A naturalistic account of consciousness | John Vervaeke [FULL interview]

[@JarkkoToivonen]

Alan Watts had an excellent answer for “what’s consciousness” question. It’s quite long answer so I don’t write it here to avoid spoilers , but it’s easy to find with google or from here, and KZbin he has plenty of his old recordings regarding consciousness.

[@jdttndjdttnd9884]

So, as I listened to the response to the interviewer's first question, it sounded to me like the interviewee did not answer the question: they did talk at length about (as in, they went around and around) answering the question...or something.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

Any discussion of consciousness should start with a definition of consciousness. My definition is “The subjective experience that we have from the operation of our brain”. The crucial part of the operation of the brain which affects consciousness is focus of attention. The neuron network cause of focus of attention can be understood as caused by the wave activity in the brain. Richard

[@nigelsaviodsa]

you suggest that consciousness comes "from the operation of our brain"? Isn't that an assumption and very narrow way of exploring consciousness? What about NDEs and OBEs?

[@OpenWorldRichard]

The important point is that consciousness is a subjective experience rather than a physical property of matter.

[@JHeb_]

Generally speaking the definition that I think is most popular in philosophy of mind is one that Thomas Nagel popularized in his paper "What is it like to be a bat?", i.e. what is it like to have a certain experience.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

@@JHeb_ I agree with Thomas Nagel that humans are not the only creatures to have conscious experience. We cannot know what it is like to be a bat but we can know what it is like to be a human through our own subjective experience. In my paper on Academia and ResearchGate titled the conscious brain I show that consciousness can be explained in terms of focus of attention and this in turn can be explained as caused by the wave activity in the brain. So consciousness is explained as a subjective experience from a physical process.

[@The-Wide-Angle]

The function of consciousness? That to enjoy the show! 😀

[@TheWorldTeacher]

How does pain/suffering fit into that proposition?

[@susankay497]

@@TheWorldTeacher As a World Teacher, I'm amazed you're unable to interpret the smiling face at the end of that comment as something akin to "made in jest".

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

[@johnsmith1474]

The sum total of human thinking and study of the last 500 years has one irrefutable conclusion: In the whole history of the Universe, no supernatural event has ever happened, not once, ever. You are clearly on an ego trip, a very old state of self delusion that occurs for various reason in many people. You look young, you've plenty of time to grow up and out of it.

[@ArjunLSen]

@marcobiagini1878 absolutely excellent commentary and much better than Professor's rambling discourse.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@john85132 The point is my arguments prove that actual science rules out the possibility that brain processes may be a sufficient condition for the existence of mental experience. Neuroscience is only concerned with finding correlations between mental experiences and brain processes, and correlation does not mean causation or identification. The fact that there is a correlation between two phenomena A and B does not imply that A is a sufficient condition for the existence of B; confusing correlation with causation or identification is a common logical fallacy. The problem of determining the origin of consciousness arises on a much deeper level, one that neuroscience does not even come close to. Actually, neuroscientists do not even have an idea of what an explanation of the existence of mental experiences might be like. Indeed, science is unable to explain the existence of consciousness even in principle; science has never even provided a clue to justify the existence of consciousness, science has never even provided an idea of what an explanation of the existence of mental experiences might be like. Neurosciences can never provide any valid explanation for the origin of consciousness, as neuroscience does not analyze brain processes at the most fundamental level, but only uses conceptual models that only appoximately describe the underlying physical processes; consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of conceptual models, arbitrariness and any approximation; therefore, the hypothesis that neuroscience can explain the existence of consciousness implies a logical fallacy. Brain processes are determined by the laws of quantum physics and any attempt to provide a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness must be based on quantum physics; however, my arguments prove that the fragmentary nature of brain processes implies that brain processes cannot be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent....as physicalism has come to dead end , extended naturalism / metaphysics pointing to nondual spiritual approach being pursued by Hindus in India which has been tried & tested by saints since last about 5000 years ago.... only way to proceed further by going inside and which many scientists and philosophers are pursuing rightly.... ❤ thanks 🙏.

[@johnsmith1474]

You are babbling. Your mind is chemical states of the brain, there is no supernatural realm, the notion "saints" is voodoo. People are animals with complex lifestyles, driven by ancient instincts. Yes we are special and complex, no there is no special path for humans other than to get sufficient food & rest, to avoid stress and deal with the weaknesses up their upbringing.

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

The "only way to proceed further" to where or towards realization of what specific vision? Thanks.

[@JHeb_]

​@@johnsmith1474 nondual approach doesn't imply about any special woowoo path or imperative laid out for anyone.

[@AmanKumar-rd2hd]

Consciousness is the medium of mind to understand the quantum mechanics.

[@guydreamr]

Personally, I think this guy could've been a lot more clear and concise with his answers. For example, in response to the great question right at the start, "what is consciousness?" how about simply: "consciousness is the part of your mind that is aware of itself and its surroundings."

[@arono9304]

If only it were that simple ;)

[@guydreamr]

@@arono9304 Maybe it's not that simple, but it's a good start ;)

[@arono9304]

@@guydreamr Generally I agree, you raise an important point. However, with complex matters, it can almost become an ethical question on whether one should simplify answers if such simplification likely entails (unintentionally) misleading. I prefer an interviewee who is honest. Compare also the answer he gave to the same question by Tevin Naidu. I hope it becomes clear why your proposed definition ( _"consciousness is the part of your mind that is aware of itself and its surroundings"_ ) would be insufficient (though, again, I agree with the attempt to answer it as simply as is appropriate!): _"I don't know if I have a definition. I think of consciousness in terms of three problems. Two are what I would regard as defining problems, even though I can't give you a definition, and then there's a meta-problem between the two problems._ _1. First is the nature question, which is: how is something like consciousness, which seems to not have any of the properties of all the things we seem to bump into in the universe, how can it exist in this universe? And there's various answers to that, and overlapping with that is how could it causally interact with the physical universe. So, that's the nature question._ _2. The function question is: given that so much of our sophisticated, intelligent, complex behavior goes on without consciousness, what is consciousness's function? What does consciousness function to do? So, this is the nature problem and the function problem._ _3. Then the meta-question is: how are these two questions related? Should they be answered independently or should they be answered interdependently? Should you start from function and go to nature, or start from nature and go to function, etc.?_ _I would propose to you that the definitions of consciousness come out of answering these three definitional, defining questions. I would put it this way: to claim that there's a definition of consciousness right now would be pretentious. However, I do think I could make a strong argument that all attempts to define consciousness should address these three defining questions, and we could perhaps evaluate attempts to define consciousness in terms of how well they address these three questions."_

[@henrytep8884]

Hmmm is like there is a hard problem with consciousness

[@rossmcleod7983]

The clerisy is alive and well. Be interesting to see how this would be received on the factory floor.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

How to define the nature of consciousness? It has never been defined, it never will be defined. Who will define it? To define it you have to be away from it. To define anything you have to stand out of it, you need a distance. Perspective will not be possible if the distance is not there. Osho , from the book 'Come follow to you ,vol 2'

[@ReginaJune]

Nietzsche contradicts because 1. personal timelines 2. some people have a dual perspective I’m all for whatever actually works!

[@OdjoAdja]

the consciousness that makes the cognitive exists, the consciousness that the 'intelligent algorithm' of nature exists, the consciousness is every where either in living being or non living things (magic)..

[@alexhudson-]

consciounceness is when you are awake duh

[@alex79suited]

Being aware is consciousness, seriously can we get some work done already. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

That's simply a synonym. consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).

[@ReginaJune]

1:45 consciousness- let’s hear a Daoist and The Dalai Lama chat about it. Tip: close caption or 1 speaking voice not a guest/translator combo 😬

[@OpenWorldRichard]

nozamA morf 3 koob dlrow nepo niarB suoicsnoC ehT eeS

[@glenncurry3041]

amazing word salad to be able to grift for so long.

[@badreddine.elfejer]

Salads taste good though, all its parts relate meaningfully

[@glenncurry3041]

@@badreddine.elfejer His Iceberg lettuce salad is all water for filling up but no actual value.

[@Matterful]

if you wanted an interview so short to answer these questions, without being referential to other work and condensed in leading language, you set yourself up for disappointment

[@glenncurry3041]

@@Matterful Or just less salad and more meat.

[@Matterful]

@@glenncurry3041 i.e. no gestalt

[@valariemgutierrexa.k.a.map6085]

It seems as though the "Verve" has a hard time explaining the "thing" or what "IT" IS. The question that seems to be "dangling" in everyone's mind....is that the basic essence of the project. ☞⚊☚?