The negative after image of the US flag is caused when the retina cones for a specific color get exhausted from firing. When the image is removed the opposite colors are seen because those retina are still recovering from firing. For example: If you stare at red, eventually the red cones get tired and when the red image is removed, the new image lacks the color red so you see a negative. I agree that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Professor of philosophy? Please.
This man is so ignorant. He tries to dismiss the mystery and supernatural nature of consciousness by trying to explain something that he has no clue as to how it works or what it is. this man doesn't even know how a single cell works, and he's saying that consciousness is the product of switches. Amazing!
space and time it inhabits. I prefer the primacy of consciousness, Where this bland clockwork computation is transformed into a beautifully elegant metaphor reflecting our process of experience in the function of the brain. Better still a delicious syncronicity of consciousness of and the physical universe both equally real and both at the same time equally unreal. Thats the kind of universe I want to be apart of. I bet this guy was a barrel of laughs at college.
How then or why more to the point would matter for no percievable advantage to itself strive to organise itself into lifeforms. Do simple single celled lifeforms contain the required complexity to appear to know they need to go about their business and reproduce, I think not. Of course this is only my own intuition. Am I to believe art, and other creative constructs born of inspiration, come only seem to be so? to swallow this concept one must first be quite sure of the primacy of matter and the
I am genuinely concerned that I entirely missed the part where he solves the "hard question". Just because the brain has lots of tricks up its sleeve to provide all the subtleties of perception doesnt remove the reality of a perceiver.
@justinwoneil You are right. Your use of the word 'emerges' is the key. Emergence or Complexity Emergent Theory is the likely manner in which lots of dumb cells end up conscious. When you study emergence you will be amazed. It's a whole new world we are just discovering. It's everywhere in complex systems. I find it profound. Like peering into the mind of god.
if your into really deep electro house with a modern progressive twist and a faint hint of europop, please put a couple of minutes aside to check out my vast array of playlists
excellent lecture. And I'm not sure how, but I know this all somewho runs parallel to the basic wisdom of the ancients and holy books throughout the ages. Definitely runs parallel to Krishnamurti and his writings on spirituality.
There have been experiments which show that viruses and bacteria seem to make decisions, what to attack, when to attack, when not to attack and so forth. They have awareness of their surroundings and other units, and so do our cells; they communicate with one another.
I'm not so sure about that.@vinniefreitas , When he says "conscious", he means being aware of its awareness. If we are going to associate decision-making with consciousness, then, we'll have to say that atoms are conscious, because through Natural Selection everything came to be, "designing itself" and making decisions .
@joel230182 Right, and why would matter spontaniously organise itself into life. If the very thing Dr.D is writing off as an epiphenomenon of the brain, is in fact the prime element. That consciousness itself is what we 'stretch out' into space, time and matter.
@vinniefreitas I'm not so sure about that.@vinniefreitas , When he says "conscious", he means being aware of its awareness. If we are going to associate decision-making with consciousness, then, we'll have to say that atoms are conscious, because through Natural Selection everything came to be, "designing itself" and making decisions .
There are certain things / functions in mathematics that appear non-deterministic. You can't predict the outcome. Sometimes its greater than zero, sometimes it's not. It seems random. You can't say there is a conscious decision being made by the function. I mean it's just math. Consider the termite. No one termite has the plans for the nest. It results from the interaction of lots of termites.
The new theory on this is called 'emergence' / Emergent theory.
@papwalker99 I think I'm a little lost(what are we discussing?).You can program a computer to output random data, and it is still a deterministic system/machine. I believe in freeWill and identity/ego. I think materialism is insufficient to explain conscious experience.
@joel230182 I don't think we can say or do things that are genuinely random either- whatever we say or think comes from some stimuli. We can't imagine things that are genuinely beyond our experience- think of what an alien might look like- it is always based on known things, then distorted or altered or mixed up in a different way, but at no point is what u are thinking something that genuinely comes from beyond your experience.
@joel230182 Not being able to see or understand the processes which lead to an outcome does not mean they are not there and cannot be seen and understood. I saw a show once about computers generating genuinely random numbers- they used a lava lamp and scanned the size, shape and motion of the lava blobs with a laser and used the data to generate the numbers.
@joel230182 Finite systems should not be able to output infinite random values. A computer must follow a pattern, a formula, a programme, to determine its random number, so if u make it do it enough times a pattern will develop and become apparent because there is an underlying finite computation determing that number choice- it is based on finite information and mechanical processes, therefore while it can be hugely complicated, it is not random. Thats the supposed mystery of consciousness.
@papwalker99 I think I'm a little lost(where are we trying to get?).You can program a computer to output random data, and it is still a deterministic system/machine. I believe in freeWill and identity/ego. I think materialism is insufficient to explain conscious experience.
Right there with @kabomosh. There are a couple of problems with the professor's premise which states that there is no consciousness in cells. first, we can decribe consciousness to a degree, but do not fully understand it. Secondly, cells appear unconscious to most, in any case that is an inference which is subjective to your own description of consciousness and our ability to communicate or perceive similiar qualities within a cell.
@NVSEUFOs Yeah, SOOO beautiful. I love how he says that consciousness is an illusion , which means that we're a bunch of deluded machinery fantasizing with the idea of having identitiy, ego, consciousness or fee will; our actions are determined by physical causes, not ourselves. Such beauty haunts my soul! lol
"Not a single [cell] is conscious." :) EVERY cell is conscious! I guess that hasn't been proven scientifically yet so it's not his fault, but maybe someone will find it worthwhile knowing.
@absently84 That's just crazy. That would mean that fire was conscious. No? It seems to follow the same kind of "self directed" behavior as a cell...why not?
Put the bong down. It's ok that there is no magic. I promise.
@Stupidxxxx well did you watch the 2 videos I posted! the one with Jogn Hagelin is talking about PURE SCIENCE! he goes down to the core of existence an what he says is mind blowing! Put it this way we are only limited cause we believe so... we have the power to unleash or consciousness and get it to infinity regardless the fact we are quiet limited! just like mastering any art.
But in OBEs or Lucid dreaming there are no limitations. If you want to fly you can and you get the feeling of it! Or you can even experience things such as seeing things in 360 which would be impossible to experience through our sensory system.
Daneil Dennett is only expressing his views and beliefs on the limitation of our sensory system without debating the core of the other beliefs such as quantum physics and consciousness (he just said I just dont believe but some others do! O.o)
@TheMidwestsk8ter Seeing infront the sides and behind at the same time. Like a super fish-eye lens. There are images that show this, but they look really weird (to most of us)
Part 3 - My understanding is that our consciousness is filtered through our sensory system and hence is so limited. Even in one mind our AWARENESS (not the consciousness) is cut down from 11,000,000 bits a second to 10 - 16 bits a second and hence our consciousness experience being in such a limited form and our Subconscious process that 11M bits and has its own kind of a consciousness and decide without our will and understanding. You only become in control if you understand and connect to it!
Part 2 - What he think he knows is invalid for a person with more knowledge in the future just as his knowledge is disproving whatever a generation in past knew.
I have been experiencing things beyond any science that make anyone wonder. I dont care about the explanation as it is the ultimate. It made me more curious about the consciousness and made me take things to next level to understand consciousness such as OBE or LUCID DREAMING.
Part 1 - I am not gonna be sceptical but my experience in life totally disapprove what he said there. Not sure how he would explain the miracles that happened. Simply focusing on something and see how reality would simply change to fulfil my request.
He is denying quantum physics but if one had a look at the (SPLIT ELECTRON EXPERIMENT) woundnt be so confident talking about the physical world ( yes electrons are conscious)... Or even the Conscious Water experiment)
But how do the neurological processes experience themselves? That is and always has been the real question. This lecturer doesn't even recognize the real question of consciousnesses. He is only talking about what we are conscious OF. That is, conscious of the brains processes. Why can't these morons understand that? It's just unbelievable how they over and over again miss the real question.
@andrewada I'm convinced the answer to what consciousnesses is, wont be a straight forward one to grasp. I guess the approach we see here is the only one are we left with. We could actually learn something this way: Suppose consciousnesses is a kind of pitch-black stage where experience takes place. We can hear the play but we can't see the stage. But we can examine small detail by small detail, and thus we might some day manage to put the puzzle together.
@andrewada I can't believe you called just him a moron. I could help answer your question about self awareness versus consciousness but I'm a bit shocked by your scathing disrespect.
And I can answer it, as far as workable models go, I've spent nearly 30 years studying it. However if you believe it cannot be answered then nothing anyone says will interest you. It's a shame, because what we are finding is profound.
@papwalker99 I believe it can't be answered as a logical position - not a religious one. You can try if you like and I will listen, but I simply believe you are attempting the impossible. There are only two things I know for certain: I exist and there is existence. I will listen to any view.
@andrewada Looking at your blog I can see you have done a lot of research already.
This is good because some of the initial concepts are unintuitive.
My first step in explaining the model of consciousness is try to explain how billions of neurons appear exhibit nondeterministic behaviour.
That initial step is becoming familiar with the concept of 'emergence'. Just google the word and you'll land right on it. Wikipedia has a reasonable starting point.
@papwalker99 At this point, there is still the assumption that a complex mechanical system can support a consciousness. How can we validate this idea, other than by correlating mechanical processes to conscious experiences?
@NeoLeaver Had a look at Peter Russell. First part I agreed with. But then he spoke of his belief that an atom is conscious. That's wild speculation - faith, not science. It also takes us back to the beginning: How exactly is (would be) an atom conscious? We are still trying to understand the incomprehensible.
He also defaults into rationalisations based on space-time, etc. More wild, and therefore empty, speculations. None provide any real level of understanding of the consciousness itself.
@andrewada I'm prepared to accept that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain fuction, but only if we can be quite sure that consciousness is not prime. Regardless of russells attempts at evidence. It is at least AS possible that the material universe is an epiphenomenon of consciousness. If that were the case it would appear to us to have the exact same properties as it does if the material is prime being literally the material reflection of a non-local reality (sound familiar) mindfood!!!!
@NeoLeaver The model I prefer is a synchronistic duality where mind/matter are equally objective/subjective. I dont think we can say with enough certainty that consciousness (even if it IS an epiphenomenon of brain function) 'isn't 'real magic' to use Dennets analogy. Fascinating subject, thanks for the reply.
@NeoLeaver If one observes and measures during a dream which we percieve as 'real', in every possible sense (its a wholly hypothetical dream). Are the observations and measurements objective?
@andrewada There have been experiments in quantum physics that (without writing a thesis) at least suggest that the way inwhich particles/waveforms are consciously measured is instrumental in determining the 'outcome' of those measurements. Possibly suggesting they display 'something like' consciousness). See 'delayed choice experiment' also quatum non-locality/Action at a distance. One does not observe quantum effects rather one 'participates in the outcome' (Wheeler.J.A, Princeton) mindfood!
conciousness is not a state of being, it is a combination of all of your senses being processed by your brains systems. No one part makes you aware, but your awareness comes from the combination of senses, feelings and emotions all being merged into one whole stream of information. Take away your eyes and ears and you are less self aware, take away your emotions and it's even more so. Once we understand how the human brain works down to the neuron we'll be building concious computers.
@leerees I think we may be talking about two different things. I feel as if consciousness is more specifically our reflections upon the perceived world...
@leerees That's an unnesesary reductionistic view of reality. Dennett doesn't have anything to say about Qualia/experience, identity/ego, intuition, freeWill, etc. All he does is to show some one-century-old optic illusion tricks, and then say: "well , consiousness is like that". He misses ALL the fundamental aspects of conciousness. We need to consider the posibility of reality being more that matter/ space/time.
Same old theories of mechanical brain producing thought, wouldn't it be great if these guys opened up with the truth, "we don't know how the mind works, but here are our best guesses based upon our beliefs and some scientific investigation on brain chemicals and electrical signals, oh yeah we have some tricks to show you" blah, blah..
That flag with the crosshairs on it, did absolutely nothing for me. I have no idea what the point was to that; i saw no red anything! 'Course, I'm color blind; wonder if that's why?
@MrDBarch Yes, that's why. Do you have red/green colorblindness? Can you see blue and yellow? It's possible to make another demonstration with the colors you can see.
@MisterScott99 Yes, this is what my visual issue is; green/red. I think I remember it being called x-chromal something or other. Yes I am able to -see- blue and yellow, the primary colours are quite visible to me. I become lost with chromatic shades, mixing, and often cannot see the differences in some greens and greys, or reds and oranges, or blue and purple, or browns and reds etc. I'm interested in your comment that the colours might be changeable for me to see the illusion?
@MrDBarch@MisterScott99 Normal vision has 3 channels of color data from the eyes: black/white, red/green + yellow/blue. Your red vs. green channel is not functioning. A flag has red white + blue. The flag in the video has green + black stripes. Since your red/green channel is dead you won't turn the green stripes into red stripes in the afterimage. I'd make 4u a picture of blue bananas on a yellow sky that should work. Try this youtube video in the meantime "Castle Optical Afterimage Illusion"
By trying not to evade the issue, he evades the issue. By following Dennett's method, we can observe how consciousness is altered, but not how it's made, or exactly what it is. By removing the subject he removes the need to explain the subject's awareness of being or the origin of any internal experience. The problem IMO is that he's too hung up on empirical evidence when his own self-awareness is all he needs, though none of us can share that precious evidence with anyone empirically.
there is no way to describe how or why this thing called NOW, I, BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS...is at all. It's really the most interesting question you can ask. I don't pretend to know anything for certain though.
The part on the mystery of consciousness and then the phenomenological experience and how divisions are purely abstract and do not actually exist. and, our eyes alone do not see. or our mouth alone taste. each of our organs, and the entirety of our body, contributes to this experienced of "the smell of asphalt after a warm spring rain." It practically activates every level of our being. It's hard to really label that "smell #54,765"
I randomly, and most luckily, picked up Dennett's book Consciousness Explained tonight and read the first two chapters in the store. One of the most fascinating reads of my entire life.
@dawtchins Yes, but you see here in America we have this little rule that says you can believe whatever the hell you like. It's a human mental illness that wants to control the thoughts of everyone else. Worry about your own beliefs instead of the beliefs of others. PEACE!
@WeThePeopleVStheNWO well then thats disregarding the evidence which has been shown, you can blind yourself and feel snug at home . The great demotions of humans has happened and will continue. If you want to stay ignorant you're not a constructive member of society. Beliefs about reality should not be based on faith.
I've only watched the first few minutes, but what he's saying is that a number of cells must collect together to form something larger than their individual self so that consciousness can be? I'd beg to differ, something about that seems off...
@tonyfalca maybe you should watch the whole thing before thinking what you have to say is so much more interesting than what Daniel Dennet says. He explicitly says that it's not his field of expertise, it "may" be an explanation but it's not what this show is about at all
@jakke1975 Well, it is entitled 'The Magic of Consciousness' and he was addressing the concept of consciousness. It's simply a difference of opinion. I never thought what I had to say was more, or less, interesting than this Daniel Dennet character. Maybe you should stop speculating as to what other people are thinking?? LOL
Please listen carefully between 38:30 and 43:00. He says that there is no Cartesian theater, no little green man observing anywhere in the brain. And since consciousness can not be found locally in the brain - it must be spread out in all parts of the brain, and those cells are not conscious so ...
Watch Exploring consciousness: East and West or anything by Deepak Chopra for another perspective.
@tonyfalca Ur correct, its a paradox, like everything & nothing are at the same time opposite and equal. Everything has no relationships, so its equal to nothing.
@AsgardianBeing Well, I'd say that one isn't one without the other; everything and nothing are one of the same continuum, they're interconnected by the medium of their conflict or contrast. :)
@tonyfalca Not in my brain it doesn't. I can clearly appreciate the work my visual cortex is doing to enable me to perceive what I'm seeing and understand it. I know my hippocampus works well as I understand everything I see. I also know that if one of the parts of my brain were damaged I'd be less concious than I am now. It's not no where and it's not everywhere, it's in a combination of the parts of the brain responsible for what you are doing at that point in time.
@leerees I'd agree that one would appear less conscious to an onlooker, if they were to conceive brain damage, although you can't be sure they're any less conscious... I think consciousness is more than the result of combining our senses together. So, I'd assume you're one of those people who think dreams are simply neurons firing off in the physical brain??
@tonyfalca If another reality, another seemingly physical world, so similar to my waking state is generated by the physical brain, doesn't that cause you to question what exactly is generating our seemingly physical awake state?
This is really not my department, but it seem that he didn't talk about consciousness at all, only how the brain processes visual stimulus with optical illusions. And then blatantly denies the existence of consciousness, we are just machines, disillusioned automatons. This is a classical example of reductionism. When will professors realize that we are more than just the sum of our parts. How can consciousness arise from unconscious cells? What if cells do have consciousness? Research it.
Indian Rope Trick principle applies to religious proselytites and main stream media BS. I believe in Biblical teachings because some "prophets" wrote the words, the clergy said it is the truth, my parents told me as their parents told them. And "We know Sadam has WMD's. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". Concerning the flag, it's called persistence of vision. The colors are complements of each other. Red is complement of blue or green, as black is to white.
THIS MAN KNOWS VERY LITTLE. IT CONSTANTLY SUPPRISES ME HOW LITTLE CONTENT ONE NEEDS TO BE A PROFESSOR. HE IS 120 YEARS OUT OF DATE AND IS ESPOUSIN FREUDIAN, PAVLOVIAN AND PRE FREUDIAN "MAN IS AN ANIMAL PSYCOLOGY. HE HAS LEARNED THE "LECTURER" GIG AND I FEEL SORRY FOR THE SHEEP LIKE AUDIUENCE WHO WERE DUPED BY THE UNIVERSITY INTO BELIEVEING THEY ARE GETTING AN EDUCATION.SOMEBODY DIES WHEN THE SPIRIT(BEING )LEAVES THE BODY kARRILIAN PHOTOS? SOUL WEIGHING? BODY EMF FIELD?ART MUSIC?
@loudwaters9 Either you are full of new age hippy nonsense or you're joking, if it's the former,can you direct me to a source that claims the pineal gland has a cornea, or retina?
@1empathy hes nots joking, go look it up, all pineal glands have rods and cones, some frogs have a rudimentary retina in theirs though it is not functional in the usual sense.
@AdastraRecordings Our (we're talking about humans) pineal gland evolved from an organ with light receptor cells on it but the human pineal gland does not have a lens, cornea or retina.
@1empathy ''A recent hypothesis proposed by David Klein, head of Neuroendocrinology at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, suggests that the Pineal gland has primitive retinas, and that it exercised the dual function of both capturing the image and producing melatonin.
@loudwaters9 Before i bother, you say "exercised" ie past tense, i already admitted it's primitive origin and function. What i am saying is it does not have a cornea,lens and retina now. In other words it is not a "third eye" it is a gland and it responds to light only through indirect stimulation.
you only have a couple of sec;s 2 get me u lost, "i lost?", no you did i want to help you, keep it simple stupid, thats my motto, and alot of peoples, who are you try'n to reach? Why? For what reasons? Short, sweet, Think about it.
First time I ever heard of Daniel, glad I stayed. This presentation was excellent . now I'm off to find more .Thank you Prof Dennett, and uploader Hex!
Well that all sounds very reasonable but can you tell me why then does it hurt so much when I drop a hammer on my toe. And if I program a computer to write 'auch' on the screen when I drop a hammer on it, do I then have to respect it and not hurt its feelings?
@stikowsky ..no, you do not respect it BECAUSE of it's ability to give a response on its own (or via clever programming). You respect life due not just to the interactions you have with it, but mostly for what it is capable of - by itself. That is why you can respect animal rights (which i hope you agree to). That is why Using plants, by using fibres, chemicals, and derivatives as food - you do less violation of existential rights.. when
I once argued with someone over whether or not a pig had sentience (I was in the affirmative). They asked:
"But if pigs are sentient, then do we have to give them the vote?"
The answer is, obviously, no. Because pigs can't do other things that are associated with voting. They can't take sides in ideology, trade, own property, etc, etc. They're fundamentally different things.
Simply programming a computer to respond reflexively? I don't think that that would be quite enough.
However - if we could create a machine with a computer that was a very good analogue of a human being - one that could hold property, navigate the world, take sides in political arguments, trade, and so forth... Then we're a bit closer to an affirmative.
It's still not straightforward. A 'conscious' machine is still going to be different to a 'conscious' organism. We would have different drives and limitations and abilities, so how we regard the two should be sensitive to...
I think the bit that people find objectionable is that they like to believe that consciousness -> right to freedom from suffering is a cosmic law that must be obeyed at all costs, and that anything undermining this must be resisted at all costs.
But not so. We can re-evaluate the concept. We *should* re-evaluate the concept. Because it was always a poor concept to begin with.
There is certainly a right to freedom from suffering that should be applied. We just need to get smarter about the reasons why, and stop pretending that treating consciousness as if it were sacred ever actually explained anything.
Because it never really did. It was just a convenient, perhaps noble, lie.
Talk about smoke and mirrors...unbelievably convoluted and ultimately saying nothing about consciousness! In a nutshell he's basically saying.. Don't ask the question! For me the question is this: How did inanimate matter coalesce into a living being that could reflect on Its own existence. Namely; US? If we accept that cosmic dust has no self awareness, then it is reasonable to assume that consciousness existed prior to matter. (Just a thought) ...Debate.
@TheWakefulness "How did inanimate matter coalesce into a living being that could reflect on Its own existence." This is precisely the question that should be posed. I asked a professional atheist/Dawkins fanboy friend of mine what consciousness is and he boasted "Consciousness is a function of the brain." Now, while that seems to be the case, it's like asking what a car is and hearing "A car is something you drive on the road." (cont.)
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic This says nothing about the engine, gasoline, battery, physics, etc. involved with making the car WORK. In other words, saying "it's a function of the brain" and leaving it at that explains nearly nothing, and leaves a world of unanswered questions. IF consciousness is totally a function of the brain/body system, then in theory, it should be possible to create "artificial life" which operates precisely like "natural" life such as human beings. (cont.)
The question I ask is "If consciousness & self-awareness is only applicable to the brain, then what can be said about lower-level systems of complexity such as quarks, electrons, atoms, molecules, and basic forms of life such as single-celled organisms. Are those, in any way, self-aware? What about a sperm or egg cell? (cont. one more...)
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic Or how about an embryo? Is THAT conscious yet? I think most people would say consciousness starts at some stage of embryonic development (or not. I'm just guessing here.) One thing worth noting: Humans still don't have a firm grasp on what time is. All processes occur through time. It is the only thing separating the most simple things (quarks), etc. from the most complex(us.) Most people don't even know to ask the question. Many dare not to ever bother.
The problem with Dan's approach is that it is question-beggingly materialistic. "If you don't get rid of the emperor, your theory must be wrong." Why? Because he has already imposed a condition on any attempted explanations: They must not assume anything immaterial.
All Dan is saying is that a description on how consciousness works must be void of consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot be the mechanism by which consciousness works. At the end of the day, this feeling of consciousness we all experience is quite obviously a result of the components of our bodies. Its not like each individual piece of our brain is "as conscious" as the whole.
If consciousness is just the sum of our parts, how can Consciousness exsist outside of the human body? (Which has been proven during operations where they cause the patient to go into hypothermic arrest).
@Pighaterskater consciousness doesn't exist outside the human body, kiddo. and how do you contend that a patient being put under anything is evidence that consciousness exists outside the body? did they speak thru the anesthesiologist's mouth? did the walls talk? proven?????? LOL
Santa Clause is smart.
MrSuspiciousPerson 5 hours ago
Cells: Hey who are you calling mindless? Big jerk!
LittleBitOfSunshine1 1 day ago
physics= the descriptions of our material world..the only one we have.
meta= shit that anyone can just make up.
zencat999 4 days ago
The negative after image of the US flag is caused when the retina cones for a specific color get exhausted from firing. When the image is removed the opposite colors are seen because those retina are still recovering from firing. For example: If you stare at red, eventually the red cones get tired and when the red image is removed, the new image lacks the color red so you see a negative. I agree that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Professor of philosophy? Please.
WhyLifeIsPointless 4 days ago
This man is so ignorant. He tries to dismiss the mystery and supernatural nature of consciousness by trying to explain something that he has no clue as to how it works or what it is. this man doesn't even know how a single cell works, and he's saying that consciousness is the product of switches. Amazing!
cmpresents 5 days ago
space and time it inhabits. I prefer the primacy of consciousness, Where this bland clockwork computation is transformed into a beautifully elegant metaphor reflecting our process of experience in the function of the brain. Better still a delicious syncronicity of consciousness of and the physical universe both equally real and both at the same time equally unreal. Thats the kind of universe I want to be apart of. I bet this guy was a barrel of laughs at college.
NeoLeaver 1 week ago
How then or why more to the point would matter for no percievable advantage to itself strive to organise itself into lifeforms. Do simple single celled lifeforms contain the required complexity to appear to know they need to go about their business and reproduce, I think not. Of course this is only my own intuition. Am I to believe art, and other creative constructs born of inspiration, come only seem to be so? to swallow this concept one must first be quite sure of the primacy of matter and the
NeoLeaver 1 week ago
He keeps saying "in his head", "between his ears", "in his brain", etc. Did the prof never hear of "Mind".
dickdona 1 week ago
@dickdona he's afraid of that word.
joel230182 4 days ago
I am genuinely concerned that I entirely missed the part where he solves the "hard question". Just because the brain has lots of tricks up its sleeve to provide all the subtleties of perception doesnt remove the reality of a perceiver.
ufomofo 1 week ago
@justinwoneil You are right. Your use of the word 'emerges' is the key. Emergence or Complexity Emergent Theory is the likely manner in which lots of dumb cells end up conscious. When you study emergence you will be amazed. It's a whole new world we are just discovering. It's everywhere in complex systems. I find it profound. Like peering into the mind of god.
papwalker99 1 week ago
EXCELLENT lecture... very well done
thestudyofstuff 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if your into really deep electro house with a modern progressive twist and a faint hint of europop, please put a couple of minutes aside to check out my vast array of playlists
Nick15612 1 week ago 3
excellent lecture. And I'm not sure how, but I know this all somewho runs parallel to the basic wisdom of the ancients and holy books throughout the ages. Definitely runs parallel to Krishnamurti and his writings on spirituality.
funkyboodah 1 week ago
@funkyboodah
you're not sure because it isn't.
peteraua 1 week ago
@peteraua No: i'm not sure because I'm not sure.
funkyboodah 1 week ago
It was spent too much time in less important issues, while Love and Freedom were not explained. Why dr. D. D.?
alauc 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Stosh08057 2 weeks ago
There have been experiments which show that viruses and bacteria seem to make decisions, what to attack, when to attack, when not to attack and so forth. They have awareness of their surroundings and other units, and so do our cells; they communicate with one another.
vinniefreitas 2 weeks ago 2
I'm not so sure about that.@vinniefreitas , When he says "conscious", he means being aware of its awareness. If we are going to associate decision-making with consciousness, then, we'll have to say that atoms are conscious, because through Natural Selection everything came to be, "designing itself" and making decisions .
joel230182 2 weeks ago
@joel230182 well you couldnt make a decision if you were not concious
TheSoaDShreds 2 weeks ago
@TheSoaDShreds So , you're saying that Natural Selection is a conscious process? are atoms conscious? You need a mind in order to be conscious.
joel230182 2 weeks ago
@joel230182
An impressive failure to understand anything Dennett has been saying, not to mention Darwin and his successors.
peteraua 1 week ago
@peteraua Then do something useful like trying to explain what Dennett is saying, instead of declaring failure to other people. I'm all ears.
joel230182 6 days ago
@TheSoaDShreds
Rubbish. My computer makes decisions all the time, and it's not conscious.
peteraua 1 week ago
@joel230182 Right, and why would matter spontaniously organise itself into life. If the very thing Dr.D is writing off as an epiphenomenon of the brain, is in fact the prime element. That consciousness itself is what we 'stretch out' into space, time and matter.
NeoLeaver 5 days ago
@NeoLeaver I think the answer to that lies in a metaphysical reality beyond the materiality of the universe.
joel230182 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vinniefreitas I'm not so sure about that.@vinniefreitas , When he says "conscious", he means being aware of its awareness. If we are going to associate decision-making with consciousness, then, we'll have to say that atoms are conscious, because through Natural Selection everything came to be, "designing itself" and making decisions .
joel230182 2 weeks ago
@joel230182 Not so.
There are certain things / functions in mathematics that appear non-deterministic. You can't predict the outcome. Sometimes its greater than zero, sometimes it's not. It seems random. You can't say there is a conscious decision being made by the function. I mean it's just math. Consider the termite. No one termite has the plans for the nest. It results from the interaction of lots of termites.
The new theory on this is called 'emergence' / Emergent theory.
It's almost magic.
papwalker99 1 week ago
@papwalker99 I think I'm a little lost(what are we discussing?).You can program a computer to output random data, and it is still a deterministic system/machine. I believe in freeWill and identity/ego. I think materialism is insufficient to explain conscious experience.
joel230182 4 days ago
@joel230182 Machines can't actually output truly random numbers. Thats why lottery's are drawn with balls, not determined by machines.
TheSoulDoubt 5 hours ago
@joel230182 I don't think we can say or do things that are genuinely random either- whatever we say or think comes from some stimuli. We can't imagine things that are genuinely beyond our experience- think of what an alien might look like- it is always based on known things, then distorted or altered or mixed up in a different way, but at no point is what u are thinking something that genuinely comes from beyond your experience.
TheSoulDoubt 5 hours ago
@joel230182 Not being able to see or understand the processes which lead to an outcome does not mean they are not there and cannot be seen and understood. I saw a show once about computers generating genuinely random numbers- they used a lava lamp and scanned the size, shape and motion of the lava blobs with a laser and used the data to generate the numbers.
TheSoulDoubt 5 hours ago
@joel230182 Finite systems should not be able to output infinite random values. A computer must follow a pattern, a formula, a programme, to determine its random number, so if u make it do it enough times a pattern will develop and become apparent because there is an underlying finite computation determing that number choice- it is based on finite information and mechanical processes, therefore while it can be hugely complicated, it is not random. Thats the supposed mystery of consciousness.
TheSoulDoubt 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@papwalker99 I think I'm a little lost(where are we trying to get?).You can program a computer to output random data, and it is still a deterministic system/machine. I believe in freeWill and identity/ego. I think materialism is insufficient to explain conscious experience.
joel230182 4 days ago
@vinniefreitas: Right. Consciousness permeates all things. It constitutes the fabric of beingness.
mysticoversoul 2 weeks ago
@mysticoversoul oogity-boogity
rtarbinar 1 week ago
@rtarbinar: Sad to see that you cannot fathom consciousness as the foundation of mysticism and the mystical experience.
mysticoversoul 1 week ago
@mysticoversoul dare i ask for some definitions..?
rtarbinar 1 week ago
ATTENTION ARREST DANIEL DENNET UNDER SUSPICION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!!!!!
janlvkasc 1 week ago
Right there with @kabomosh. There are a couple of problems with the professor's premise which states that there is no consciousness in cells. first, we can decribe consciousness to a degree, but do not fully understand it. Secondly, cells appear unconscious to most, in any case that is an inference which is subjective to your own description of consciousness and our ability to communicate or perceive similiar qualities within a cell.
vinniefreitas 2 weeks ago
I think its a little bit over the edge to say cells are mindless.
kabomosh 2 weeks ago
Beautiful lecture. Thank you for sharing.
NVSEUFOs 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
joel230182 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NVSEUFOs Yeah, SOOO beautiful. I love how he says that consciousness is an illusion , which means that we're a bunch of deluded machinery fantasizing with the idea of having identitiy, ego, consciousness or fee will; our actions are determined by physical causes, not ourselves. Such beauty haunts my soul! lol
joel230182 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
joel230182 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
joel230182 2 weeks ago
He spent a hell of a long time on the Indian Rope Trick - not sure why.
mikelheron20 2 weeks ago
Yeah...you walk down those stairs in SlowMo Double Dee! Deliver that shit! YEEEEARRRAHHH!
slybuster 2 weeks ago
"Not a single [cell] is conscious." :) EVERY cell is conscious! I guess that hasn't been proven scientifically yet so it's not his fault, but maybe someone will find it worthwhile knowing.
absently84 3 weeks ago
@absently84 That's just crazy. That would mean that fire was conscious. No? It seems to follow the same kind of "self directed" behavior as a cell...why not?
Put the bong down. It's ok that there is no magic. I promise.
blahbl4hblahtoo 2 weeks ago
13 minutes in and ... nothing, also shouldn't he just focus on delivering toys once a year.
321Fathead 3 weeks ago
Dennett is a great philosopher but it take him forever to get to his points.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 3 weeks ago
Part 5 - And finally I would highly recommend you all to watch the 2 videos below and an argument and debate against Mr Dennett lecture:
(Athene's Theory of Everything)
youtube dot com / watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o&list=FLoZTI0Oo6lsMp9b0In1eeuw&feature=mh_lolz
(John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousnes)
youtube dot com / watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&list=FLoZTI0Oo6lsMp9b0In1eeuw&index=3&feature=plpp_video
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
@nasimbahal ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
BrightSideFX 3 weeks ago
@nasimbahal I think you misunderstood this talk.
It's about science, not superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Stupidxxxx 3 weeks ago
@Stupidxxxx well did you watch the 2 videos I posted! the one with Jogn Hagelin is talking about PURE SCIENCE! he goes down to the core of existence an what he says is mind blowing! Put it this way we are only limited cause we believe so... we have the power to unleash or consciousness and get it to infinity regardless the fact we are quiet limited! just like mastering any art.
nasimbahal 2 weeks ago
Part 4 -
But in OBEs or Lucid dreaming there are no limitations. If you want to fly you can and you get the feeling of it! Or you can even experience things such as seeing things in 360 which would be impossible to experience through our sensory system.
Daneil Dennett is only expressing his views and beliefs on the limitation of our sensory system without debating the core of the other beliefs such as quantum physics and consciousness (he just said I just dont believe but some others do! O.o)
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
@nasimbahal What do you mean 360? 3d?
TheMidwestsk8ter 3 weeks ago
@TheMidwestsk8ter Seeing infront the sides and behind at the same time. Like a super fish-eye lens. There are images that show this, but they look really weird (to most of us)
papwalker99 1 week ago
Part 3 - My understanding is that our consciousness is filtered through our sensory system and hence is so limited. Even in one mind our AWARENESS (not the consciousness) is cut down from 11,000,000 bits a second to 10 - 16 bits a second and hence our consciousness experience being in such a limited form and our Subconscious process that 11M bits and has its own kind of a consciousness and decide without our will and understanding. You only become in control if you understand and connect to it!
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
@nasimbahal You are very close.
papwalker99 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2 - What he think he knows is invalid for a person with more knowledge in the future just as his knowledge is disproving whatever a generation in past knew.
I have been experiencing things beyond any science that make anyone wonder. I dont care about the explanation as it is the ultimate. It made me more curious about the consciousness and made me take things to next level to understand consciousness such as OBE or LUCID DREAMING.
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 1 - I am not gonna be sceptical but my experience in life totally disapprove what he said there. Not sure how he would explain the miracles that happened. Simply focusing on something and see how reality would simply change to fulfil my request.
He is denying quantum physics but if one had a look at the (SPLIT ELECTRON EXPERIMENT) woundnt be so confident talking about the physical world ( yes electrons are conscious)... Or even the Conscious Water experiment)
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nasimbahal 3 weeks ago
I have seen the real Indian Magic Rope trick on The Quaalude Board :) QC
Quaaludedude714 3 weeks ago
But how do the neurological processes experience themselves? That is and always has been the real question. This lecturer doesn't even recognize the real question of consciousnesses. He is only talking about what we are conscious OF. That is, conscious of the brains processes. Why can't these morons understand that? It's just unbelievable how they over and over again miss the real question.
andrewada 3 weeks ago
@andrewada I'm convinced the answer to what consciousnesses is, wont be a straight forward one to grasp. I guess the approach we see here is the only one are we left with. We could actually learn something this way: Suppose consciousnesses is a kind of pitch-black stage where experience takes place. We can hear the play but we can't see the stage. But we can examine small detail by small detail, and thus we might some day manage to put the puzzle together.
artistoex 3 weeks ago
@andrewada I can't believe you called just him a moron. I could help answer your question about self awareness versus consciousness but I'm a bit shocked by your scathing disrespect.
papwalker99 1 week ago
@papwalker99: calm down it was a loose expression. And no you can't answer the question. It can't be answered.
andrewada 1 week ago
@andrewada Good to see you didn't mean it.
And I can answer it, as far as workable models go, I've spent nearly 30 years studying it. However if you believe it cannot be answered then nothing anyone says will interest you. It's a shame, because what we are finding is profound.
papwalker99 1 week ago
@papwalker99 I believe it can't be answered as a logical position - not a religious one. You can try if you like and I will listen, but I simply believe you are attempting the impossible. There are only two things I know for certain: I exist and there is existence. I will listen to any view.
andrewada 1 week ago
@andrewada Looking at your blog I can see you have done a lot of research already.
This is good because some of the initial concepts are unintuitive.
My first step in explaining the model of consciousness is try to explain how billions of neurons appear exhibit nondeterministic behaviour.
That initial step is becoming familiar with the concept of 'emergence'. Just google the word and you'll land right on it. Wikipedia has a reasonable starting point.
Marvin Minsky is another good start.
papwalker99 1 week ago
@papwalker99 At this point, there is still the assumption that a complex mechanical system can support a consciousness. How can we validate this idea, other than by correlating mechanical processes to conscious experiences?
andrewada 1 week ago
@andrewada BTW
I hate high rise high density housing. It's a bane.
papwalker99 1 week ago
@andrewada Have you considered an idea called 'the primacy of consciousness' There is a very watchable presentation by Peter Russell on youtube.
NeoLeaver 1 week ago
@NeoLeaver I'll have a look at it, then give my view. thanks.
andrewada 1 week ago
@NeoLeaver Had a look at Peter Russell. First part I agreed with. But then he spoke of his belief that an atom is conscious. That's wild speculation - faith, not science. It also takes us back to the beginning: How exactly is (would be) an atom conscious? We are still trying to understand the incomprehensible.
He also defaults into rationalisations based on space-time, etc. More wild, and therefore empty, speculations. None provide any real level of understanding of the consciousness itself.
andrewada 3 days ago
@andrewada I'm prepared to accept that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain fuction, but only if we can be quite sure that consciousness is not prime. Regardless of russells attempts at evidence. It is at least AS possible that the material universe is an epiphenomenon of consciousness. If that were the case it would appear to us to have the exact same properties as it does if the material is prime being literally the material reflection of a non-local reality (sound familiar) mindfood!!!!
NeoLeaver 3 days ago
@NeoLeaver The model I prefer is a synchronistic duality where mind/matter are equally objective/subjective. I dont think we can say with enough certainty that consciousness (even if it IS an epiphenomenon of brain function) 'isn't 'real magic' to use Dennets analogy. Fascinating subject, thanks for the reply.
NeoLeaver 3 days ago
@NeoLeaver If one observes and measures during a dream which we percieve as 'real', in every possible sense (its a wholly hypothetical dream). Are the observations and measurements objective?
NeoLeaver 3 days ago
@andrewada There have been experiments in quantum physics that (without writing a thesis) at least suggest that the way inwhich particles/waveforms are consciously measured is instrumental in determining the 'outcome' of those measurements. Possibly suggesting they display 'something like' consciousness). See 'delayed choice experiment' also quatum non-locality/Action at a distance. One does not observe quantum effects rather one 'participates in the outcome' (Wheeler.J.A, Princeton) mindfood!
NeoLeaver 3 days ago
conciousness is not a state of being, it is a combination of all of your senses being processed by your brains systems. No one part makes you aware, but your awareness comes from the combination of senses, feelings and emotions all being merged into one whole stream of information. Take away your eyes and ears and you are less self aware, take away your emotions and it's even more so. Once we understand how the human brain works down to the neuron we'll be building concious computers.
leerees 4 weeks ago
@leerees I think we may be talking about two different things. I feel as if consciousness is more specifically our reflections upon the perceived world...
tonyfalca 4 weeks ago
@leerees That's an unnesesary reductionistic view of reality. Dennett doesn't have anything to say about Qualia/experience, identity/ego, intuition, freeWill, etc. All he does is to show some one-century-old optic illusion tricks, and then say: "well , consiousness is like that". He misses ALL the fundamental aspects of conciousness. We need to consider the posibility of reality being more that matter/ space/time.
joel230182 4 days ago
I have the entire formula for consciousness written down in my notebook.
MyName7492 4 weeks ago
Same old theories of mechanical brain producing thought, wouldn't it be great if these guys opened up with the truth, "we don't know how the mind works, but here are our best guesses based upon our beliefs and some scientific investigation on brain chemicals and electrical signals, oh yeah we have some tricks to show you" blah, blah..
ModernWizards 4 weeks ago
That flag with the crosshairs on it, did absolutely nothing for me. I have no idea what the point was to that; i saw no red anything! 'Course, I'm color blind; wonder if that's why?
MrDBarch 4 weeks ago
@MrDBarch Yes, that's why. Do you have red/green colorblindness? Can you see blue and yellow? It's possible to make another demonstration with the colors you can see.
MisterScott99 4 weeks ago
@MisterScott99 Yes, this is what my visual issue is; green/red. I think I remember it being called x-chromal something or other. Yes I am able to -see- blue and yellow, the primary colours are quite visible to me. I become lost with chromatic shades, mixing, and often cannot see the differences in some greens and greys, or reds and oranges, or blue and purple, or browns and reds etc. I'm interested in your comment that the colours might be changeable for me to see the illusion?
MrDBarch 4 weeks ago
@MrDBarch @MisterScott99 Normal vision has 3 channels of color data from the eyes: black/white, red/green + yellow/blue. Your red vs. green channel is not functioning. A flag has red white + blue. The flag in the video has green + black stripes. Since your red/green channel is dead you won't turn the green stripes into red stripes in the afterimage. I'd make 4u a picture of blue bananas on a yellow sky that should work. Try this youtube video in the meantime "Castle Optical Afterimage Illusion"
MisterScott99 4 weeks ago
By trying not to evade the issue, he evades the issue. By following Dennett's method, we can observe how consciousness is altered, but not how it's made, or exactly what it is. By removing the subject he removes the need to explain the subject's awareness of being or the origin of any internal experience. The problem IMO is that he's too hung up on empirical evidence when his own self-awareness is all he needs, though none of us can share that precious evidence with anyone empirically.
dcs002 4 weeks ago
Consciousness is a delusion.
ShaaaBang73 4 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
there is no way to describe how or why this thing called NOW, I, BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS...is at all. It's really the most interesting question you can ask. I don't pretend to know anything for certain though.
avedic 4 weeks ago
The part on the mystery of consciousness and then the phenomenological experience and how divisions are purely abstract and do not actually exist. and, our eyes alone do not see. or our mouth alone taste. each of our organs, and the entirety of our body, contributes to this experienced of "the smell of asphalt after a warm spring rain." It practically activates every level of our being. It's hard to really label that "smell #54,765"
avedic 4 weeks ago
I randomly, and most luckily, picked up Dennett's book Consciousness Explained tonight and read the first two chapters in the store. One of the most fascinating reads of my entire life.
avedic 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ＳＨＵＴ ＵＰ ＡＮＤ LISTEN！
╭∩╮（︶︿︶）╭∩╮
nasdrame 1 month ago
Comment removed
nasdrame 1 month ago
I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama.
TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.
ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothschild Zionism.
TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.
TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.
TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.
TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.
ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists like Dr. Ron Paul.
RON PAUL 2012!
WeThePeopleVStheNWO 1 month ago
@WeThePeopleVStheNWO he's a thicko that doesnt believe in evolution, even for a doctor thats unbelieveable.
dawtchins 3 weeks ago
@dawtchins Yes, but you see here in America we have this little rule that says you can believe whatever the hell you like. It's a human mental illness that wants to control the thoughts of everyone else. Worry about your own beliefs instead of the beliefs of others. PEACE!
WeThePeopleVStheNWO 3 weeks ago
@WeThePeopleVStheNWO well then thats disregarding the evidence which has been shown, you can blind yourself and feel snug at home . The great demotions of humans has happened and will continue. If you want to stay ignorant you're not a constructive member of society. Beliefs about reality should not be based on faith.
dawtchins 3 weeks ago
I've only watched the first few minutes, but what he's saying is that a number of cells must collect together to form something larger than their individual self so that consciousness can be? I'd beg to differ, something about that seems off...
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca maybe you should watch the whole thing before thinking what you have to say is so much more interesting than what Daniel Dennet says. He explicitly says that it's not his field of expertise, it "may" be an explanation but it's not what this show is about at all
jakke1975 1 month ago in playlist universe S06
@jakke1975 Well, it is entitled 'The Magic of Consciousness' and he was addressing the concept of consciousness. It's simply a difference of opinion. I never thought what I had to say was more, or less, interesting than this Daniel Dennet character. Maybe you should stop speculating as to what other people are thinking?? LOL
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca If you are looking for the video "Consciousness East and West" look at (linktv.org) it's a much more rewarding discussion
nmemonicporsche 1 month ago
@nmemonicporsche Awesome, thanks!!
tonyfalca 1 month ago
our cells are conscious, they are focused on their purpose unlike most human beings
jdickerson23 1 month ago
@jdickerson23 yep, i had to comment after hearing him say that after only the first few minutes. pretty ridiculous start to a lecture.. lol
tonyfalca 1 month ago
Please listen carefully between 38:30 and 43:00. He says that there is no Cartesian theater, no little green man observing anywhere in the brain. And since consciousness can not be found locally in the brain - it must be spread out in all parts of the brain, and those cells are not conscious so ...
Watch Exploring consciousness: East and West or anything by Deepak Chopra for another perspective.
Thanks for commenting
nmemonicporsche 1 month ago
@nmemonicporsche Consciousness is spread all over the ''place'' & ''time''
AsgardianBeing 1 month ago
@AsgardianBeing It seems to be non-local, everywhere and nowhere all at once.
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Ur correct, its a paradox, like everything & nothing are at the same time opposite and equal. Everything has no relationships, so its equal to nothing.
AsgardianBeing 1 month ago
@AsgardianBeing Well, I'd say that one isn't one without the other; everything and nothing are one of the same continuum, they're interconnected by the medium of their conflict or contrast. :)
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Well, every perspective has its way of expressing things ;)
AsgardianBeing 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Not in my brain it doesn't. I can clearly appreciate the work my visual cortex is doing to enable me to perceive what I'm seeing and understand it. I know my hippocampus works well as I understand everything I see. I also know that if one of the parts of my brain were damaged I'd be less concious than I am now. It's not no where and it's not everywhere, it's in a combination of the parts of the brain responsible for what you are doing at that point in time.
leerees 4 weeks ago
@leerees I'd agree that one would appear less conscious to an onlooker, if they were to conceive brain damage, although you can't be sure they're any less conscious... I think consciousness is more than the result of combining our senses together. So, I'd assume you're one of those people who think dreams are simply neurons firing off in the physical brain??
tonyfalca 4 weeks ago
@tonyfalca If another reality, another seemingly physical world, so similar to my waking state is generated by the physical brain, doesn't that cause you to question what exactly is generating our seemingly physical awake state?
tonyfalca 4 weeks ago
@nmemonicporsche Thanks for the suggestion!
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@nmemonicporsche I can't seem to find it on YT or Google, could you point me in the right direction?
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@nmemonicporsche Deepak Chopra? The fraud who even fools *himself*?
TomFynn 1 month ago
consciousness exists how stupid are you
aztec714ok 1 month ago
This is really not my department, but it seem that he didn't talk about consciousness at all, only how the brain processes visual stimulus with optical illusions. And then blatantly denies the existence of consciousness, we are just machines, disillusioned automatons. This is a classical example of reductionism. When will professors realize that we are more than just the sum of our parts. How can consciousness arise from unconscious cells? What if cells do have consciousness? Research it.
nmemonicporsche 1 month ago
Goodness... he talked quite a lot about things not in his department!
Catz007 1 month ago
6:42 hehe, sometimes it happens.
jaymorpheus11 1 month ago
Indian Rope Trick principle applies to religious proselytites and main stream media BS. I believe in Biblical teachings because some "prophets" wrote the words, the clergy said it is the truth, my parents told me as their parents told them. And "We know Sadam has WMD's. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". Concerning the flag, it's called persistence of vision. The colors are complements of each other. Red is complement of blue or green, as black is to white.
Mrgruffy44 1 month ago
THIS MAN KNOWS VERY LITTLE. IT CONSTANTLY SUPPRISES ME HOW LITTLE CONTENT ONE NEEDS TO BE A PROFESSOR. HE IS 120 YEARS OUT OF DATE AND IS ESPOUSIN FREUDIAN, PAVLOVIAN AND PRE FREUDIAN "MAN IS AN ANIMAL PSYCOLOGY. HE HAS LEARNED THE "LECTURER" GIG AND I FEEL SORRY FOR THE SHEEP LIKE AUDIUENCE WHO WERE DUPED BY THE UNIVERSITY INTO BELIEVEING THEY ARE GETTING AN EDUCATION.SOMEBODY DIES WHEN THE SPIRIT(BEING )LEAVES THE BODY kARRILIAN PHOTOS? SOUL WEIGHING? BODY EMF FIELD?ART MUSIC?
nutopiansg 1 month ago
THE BODY IS RUN OR OWNED BY A SPIRITUAL BEING
nutopiansg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nutopiansg - 'THE BODY IS RUN OR OWNED BY A SPIRITUAL BEING'
yeah, the you that continues to exist after the body dies, before it was formed. before the universe/s were formed, after they may cease to be..
'SOMEBODY DIES WHEN THE SPIRIT(BEING )LEAVES THE BODY kARRILIAN PHOTOS?'
exactly, let's see them film peoples souls popping off out the top of their heads or thru stab wounds etc, stop denying that's how it is.
i bet an active merkabah folds & pops like an escaping octopus.
NWOareScum 1 month ago
So to get it I need not to get it? Ahhh! I get it...kinda.
tripangelx2 1 month ago
This was a truly great opportunity to have a professor teach you on YouTube as if you were in a classroom. Amazing presention by the professor
03birdmann 1 month ago
I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation! Professor Dennett was informative and highly engaging. Thanks so much for posting...
mikkijeanee08 1 month ago
I thought the image was projected in the Pineal gland.
It has a cornea, retina, lens and such.
loudwaters9 1 month ago
@loudwaters9 Either you are full of new age hippy nonsense or you're joking, if it's the former,can you direct me to a source that claims the pineal gland has a cornea, or retina?
1empathy 1 month ago
@1empathy or lens? It may well have some such ;o)
1empathy 1 month ago
@1empathy hes nots joking, go look it up, all pineal glands have rods and cones, some frogs have a rudimentary retina in theirs though it is not functional in the usual sense.
AdastraRecordings 1 month ago
@AdastraRecordings Our (we're talking about humans) pineal gland evolved from an organ with light receptor cells on it but the human pineal gland does not have a lens, cornea or retina.
1empathy 1 month ago
@AdastraRecordings said pineal glands have rods and cones...
Now *that* i did not know.
Never as smart as I think I am.
Thanks!!
papwalker99 1 week ago
@1empathy ''A recent hypothesis proposed by David Klein, head of Neuroendocrinology at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, suggests that the Pineal gland has primitive retinas, and that it exercised the dual function of both capturing the image and producing melatonin.
.
Also look up Rick Strassman.
loudwaters9 1 month ago
@loudwaters9 Before i bother, you say "exercised" ie past tense, i already admitted it's primitive origin and function. What i am saying is it does not have a cornea,lens and retina now. In other words it is not a "third eye" it is a gland and it responds to light only through indirect stimulation.
1empathy 1 month ago
@1empathy
I do not think that it has been factually proven that the picture we see in our brain manifests itself in the back of the brain.
There is a lot of activity there, but it does not conclusively prove anything.
Rick's and Davids research is just as valid.
Take it up with them.
It is a side issue for moi.
I study law.
loudwaters9 1 month ago
@1empathy THIS IS TRUE FOUND ON WICKIPEDIA
nutopiansg 1 month ago
you only have a couple of sec;s 2 get me u lost, "i lost?", no you did i want to help you, keep it simple stupid, thats my motto, and alot of peoples, who are you try'n to reach? Why? For what reasons? Short, sweet, Think about it.
DeszuDjizlas 1 month ago
First time I ever heard of Daniel, glad I stayed. This presentation was excellent . now I'm off to find more .Thank you Prof Dennett, and uploader Hex!
seneca65r 1 month ago
counter intuitive , excellent .
frankenboston 1 month ago
if i like potatos you shall like them too.
danjoelabrenica 1 month ago
Interesting...
stepperstear 1 month ago
Well that all sounds very reasonable but can you tell me why then does it hurt so much when I drop a hammer on my toe. And if I program a computer to write 'auch' on the screen when I drop a hammer on it, do I then have to respect it and not hurt its feelings?
stikowsky 1 month ago
@stikowsky ..no, you do not respect it BECAUSE of it's ability to give a response on its own (or via clever programming). You respect life due not just to the interactions you have with it, but mostly for what it is capable of - by itself. That is why you can respect animal rights (which i hope you agree to). That is why Using plants, by using fibres, chemicals, and derivatives as food - you do less violation of existential rights.. when
Pragmatism.
bronzmash 1 month ago
@stikowsky
I once argued with someone over whether or not a pig had sentience (I was in the affirmative). They asked:
"But if pigs are sentient, then do we have to give them the vote?"
The answer is, obviously, no. Because pigs can't do other things that are associated with voting. They can't take sides in ideology, trade, own property, etc, etc. They're fundamentally different things.
Simply programming a computer to respond reflexively? I don't think that that would be quite enough.
UbiquitousChe 1 month ago
@UbiquitousChe
However - if we could create a machine with a computer that was a very good analogue of a human being - one that could hold property, navigate the world, take sides in political arguments, trade, and so forth... Then we're a bit closer to an affirmative.
It's still not straightforward. A 'conscious' machine is still going to be different to a 'conscious' organism. We would have different drives and limitations and abilities, so how we regard the two should be sensitive to...
UbiquitousChe 1 month ago
@UbiquitousChe
... these differences.
I think the bit that people find objectionable is that they like to believe that consciousness -> right to freedom from suffering is a cosmic law that must be obeyed at all costs, and that anything undermining this must be resisted at all costs.
UbiquitousChe 1 month ago
@UbiquitousChe
But not so. We can re-evaluate the concept. We *should* re-evaluate the concept. Because it was always a poor concept to begin with.
There is certainly a right to freedom from suffering that should be applied. We just need to get smarter about the reasons why, and stop pretending that treating consciousness as if it were sacred ever actually explained anything.
Because it never really did. It was just a convenient, perhaps noble, lie.
We can do better than that, methinks.
UbiquitousChe 1 month ago
@UbiquitousChe yo dude are u high? ur pming to urself...
MrClosercloser 1 month ago
@MrClosercloser
Unfortunately no, I'm not high. Which is a pity.
Check again in the full comment view. Four part response to stikowsky.
UbiquitousChe 1 month ago
Talk about smoke and mirrors...unbelievably convoluted and ultimately saying nothing about consciousness! In a nutshell he's basically saying.. Don't ask the question! For me the question is this: How did inanimate matter coalesce into a living being that could reflect on Its own existence. Namely; US? If we accept that cosmic dust has no self awareness, then it is reasonable to assume that consciousness existed prior to matter. (Just a thought) ...Debate.
TheWakefulness 1 month ago
@TheWakefulness "How did inanimate matter coalesce into a living being that could reflect on Its own existence." This is precisely the question that should be posed. I asked a professional atheist/Dawkins fanboy friend of mine what consciousness is and he boasted "Consciousness is a function of the brain." Now, while that seems to be the case, it's like asking what a car is and hearing "A car is something you drive on the road." (cont.)
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 1 month ago
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic This says nothing about the engine, gasoline, battery, physics, etc. involved with making the car WORK. In other words, saying "it's a function of the brain" and leaving it at that explains nearly nothing, and leaves a world of unanswered questions. IF consciousness is totally a function of the brain/body system, then in theory, it should be possible to create "artificial life" which operates precisely like "natural" life such as human beings. (cont.)
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 1 month ago
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic
The question I ask is "If consciousness & self-awareness is only applicable to the brain, then what can be said about lower-level systems of complexity such as quarks, electrons, atoms, molecules, and basic forms of life such as single-celled organisms. Are those, in any way, self-aware? What about a sperm or egg cell? (cont. one more...)
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 1 month ago
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic Or how about an embryo? Is THAT conscious yet? I think most people would say consciousness starts at some stage of embryonic development (or not. I'm just guessing here.) One thing worth noting: Humans still don't have a firm grasp on what time is. All processes occur through time. It is the only thing separating the most simple things (quarks), etc. from the most complex(us.) Most people don't even know to ask the question. Many dare not to ever bother.
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 1 month ago
The problem with Dan's approach is that it is question-beggingly materialistic. "If you don't get rid of the emperor, your theory must be wrong." Why? Because he has already imposed a condition on any attempted explanations: They must not assume anything immaterial.
Auriganus 1 month ago
@Auriganus
All Dan is saying is that a description on how consciousness works must be void of consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot be the mechanism by which consciousness works. At the end of the day, this feeling of consciousness we all experience is quite obviously a result of the components of our bodies. Its not like each individual piece of our brain is "as conscious" as the whole.
Craevus 1 month ago
If consciousness is just the sum of our parts, how can Consciousness exsist outside of the human body? (Which has been proven during operations where they cause the patient to go into hypothermic arrest).
Pighaterskater 1 month ago
@Pighaterskater consciousness doesn't exist outside the human body, kiddo. and how do you contend that a patient being put under anything is evidence that consciousness exists outside the body? did they speak thru the anesthesiologist's mouth? did the walls talk? proven?????? LOL