Warren Brown - What Is Consciousness?

[@zebonautsmith1541]

who is the unique "me" or "I" having the experience of awareness?

[@joshkeeling82]

The brain. There is no you. There's just a brain that is having weird hallucinations

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@joshkeeling82 *"The brain. There is no you. There's just a brain that is having weird hallucinations"* ... How do "you" know?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

​@@joshkeeling82 protein water and/or electricity cant hallucinate.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Me and I and self and you etc. are all just labels for the thought that is conscious. This assertion prompts the question, 'what is a thought'. A thought is a representation. In the way that a painting of a pipe is able to represent a pipe without being a pipe a process of neural discharge timing patterns is able to do the exact same thing except of course in encoded form (but how is that different from paint). Given a sufficient amount of thinking the rest should be *self* explanatory.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL*"Given a sufficient amount of thinking the rest should be self explanatory."* ... No, you're pretty far from "self-explanatory" on this one.

[@MartinHeine77]

You could have pressed him harder with questions such as, ‘Can you clone consciousness? And if so, since it can’t be exactly you, what does that imply about the universe?’ It’s akin to being a 0 in a set within an infinity. If his assertions hold true, then a true ‘I’ can never be recreated. It would suggest that the probability of being ‘you’ is infinitesimally small, how does that exist? I still think consiousness is a last frontier, if not practically then mathematically.

[@shelwincornelia2498]

Its a good thing we are all conscious and don't have to depend on others point of view concerning the nature of our consciousness when we can meditate and become aware of the true nature of not just our consciousness but of consciousness in general.

[@Meditation409]

Your not altering consciousness, you are altering awareness.....that a big difference.... consciousness is so often called awareness..... awareness and aware of being aware is a big difference.

[@AnatolyKern]

yes, the need to separate consciousness, source of consciousness from consciousness experience, qualia and model of 'awareness of awareness' as computational realisation of one.

[@Meditation409]

Absolutely! The problem lies within what they are defining consciousness as.....and just like God.... everyone has their own definition or perception of what that is.....We have a problem in Science, philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, biology, and religion because we are all using personalized, perceptionalized approaches to definitely not only consciousness but in other so called hard problems.

[@AnatolyKern]

@@Meditation409 while everyone subjective experience is uniq... It is also worth considering that there could be many different realisations of consciousness experience even within one biological geno and phenotype, not to mention other media's, both computable and non-computable. And it opens the idea that multiple realisations could be present within the same body in competing or cooperating form, linked to various decition centers.

[@Meditation409]

Yes I definitely agree.

[@interstellarbeatteller9306]

Consciousness is just a word created by self centred humans to justify how special they are! Every living cell has a circadian rhythm, so even a blade of grass is conscious of it's surroundings. Animals form intuitions based on experience & shared knowledge, so I can't see anything unique about human consciousness

[@kennethmalafy503]

Consciousness is experience. It is what you are experiencing in this moment now. It is your original face before you acquired the memories and conditioning from this world.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Consciousness and experience are different words for a reason. "Consciousness" is a faux word whereas experience is not. A self has an experience when a self is conscious. Experience is the label that applies to a self being conscious of at least one 'thing'. When a self is conscious of no thing then the self is not conscious. When a self is not conscious a self is non existent. A self and being conscious are somewhat like the relationship between inside and outside, can't have one without the other.

[@ikaeksen]

Congratulation with 600k members!

[@Dion_Mustard]

I used to think consciousness was purely a product of the brain, but all that changed one day when I had what is termed an "out of body experience", whereby my awareness seemed to rise above my body and travel to specific locations. I was once VERY skeptical of such a concept UNTIL it happened to me, and now I am very much convinced consciousness is somehow "non-local", and not produced by brain. I won't understand it really until the day I die, whatever "death" means now, but once skeptical, not any more, and I am certain my experiences are NOT illusions.

[@simonhibbs887]

How can you know the experience was not an illusion?

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Your subjective experience has no bearing on reality

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@simonhibbs887 well, I thought about this after the experience. But then I had a second OBE, and I was able to go to a certain place and see something happening that I could later prove as accurate. To put it briefly, I travelled to a field that had animals in it and my awareness was there. It was not hazy or dream like, it was more real than I feel at this moment and I saw specific animals, one being a horse of a distinct shape and colour that I had never seen before, and I was able to locate this field after the experience, and low and behold the exact horse was there. So that to me suggests some part of my consciousness must have travelled there during that moment. I would never have believed in such a possibility until it happened to me and I know it has happened to many other people.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y what is reality?

[@claudioelgueta5722]

Did you see any pigs flying, @@Dion_Mustard?

[@kitstamat9356]

Consciousness is the living subject of all experiences and knowledge. The main mistake that is made when talking about consciousness is that it is constantly objectified. The more we think and talk about consciousness, the more persistently we treat it as an object. And when we fool ourselves like that, it becomes quite normal to talk about consciousness as something that appeared at a certain time and place in the universe. However, no one has ever seen consciousness anywhere. What appears in space and time are only bodies and their activity. Therefore, it is not consciousness that appears, but instruments of consciousness: living bodies capable to express the contents of consciousness. Consciousness cannot appear or be produced because everything that appears or is produced is an object. Consciousness can only be. It is always here and now, always where we are, always as a subject, not exclusively as me, but as something that also belongs to me, a living field in which I also participate.

[@adamsawyer1763]

I think he's missing the key issues here. Causality from consciousness being one of the biggest. If science is correct and we live in a materialist reductionist universe then consciousness cannot both be emergent from large scale brain structures AND be causally involved in our behaviour. You cannot have it both ways. Either consciousness is emergent and epiphenomenal or it is fundamental and is causal in our behaviour.

[@simonhibbs887]

I don’t think that follows. Suppose consciousness is an activity of causal components. Every conscious phenomenon is the result of causal activity. Therefore there is no aspect of that conscious activity that is not causal. Therefore conscious activity can be causal. Alternatively, ocean waves are emergent from the activity of water molecules. If emergent properties cannot be causal, how come ocean waves can be causal? This is because ever action of a wave is actually the aggregate action of water molecules. Similarly every activity of the human brain is the activity of the brain’s constituents.

[@Dion_Mustard]

i think consciousness is INFINITE and has no beginning or end.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Dion_Mustard except when we go into deep dreamless sleep, or deep anaesthesia.

[@adamsawyer1763]

@@simonhibbs887 you're just describing epiphenomenal consciousness. The causality is in the quantum field theory not our consciousness in that view.

[@adamsawyer1763]

@@Dion_Mustard well i know that my consciousnesses is very definitely very finite so 🤷🏻

[@davidowen4816]

This short video is one of the best explanations of a very complex subject ever. Bravo Mr. Brown and interviewer. Conciousness, like the rest of the universe, seems entirely deterministic to me.

[@deanodebo]

You’re refuting your own claim. If the universe is deterministic, then you’re not reasoning

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodeboIn a deterministic universe all effects must have a cause. Human reasoning is an effect, and its cause is the human that performed the act of reasoning. Under determinism human beings are causal phenomena in exactly the same way that any other phenomenon can be causal. There’s nothing about them that makes them non-causal.

[@deanodebo]

@@simonhibbs887 causation is an assumption you’re making. How do you justify that assumption?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodebo Causation is a cognitive model we infer in order to make predictions about future states from past states. Our confidence in that cognitive model is a consequence of its success at making such predictions.

[@davidowen4816]

@@deanodebo I'm not making any claim nor offering any reasoning, just making a personal observation. I had no choice in making my comment nor you in your reply, seems like determinism to me.

[@5piles]

no, electricity cannot imagine things.

[@henk-3098]

Brilliant video, it puts my thoughts into words, more organised than I would be able to. Conciousness is about awareness of one being alive. The brain evolved to take sensory stimuli in and refer relations from it to be able to survive and reproduce. The complex social relations we see in great apes and especially in our species led to increased cognitive capacity to make more complex connections between more abstract subjects leading to us being aware of our concious experience of the world.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

Consciousness is not awareness. In a dream I am conscious but I have no awareness of that consciousness.

[@ronhudson3730]

Whatever it is, it is pretty amazing that unconscious, sub-atomic structures can self-organize to the point of self-consciousness. It may exist within and of the brain but that doesn’t lessen the miraculous reality of consciousness. The scientist sees a collection of parts. The artist sees a Ferrari. That the emergent product of a collection of possibilities, each of which is unconscious, becomes conscious when a certain level of complexity is achieved, is awesome.

[@deanodebo]

Huh? Why do you believe that?

[@simonhibbs887]

Scientists, as humans, have exactly the same aesthetic sense as any other person. They see the form and beauty of the vehicle too. In addition to that they have knowledge about how all the parts of the Ferrari work, the intricacies of the engine, the chemical processes of combustion, the dynamics of air flow across the vehicle body, the fact that the atoms in the vehicle formed in the hearts of stars. This means people with scientific knowledge can also appreciate art and nature in ways inaccessible to those without such knowledge.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

conscious subjective experience / feeling related to, even as going beyond human awareness?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness might be different than human awareness, although interact?

[@anxious_robot]

I think it's just multicore processing in the sim we exist in. It's nice to have a lot of processors (observers) to see different angles and collect data.

[@cannonfish5000]

Fascinating idea

[@anxious_robot]

@@cannonfish5000Thanks cannonfish. That is nice of you to say. If you click my name, I do have a channel where I talk about a lot of "out there" ideas if you're into that stuff.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

youre locked in cliches.

[@jennymiko]

Mr. Brown is very knowledgeable. He knows what he is talking about!

[@backwardthoughts1022]

he thinks hes atoms with delusions of being alive. on other planets he'd be institutionalised and treated.

[@FuKuntt]

So why do we appreciate music? Art? Beauty? Not how physically is the question.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

According to Bicameral theory, music and poetry appreciation is a side effect of the cultural evolutionary process that made and makes most human beings conscious.

[@FuKuntt]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL so only humans are conscious? We're does inspiration to create music come from?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@FuKuntt If you are seriously curious then you'll have to read the book.

[@FuKuntt]

@@dianneforit5409 sounds like a plant.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@dianneforit5409 why would a physical system that can hear melodies need to be accompanied by appearances of sounds. the latter is completely unnecessary, a waste of calories, and logically incoherent.

[@willieluncheonette5843]

Would you define and discuss the nature of consciousness? How does consciousness relate to ego? Is consciousness the creative principle? (That is, could you say equally, “in the beginning was consciousness” instead of “in the beginning was the word or the logos”?) How does consciousness relate to god? "in the beginning was the word, or the logos. The same cannot be said about consciousness, because in the beginning unconsciousness was also there. Consciousness is just a part of your reality, the reality of the within. Unconsciousness is also there. So just consciousness was not there in the beginning. Unconsciousness was also there, as much as consciousness. Or you can say that something was there in the beginning in which both consciousness and unconsciousness were involved. That is the meaning of ‘God’. God is not only consciousness: God is consciousness plus unconsciousness. God is both the dark night and the bright day, both summer and winter, both life and death. God is the beginning and the end, both. God is beyond duality and the duality is intrinsic in him. He is both matter and mind; the manifest and the unmanifest. Consciousness is just a part of the great oceanic unconsciousness. Consciousness is just on the surface; deeply hidden are layers and layers of unconsciousness. One has to transcend both to know that which was in the beginning - which is God. “Would you define and discuss the nature of consciousness? How does consciousness relate to ego?” One part of you is conscious, one-tenth. Nine-tenths of you is unconscious. If the conscious part thinks itself to be the whole, it becomes the ego. Then it forgets about the unconscious; then the part imagines itself to be the whole. Then it is the ego. If the conscious becomes aware of the unconscious also…. That is the whole effort of religion, that is the whole effort of meditation. If the conscious turns back, looks back, and becomes aware of the unconscious also - the dark night within - then the conscious knows that “I am conscious, I am unconscious also. My consciousness is just a wave on the ocean. The unconscious is vast.” Then the ego disappears. Ego is the part, thinking itself to be the whole. Non-ego is the part, becoming aware of the whole. Then the ego disappears. 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. You are consciousness, you are unconsciousness. There is nobody who can stand outside and define it. You can know it, but you cannot define it. That’s why all religion is mysterious, mystical, vague, cloudy - because no term which is very basic to religion can be defined. The subject cannot be made an object. I cannot put myself in front of me, so I cannot define. Neither has Buddha defined, nor Jesus. Definition as such is debarred by the very nature of the phenomenon. Everything else can be defined because consciousness is the definer. Everything else is before consciousness. The consciousness can know - it can go around, watch, observe, experiment, define, dissect - but who will define consciousness? You cannot go away from it: you are it. You can know it, but you cannot define it. Knowledge is not possible, only knowing. Definitions of God are maps: lines on paper. Definitions of consciousness are maps. And sometimes people get too obsessed with maps. I can help you to create a meditative state where you can know what it is, I can give you the method, but I cannot give you the definition. That’s why religion always looks a little suspicious. “Why don’t you define your terms? Just do as science does. Define! If you cannot define your terms that simply shows you don’t know what you are talking about.” A great linguist and positivist philosopher, A.J. Aiyer, says that if we take two terms - ‘God’ and ‘dog’ - the second is true and the first is false. Nobody can define ‘God’, the word is meaningless. ‘God’ cannot be defined. ‘Dog’ can be defined - ‘dog’ is more meaningful than ‘God’. If you insist on definitions, then only things can be defined; persons cannot be defined. Laws can be defined, love cannot be defined. Gravitation can be defined, but grace - grace cannot be defined. That which is without is definable; that which is within is elusive. One has to understand it… and move into meditation. Buddha says, “Buddhas can only show you the way. You have to move. One day you come upon the goal. Nobody can give you the goal beforehand.” In the world outside you, maps have a little relevance, but in the inside world they are absolutely irrelevant. Not even a definition is possible. And it is good that a definition is not possible. Otherwise you will settle for the definition, you will settle for the information, and you will never travel, you will never journey to the goal. And sometimes it happens that the very map you were thinking to use for the journey becomes the barrier. You become satisfied with the map itself. I was reading a very rare autobiography by a man who belonged to a very primitive race in the Amazon. He was the son of the chief. His father was a great lover of the Amazon River, and he had moved to the very source of the river. The boy, the son of the chief, went to America - some missionaries helped him to go there to study. He studied there, graduated, and was on his way back home. Thinking that “My father loves the Amazon so much. He would be very happy if I brought him a map, a detailed map, of the Amazon,” he purchased the best map available and brought it to his father. He thought that his father would be very happy, but the father looked at the map and was very sad. He threw the map away. The son was very hurt. “I have brought a gift, a present, and my father has thrown it away. Why?” He asked his father. The father said, “This is absolutely bogus because I don’t see the Amazon anywhere. How can the Amazon exist on paper? You are a fool, and you are deceiving me. I have moved on the Amazon, I know what it is. Don’t be deceived by this map. Only lines are there.” Definitions of God are maps: lines on paper. Definitions of consciousness are maps. And sometimes people get too obsessed with maps. The best way to be lost is to have a map. You cannot fail: if you have a really detailed map, you will get lost in it. And the mind will think, “Now I know everything.” The living Amazon is beautiful, dangerous, terrible. At any moment life may be at stake. With a map - conveniently sitting in your easy chair - you can study it, and you can think that you know all about the Amazon. In the world outside you, maps have a little relevance, but in the inside world they are absolutely irrelevant. If you have any maps, throw them away. All the religions have given you maps. Throw them away! Enough of the maps. Now let there be a real journey! When you will attain to consciousness, you will laugh at the stupidity of the mapmakers. Then you will know that they have never been to the innermost source of life. They have been copying other mapmakers. For centuries they have been copying, and they go on adding their own fantasy and their own ideas. They go on changing and decorating. All maps are false, because the innermost remains indefinable. But there is no need to define. Consciousness is there within you. Return, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Why be bothered by the definition? When the real thing is so close, why not taste it?"

[@earlsimon8474]

It’s important for most intellectuals to believe they have agency over their conscious as an emergent process. Dream on…

[@NothingMaster]

Finally somebody talked some common sense. Albeit, I’m still trying to figure out what it is exactly, beyond the most rudimentary awareness of recognizing yourself in the mirror, that humanity thinks it’s conscious of?! In other words, what is the fundamental object of our consciousness?

[@antun88]

The great mystery for me is, can you have all the things he explained without consciousness. I mean, you can imagine an algorithm, making decisions, taking inputs, holding memory, calculating outcomes, but it doesn't have to have any subjective experience, it's just a calculator in the end.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@antun88I think consciousness isn’t just calculation, it’s a specific set of activities. These involve modelling and reasoning about the mental contents such as knowledge, behavioural patterns and intentions of the minds of others and ourselves. This modelling of mental states, plus the ability to introspect and reason about our own mental state, I think is what gives rise to consciousness.

[@antun88]

@@simonhibbs887 I don't see how modeling and introspection is still not calculation. If human mind can be simultated in a computer, let say in theory, 100%. Will it still have a subjective conscious experience, as a result of data processing, modeling whathever...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@antun88 It’s quantum mechanics at one level, pressure and temperature and fluid mechanics at another level, computation at another level, so why not consciousness at another level as well? I think consciousness is an activity, it’s a process, something we sometimes do. It may well be that computers can do it as well. They are intentional, in that they can act towards achieving an objective for which they have a representational model, they can model and make predictions about physical and dynamic behaviours, they communicate symbolically, they can model and introspect their own computational processes. We know that, whatever else it is, the brain is a sophisticated neural network computer. Thats an observational fact, we can watch it doing computations. So unless we find evidence of something not described by physics going on inside brains, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that consciousness is a physical computational process.

[@omoregiebenedict2762]

​@@antun88 I think the problem comes from trying to understand consciousness at the peak level like the activity of a full formed brain.. interestingly, consciousness using human as case study starts from way back like from the genes of parents before conception then the process continues till you have a full formed conscious being.. I think the harder question is "what is self awareness?" and "at what stage of a conscious developing system becomes self aware?"... Consciousness and self awareness are two different phenomenon..

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

What the scientists know about consciousness is from outward observations. What Mystics lnow about consciousness is from the experience from their inner.

[@wagfinpis]

Not only the inner though. When I have an out-of-body experience, or see the future, or the way people react to the ways you affect their lives, these all exceed being inner world.

[@bozdowleder2303]

​@@wagfinpisIf you actually can prove this, you'd be doing a great service to the world. Go to the James Randi institute and correctly predict the outcomes of a hundred coin tosses. If you can satisfy those referees, you'd also win a million dollars. You might not care about such things and you can donate that to charity If you want. But the more important thing is the clear evidence that out of body experiences and time travel are possible in the real world

[@willp9226]

Yes, the true nature of reality s accessed through going inward. Albeit, the correct way has to be employed. Robert Lawrence Kuhn could answer many of his own questions if he tried going inward. Hopefully he has this realization at least, before the death of the body.

[@simonhibbs887]

What mystics say they learn from this inner experience is that the personal self is an illusion.

[@wagfinpis]

Subjectively I agree with all these comments, but for me the splitting point seems to be that Closer To Truth is about general knowledge rather than personal or interpersonal knowledge. I too believe the real keys are in personal knowledge and developing to union beyond death through the way one lives. For general knowledge though there are some matters that should reasonably challenge certain materialist philosophies. The fruits of inner knowledge in some instances seem to exceed being solely inner matters. People can in general have an attitude of interest in asking better questions as to how or why certain reports can be true, such as out of body experience observations, future knowledge such as "seeing the future" etc. When Robert fails to readon certain vital questions of this nature we fail to come Closer To Truth even in a general consideration never mind the intimate spaces of personal seeking. There are reasonable clues that should raise questions against certain scientific philosophies like the ASSumption that some massive amount of neuronal activity is primarily responsible for the experience of an "I presence", when people can report significant experience (generating new memories) with zero neuronal activity. This is a spiritually significant experience slapping that entire scientific philosophy in face like skwa and scientifically employed personnel are sleeping through this clue in a "scientific"-philosophical-dogmatic-comma. The clue is not exactly scientifically viable but the willful ignorance of the clue is the opposite of scientific, yet they pretense to being "scientific and impartial" to disguise their attitudes. Instead of taking it as a clue that they are completely wrong they just double down on the rhetorical power of social status in a society of lies and myopically driven motivations.

[@Bombo-nd1lq]

I considered myself a reductionist physicalist, then recently I read a book that made me lean decidedly towards a form of oriental idealism called nonduality, it's called The Direct Experience the way of non-duality by the author Alessandro Sanna, a masterpiece

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(0:47) *WB: **_"I don't think it's as great a mystery as some people make it out to be as if it's some ephemeral important mystery out there."_* ... Many people think this way, and it confuses me. A *self-aware human consciousness* (as we experience it) has only been around for maybe the last 300 thousand years out of the entire 14-billion-year timespan of the universe. Nothing else within that previous 14B time period even remotely compares to it, ... yet we act like it's _nothing special._ It's like riding a tricycle for 14 billion years and then suddenly be handed the Federation Starship _"Enterprise"_ and saying, _"Big whoopty-do!"_

[@earlyrobotmind]

Animal consciousness is likely a very old phenomenon. At least 1.5 million years and possibly 100 million years or more. Consciousness is a fundamental feature of complex animal life and is not derived from intelligence, although it is likely enhanced by intelligence.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@earlyrobotmind *"100 million years or more"* ... It has never been confirmed that any animals other than humans are self-aware (in the way we understand self-awareness). Animals are not "aware" that they are an individual entity tossed into a universal arena nor do/can they contemplate their own existence. And what percentage of existence is 150 million years out of 13.8 billion years? ... 1.09%.

[@simonhibbs887]

⁠​⁠@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCSetting the bar for self awareness, of any kind at all, at one of the most sophisticated features of self awareness we have is rigging the parmeters of the discussion. I think it’s reasonable to think that self awareness arose gradually, and didn’t leap from nothing to Descartes in a single bound. Social mammals and birds do self-recognise, they can reason about and manipulate the knowledge and thought processes of other beings, they recognise skills others do or do not have and figure out ways to teach them. These activities in humans all involve conscious thought and experience. It seems reasonable to suppose our non human evolutionary ancestors also engaged in these activities, and that there’s a continuity in the way the brain manifests the same activities in us as in the brains of our ancestors that had the same behaviours. There’s nothing about the experience of emotional bonding, the experience of social needs, desires, reasoning about the knowledge of others, etc that seems to depend on the ability to do existential philosophy. Plenty of humans have these experiences just fine while thinking that wondering about our place in the universe is a waste of time.

[@jonhowe2960]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Pretty safe assumption that fractional animal self-awareness tracks along with animal intelligence, unless one holds with some ancients that animals are mere bio-robots.

[@TimJohnston911]

How do you know consciousness has only been around for 300 thousand years? It sounds like you are assuming that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. We know reincarnation is real because of all the evidence. And we know from near death experiences that consciousness survives when the body does not. People who have died have said that their conscious “souls” experienced a place that was eternal and where time doesn’t seem to exist. So it sounds like the brain is more like a cell phone that can transmit consciousness and some even think it filters it.

[@patientson]

You know you have a memory but you wont use memoisation or cache to store the right amount of breath and strength. Genesis chapter one and the aforementioned creation in that chapter is not your mate, but the patience in you can relate.

[@willp9226]

The brain is the birthplace of consciousness, and is the home of consciousness while there is a body, but this doesn't mean consciousness is only materialism. It is also immaterial. This is what these scientific types need to contemplate, by going inward so as to access this understanding.

[@deanodebo]

Brain is a concept created by consciousness. Best case, it’s an appliance.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I am not sure the brain is the birth place of consciousness. I think consciousness is MORE than brain.

[@deanodebo]

@@Dion_Mustard agreed. And I’m not sure the television is the birthplace of Seinfeld. Similar sort of thing

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@deanodebo good analogy. i write from personal experience as i have had many instances of what we term "out of body " experiences. these experiences taught me that consciousness is "non-local" and hence not produced by brain.

[@deanodebo]

@@Dion_Mustard here’s one for you. “Brain” is a concept created by consciousness. Without consciousness there can be no such thing.

[@thomasridley8675]

I had no issues with his conclusion. It's complex but not really special. Although I did enjoy Robert getting cut off when he tried to move the discussion into his usual direction.

[@LONELYOLDFATUGLYHOMELESSBUM]

is this similar to ' cognitive behavior therapy' ? thanks for great show

[@patientson]

The one thing you don't want to do is diss your patience. Your consciousness will let you destroy yourself cause you insulted you own enduring and self-control living mechanism without carefully observing and developing your inner essence to help you and support others via divine intervention. The moment you refuse to participate with the sun, daylight, water, earth and breath, forget inspiration. And, don't bother about aspiring to becoming....

[@JermVVarfare]

Nice hearing from someone with their head on straight, not trying to smuggle in some woo-woo, with a god of the gaps type argument. Just because we're not capable of explaining something so complex (currently or even perhaps ever because of its complexity), in exact terms, doesn't mean it's not in principle, explainable in a materialistic manner. There's no reason to believe that subjective experience can't emerge from purely physical processes. The most likely answer is that consciousness is a product of the brain (and our other biology in as much as it affects the brain). There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is the case, and the alternative is "what about this convenient, unfalsifiable, philosophical loophole, that allows me to claim it's deeper than that".

[@user-ei1ym1lq6h]

Finally, someone that understands consciousness is layered with mind and body.

[@ironsmith9769]

"consciousness" is no more or less than an ill defined term. instead of using the word "consciousness", try some other words that are well defined or make up a new word and strictly define it. self-awareness is a great term to mean what some mean when they say consciousness. the meaning is that you are aware that you, yourself, are different and separate from the stuff around you. from there you can get into how a being can achieve this self-awareness, which is, i am sure, the mystery which motivates mental excitement and curiosity. when they say it is emergent it is only so in a similar way to how a measuring instrument emerges from an assembly of atoms in certain configurations. it is true that metal atoms are not a ruller but put enough of them into the right combination and at some point you have a device which can be used as a standard for measuring other things and can thus be called a ruler. consciousness is much like the smallest tick marks on the ruler of self-awareness. the more tick marks you get the closer you come to measuring up to self-awareness.

[@jonathancunningham4159]

Conscienceness is a byproduct of the brain. We know there are variations of brains, and we know that conscienceness has many variations as well.

[@SPACETIMECREATOR]

Consciousness is a factors of all that exsists It is foundation of the domain of essence of the mind of all of awareness of mass of nothing is mass of everything!!

[@wagfinpis]

I'm not up to speed on the rules what zombies cognitive abilities or inner world is like.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Imagine the mind of a zombie to be entirely non existent just like yours was before your birth, is during deep and dreamless slumber and will be after your death. How such an entity could function in a culture based on the principles that guide billiard balls is beyond my ability to imagine.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

Everything is conscious relative. Hopefully that makes sense. A human is a matrix of differences aligned and shared to reveal our identity or whatever growth we expand on. The neurons are real and use real info/portions of reality to change and we use those changes to imagine so the things you think are not “unreal” but instead are calculations that are potential and expanding the differences, or planning, is expanding the range of the matrix and calculations, expanding consciousness and the ability to reflect and share between and then expand in different ways similar to evolving.

[@dennistucker1153]

Love these videos! CTT should ask me "What Is Consciousness?".

[@njeyasreedharan]

Ditto

[@genghisthegreat2034]

The eyes are excellent camera technology, but short term memory is necessary to make " seeing " a continuous phenomenon, and to make perception of motion the reward of that capacity. The leopard has that much, and the geometrical capacity to aim for where prey will be in 5 seconds time. Our consciousness is deeper, and more internally contemplative than that. The mystery is also bound with language, and abstract thinking.

[@deanodebo]

What does it mean to “see” something? Think about that

[@genghisthegreat2034]

@@deanodebo it's a great question, a profound question. The image on our retina is actually upside down, but our brain inverts it, automatically. There must also be a link between short term memory, and sight, because we do not experience a chaotic sequence of " still snapshots ", our sight is a continuous sense, a coherent sequence. There are many entertaining KZbin clips, of optical illusion, where I sense the evolutionary history of our brain, infers, or interprets, visual signals in a presumptive way for our survival advantage. The merest hint of stripes in long grass, makes us see " tiger" because those who waited for confirmation, were dinner. We don't see UV like bees, or Infrared like rattlesnakes, because we gain no evolutionary advantage from that. Once our brain learned the geometry of the hunt, and the language of cooperative team hunting, and the planning of trapping, the centre of evolutionary advantage moved off from better sight, better smell, to bigger brains, language, abstract thinking.....

[@Nnamdi-wi2nu]

Consciousness is a phenomena that kicks into action whenever a highly complicated system interact with it. This means consciousness pervade the universe, it's mine feature among other things is to enhance experience.

[@simonhibbs887]

While I agree consciousness is complex, I don’t think complexity is consciousness. That’s because it seems to me that consciousness has specific attributes such as an integrative model of its environment, self referentiality and introspection. These are attributes or behaviours that complex systems can have, but that not all such systems do.

[@Nnamdi-wi2nu]

@@simonhibbs887 "Self referentiality" consciousness leverages the complex system of the brain neurons to exploit it's environment. It doesn't possess a substance of the physical but used it as an interface. It pervade the cosmos, so any system that gets complicated enough springs it into action. I am not of the great minds, however, but any conscious agent who understands the modern knowledge of consciousness can salvage an explanation, because we are naturally conscious agents.

[@tunahelpa5433]

Being a pan-observerist, I think that consciousness is a brain function that takes advantage of the ubiquitous observer in every particle. While materialists take this to mean that it is a material thing, I feel that it is a fundamental piece of the Universe and everything in it - being the observer where there is no brain and consciousness where there is a brain

[@simonhibbs887]

My main problem with consciousness being fundamental itself is that it seems episodic, transient and highly variable. It transforms constantly. That seems more consistent with an activity or process, rather than a substance or property which I would expect to be unchanging. However I do agree in the sense that I think consciousness composes from a phenomenon that is fundamental, and that is information.

[@todrichards1105]

Yes.

[@ericmichel3857]

No.

[@dondattaford5593]

Well one thing apparent about consciousness is you really don't have full control over it

[@tedgrant2]

Consciousness is being aware of data. Last night I was completely unaware of data for about 8 hours. The time passed very quickly for me, it seemed.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I believe there are many levels of consciousness and just because people wake up with no memory of dreaming, does not mean you did not dream. Often dreams are forgotten. Similar to anaesthesia. Anaesthesia affects what we term "waking consciousness", but the brain is VERY active during anaesthesia, and we possibly have experience during anaesthesia but simply forget it upon coming around. I am lucky because I have had Out of Body Experiences all my life, so I was once skeptical of things like OBEs and Lucid Dreams UNTIL it happened to me. In terms of sleep, I am lucky again because I remember EVERY dream I have :)

[@Dion_Mustard]

also I do not think time exists.

[@tedgrant2]

@@Dion_Mustard When I am dead, will I still be able to walk ? (Matthew 27:53)

[@vetriligamvetrilingamnadar7171]

Consciousness is Soul. According to old Tamil language literature , that if Soul is dwelling in between our eyes then we are conscious. If the Soul dwell in the neck " we are sleeping with dream" if the Soul dwell in our chest We are in the state of sound sleep. The size of Soul is 8 time less than Proton". If you have got GOD Siva's Grace then you can see Soul means your self. If you seek GOD Siva's Grace then first you must find true Guru without True guru you can not know God Siva. Your any type of modern instruments do not show Soul because the instruments are made by dead materials.

[@claudioelgueta5722]

What do you mean by impoverishing, Lawrence?

[@wayneharrison]

The Zombie Scenario would be that, of a reactive, not pre-active... I would think? Meaning, that a "Zombie" (my interpretation/understanding) is that of a mindless entity.

[@simonhibbs887]

The zombie argument is worth looking up, it’s has been most well developed by David Chalmers. The question is whether it would be possible for a being to have all of the external behaviours of a human being - social, linguistic, professional, etc - to be indistinguishable externally but not to have any inner experience. Chalmers argues that if such a being were possible, that this is a challenge to physicalism. There’s an article on it on Wikipedia.

[@claudioelgueta5722]

English! A phenomeNON. Phenomena is plural!

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Neurosience declines How figuret out consciousness so far . Guys definies consciouness though brains activities are nill evidence. Because he keep out neurosience process inside of brain. He is talking about consciousness It is wortheless neurosience proceendings. For instance he Said memory affect consciousness but keep out How figuret out memory in brain links with consciouness. He doesnt know neurosience proceendings. He is wrong absolutetly.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Your poor English language skills are preventing you from making sense to me.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

@@REDPUMPERNICKELYour poor manners are keep out you from smart people. You are NOT living upon the rabble.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Your bad manners are keep you out from educate people.

[@stanrubin2276]

"Patterns of electrical activity"...correlation is not explanation.

[@aryangoswami7512]

It does not matter whether consciousness emerges from a complex set of objects or is a fundamental property, what matters is that consciousness is the voice of the soul within which is the witness of the whole phenomenon because objects can do nothing without consciousness. Consciousness is not without objects, that is why it is said in Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2 that it is only knowledge.

[@ChatGPT1111]

So we think sitting here in bed watching this video that we have conscious free will. But introduce a scream downstairs, smell smoke, feel a heart murmur or hear a broken window and see how alike we all become.

[@stanrubin2276]

Actually, individuals react in different ways to the same stimulus. Yes, a scream IF WE HAVE HEARING gets a physiological response. Some even might ignore it based on individual conscious (and unconscious) content.

[@stanrubin2276]

"Emergent conglomeration".. an 80s grunge band?

[@BugMateo]

He should just have said that he has no idea... because he doesn't.

[@rajeevsrivastava9896]

I have no faith in my mind. I cannot believe anything because I doubt my own thought process. I have been created . I submit.

[@nyworker]

If you say the firing of neurons cause consciousness? Then the firing of spark plugs makes the tires turn. Skip the details.

[@earlyrobotmind]

Animal consciousness is likely a very old phenomenon. At least 1.5 million years and possibly 100 million years or more. Consciousness is a fundamental feature of complex animal life and is not derived from intelligence, although it is enhanced and expanded by features that determine intelligence.

[@lk9650]

He is using the word consciousness to describe everything that the brain does, i don't think that's correct,.

[@mellonglass]

The centre of consciousness is touch, everything else is conjecture, the entire mental landscape forgot how it was born.

[@ChatGPT1111]

So if your wife handcuffs you, do you lose consciousness?

[@mellonglass]

@@ChatGPT1111 a conversation is broken when judgement is personalized.

[@ChatGPT1111]

@@mellonglass you responded to what I said, making it a conversation so....

[@mellonglass]

@@ChatGPT1111 response is not conversation, people categorically talk past each other all the time, as with a question, that ignored the statement. Bark bark bark.

[@ChatGPT1111]

@@mellonglass I totally agree. I had a bowl of Post Toasties just yesterday for breakfast.

[@Rosiedelaroux]

Consciousness is when you are awake. Then you go to sleep and you are no longer conscious.

[@glenemma1]

To apparently know so much, yet to know so little.

[@tajzikria5307]

Mr Brown is actually wrong. It is not an emergent property of the brain. Consciousness is the fundamental necessary mechanism for all of existence.

[@ManiBalajiC]

So there won't be a moon if you don't exist? Observation doesn't mean you create it , it's just being noticed.. Consciousness gives a way to observe things in the universe, universe would have still existed but with no meaning for it.

[@nitishgautam5728]

Consciousness is equal to contents of consciousness and all contents are strongly associated with how nueronal activity occurs . You seem to be type of person who just believes what sounds good that's called faith

[@chunkystyle3311]

No, youre actually wrong. It is not a fundamental mechanism of for all existence. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

​@@chunkystyle3311 not according to any physics or biology. do you have some sort of lying derangement?

[@kdub9812]

agree

[@Jackson-l3r]

I find it interesting that energy and consciousness both share this property: cannot be created nor destroyed. Since we are all consciousness, then we be immortal.

[@dr_shrinker]

Consciousness is destroyed by destroying the brain.

[@mickshaw555]

This answer will only lead to a number of "I think" sentences. Give civilization & scientific fraternity a few more decades. This topic is premature.

[@theluckytree]

Unfortunately this has been a mystery for over 2000 years, what we have so far are just opinions, no one knows exactly what it is and how reproduce it, sometimes I wonder If Are We hunting a ghost?? Wittgenstein had settled a foundation that makes sense even thou can’t explained its core, anyways have a good day everyone, Peace ✌🏻✌🏻

[@RobertojavierSilvaharth-ub3pz]

Listening to scientist talk about zombies puts me off. Thinking a computer can achieve conciousness would be more acceptable than zombies being concious. But even the though of AI becoming concious is far fetched to say the least. For circuitry to obtain conciousness it would have to grow neural paths for new experiences, just like babies do. A newborn has no conciousness; one can stare into his eyes and see he is not concious of one staring at him. A toddler has developed some conciousness; and a 6 year old is almost fully concious. Neural conections have grown with experience and by the time adulthood comes, conciousness will be achieved.

[@javiej]

Both "zombies" and AI lack the most important capability otjat is exclusive to consciousness: The "understanding". Without it, they are very limited and not even comparable.

[@deanodebo]

@@javiejexactly

[@simonhibbs887]

If you are put off by the concept of philosophical zombies, blame the anti-physicalists who came up with the idea as part of a criticism of physicalism.

[@deanodebo]

@@simonhibbs887 how do you define physicalism?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodebo The physical is that which we study under the topic of physics. A more detailed definition would talk about the predictive mathematical models physicists construct, and how those models map on to observed phenomena. Physicalism is an inference based on the observation that the other phenomena we observe in the world seem to be consequences of the interactions described by physics. Atoms are a result of the interactions of protons, neutrons, electrons, gluons, etc. Molecules are a result of the interactions of atoms. Rocks, oceans and organisms are a result of the interactions of molecules. We therefore infer that complex phenomena are a consequence of the composition of lower level phenomena. Consciousness seems to be a complex phenomenon, and therefore most likely to be a composite emergent phenomenon from lower level phenomena. Therefore consciousness emerges from physical activity. Contrast with idealism which posits consciousness as fundamental, and all other observed phenomena are the result of the activities of consciousness.

[@omoregiebenedict2762]

The brain is a product of conscious chemical activities as in case of a sperm fertilising an oval then the conscious chemical process continues till a full brain is formed which is the organ responsible for self awareness functionality.. every single cell structure that form different organs in our body are conscious but not all self aware.. only the cells structure of our brain has the functionality to bring about self awareness..

[@wernerHkeller]

Not a thing; rather an everchanging bundle of phenomena constructed by our living body

[@backwardthoughts1022]

its hanging off your body you say? or its a lump hidden inside? at least say its an emergent property of particular structures, but then you know how that turns out. the better you look at the structure the more non-existent the property becomes.

[@claudioelgueta5722]

We know your inclinations, Lawrence. It is noticeable especially when you interview people who think like you, that consciousness is something special, outside the body. You seem then much more into it, livelier. Here, once Warren demolishes any attempt to extract the mind away from the brain, you appear detached, no longer interested. Perhaps you might read Susan Greenfield to really understand the need to remain realistic when exploring consciousness. Zombies...I ask you...

[@wagfinpis]

People with reduced corpus callosum connections compared to the average persons' experience, to me, seems to be very similar to comparing the average persons' experience of consciousness with the average person who has experience of seeing the future, or has had a spiritual near death experience. The average person is having a slightly less sophisticated experience without the additional connections to reality.

[@evfast]

I'm not convinced consciousness is a phenomena local to a brain.

[@allauddin732]

A remembranc

[@aryangoswami7512]

Two birds are sitting on the same tree. One bird is doing all the activities in the material world like every living thing is an insect. The other bird is just observing all those living things and insects.

[@lenspencer1765]

This guy is wrong just another materialist

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

3:11 "The needs of the flesh are modest, that is, limited. The flesh clearly knows what it wants, and achieves it without frills. What is so terrible about the needs of the flesh? It wants to live, it wants to properly perform her functions, it resists pain. When the desires of the flesh are fulfilled, it does not invent new ones. Gluttony, drunkenness, debauchery are sins of the spirit*(imagination) in front of the flesh, at its expense and in spite of its protests, and not the other way around, although it is considered just the opposite. It is the flesh that finally pays all the bills - not only for its own, but also for all the follies of our spirit. The spirit is not limited by anything. He can imagine anything, and any of his ideas tends to be embodied … Jokes aside. What kind of thoughts do not wander in the human head, and it is a great happiness that they cannot become reality without overcoming the resistance of matter… I'm not saying that only bad thoughts are swarming in my head. But God forbid that noble, altruistic plans should also be carried out by themselves. So that any plan of the world order, born in one head, confident that this one plan is the one that the world needs, is implemented automatically and scrupulously. And the good Lord God really did not allow this, giving us time, matter and space in which, after all, everything should unfold... In the theater, directors with "ideas" scare me, but there are also those who are ready to direct the whole white world… The sense of smell makes us run away from the stench. The body of even the greatest criminal does not like to be near carrion, and the "purest" spirit quietly gets along with the greatest swinishness.. The Spirit has always loved public executions, he loves to gather around street incidents and read about sexually motivated murders. At a time when wars were fought hand-to-hand, only physical exhaustion, fatigue of the hands stopped the massacre. The spirit would continue to cut. Let the spirit reflect on this." (Mrozek, Short Letters, "Flesh and Spirit", fragment). ----------------- ) - consciousness.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

What Is Consciousness? two people talking about Consciousness zombies like to eat brains yet are called brain dead so how he know he likes brains? 🤔

[@gallinho7268]

If a human baby was raised by a pack of wolves and knew no language would it grow to be more conscious than the wolves?

[@simonhibbs887]

I think so. I don’t believe consciousness is inherently linguistic. We can have conscious experiences for which we have no linguistic terminology.

[@joshkeeling82]

I'm not a smart man. I try tho. I try really hard. I think life and consciousness are two things, like the existence of the universe, that do not have an answer/explanation. They just are and that's that.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

You learned the English language. Seems to me very likely that if you can do that then coming to understand the meaning of the word 'conscious' is within the realm of the possible.

[@AymanSherbiny]

👍👍👍

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I learned that there is the macrocosm: the cosmic procession and cyclical nature of phenomena, implying a substratum that is the basis of the heavens revolution, that is immutable, and too, the microcosm: physiological cycle that a man experiences, mirroring the cosmic. Concerning macrocosm: there is an intelligence, a mind, the cosmic mind, and all such things therein are akin to thoughts, ideas, meaning. Regarding microcosm, the reflection of macrocosm: for any type of activity, or thoughts, inventions, or desires, man must first realize it in mind, with discipline, intellect and reason, then can man bring such to fruition.

[@doring4579]

🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️

[@googleaccountuser3116]

Hey guys! God told me to tell ya'll he don't exist. So you can feel safe when you dance with the devil. And the devil told me to tell ya'll he ain't real. He said YOLO. Only fools like me believe in that karma stuff. 😂

[@googleaccountuser3116]

If consciousness is a result of brain function, then why do the most sophisticated AI models have zero of it? And if an AI told you it is aware and you believe that then I'll tell you I am God. Will you a language model over me? 🙂

[@simonhibbs887]

I think consciousness is a specific type of activity, and it’s one that modern AIs don’t engage in. They do other things similar to things we do, but not conscious ones.

[@googleaccountuser3116]

@@simonhibbs887I don't believe one has to perform some activity to be conscious. What makes you think one cannot be fully conscious without activity? How would you even prove that?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@googleaccountuser3116 I just think it’s consistent with the variability and episodic nature of our conscious experience. It doesn’t seem static and unchanging in the way that a fundamental substance, object or property would. In the end like all knowledge it’s a matter of evaluating the various explanations and seeing which seems most plausible. We all look at this from different perspectives and so we come to different conclusions. I’m not oblivious to the challenges to the physicalist interpretation, I just think the other interpretations either have even greater challenges, or lack explanatory power.

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

I think it's precisely our ability to imagine the scenario of the p-zombie that makes this issue so much more puzzling to us than it really needs to be.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

noone actually accepts p-zombies. they have to talk themselves into them so that their thinking realigns and doubles-down with their intuitions from when they were 7yos that their brains are their thoughts.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

People say they are able to imagine a zombie but are not aware that they can't.

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You may be right, but we certainly do have the CONCEPT of the "p-zombie" (namely, an entity that totally seems to everyone else to be conclusively conscious due to it's behaviour, but actually isn't). Please note that I do NOT think such a thing is possible.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@BLSFL_HAZE I have long liked the concept that goes by the label 'isomorphic'. In the film 'The Matrix' (one of my favorites) agent Smith, the Oracle, the Architect, the Trainman etc. were all what I call pure virtual beings (which is to say, they had no body in a pod associated with them). They consisted entirely of patterns of electrical activity in the hardware of the system. In order to consider those entities to be conscious (and therefore worthy of moral consideration) all it took (would take in reality) would be for them to function in a way perfectly isomorphic to the way we do. I am saying, it's not the matter that makes us but its matter's patterns and processes that do. Since pattern and process are abstract notions its no wonder that thoughts and minds and being conscious have an immaterial flavour to them. Cheers!

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL That's actually rather similar to the way I see it. Simply put, I divide all entities into three categories. Those being; passive (i.e. all non-living entities), adaptive (i.e. trees, shrubs, flowers, etc), and active (all animals, obviously including us). What we call consciousness is functionally and non-conceptually indistinguishable from the activity of active entities.

[@Minion-kh1tq]

Brilliant! Just brilliant. He can imagine a zombie "doing all of that!" *zombie: **_noun_** - a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft* Did I say _brilliant?_ When it comes to hard science, this has to be nothing less than brilliant. This is exactly why it pays to stay in school, kids.

[@simonhibbs887]

They are discussing the concept of philosophical zombies as developed and argued by the philosopher David Chalmers to support his challenges to physicalist views of consciousness.

[@Minion-kh1tq]

@@simonhibbs887 I know. And that makes it better, does it?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Minion-kh1tq I’m just pointing out that your reference to ‘hard science’ is unjustified. This was not proposed by scientists, but as a challenge by a non-physicalist philosopher.

[@Minion-kh1tq]

@@simonhibbs887And the question remains: _That makes it a better question of how consciousness is understood and explained?_

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Minion-kh1tqAs a physicalist no, I don’t, I think the philosophical zombie argument fails to refute physicalism. It sounds like you don’t think it’s a good argument either. Is that right?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Reason: The 4 chief elements, the more sutble, simple, and pure, the more powerful and principle it is. Water is simpler than earth, air purer than water, fire and light more powerful than air, water, and earth. The greeks acknowledged Intellect, as universal and therefrom are the intelligible realities. Man has this intellect, too, and faculty of Reason therein, innate, if he so turns toward the inner. The logic is: something gross cannot produce something subtle. In scientific inquiry, it always starts from the top, or most universal, and then works downwards. You can't say intellect was produced by the brain because the universals were prior to, the brain, implying: order, balance, form, reason, being, nature, harmony, is of Intellect, and too, the brain. There is something prior to the brain, and it is intellect - the macrocosm, and man, which is a reflection of that, the microcosm. If you postulate that brain produces intellect, truth, reason,....you are claiming indirectly, that earth produces water, and then air, and then fire and light, and then the Aether.... i don't take any of the guys' CTT interviews as serious - let's stay stuck in a revolving door, right? No. Not me. I use my God-given jntellect.

[@tomjackson7755]

You need to talk to your doctor and get your meds adjusted.

[@simonhibbs887]

⁠@@tomjackson7755That’s really unnecessary. The above is a respectable line of thought in traditional philosophy.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@simonhibbs887 It's not really. This is one of the many schizophrenic people the troll these threads. You would have a point about it being respectable 2000 years ago. This has been exposed as pure word salad garbage now though.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@simonhibbs887 This is one of many people with admitted 'conditions' in these threads. You might have a point about this being respectable 2000 years ago. Today this is known as word salad woo woo with no connection to reality.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@tomjackson7755 That’s occasionally said about philosophy generally, unfairly I think. I actually agree with S3 reasonably often, or find some comments very interesting, but given the dynamics of forums more often end up replying when I disagree and my upvotes are anonymous.

[@1stPrinciples455]

What if this is asking about a feeling that is not real nor exists in reality? By asking, by having a name, calling it Consciousness, humans since ancient times have made it real without proving it. Real by Feeling. Just like Santa Claus

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

Let's assume you're right. How, then, does the "asking, having a name, and calling it Consciousness" even occur at all?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

space curvature is not a property of mass-energy. mind is not a property of mass-energy.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@backwardthoughts1022 Pattern and process are not a property of mass-energy but to deny their existence is simply perverse. Seems to me very likely that the existence of being conscious is exactly like the existence of pattern and process and that being conscious is constructed from them.

[@1stPrinciples455]

@@BLSFL_HAZE it's born out of a feeling due to a chemistry in the brain

[@1stPrinciples455]

@@backwardthoughts1022 god is not a property of mass-energy.

[@michelangelope830]

Is the idea of God philosophical or religious? I am talking about God, not religion. You are probably confused, because you think God is the supernatural and reality is natural you believe God can not exist, by definition. The universe is what it is and that's it. You are wrong because the universe can not be all there is because reality is created from reality. Reality is a sequence. The son comes from the parents, that come from the grandparents and so on so forth. Time is running out and is eternal. You have to think fast because death as an atheist doesn't make sense. How is the first reality? A reality didn't have a previous reality logically. That first reality is God. It's a fact, it's truth, it's what happened. it's reality. How many times has you heard atheists saying God is fairy tales and why? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. We only have one life and if God exists it will not stop existing because reality is ignored. The key question is "is what created the universe or what has a beginning of existence intelligent? There is a lot of stigma on the word "God" due to the consequences of religion so you can call it "singularity". This "singularity" created what has a beginning of existence, this singularity is the first cause. It is impossible logically the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore there must be the first one. The first cause is the first eternal reality. Reality is one, either you exist and you are part of reality or you don't. To understand God exists you have to understand regardless of when the universe was created Time existed always before. What makes sense, that Time is eternal or that a timeless personal god created time? How is Spinoza's God? Do atheists read Spinoza?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"Universe" *means* all that exists. If god exists then god is by definition in the universe. If there ever was a time of absolute nothing then that would necessarily still be the case. Why? Because absolute nothing lacks the energy, tools and raw materials for making existents. Thus the universe must have always existed and must continue to exist because the only exit is absolute nothing which has already been defeated.

[@simonhibbs887]

I have read some of Spinoza, but it’s been a long time. He had many fascinating ideas, I think his theology is the most compelling and objective I’ve come across. It doesn’t seem to have any practical application though, his god is impersonal and mechanistic and is just the universe. His ideas are like a theological theory of physics, but the thing is we have actual physics, and it’s proved practically useful and effective in ways Spinoza’s line of reasoning has not. As with much religious philosophy his ideas seem to have no consequences.

[@michelangelope830]

@@simonhibbs887 Are you sure Spinoza's God is just the universe? Atheists say Spinoza's God is like atheism, exactly the same. Are atheists lying? Who wants to deceive you, who wants to hurt you?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@michelangelope830why do you constantly accuse atheists of lying. What do you think they are lying about?

[@jadenalmeida8592]

@LoyMachedo yeah cool watch this lecture in Cambridge by a new testament historian bart eheman who as of now is the most qualified historian in this topic not to mention he is an ex-Christian atheist after becoming a historian but still believes Jesus was a historical person kzbin.info/www/bejne/np_ck4SufsyZhtksi=COG6jP4a5PtcLcAm Or watch this debate of two atheist new testament historians one of them believes Jesus is a fictional character made up and the other is believes Jesus is a real person both present both sides valid arguments. kzbin.info/www/bejne/favNiqCmrMd7e6Msi=IXtL8oq3sQEXktlz I am surprised you have never heard of bart eheman Richard Dawkins and Christopher hitchens have quoted his works tremendously in their books and even sam harris has a podcast with bart eheman