Unlocking the Mind with Anil Seth and Christof Koch on Consciousness

[@MrShahzad40]

I am an idealist but I really loved the dialogue between two great minds. Anil Seth is an amazing scientist and I loved the way he pushed back in a manner I haven't seen before. It was more of exploring and thought provoking rather than "I am right". Agreement on what is not known is humbling.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.

[@amartinakis]

Whatever you we are, we are driven of the pursuit of truth. That is what matters the most. Maybe we're all wrong (most probable) but at a point we mainly choose a stand that makes the most sense up to now. I am an idealist too after being for many decades a materialist, but there was a always a strong feeling that somethings is missing. Now somehow things are more clear with more sense and meaning. I'm not scientist or philosopher, I'm a visual artist.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

@@amartinakis In your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.

[@thismindofours]

Christof Koch intellect is just staggering, it’s like a beautiful mountain range

[@lau-guerreiro]

Great conversation. If everyone could disagree as cordially as these two do, the world would be a much better place!

[@PatrickMcnally834]

I just love to watch Christof come round to Idealism, I love his enthusiasm and excitement for Idealism he's like a kid who's just discovered Christmas, he's smart and he knows in his heart that Idealism is right, . isn't funny how all materialists have never had a breakthrough trip....

[@shortyrags]

I have had a breakthrough trip and still present more agnostic about the matter of materialism. I don't think there are good reasons to believe any -ism, but materialism does give us the best set of tools for exploring further. Idealism is a dead end in the pursuit of knowledge.

[@bastianmichiel528]

It seems to me this discussion was a bit unfair to analytic idealism because most of the arguments by Anil against the fundamental reality being mental or consciousness, had a hidden materialistic assumption. If the universe is fundamentally mental, it means every object is an appearance to it. This means not only the body but also the world and let us not forget the brain which is the external representation of the personal mind which in turn is an object (or in Kastrup’s words a dissociative border) to universal consciousness. Therefor general anesthesia shuts down the personal mind but it can’t ever touch universal consciousness in the same way as bumping your head in a dream will never give the dreamer a bruised head. In analytic idealism (as I understand it) the physical world is an appearance. It is what reality looks like from across such a dissociative border or point of perspective.

[@JDTherrien]

At 26:50 there is an assumption made. When regarding anesthesia, it's common for materialists to say that anesthesia makes someone unconscious. Or it makes their consciousness go away. But what if it's more like this: Imagine consciousness as a person sitting in a room. Within that room, they have speakers that produce noise, they have optics which produce vision, and they have a computer that performs calculations. These are all ran by electricity. If the electricity powering these goes out, does that mean that the person within that room stops existing? Or do they no longer have any inputs providing feedback? I'm drawing a separation between the sensory inputs and consciousness. The sensory inputs can be turned off, but we don't have any evidence that consciousness is ever turned off.

[@philosophybabble]

There have been multiple studies on this phenomenon, often referred to as "anesthesia awareness." it is relatively rare, it does occur in about 1 to 2 out of every 1,000 cases involving general anesthesia. I can relate personally, as I have been aware of slight sensations and conversations during anesthesia, even if I couldn't recall them until much later. My experience was during a cesarean section for my son's birth. This suggests that consciousness might persist even when sensory inputs are disrupted. There isn't definitive evidence that consciousness is ever completely turned off; rather, it appears that sensory inputs are merely suppressed.

[@mmc577]

Even if it anaesthesia makes consciousness go away to a deep sleep like state or even if a some tablet makes consciousness change, it doesn’t mean the tablet is made of matter, that exists out there in the world mind-independently or outside consciousness The Hindus considered the deep sleep state the third aspect of the self, the other two being the waking state and dream world. In the deep sleep state Without brain activity, the potential for awareness still exists. So it’s not the true self. Our true self is neither of the three states..it’s the fourth ie Turiya or the 1st, the only

[@mattikangaskoski3544]

Not to mention the difference between metacognitive experience which you can report having and experience that you are not metacognitively aware of or experience that you can't report on afterwards.

[@kenm8891]

​@philosophybabble I think even under idealism the answer might simply be 'yes', a person can quite literally go unconscious in the sense that the person's thoughts or phenomenal experiences are not being evoked. Because remember: conscious is the ground of existence in analytic idealism. It's the capacity for experience. So me going unconscious really may just mean no excitations are being evoked in my dissociative boundary.

[@marinorodriguez255]

Great interview, thank you, consciousness is the ultimate reality, everything is a projection of ours minds, all is mental, ours body is just an avatar.

[@bradmodd7856]

Cool story, but how to hook that up to physics, biology and chemistry?

[@amartinakis]

@@bradmodd7856 Those are the limited products of consciousness, but they are it's products. I am an artist, you can't explain me with my works. I can't explain me with my thoughts or feelings because they are products too. So it will be hard if not even impossible to explain the whole picture with those tools unless you become the picture itself. After all science is dealing with how things work not what they are.

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Bernardo Kastrup is The G.O.A.T. 🎉. Love Schopenhauer as well! I resonate with Christof’s views. Great discussion.

[@williamkerr5132]

The excerpt from the Book that Christof Koch read says about the dissolution of the Ego that happens after surpassing the Astral Plane and entering the Spiritual Plane and the Atman dissolves in Brahman. How something Unmanifested, as coming from the Infinite Primordial Source of All Consciousness and equally Infinite probabilities cross to the Plane of Existence where everything is Manifested and this question is interconnected with the Axiom of Kybalion which reads:The All is Mind.Is the Universe Mental?My intuition seems to know but it is difficult to put into words. Then I will use metaphors such as from the Primordial Source of Infinite Consciousness Layers of Subtle Aeons will overlap and become entangled in Strange Geometries of Kaos until such Strange Geometries become the Contours of Platonic Polyhedra and normalize in juxtaposition of Fractals in Order from the Fundamental Monad, thus Energy, Electricity and Magnetism, and the Fohat of Theosophy gradually condense under exposure to cold and hot temperatures until they solidify in our Third Dimension functioning as Vessels and Forms and Receptacles for certain Quotas , Quantities of Consciousness of the ABSOLUTE. This is all considering that Kant's Phenomenon and Noumenon and Bernado Kastrup's Idealism. This is all considering that Kant's Phenomenon and Noumenon and Bernado Kastrup's Idealism with the Wave Function Collapse done by the sum of All Sentient Beings in the Universe, remembering that H. P. Blavatsky stated that there is no mathematical point in the Universe that is not Conscious, which Hyman Schipper explains very well with his Interpretation of Panpsychism in Kabbalah.

[@joeolson6085]

Right

[@projectmalus]

Great show, thanks.

[@nickknowles8402]

WHY IS IS IT NOT ON AUDIBLE? NICE INTERVIEW

[@legend_ai_art]

The titles of their books provide a beautiful summary of their perspectives. "Being You" by Anıl looks from a third-person perspective(just the title) and aims to find a place for a subjective phenomenon like consciousness within the internally consistent world of physicalism. On the other hand, "Then I Am Myself the World" is entirely about how a subjective experience can change the perspective of someone well-versed in the consistent world of physicalism and expresses a different firsthand experience. Then we say that experiences can be misleading. They are just situations caused by certain problems or perception confusions in that consistent physicalist world. On the surface, I could really see it that way too. However, if you seriously examine the arguments and counter-arguments from both sides regarding near-death experiences, and read or listen to hundreds of such experiences, not just one or three or five, you will realize how far these experiences are from the explanations provided by physicalists and how they can change your entire perspective. We are something much different than we thought, and the science we currently have is incredibly inadequate in explaining the magnitude of what exists.

[@philosophybabble]

I believe we're moving toward a new paradigm that, while it will take time to refine, must remain grounded in the reality of our physical world. These new approaches should be applicable not only to social structures, education, and existential questions but also to ethics, mental health, and our relationship with the environment. Theories and philosophies should extend beyond abstract thought and be practical and relevant to our daily lives.

[@gustafa2170]

You can be mistaken about thr contents of consciousness, but you can't be mistaken about consciousness itself. It's a brute fact, and no amount of illusionist talk will get around it.

[@milanberghout9854]

Amazing conversation

[@abhitejamandava1619]

Can we please do a Bernardo kastrup and Anil Seth podcast?

[@nathanielwilding3779]

Obe can be explained by you know exactly what you look like.... your brain is powerful enough to show you... you in a different frame of imagined experience

[@No2AI]

We are complicating reality - consciousness evolved from a higher level of curiosity which in turn motivated creativity. Here we are !If left to die it would die .... advanced technology is responsible for this 'survival'.

[@saberier2]

Would be nice to know how the physical brain creates "maps", representations of the outer world. Damasio talks about how consciousness could arise in the interplay of the total "map" being upgraded and as they compare to each other, we experience consciousness.

[@polymathpark]

two great minds. Appreciate your efforts as always, Philosophy Babble. Perhaps we can collaborate on my own channel some day! Excellent discussion here.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

[@philosophybabble]

That would be cool!

[@polymathpark]

@NicholasWilliams-y3m interesting theory. Have you read the romance of reality? It gets at similar proposals.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

@@polymathpark Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)

[@mafaromapiye539]

l can reflect his perception, resonates...

[@MeRetroGamer]

There's no unconscious, because for it being possible to be an "unconscious" there must be something, a self, a subject, who has the property of being conscious. Consciousness is not a property, consciousness is a fact of phenomena. Simply as it is, *if there's no self, there cannot be an unconscious.* We make a totally artificial distinction between an inner space (mind) and an outer space (physical world), but such a distinction is an artifact of there being an identity with a specific form (plus a bunch of layers of reflection and abstraction). There's just phenomena.

[@tylermoore4429]

Have not heard the whole thing, but does Dr. Seth speak anywhere on whether he has taken psychedelics himself, and if not, why not?

[@philosophybabble]

Yes, Anil Seth has discussed his experiences with psychedelics, which he has used as part of his exploration into consciousness. He believes that psychedelics can provide valuable insights into how the brain constructs reality.

[@tylermoore4429]

@@philosophybabble Thanks! I do see he briefly mentions his own experience at approximately 4:20, but moves the discussion immediately back to Christof's experience. Strange. Addendum: Dr. Seth also throughout uses the words "your experience", "why does your experience prove x", etc., never "my experience", thus always placing himself in the place of the dispassionate observer and Christof and his experience in the place of the observed. Scientific objectivity assumes the observer and never gives it a second thought after that. This is not to say I am on Christof's side. Not everyone who has a psychedelic trip can become a sage of consciousness, and he has no recourse but to appeal to Kastrup's work a lot of times. Ideally, there should be a debate between Dr. Seth and Kastrup, but the two probably will not get along.

[@philosophybabble]

@@tylermoore4429 Sometimes in live discussions, it can be challenging to organize your thoughts.

[@tylermoore4429]

@@philosophybabble Could be. To me it looks like he prioritizes attitudes of scientific rigor and objectivity over the anecdotal and the experiential, so dwelling on his experiences would be a solecism in that context.

[@AnilSethNeuroscientist]

@@tylermoore4429 i talk a little bit about my own psychedelic experiences (some of them) in my book Being You

[@thebasicmaterialsproject]

really nice discussion, made an hour ten,

[@thebasicmaterialsproject]

finsihed the rest on the train home

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

Self-evidently, we are nothing more than highly coordinated, goal-driven organisms. From the inside, the objective aspect of the perpetual physical processing at the centre of our physiology is inaccessible, even though the subjective aspect is present. From the outside, the objective aspect of that same physical processing is accessible, even though the subjective aspect is absent. In contrast with all other physical processes we observe in nature, our uniquely dichotomous central processing seems to be an ontological anomaly. Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label it for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly reify its subjective aspect (often labelled "subjectivity", "consciousness", "awareness", "cognition", "sentience", "mind", etc) into seeming as though it is, in fact, ontologically different from (and caused by) its objective aspect. Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains unsuccessful in observing the mechanism/s responsible for this causation, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness". Practically speaking, all there is to find is the highly coordinated, goal-driven organism, along with its own central processing, and all that it physically entails. Other than the subjective aspect of this central processing, there is no reason why it feels like anything to be these organisms that we are. Being naturally occurring entities, there is no reason why such organisms emerge in the universe. This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".

[@mattikangaskoski3544]

Or, with respect, it may the other way around. We unwittingly postulate the physical and this seems to create another ontological substance. In reality, there is only mental stuff, and this realisation solves the hard problem. Additionally, now you have direct access to the stuff that the world is made of.

[@george5464]

Anil doesn’t quite grok idealism or it’s implications for science. Science is not predicated on nor has progressed due to physicalism. It has progressed due to the scientific method

[@kw280]

Christof.., Dean Radin did the experiment with the Double Split, which changed the result

[@playpaltalk]

Interesting and I wonder if an out of body experience in a dream can be real.

[@ashvoj]

Why does Koch write a book about something that he still is learning about? All these people keep dashing out books about topics that they don't even know what they're talking about. That old chap Deepak Chopra has written 100 books on these things, yet he admits he's even now more clueless than ever.

[@philosophybabble]

Thinkers like Christof and Deepak write books on complex subjects like consciousness to share their evolving insights, engage with the public, and contribute to ongoing discussions. These books are not definitive answers but are steps along the path of discovery, encouraging further exploration and understanding.

[@noahghost4476]

Koch has a little bit of a Liam Neeson thing going on, looks like he should be disarming an intruder or something. Respect!

[@philosophybabble]

😃😃

[@yuvalkaplan3074]

did Christof become idealist?

[@philosophybabble]

It seems that Koch is still investigating and learning from these perspectives, suggesting that he is open to exploring alternative explanations for consciousness but hasn't fully committed to idealism. This approach reflects his ongoing commitment to understanding consciousness from multiple angles, acknowledging that current scientific models may not fully capture its nature.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

We can evolve elements how we see fit up to what nature & the universe permits . We have room for entangled prayers to do the same with both idealistic faith forces and physical lawisms of works. Elementary stuff! Generationally, we are forced to re align our affinities or we die as human species.so, obviously, this has a predestined singularity with this substrate in our future as humanity . Idk about the past the evidence jwst as above and cambrian below is unraveling the one we believed in the past. But every time yesterday's room for error based on axiomatic hidden complexity is dug out and put into our world tech and material sciences it narrows what successful social behavior mind body and soul can live ,order ,categorize & calculate. We dont have 500 years to continue arguing over what we know to be facts learned then and there. We dont another 1900s structuralism century to test some old world eastern or western version of dualistic holographs against the grain or nature +universe + humanity as we know it . The great debate set up an ocums razor outdated scientific standard that miss placed affinities in dualistic population species ordering that ensures experts legitimately argue over the slightest variation. Most taught, most goto fundamental tool shared by all perception management mind dope that ensures we live in whatsboutism or nilhisms. Garunttees that we miss the mark of eqaul measure strong identifiers of evidence. Makes sure that anthrosphy will be computed into theosaphy and this is a well known catastrophic future for all our kids . Even rulers who used this in the past to evolve society how they see fit are damning their own offspring. Idk how to fix it but i do know the day has ended as that being a tactic of power and governance . Kings turned to term limits, tuned to now doctors, scientist, professor all are forced to be selfless actors relinquishing power along the way properly innovating away their positions in life. History was authored by aristocracy then major city's then gender,then race,then baby boom generations now 8 billion ppl author history in real-time online together. Its obvious that its no where to run ,no where to hide ,no eastern deflecting to get out of this fact about our future generations. It means we can always base things of the wings of merit to specialize in & study. Even if its prenticious idealistic faith forces or physical lawisms works in our past. But a successful future 🙌 Born of the womb is as Matter of fact as It gets and e=Mc I no different.

[@saberier2]

Whats the difference in saying its all mental and its all God? Is mental its own substrate?

[@philosophybabble]

The difference between saying "it's all mental" and "it's all God" lies in the nature of the substrate that each philosophy proposes as the foundation of reality. Idealism centers on consciousness or mind as the core of existence, while theism or pantheism places God or the divine at the heart of all reality.

[@saberier2]

@@philosophybabble I guess I lump anything that isnt material into one big group of make believe. Its hard to imagine that I am really just a structure of mindless 'atoms of Space" , but it seems most realistic to me. Trying to get a happy feeling about being the universe, not a temporary structure subset.

[@philosophybabble]

@@saberier2 It’s understandable to lean toward materialism, but it’s worth considering that finding meaning doesn’t always have to conflict with a materialist view. Many find inspiration in the idea that we’re all part of the same universe, made of the same "star-stuff," as Carl Sagan put it. Sometimes, it’s about how we choose to frame our existence within that reality.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

images and the knowing of them are not physical functions/properties. if this is the case then the only method of establishing this is through the rigorous observation of this phenomenon, as has occured. this also means studying the biological correlates will keep you grasping at straws.

[@sixtysecondphilosopher]

I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. It keeps going round in circles. One has to look through the phenomenological lens if they want beyond this primitive, half developed monkey head paradigm but who’s really ready for that path. If you want to understand the modes - KZbin - new paradigm fish by Yap. Stripping it right back. Alternatively- read my work for free on medium. New paradigm fish Yap.

[@clivejenkins4033]

Is ego the meta conscious?

[@philosophybabble]

The ego is a part of meta-consciousness due to its role in self-awareness and regulation, but meta-consciousness encompasses a broader capacity for self-reflection and awareness of mental states.

[@clivejenkins4033]

👍

[@willbri9773]

I have great sympathy for idealism and William James work in varieties of religious experience, but I think Seth is simply right here that no mystical experience is a valid argument for an ontology. If it were I could argue for the existence of dream experiences just as easily which is plainly absurd.

[@mmc577]

I had total ego death similar to Kochs story. But mine differed in that i kept looping the same two questions. 1. Am I alone? Yes I am… 2. Is it forever? Oh no! It is Back to 1. Each time I answered 2, the oh no got scarier and scarier as I started to remember being here before

[@philosophybabble]

If someone is experiencing genuine ego death, the ability to ask self-referential questions like "Am I alone?" would generally not be possible because the typical "I" thought process would be dissolved. If you can still ask such questions, it suggests you are not in a full state of ego death, but in a state where the ego is significantly weakened or altered.

[@mmc577]

@@philosophybabble these were the first thoughts coming back from ego death I meant. The more I started to remember the scarier it got. I could think 2 or three thoughts whereas I wasn’t thinking previously . I knew a sense of I, but suddenly alone, (so now I’m coming back , correct) and sense of time ie eternity, but still unaware I had a body/mind in physical reality. Finally Irealised I was on psychedelics, was a person, in a house, on a planet with others. Which felt like heaven relative to that confused in-between realm. Mundane everyday experience seemed basically perfect.

[@kw280]

Anil.., Life Isen't solved. Please inform yourself a second time. Thank you

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

Among all physicalist views, Anil manages to adopt the most ridiculously stupid one: illusionism. It is astonishing that someone can look at their own complexity and believe that it is all just an illusory sensation created by the brain. I don’t even know why he is still invited to such refined discussions about consciousness; his position is the most primitive of all...

[@philosophybabble]

An illusion is understood as a phenomenon that exists in one way, but presents itself in a different manner. Something that is entirely non-existent still holds a mode of existence, yet this mode contrasts significantly with its mode of appearance, creating a discrepancy between the two. Anil Seth's position on illusionism in consciousness is indeed controversial, but it shares interesting parallels with Buddhist philosophy. Both suggest that our perceptions and sense of self are constructed illusions. Despite the different goals-Seth's being scientific understanding and Buddhism's being spiritual liberation-both views challenge our intuitive notions of self and reality. While you may disagree with his views, diversity in perspectives is crucial for advancing our understanding of consciousness. Anil's work, including his research on perception and his book "Being You," contributes significantly to this ongoing dialogue.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

@@philosophybabble "Anil brings more of the same... We brought together people like Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, and Christof to try to find new avenues for understanding consciousness. Bringing someone who adds nothing but old paradigms (which are obviously not useful) still seems pointless to me. In fact, as Ananda Coomaraswamy would say, 'Buddhism today is famous for everything it has never been.' In any case, I continue to say that I respect Anil's work as a professional. He and anyone else have the right to believe what they want, but including him in conversations like this about understanding consciousness is like inviting Dawkins to try to find a new theological insight."

[@philosophybabble]

​@@woodcabinasmr5266 While you favour perspectives from Bernardo, Michael, and Christof, practical applications are also crucial. Analytic Idealism posits the universe as fundamentally mental, which is philosophically intriguing but less clear in addressing daily life, ethical dilemmas, and psychological challenges. In contrast, Anil’s work shows that the self is an illusion and perceptions are brain constructs, offering tangible benefits in improving mental health, addressing existential crises, and fostering empathy. His approach bridges cognitive science and practical psychology, providing tools for dealing with life’s challenges. Respecting diverse viewpoints is essential for understanding consciousness. Both metaphysical questions and practical applications matter, and Anil’s contributions are valuable for their real-world relevance in mental health and ethics.

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

@@philosophybabble Okay, let's be practical here. If someone believes that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon (like Anil does), it's all over. Do you understand that this is called nihilism? Take an apple juice and go to the beach to watch the sunset-nothing matters, nothing has meaning anymore, not even studying neuroscience. Whatever you’re trying to become or do will last a few years, facing difficulties and challenges that will vanish in the blink of a cosmic eye. Don’t waste time working 8 hours a day, taking crap from your boss to pay off your debts and sleep under a roof for the next 80 years. Just kill your self and end this bs we call life now. Or if you prefer, do only what you enjoy, whenever and however you want, instead of staying in a lab trying to understand mathematical calculations. There are no secrets in the universe for you; you are just a conscious cosmic accident. I am not inclined towards the views of Bernardo, Buddha, or anything like that. I am inclined towards people who sit down to discuss the extent of consciousness, and all of them strongly believe (with arguments a thousand times better than those of materialists) that consciousness transcends and is fundamental. In fact, to look into your child's eyes and believe that the love you are feeling is, in the end, just a chemical illusion generated by the brain-a kind of material prank-is a degree of psychopathy. Actually, it requires a level beyond that, as the psychopath does not feel this love at any moment, which is worse than feeling it and still having the strength to devalue its substantiality. The point is simple: if you believe that consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain, there’s nothing you can add to this journey into the unknown. Take the apple juice and go to the beach. If one day it is indeed PROVEN that nothing of us remains, nothing transcends or is fundamental, we will have to face our insubstantiality with our heads held high. Until then, defending this idea is just existential masochism. Dawkins, Anil, and others don’t even deeply understand the implications of their beliefs-I am sure of it. Nihilism is incompatible with existence

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

@@philosophybabble Okay, let's be practical here. If someone believes that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon (like Anil does), it's all over. Do you understand that this is called nihilism? Take an apple juice and go to the beach to watch the sunset-nothing matters, nothing has meaning anymore, not even studying neuroscience. Whatever you’re trying to become or do will last a few years, facing difficulties and challenges that will vanish in the blink of a cosmic eye. Don’t waste time working 8 hours a day, taking crap from your boss to pay off your debts and sleep under a roof for the next 80 years. Just kill your self and end this bs we call life now. Or if you prefer, do only what you enjoy, whenever and however you want, instead of staying in a lab trying to understand mathematical calculations. There are no secrets in the universe for you; you are just a conscious cosmic accident. I am not inclined towards the views of Bernardo, Buddha, or anything like that. I am inclined towards people who sit down to discuss the extent of consciousness, and all of them strongly believe (with arguments a thousand times better than those of materialists) that consciousness transcends and is fundamental. In fact, to look into your child's eyes and believe that the love you are feeling is, in the end, just a chemical illusion generated by the brain-a kind of material prank-is a degree of psychopathy. Actually, it requires a level beyond that, as the psychopath does not feel this love at any moment, which is worse than feeling it and still having the strength to devalue its substantiality. The point is simple: if you believe that consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain, there’s nothing you can add to this journey into the unknown. Take the apple juice and go to the beach. If one day it is indeed PROVEN that nothing of us remains, nothing transcends or is fundamental, we will have to face our insubstantiality with our heads held high. Until then, defending this idea is just existential masochism. Dawkins, Anil, and others don’t even deeply understand the implications of their beliefs-I am sure of it. Nihilism is incompatible with existence

[@SciD1]

I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness! And how it led to so much quantum woo, and ridiculous quantum consciousness quackery. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. They just couldn't figure it out, so they had to resort to magic. And a light wave that somehow knows it's being observed, in which case it collapses into a particle... Oh boy! 🤦 Is there any hope for humanity? 🙄 All they had to do was to question the original assumption made by Young... Well, some of us actually did... Better late than never, I guess...

[@philosophybabble]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’d like to address some of the points you raised: Concepts like wave-particle duality and entanglement are counterintuitive but well-supported by experimental evidence. Speculative interpretations like quantum consciousness lack rigorous empirical support and are not endorsed by mainstream physics. Quantum mechanics’ probabilistic framework accurately describes inherent uncertainties at the quantum level, validated by experiments like the double-slit experiment. Superposition, where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously, is well-supported by experiments, including quantum interference and quantum computing. Observation affecting quantum systems is a key aspect of quantum mechanics, demonstrated by numerous experiments. This implies a deeper understanding of measurement, not "magic." The double-slit experiment and subsequent developments in quantum mechanics have been foundational and extensively tested. The scientific community continuously refines its theories based on new evidence. I would also appreciate if we could maintain a respectful tone in our discussion. Being condescending can hinder productive dialogue and mutual understanding. If you have specific scientific critiques backed by empirical evidence, they would be valuable to the scientific community!

[@amartinakis]

@@philosophybabble Guy just canceled Quantum Mechanics because it does not fit his narrative 🙃

[@philosophybabble]

@@amartinakis right! 😆

[@infinitygame18]

Are you aware that, NINETEEN IS NOTHING OR NINETEEN IS EVERYTHING, FROM WHERE DO THIS NINETEEN CAME FROM IN MATHEMATICS Just like space and time your maths is also doomed, I have the answer

[@anthonyfiolet8930]

What is it

[@infinitygame18]

@@anthonyfiolet8930 NINETEEN IS NOTHING OR NINETEEN IS EVERYTHING Where do this NINETEEN came into existence, After 9 its 10 so after doubling 9 its 18 and it next should be 20 where do 19 came in mathematics, try to understand,

[@chrispietronigro1450]

@@infinitygame18 Lay out 18 coins in front of you, and then add 1 more. Then you’ll see where 19 comes from.

[@infinitygame18]

Try to understand, from where does this 19 came into existence, understand, after 9 its 10, and if you double 9 its 18 so after 18 it should be 20 fundamentally, but this 19 is a trick of higher intelectual being to manuplate the conciousness, to create the reality which we see as it is and create the whole nodel of modern mathematics

[@infinitygame18]

@@chrispietronigro1450 some time if more intelectual being see this in future, they will understand it and the sence beyond all that your mind tries to hide from you, its a glitch into reality of mathematics

[@moesypittounikos]

This conversion demonstrated jnana versus an academic understanding. Koch has had the experience but Anil Seth is the blind man acting like he is the authority on what Koch experienced. And you can tell by Anils body language, well hand position, hand held high and sometimes waving when he makes a statement in front of the camera like he is conjuring truths out of his palm

[@philosophybabble]

While it's true that Anil Seth’s approach is grounded in cognitive neuroscience, he also draws on personal insights and experiences in his work. In "Being You," Seth incorporates personal anecdotes alongside scientific analysis, showing that his understanding of consciousness isn’t just academic. Focusing on Seth’s body language and perceived attitude rather than his arguments is an ad hominem attack, which undermines the substance of his contributions by attacking his character or presentation style.

[@moesypittounikos]

You are right. I was just commenting on his outer person from the interview. This is the impression I took away. I will read the man's book for a deeper understanding.​@@philosophybabble

[@AnilSethNeuroscientist]

@@moesypittounikos thank you!

[@woodcabinasmr5266]

this page blocks user coments, im out... sya

[@philosophybabble]

It might be an issue on your end. I haven't blocked anyone, unless they were vulgar or obnoxiously rude. If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to comment at all.

[@robertvann7349]

Conscious intelligent being argument, easily understood. p is non p impossible contradiction. 1>, non p is, non conscious caused the p is non p effect of 2>, p is, consciousness in the universe Lady, p is non p, a conscious intelligent being had to exist to cause the non contradiction effect of consciousness in the universe. Sad you're not wise to use simple logic.🎉🎉

[@philosophybabble]

Your argument contains an anthropomorphic fallacy and a false dichotomy. You assume that consciousness must be caused by a conscious intelligent being, projecting human-like qualities onto the universe. This is an anthropomorphic fallacy. Additionally, your argument presents a false dichotomy by implying that consciousness must come from either non-conscious entities (impossible) or a conscious creator.