be playing it (and other pieces) on 10 dec at the Nordic Church.

[@CJS1986]

Justin, if you get a chance to look him up. Professor Mark Solms would be a great guest to have on for consciousness.

[@pv6830]

we can reduce the crime rate by redefining what a crime is. That's how I see Anil's and Laura's approach. Is that scientific?

[@holdontoyourwig]

We can and we do....what's your point ?

[@maxsterling8203]

@@holdontoyourwig don’t mean to interrupt , is it a crime ?

[@holdontoyourwig]

@@maxsterling8203 Is what a crime ?

[@maxsterling8203]

@@holdontoyourwig hi , sorry I was confused by Han Or quite a bit , then I saw your comment and I too asked what is the point ? I think I’m not sure if Han Or believes neuroscientists are doing something that is unethical but I think Han Or does mean to say that but unethical in what way is my question or curiosity what is this point of view ?

[@janwaska4081]

Anil redefined important scientific concepts and then declared them resolved. Completely off target. Poor thing. Any scientist commenting on a topic they are not experts in is as dumb as the next guy. Any statement made by a scientist is not necessarily scientific. That's what Anil did, made non-scientific (philosophical) statements that were off track.

[@pv6830]

fMRI, EEG and other technologies should help us to find more about consciousness, but will they allow us to explain the hard problem of consciousness?

[@pv6830]

the brain could be the physical part of the interface between our bodies and our consciousness.

[@holdontoyourwig]

Take away the brain and what happens ?

[@trashygit]

like an antenna?

[@shortandclueless7172]

Interesting discussion. There are times when I question my own panpsychism. If there's nowhere in the brain responsible for our subjective experience and therefore our subjective experience is inconsistent with the neural circuitry, and yet there's something about the subjective experience of reality that gives it reality, then are we observing reality into being? Well what if none of were here, does objective reality exist? If so, then who is observing it into being? God? Love to hear others' thoughts

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Beautiful message you exhibit. Let me reveal that the experiences original from a separate space within human brain which is my scientific DISCOVERY of Consciousness. Reality has also a scientific structure and I Need a lot more time with my slides to reveal deeper knowledge of my scientific discoveries. It is the Observer of our Universe who is Infinity or SINGULARITY or the Zero Point field who is observing everything...Best wishes

[@Sciencehistorynerd]

God, the source. I love that science is documenting unexplained products of consciousness and I can consume this data on KZbin. I'm not kidding about the God part

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"Well what if none of were here, does objective reality exist". Seems to me your sentence is missing one or more words. If you edit it I may have a chance to understand it.

[@alexlarsen6413]

To me panpsychism makes no sense neither philosophically, nor scientifically. There's no logic behind it philosophically and no explanatory power scientifically. It's useless. If consciousness is fundamental, how come a specific neural system is necessary for it? Why aren't stars and planets conscious, but a simple bug is? Reality as such makes no sense on panpsychism.

[@victorv.senkevich1127]

👉 Consciousness is perception with understanding Quotes: "• There is no other way to determine that some object has consciousness other than our subjective perception. It doesn’t matter how the Chinese room produces answers. The only important thing is whether we are ready to qualify these answers as conscious. If you do not speak Chinese, you will not be able to qualify your counterpart as having consciousness, despite all his/her attempts to explain it to you in Chinese. Because consciousness is perception with understanding and consciousness is subjective. • Of course, I have consciousness regardless of someone else’s perception. But this is true only for myself, not for others. And as much as I am ready to perceive myself. And it will be true for others only when they can perceive it. Because consciousness is subjective." See also on Medium - simple approach to the hard problem: «Consciousness Is Subjective» «The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” Is Being Solved»

[@maxsterling8203]

Does liking your own comment prove we have free will ?

[@4aron.Thomas]

Anyone have any concerns with this explanation of consciousness? Subjective consciousness exists and evolved to allow an organism to simplify complex information for storage and decision making during scenarios of risk. The reason why this experience is subjective is because an objective and therefore detailed explanation is not able to be processed by our brains without huge amounts of energy and storage.

[@bartoszkurkowski7118]

Yes, I have. I'm a Data Scientist who creates different mathematical models that simplify complex reality. All that models have some kind of subjectivity in the sense that you used the word "subjective".

[@amhariqbal2524]

I suggest you listen to William Rowe again in the discussion, On what types of Questions we ask regarding Consciousness and what Questions are we seeking to Answer. It seems you didn't understand Rowe's Point about Consciousness

[@4aron.Thomas]

@@bartoszkurkowski7118 so what does that lead you to think?

[@4aron.Thomas]

@@bartoszkurkowski7118 and also how do these subjective experiences exhibit in those models? How are you even able to assess that? I’m naive and genuinely intrigued

[@4aron.Thomas]

@@amhariqbal2524 I guess my above explanation would be for answering the question of consciousness exists/ might be necessary

[@Bigbitbutt]

the discussion go from The Mystery of Consciousness to can science explain concsciousness?

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

The short answer is yes but none of the panelist have this knowledge. I have discovered scientific structure of human consciousness

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

science does not have knowledge of human consciousness and it is not human brain...consciousness has a separate space inside human brain which these learned scientists cannot see.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

@@DrMukeshChauhan materialism is against the common sense notion of free will. Even the materialists Anil Seth doesnt go in his life thinking he is a bundle of chemical reactions subject to causality and the laws of physics.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Now I have scientific proof of existence of human soul or atma...Read my new book of my scientific discovery in Creator and God series...Dr. Mukesh C. Chauhan

[@maxsterling8203]

Where is this available

[@muhamadilhamfaozi1835]

Your research not have scientific evidence just pseudoscience

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

@@muhamadilhamfaozi1835 Pseudoscience to people who cannot see consciousness from their energy level of vibrations. It is highest science for the deepest vibrations from where finest scientific consciousness is visible.

[@Yohansanto81]

Komen ke 7

[@wine3326]

Ciri komenan negri +62😂😂

[@Yohansanto81]

@@wine3326 waduh ada orang indo juga :v, ngapain disini anjirr pasti ente kristen

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

This was a poor discussion, which was mainly caused by the assumption that a conscious mind resides in the brain as opposed to being embodied and embedded in social, cultural, and biological contexts. Only Rowan Williams hinted at this problem in the way the discussion was conducted, and that's because he is very familiar with Wittgenstein's and Heidegger's thinking. Thus, the two massive elephants that were in the room but never called upon as witnesses were Wittgenstein and Heidegger, both of whom carried out a systematic critique of mind-in-brain and the kinds of solipsism some participants seem to think counted against our shared ability to understand each others' unique experiences. In particular, Wittgenstein's philosophical psychology does a wonderful job of disentangling these conundrums. Therefore, the discussion was mainly hamstrung by the mind-in-brain body/brain dualism, which is just a footnote to Descartes' mind/body substance dualism, a case of neuroscientists doing bad philosophy (see Bennett & Hacker, 2003, 2022). In Wittgenstein's words: “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.”

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Wittgenstein was revealing theoretical knowledge he had no practical experience on brain duality. Consciousness exists inside human brain but is separate from it and it has completely immaterial structure which I have discovered. It has 26 layers which none of the scientists have any knowledge about. When I went in Search of Creator my close relatives thought I was made to leave my surgery and life style in London. Quantum shift took me which when we did neuroscience at London UCH UCL could.not answer...I followed my conviction or intuition and hit the jackpot after 14 painful years and found the Creator and God. Both are real and I have scientific proof

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

@@DrMukeshChauhan I sense you don't begin to understand Wittgenstein and what he was aiming to do in his philosophical investigations. One such aim was to do away with all theory: " We must not advance any kind of theory...... we must do away with all explanation, and description alone must take its place." (Philosophical Investigations< * 109. I agree that W. had no practical experience of brain duality. None of us do, that is apart from people who have abnormal conditions. Good luck

[@pv6830]

sadly Anil got off the scientific track and apparently didn't even notice it. Didn't Richard P. Feynman say that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy? The beautiful music that was performed in the background masterfully performed by a talented string quartet was just a bunch of vibration waves in the air that hit our hearing system and were converted to electric signals that eventually reached some areas of the brain and voila! we heard that sound and delighted in it so much but at some point uch a subjective experience was interrupted by the presenter's introduction talk. How is that conversion explained?

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Anil sadly despite being very intelligent is absolutely incorrect with his materialist view that human brain produces consciousness. It is Consciousness which has a separate space and structure from physical brain is my scientific DISCOVERY after searching for and finding Creator of our Universe in a journey which took me 14 years starting from London ... I was nominated for Nobel Prize for my scie tifix discovery of consciousness and I had also challenged Penrose and Hameroff Theory of consciousness.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Richard Feynman was wrong. Consciousness has a scientific structure which I have discovered

[@trashygit]

Don't expect him to follow any 'scientific track' in terms conventional natural sciences: Anil has one MSc degree on 'Knowledge-Based Systems' (?) and his other degrees are on philosophical / social disciplines regardless their subject areas. He calls himself 'neuroscientist' on his website but even psychologists call themselves with this title nowadays. That does not necessarily mean that natural sciences are on the right track when it comes to the issue of consciousness or mind; so rather than academic credentials or traditions, the best approach could be to ask if the person makes sense or not.

[@kipling1957]

There is a slight-of-hand in slipping from the deterministic explanation of brain circuitry to the philosophical assertion that this produces consciousness, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Absolutely. correct

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

How do you prove the material existence of an abstract notion?

[@kipling1957]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You don’t

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@kipling1957 Is there something or anything about material existence that is able to constitute the substrate of an abstract notion?

[@kipling1957]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL experience?

[@justateacher7527]

I’m the first!!!!

[@donaldmcronald8989]

Tis I. The second.

[@donrayjay]

And I am the last. Om

[@holdontoyourwig]

Should we call you Adam ?

[@justateacher7527]

@@holdontoyourwig sure thing cause I’m the first 😂😂😂 good joke, bro!

[@DiscoverJesus]

Waffle and twaddle, nobody helped by this

[@jesuschristsaves1955]

THE GOSPEL Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: - 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 KJV Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:13 KJV SAVALATION For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 KJV For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6 KJV Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. - Mark 1:15 KJV He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36 KJV Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:7-8 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. - Romans 10:9-11 KJV For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Romans 10:13 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

[@holdontoyourwig]

"What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" That is was what the talking donkey said........You actually believe in talking donkeys....🤣🤣🤣

[@janwaska4081]

Anil redefined important scientific concepts and then declared them resolved. Completely off target. Poor thing. Any scientist commenting on a topic they are not experts in is as dumb as the next guy. Any statement made by a scientist is not necessarily scientific. That's what Anil did, made non-scientific (philosophical) statements that were off track.

[@martinploughboy988]

What an utterly pathetic discussion for an avowedly Christian broadcaster to post. Where was the reference to what the Bible says? All you have is a bunch of people waffling on from their ignorance, they know nothing about the mind and refuse to look to God, our creator. An utter waste of time.