Tim Bayne - Is Consciousness Unified?

[@sodakjohn]

I have seen almost every episode of this channel, I feel he is one of the best minds so far

[@gregariousguru]

Yes..the experience can change, but the nature in which knows its aware, does not change.

[@gregariousguru]

@LeoB in the same sense that you are still able to dream when you think "the you" is asleep....or how a person who has had a severe stroke knows they can't move their right side of their body....or how people in comas often can hear their loved ones, sometimes even being able to squeeze their hand or flutter their eyes. In all this, the conscious experience changes, but awareness remains intact.

[@nephalm5357]

@@gregariousguru interesting... in that sense, would you say that "the you" doesn't sleep, because sleep is a function of the body, which carries whatever "the you" is? Or did I miss the idea totally

[@mintakan003]

The "switch" in consciousness is sometimes called the "attentional mechanism". What is one paying attention, at a given time? Sometimes (oftentimes), I have conflicting tendencies, within myself. Depends on what I'm paying attention to. "On the one hand, ... on the other hand, ...". This all gets added up as multiple conflicting factors are considered.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

It's called day dreaming. Consciousness is simply your soul when it is awake. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Time can unify conscious experience(s)?

[@PaulHoward108]

Consciousness is whole and diversified, like a living being is an indivisible entity but produces subordinate details that can be conceived individually as parts.

[@Myrddnn]

The same could be said of a species, a genus, or life itself, perhaps even the whole planet. They all have consciousness at the appropriate scales.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The brain does not think. The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@jeffforsythe9514, According to the Vedas, the Lord is the pilot. Souls are passengers who can choose which planes to board but are not in control of the flights.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

@@PaulHoward108 According to my understanding our destiny has already been written but we can change it by committing a very evil act or by seeking spiritual enlightenment.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@jeffforsythe9514 The Vedas indicate our past choices have partially determined our destinies, but we can also choose to dissociate ourselves from matter if we no longer have any desire for independent enjoyment.

[@esod6527]

This reminds of Bernardo Kastrup’s work of analytic idealism. I would love to see him on CLoser to Truth

[@ricardotemporalgrein4482]

This channel is amazing.

[@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156]

Very interesting. This discussion made me wonder, from the experiences I've had with a relative who had Alzheimer's disease, how such dementia illnesses affect the structure of a person's consciousness. Such people sometimes seem to drift across a spectrum of "more structured" thought in their better moments to "less structured" in their bad episodes. Is there any way you might consider tackling this with some interviewees?

[@bluelotus542]

Being the foundation of reality, which is a combination of unity and multiplicity, consciousness is a unit having multiple experiences.

[@GoGetFree]

👏🏾

[@kos-mos1127]

Consciousness is not the foundation of reality. The fact is consciousness only experiences and witnesses.

[@tophythetoaster2774]

What does it mean to say that consciousness is the foundation of reality? All conscious states are, at bottom, determined by physical (brain) states.

[@marcosbatista1029]

@@tophythetoaster2774 brain states are generated by conscious states .

[@fins59]

Very nice lighting, kept me watching even though the conversation went woosh woosh woosh.

[@davidcasagrande267]

Life " DID NOT " create consciousness , consciousness created life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@1stPrinciples455]

This channel can last forever because the answers may not come in our lifetimes. There is longevity in such contents or channels. In a nutshell, its as unknowable as whether there is God. Science can be as mystical as Religion because people are talking without knowing the absolute truth which to be fair is never gonna be known for many life times to come

[@ianbrown4242]

I wonder if the idea that emotions, sensations etc as an integral part of consciousness is wrong. The single irreducible concept of consciousness is that of a self-aware POV - and you can have that without any emotions or sensations at all. Our body and neurology is feeding emotions/sensations to us as a way of interpreting our environment, but our POV consciousness stands apart from all this.

[@santhoshgopinath816]

Hi I hit the like button for this update. You have raised important valid questions. You got some answers too, I guess. POV, Subjective reality, first person experience, all point to the same. “……you can have that without any emotions or sensations at all ………” - totally yes. And ideas and conclusions and so on even. These are what we call the mind. Thus we can see that consciousness is not the mind. The superstition of the western science seems to equate consciousness with the mind. “……stands apart from all this …..” - yes agree. The real experiencer, the witness for whom the drama unfolds. “………feeding …. to us as a way of interpreting our environment, …….”. Yes body-mind supports the survival process as it is rooted in the survival process, not in an ultimate reality. IMHO - we can disassemble like - I say "my laptop". Means this is me the subject here, and my laptop is the object of my experience by seeing, touching...etc.. I say "my eye ". Means this is me the subject here, and my eye is the object of my experience either by looking at the mirror or by inference. I say "my mind". Means this is me the subject here, and my mind is the object of my experience. Thus we can see that the mind (= emotions, thoughts, ideas, conclusions, ...) is the object of my experience. Thus we conclude that mind is not the subject, but the object. Now where is the subject who experiences the object ? This who is consciousness, existence itself. Now, to - “single irreducible concept” - a very important insight. This is when we study the subject, we realize that the disassembling was not destructive or even disruptive but rather it leads to the conclusion of a “single irreducible concept” . Thank You !!

[@tophythetoaster2774]

@Ian: How could a self-aware POV not have any sensations? Or put another way, what would an "empty consciousness" be? It still seems like awareness of some kind has to be an irreducible component of phenomenal consciousness, but I think that an ontological quirk of awareness (as it is used in "conscious awareness") is that it always has to be "awareness of" something.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The brain does not think. The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot.

[@alexojideagu]

@@jeffforsythe9514 There is no such thing as a soul

[@jeffforsythe9514]

@@alexojideagu So you consider yourself to be soulless, like some kind of zombie, interesting

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could energy provide unity(s) for conscious experience?

[@CenterforCreativeChoice]

Great topic and very timely. I am currently writing a dissertation on psychic multiplicity and individuation which is seeking to address the problem of multiplicities of conscious experiences (which I refer to as subpersonalities) and the premise of wholeness or psychic integration. If you grant that the term 'ego' does not really mean anything when viewed in light of psychic multiplicity (if you disagree try to find an ego and get back to me), how might something like wholeness, unity, or individuation occur?

[@JONSEY101]

Is Ego not that which is you, the one having a conscious experience, one that is individual to each person and cannot be shared other than how we express it?

[@CenterforCreativeChoice]

@@JONSEY101The issue, in my opinion, is that the "one having a conscious experience" is not a stable individaul identity. People contradict themselves or at least vary constantly in terms of their conscious experiences of themselves. In one situation they may be a diligent rule following employee and in another a competetive athlete or in another a disciplinarian parent. The experiencer of these activities seems to shift as well. The values change, the motivations change, and the perspective change. The "you" underlying these experiences is subject to tremendous fluctuations. Therefore, just on that basis alone, the idea of a stable or reliable ego-identity seems tenuous. Then if you take this question to the level of neurological feedback loops or evolutionary motivational systems (Del Guidice, 2018) you really start seeing multiplicity in the personality. The idea of a single ego of consciousness becomes even more unlikely.

[@RobAgrees]

Presumably you mean subpersonalities as aspects, not in a DID sense. How or what an ego is defined as is preeminently important. Ego as defined by a continuous internal sense of congruency may not be able to sufficiently meet the mark (though it is arguable that the discontinuity of a consistent value system across situations is itself a continuous characteristic), the ego can also be construed as the social identity of a form (in this case a human body) which itself too can vary given the social setting. The fact that 'things' change or otherwise vary response does not undermine a central existence (just as clone seeds vary with in various soil conditions, because different DNA segments are activated or repressed accordingly). If you mean to hack away at the sense of continuous internal self, and instead lead to arguments of shifting overlapping patterns of behavioral expression that resemble a 'self' in retrospect (self as a projection of assumption), I would entreat you to also ask where and how the information is being created and is present.

[@CenterforCreativeChoice]

@@RobAgrees Correct, I am not speaking in a DID sense. Differing aspects is a fine way of coming at this topic. I like subpersonalities because it stretches the edges of the semi-autonomous networks of an individuals psychology. I agree with you that fluctuation does not disprove underlying existence. In fact, I am arguing for a substantiation of underlying networks of behavior, perspective, and motivation of which I submit do a far better job representing the complexity of personality. Each of these 'subpersonalities' can have their own continuity and variation based on environmental cues, much like your thoughtful DNA example. I would additionally direct you to the fact that you used DNA 'segments' as an example, which corresponds quite well to what I am implying about personality 'segments' (which happen to be partially rooted in DNA). I posit that using a singular identity cluster (be it an ego or otherwise) to represent the majority of consciously directed psychological behavior and experience is to make a conceptual error. It would equally be an error to assume one of those DNA segments you mentioned is responsible for all the phenotypic expression in a plant. I am not arguing that no unity exists (or else how would the bodily organs coexist), or that no continuity exists (or else how would I wake up in the same bed most days, memories, narratives, and orienting frameworks in tact), but that any such unity of the various parts of the psyche will not be understood by utilizing a worn out ego ideation. The fact (which you allude to) that the ego is used in so many ways is another reason to find different language. I think we need need new heuristics and vantage points to view the problem of the part-whole relationship. Thanks for your great thoughts.

[@davidcasagrande267]

You and I are merely vehicles that consciousness drives around in. Some people are KIA's and some are BMW's . Consciousness can only perform up to the level of the vehicle that it is in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@transcender5974]

The Vedic tradition says that the ultimate fundamental reality (The Unified Field) is a pre-existing, transcendental field of pure consciousness beyond time and space, which through it's internal dynamics of knowing itself in an infinite number of perspectives creates all of that which we experience in manifest creation. The first manifestations of these internal dynamics are sounds (the Vedas) which are the seeds of the laws of nature. Consciousness, therefore, is not a product of the brain, but the brain is more like a receiver which, based on the quality of it's functioning, allows us to perceive levels and qualities of those perspectives of consciousness. So..all of creation is vibrating consciousness. As a subjective phenomenon, consciousness, at it's source can only be observed subjectively and never through objective means. Many scientists, will therefore, resist this perspective on the source of creation (the Unified Field).

[@jackarmstrong5645]

Wrong question, we know absolutely nothing about consciousness. We only know what it feels like to be a conscious entity. The right question is: Is the experience of being a conscious entity a unified experience? Is it the same thing that experiences pain that experiences the sunset, that experiences all that is experienced?

[@santhoshgopinath816]

I can relate to this in the broad step of questioning the question itself. The right question is: Is the experience of being a conscious entity a unified experience? - agree If we discard the superstition that only "modern" western science has or can answer all the questions , then we can look around and discover some amazing stuff left behind by people who lived a few thousand years ago. Drawing from that, I wont say - "we know absolutely nothing about consciousness." Re - "We only know what it feels like to be a conscious entity". The "only" is a restricted claim. I would say that the first person experience is the best experience untainted by the limitation of the instruments of indirect experience like perception and inference. Re "".....same thing that experiences pain that experiences the sunset,...." this is the unfortunate conditioning effected by western science which cannot go beyond mind and equates consciousness with mind. The "same thing" mentioned here is the mind which is the knower of the sensory stimuli. IMHO, consciousness is not the mind, but that which knows the mind as "my mind". When you say "my mind" you can easily see that the mind is an object even grammatically, so it cannot be the subject experiencer. Mind is also one of the objects experienced. Then it follows there is an experiencer beyond the mind who experiences the mind - that is Consciousness. You grasp it when you say .....that experiences all that is experienced?.... but it is a hot potato due to the conditioning of western neuro science and many drop it at this point.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@santhoshgopinath816 Plato answered what consciousness is. Plato states what has existence has the power to cause in effect. There is existence without consciousness called being in itself these are objects. Then there is being for itself called consciousness.

[@santhoshgopinath816]

@@kos-mos1127 What are these two beings made of? Do they come from the same source or different?

[@tophythetoaster2774]

Why does there need to be a thing independent from the experiences themselves?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@tophythetoaster2774 There needs to be something having the experience or there is no experience. If you go to the dentist and she causes damage to your tooth but she gives you an anesthetic first then there is everything you would normally have in terms of pain except the experience. And if there is no experience of pain there is no pain. Pain is an experience. It isn't anything else.

[@User-kjxklyntrw]

Maybe if one day neuroscientist finally find the part that switch on and off conciousness, the if someone can have nde after this part switch off then its clear maybe brain is a filter device

[@owencampbell4947]

Each brain ad's more and more informations in its storage. Depending on the compositions of what the brain gives free to the mind for responses, is a unique individual mechanism of each brain, maybe depending on a quality or better structured system. Some brains spread too far with new informations, causing a puzzle where it shouldn't be. A simplified understanding that consciousness is unified with its own birthplace, in no way is consciousness the same, its relation to reality depends on soo many factors that influences its decision.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The brain does not think. The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot.

[@owencampbell4947]

@@jeffforsythe9514 the brain thinks, but the thoughts are not coordinated, that's why we differ from animals, through the birth of consciousness, we're able to make sense out of the thoughts, animals are missing that part, therefore they have stronger sensoring organs. We can observe baby's when they pick up something, they are thinking but cant make sense out of it, until their consciousness developes and coordinates the thoughts.

[@r2c3]

When two people have different opinions on the same topic how likely it is for them both to be correct... or is there a chance of being two or multiple realities of the same topic until the moment of it being accessed...

[@WiseSolace]

The unconscious is unified. The consciousness is not. the conscious mind is the individual. The mind is a Trinity of three states of consciousness. Only the one par t I said is unified. ~Wisest Man Alive~ "Wise Solace"

[@mikel4879]

You uselessly complicate the simplicity of the brain functionality. The whole material process taking place in the brain that can be interpreted as being "consciousness" is just an emergent one. It is a fairly uncomplicated material process, and can be created artificially, fully, relatively easy and fast.

[@charlie-km1et]

I’ve been saying this for years now. Blind people, deaf people, even conjoined twins seem to be an area that is left out when it comes to studying “consciousness”. Defining further what it means to be “conscious” may be a simplifying of definitions. It may also be in relation to what is being discussed. Philosophically, logically or otherwise until further evidence can be found and applied. ALS patients are stuck in their minds but surely conscious. Awareness, response to stimuli. That’s it. Processing complex stimuli may be secondary. States of awareness like sleeping or awake or in a coma while involuntary biological processes are able to occur to keep an organism alive may be all that is needed to be “conscious”. Many animals do not have brains like humans and they function perfectly to be conscious. To be aware, to respond and so on and so forth.

[@hershchat]

Greetings Charlie, I am not sure what “in principle” question you have, sir. I the common formulation is that experience (sight, vision, smell, taste, touch, thoughts, emotions, memories) arise in the mind. Something in the mind, some faculty of the mind is then aware of it, gives us this sense of awareness. The consciousness is then that “something”. Each brain see to have one associated consciousness. Conjoint twins = two brains = two awarenesses. Deaf = awareness of all perceptual experiences except sound, etc. The mind has separate functions: the parts discussed above: awareness, and perception (the part where thoughts, emotions, and perceptions arise), the sense of self, the discernment/ decision faculty, and memory, etc. Some of these can be damaged. Hope this helps. Sorry if I missed your point.

[@alexojideagu]

I've literally been saying this for years. People BORN blind are fascinating, because their concept of reality is completely different and possibly even closer to ultimate reality. The idea that things "look" like something is actually a product of our brain that we are trapped in. If you think about even the universe is actually in darkness. Our brain merely uses light to give the impression of brightness. But the universe isn't actually lit up.

[@hershchat]

@@alexojideagu sure, images are an artifact of our visual system. But SOMETHING exists that is represented via our five senses. The specific representation of information is always subjective, but information itself is fundamental. Not having direct access to and experience of information- why do you say “blindness” is closer to some version of reality?

[@kevinhaynes9091]

Why is it always either/or? We have a propensity to have opposing theories, and then become even more entrenched/polarized through often antagonistic tribal tendencies. Why can't consciousness have both unity, 'and' independent functionality. I think of a symphony orchestra playing Beethoven's 9th. As we sit in the audience, we are enjoying Beethoven's meisterwerk. We might close our eyes, and let 'the music' flow through us. Yet it is made up of so many different components. There are perhaps a hundred musicians, playing a hundred hand-made instruments, a chorus of perhaps another hundred, and of course, the conductor. The concert hall contributes its own acoustic properties. And the experience is imbued by the very real presence of Beethoven and Friedrich Schiller, yet they have both been dead for some 200 years. 'The experience' of enjoying 'the music', is both unified, and made up of all its components, separated in both time and space. Even that notion of time, is further complicated by the idea that we are only ever hearing a portion of one bar at any given moment, yet our conscious brains are able to create a meaningful flow/procession of musical/musicological meaning, that transcends the supposed 4,200 separate seconds (70 minute) duration. The musical score itself, is both individual notes, and a complete score, of which neither has meaning without the other. If we're going to stumble at the very first hurdle, in the long overdue scientific investigation/study of what consciousness is, then I don't think we're going to make much meaningful headway. It might even be, that there are those within the science community who would rather we didn't study consciousness, happy to delay proceedings through arguing definitions of terms, perhaps ultimately afraid of what we might find out about the very nature of the Cosmos...

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The brain does not think. The brain is like the cockpit of an airplane and the soul is the pilot.

[@govindagovindaji4662]

An then ,there are those born without the Corpus Callosum (the central Rt-Lft brain separator) altogether who lead a very normal life though they have some trouble 'getting' jokes and can have ADD, but that's about it.

[@dueldab2117]

Man I was lost 1 minute in.

[@hershchat]

Consciousness is either material, or it is not. If it is material, it is constituted of some constituent “element(s)”, and was created in accordance with laws of thermodynamics, according to some design, has a cause, it’s creation obeys certain kinetics. It’s existence is likely not permanent. The blue print for consciousness is the information needed to assemble the constituent elements into the final product. There is likely some means of evolving, storing, and applying that blueprint to create consciousness. We have no idea as to ANY of these. We don’t know if it is material, what are it’s constituents, what sort of design will convert inert matter to aware matter. What happens to the information when the conscious system perishes? I think we should engage not just in “attributes of consciousness” discussion, but it’s origin and possibly non-material nature.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is your soul when you are awake. That's all folks.

[@hershchat]

@@jeffforsythe9514 have you just switched nouns (“soul” for “consciousness”)? Why do you think that the new word helps us know what is consciousness any better? Is consciousness what tastes coffee when I drink it? Is the consciousness the maker of decisions that I make? Where does it come from? If, as I think you suggest, it goes away when we are asleep, then where does it go to? Who sees the dreams I remember in the morning is my consciousness is gone- without consciousness I can’t be aware of my dreams, yes? Who turns me over in sleep, since I am unconscious? Since a sleeping Frederick Forsyth is still Frederick Forsyth, then who is this consciousness? Is it a part of Frederick? Respectfully, I don’t think just assigning a new name helps clarify what indeed is consciousness.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

@@hershchat The human body is made of cells and molecules, atoms and quarks. The smaller the particle, the greater the energy contained. That is why an atomic bomb is much more powerful than dynamite. Because we do not have microscopes powerful enough we cannot see that the particles of matter continue diminishing in size countless more times down to the smallest particle which is our soul. There are many more insights for you if you would care to learn.....................falun dafa

[@hershchat]

@@jeffforsythe9514 you’re not serious!? A new age Chinese social-soteriological belief system, constructed on borrowed Buddhist-Taoist traditions has the answer to what is the human soul? I thought the Buddha was silent on the soul, and that Nagarjuna asserted the zeroness of the ultimate reality. Are you saying that Falun has a clear doctrine on the Soul?

[@jeffforsythe9514]

@@hershchat Yes, Falun Gong answers all the mysteries of creation, mankind is ready, are you? I hope so.

[@lasvegasotis6780]

You are concsiosness, when it goes, you go ! Lights out. It's not as complicated as man makes it

[@johnnastrom9400]

And you have no evidence for that claim.

[@lasvegasotis6780]

@@johnnastrom9400 rather counciosness is in you, in your awareness

[@swagmasterdoritos]

I don't think Tim would even disagree with this

[@evanjameson5437]

Consciousness is a venue/pathway, that enables communication, observation, intelligent abilities to grow and learn/share. without it nothing exists but since it's only a pathway, that means there are all sorts of different capabilities from animals to Einstein and everything in between. What is consciousness--another dimension that we may never pin down.

[@micheldisclafani2343]

Consciousness is created by the body when the baby at four months comes from its lethargic sleep.

[@junevandermark952]

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it’s components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Stephen Hawking

[@alexandre.c.andreani]

Yes. Kabbalah says we are pieces of one conscious called Adam

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The soul, when you are awake, is consciousness.

[@djcarey1206]

You need to study infj personality types since our conscious and subconscious selves are uniquely connected!?

[@glennsmith64]

Of course we're not unified, oh, dont forget, you need to pick up milk on the way home.🤠

[@podimala]

This is just a load of nonsense.....

[@hershchat]

Doubting Thomas 😁

[@evaadam3635]

Consciousness was once unified before the Holy Spirit split Himself into "equal free conscious souls" to have a free family to love and to be freely loved. After the split, every immortal soul has its own free consciousness who is accountable for its own free choices. The reason why our perception or awareness of same object may differ, is because our free conscious souls are now inside physical bodies that are not equal. But, if you do not believe that your true being is a free immortal conscious soul, and that you define your being as just an animal body, then consequently you may think that consciousness is NOT UNIFIED because of difference of perceptions of the same object due to differences of physical bodies in many aspects such as differences in strength, health, gender, mental capacities, etc etc etc....

[@messenjah71]

Interesting. Have you read "A Course in Miracles"? Except for the Holy Spirit splitting Himself, your thoughts are similar to its teaching. Consider this, however: the Holy Spirit is holy, which is another way of saying He is whole. How could what is whole split itself and still be what it is?

[@kos-mos1127]

That is not how it works. This boils down to question if a tree in the forest falls down and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. The answer is mechanical sound waves are produced and there is no perception of sound. A sound is still made by the tree but no one hears it. There is being in itself or objects and being for itself or consciousness. That is at the simplistic level of reality.

[@johnpepin5373]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we are all part of a greater unified consciousness. Each of us like a subroutine in an object oriented program, we would do our thing, without knowing what runs on us. Perhaps if, in the unlikely event this is true, God and Satan could be literal epi conscious manifestations of the goodness in us and the pathology.

[@artstrology]

The language barrier between the actual exploration of consciousness, and the scientifically trained, is a difficult bridge to cross. It's not that the actual exploration is unscientific, its just many phases and elements of it do not have words. The visual evidence is available however, it is not discussed because scientists and artists alike primarily think of their ideas and knowledge as being theirs. An ownership for the purpose of gaining currency and societal standing. it doesn't work like that. The content of the paintings of all the masters, geometrically and thematically, are predictable through sets of images , cultures across the world have preserved for thousands of years. The opportunistic receiver living in your skull, is tuned and calibrated by the energies that pervade all matter on the day of birth. So, mankind tracked and recorded those for thousands of years and shared the sets globally. I don't need to ask Dali where he got the idea to use elephants in his paintings. Tesla and Cesar Pelli are born on the same day in the calendar that tracks consciousness, look at the Patronas Towers and the Tesla coil. One is an architect and one is a mechanic, but they produced the same imagery. this is pervasive and complete throughout the animal kingdom. The 20 amino acids are the same sequence and function as the 20 days in the primal set. Vibrations of unknown origin. The primary troll on the bridge between science and spirit or consciousness, is religion. We need a bigger sledgehammer.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

Here's an example of co-consciousness there's two sides of a coin. Plus co-consciousness validates the Bible of knowledge of Good and evil, conscience of good and conscience of evil. Look the Bible God's word told us about co-consciousness.🎤💧