Thought Adventure Podcast
Joined by special guest Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, the TAP panellists discuss whether materialistic accounts of consciousness can overcome the “Hard Problem” – and explore several proposed solutions in the process.
00:00 Introduction and Arguments
1:19:42 – Matthew Bardos (Atheist)
2:14:07 – Thinker Man (Atheist)
3:06:03 – Sam Chaos (Pagan)
3:37:19 – Mohammad Yunus (Muslim)
3:48:09 – Final Thoughts
Thought Adventure Support
◄ YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/c/ThoughtAdventurePodcast/join
◄ PATREON – https://www.patreon.com/thoughtadventurepodcast
________________________________________________________________
Thought Adventure Social Media:
◄ Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_A_Podcast [@T_A_Podcast]
◄ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7x4UVfTz9QX8KVdEXquDUC
◄ Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast
◄ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast
—————————————————————-
*The Hosts:*
———————-|
Jake, The Muslim Metaphysician
– Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcGQRfTPNyHlXMqckvz2uqQ
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/MMetaphysician [@MMetaphysician]
———————-|
Yusuf Ponders, The Pondering Soul
– Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsiDDxy0JXLqM6HBA0MA4NA
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/YusufPonders [@YusufPonders]
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/yusufponders [@yusufpodners]
———————-|
Sharif
– Youtube: [TBC]
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/sharifhafezi [@sharifhafezi]
———————-|
Abdulrahman
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/abdul_now [@abdul_now]
#Atheism #Consciuosness #Materialism
Source
This channel deserves a lot more subscribers.
nice stream
What we can say about the "problem" is that we can correlate an experience.
But we cannot even get someone's "REFERENCE" points (from the subjects past) that are a part of the constitutions of that experience. Let alone the first person subjective experience itself.
Seeing Hamza always put a smile on my face. Btw, this yt channel is great.
1:50:40 – He is giving an hypothetical scenario "if two person is exact clone, then they can share each other's experience", the point he is not ready to get is, How one member of the clone would know that the inner subjective conscious experience of his clone brother for having a hot-chocolate in the Monday morning is same as His own inner subjective experience of having hot-chocolate in the Monday morning (hypothetically in the same time and the same place).
1:47:26 these materialists tries to have God's eye view of everything, they will never acknowledge the problem as a valid problem if it goes against their world-view.
Missing Brother Jake 🥺
والله انا احبك في الله يا عبدالرحمن
When I go to the doctors with pain, they ask me to describe it and its severity, 1 – 10 (10 being worst) – – there's nothing in my condition for my doctor to make this judgement.
Can you please include Quran and Hadith in your understanding and definitions? Your discussion seems to be totally devoid of anything Allah and His messenger said on these important topics.
What is the relationship between 1) the secret of life (the thing that makes us alive) and consciousness 2) behaviour (actions) and consciousness?
"Sometimes science widens the gap" 👍
Ad easily as it can be grounded on superstition i think.
what happened at 1:46:16? why did you crop it out of the video? 🙁 I was looking fwd to hear his response !
Jesus ( pbuh ) never claimed divinity, check out these references in the Bible.☟
Acts 2:22 King James Version (KJV)
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
John 5:30 King James Version
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
It clearly says: a man aproved of God and in the other verse it says: I seek not my will, but the will of God.
Any body who says the above statements, is called a Muslim.
Muslim means some one who submits his will to God.
Matthew 19:16-17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Numbers 23:19 New International Version (NIV)
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
It's a bit confusing what you guys are actually arguing about? On one hand you seem to argue about where consciousness comes from and even agree that consciousness can be from the brain @ 1:52:20 which means the answer to your title is yes according to yourself! But on the other hand it seems as if you argue that science can't explain how a conscious experience is from a 3rd person perspective which is a completely different discussion than the title says.
Because you agreed with Matt that consciousness could come from the brain it seemed a bit disingenuous that you tried to change it to the latter because that doesn't even address the title of your own show.
This was such a great topic and tbh I really enjoyed it. Although I love Hamza, this was not one of his best discussions.
Even if your assumptions and assertions are true about the other persons understanding and their background and their motivations, I think its unwise to highlight in the way that he did. It might be frustrating considering your level of understanding is up there. However, the people who come on probably aren't on that level.
Instead of using words like magic, demonstrate the hocus pocus in the argument. If the other guy is having trouble understanding, explain in a way he would or move on.
Secondly, the ad hominem attack about his motivations (albiet true) are really not helping. Demonstrate or move on.
For every big word or term you use without explaining what it means in a simple term should be 10p put towards charity by the panel…
3:36:00 damm great point
3:19:00
3:11:00 syntactic arrangement i computers vs semantic arrangements in consciousness
3:02:00 beautiful if your subjectivity is not objective then everything is an illusion
2:45:00 good analogy
2:42:40 is the best point against materialism
2:23:40 good point to defeat materialism
2:16:00 definition of blind and cold i physicalist paradigm
2:36:00 Hamza explaining it plain and simple
1:31:00 and 1:56:30 till 1:58:30 the epistemic problem of materialism
1:03:15
1:01:00
min 53:40 beautiful point and min 55:20
min 52:00 nice quote
min 47:00
min 41:00 response to eliminative materialism
the explanations of the different stands start at min 33:00
min 25:00 great quote
min 24:00
min 23:00
min 11:30
the hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience
min 6:00
Assalamu Alaiykum,
Love the podcast, but I think you guys should implement some sort of timed system for the guests to ensure adequate amount of time for more guests.
You guys are making a mistake. The subjectivity of the experience of consciousness doesn't make it any less a material phenomenon. This HARD problem is also not something that validates theism. And further as Muslims, we have NO requirement to accept that a hard problem of Consciousness validates Islam.
You're taking a philosophical question about the completeness of observations, and assuming that incomplete observations are not valid. Big mistake. Same mistake being made over and over again. This was the same logical flaw when discussing evolution, which we know anti-Materialist Muslims have failed to do.
Great podcast! mA thank you all for your time and benefit you have been giving us!
One question I do have is, how do Evolutionists reconcile consciousness into the Darwinian paradigm, if we can't explain it from a materialist perspective?
Can someone answer this:
1- As per current proofs we know that brain & consciousness has a strong connection & without brain human does not have consciousness. This we know based on the experiments. If you remove brain their is no consciousness at all. So we can safely say that consiousness if not fully, a portion of it lies in brain.
2- We don't have any other proof that it resides outside the brain.
3- We also know that because different physical structures give rise to different subjective experiences, so no one can experience any one else's subjective experience but it's because of the unique physical structures of individuals.
As a result we can conclude that all the proofs point us to brain and there is nil evidence of it being outside brain.
How to refute it?
1:43:00 this is like in the movie the matrix when the awake team are eating cereal and the young guy said "how did the matrix machine even know how cereal supposed to taste..?" and they all told him to shut up.
MashaaAllah that dawah to Sam was so beautiful subhanAllah what a beautiful dawah indeed
Do a podcast on panpsychism!
If a robot behaved exactly like a human in how it responds to stimuli (inputs), does that mean it is conscious? Does that mean it is aware of its own existence? This is the problem. From a third-person perspective, it responds to every stimuli like a human, so it would seem it is conscious, but we know it is not conscious because it is not aware of its own existence. This conclusion is not arrived at by looking at the robot's material components. It is arrived from our knowledge that it is not aware of its own existence. It's not materialism that gave us the clue that the robot is not conscious.
3:33:18 NICE ONE!
I like to use the example of an eagle's vision to explain subjective conscious experience.
It's well known that an eagle's vision is extremely sharp, about 4 to 8 times sharper than ours. But you as a human being, even with a 20/20 vision, cannot fathom or imagine a vision that is sharper than yours. Even if we tore apart the eagle's eyeballs and looked at and analyzed every cell it has, you would still never be able to experience, imagine or fathom what it is like to have a vision like that of an eagle.