0ThouArtThat0
“Logos of a Living Earth: Toward a New Marriage of Science and Myth for our Planetary Future”: https://matthewsegall.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/logos-of-a-living-earth-toward-a-new-marriage-of-science-and-myth-for-our-planetary-future.pdf
Source
The Role of Consciousness in Biological Evolution (re: Dawkins v. Weinstein)
orthodox christianity is the one true philosophy. ive gone thru all this philosophical experimentation as long as i been following ur vids since the masks video. evolution and the impersonal consciousness force idea is bunk and luciferian. makes me sound like a crazy fundamentalist and its so cliche but thats because its true and so simple in some sense that it makes it sound dumb, but the only philosophy/worldview that maintains coherence and explains how all this works and why things are how they are is- young earth finite creation by a transcendental triune personal God and free will and then adam fell and our physical and metaphysical reality became corrupted and therefore death happens. look into the orthodox christian theology and the old church fathers of the east. its either the transcendental personal God or Lucifer who tells you all things are god and we are god and we have free will so that we can do what we choose and progress forward to the ubermench etc. its the transcendent Mind of God that holds all the ideas and principles of the creations because He is infinite so only He can do this, and information theory tells us it has to be all from a personal Mind. and then of course cause we cannot know anything from our side of reality then we need to have a revealed theology, such as the revealed truth about reality that was given to the Israelites and then to the rest of the world thru Christ. Father Seraphim Rose has some epic books about this too.
and Matt please talk to Jay Dyer of JaysAnalysis here on youtube, hes an intelligent guy with a heavy background in philosophy and worldview critique and theology. i think you would at least find the convo interesting, it would even be cool to have yall debate, but just to have a convo with him, it would be interesting to see what you think … https://www.youtube.com/user/jaydyer
Consciousness is indeed the main question to answer. It might perhaps be useful to read/listen to David Chalmers on the topic if you haven't already done so. I for one think that qualia are not exclusive to human beings as there is indeed plenty of evidence that non-human animals have subjective experiences (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk). In his essay "What is it like to be a bat?", Thomas Nagel raises that very question. He later developed similar ideas in his more recent book "Mind and Cosmos – Why the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false". Meanwhile, the Hameroff-Penrose Orch-Or theory of consciousness might also be worth exploring together with the numerous accounts of NDEs.
Should consciousness prove to be irreducible and one of the essential forces of the Universe as David Chalmers sometimes suggests, then qualia could indeed take place at every level including that of quarks (or even on a smaller scale, if there are other entities further down) and give rise to a kind of proto-consciousness. That being the case, one could then ask the question: "What is it like to be a quark?" although it would admittedly be very hard to answer but not qualitatively more so than in the case of a bat.
Should consciousness be irreducible, the puzzle of biological evolution would become easier to solve since there would no longer be a division between inorganic "dumb" matter and organic structures.
If that creative capacity of organisms is universal in all things, then is it chaotic within an ordered system, or the opposite….is consciousness ordering the chaos?
isn't this the nietzschean will to power? you're consciousness is the relation of your impulses to one another, a manifestation (& mimicry) of the Will to Power, that has evolved with it's impulses and can't rise or sink to any other level. — without the impulses gaining new powers and understandings along with that raise in the consciousness.
i like this version of evolution because it makes genes a necessary (and possibly, only THE MOST NECESSARY PART of) tool for consciousness in it's Will towards reproduction for the ultimate end of gaining Power. what i mean is, that other limitations and guiding paths and directions are assumed along with genes that contribute to the creation of humans; for example how atoms bond together in this particular part of the cosmos and the fact that gravity and pressure at earth level should be present for the instruction on making humans to work. these information are guiding the consciousness without being in the genes. genes are the minimum amount of chemical information needed to construct a ground for this Power that we are, and satisfy its chemical needs.
i'm not claiming i know for a fact that we have needs that are not measurable chemically, (although i suppose the very Will to Power in us isn't measurable in lab) but i think if we don't want to assume we probably shouldn't so thoughtlessly reduce the phenomenon of consciousness to what one science describes as it's calculable graph of the phenomenon.
or as carl jung said people can't see god because they don't look low enough
i too came to the alchemical dictum "in sterquiliniis invenitur" in an LSD trip.
Was viewing 1your other vids other night,wasnt this one,wanted to say mankinds nature,and add we all guests on earth,enjoy ed ur thoughts,tc matt
When you talk about consciousness are you talking about the hard problem / qualia or the broader notion of a lot of humans experiences and actions? I think I agree with your notion that there are meanings in the world that preceded, and I think those meanings are sort of terrence deacon-esque constraints of physical stuff, but those constraints in and of themselves don't explain consciousness I think, at least not the narrow qualia 'hard problem' (and yes I know chalmers doesn't seem to like the word qualia but I think it is perfect, but that's beside the point).
As far as I can reason there are only two options – the computational model and the intrinsic model. The computational model is basically your "strange arrangement of neurons" and intrinsic is panpsychism. Your explanation in this video sounds like it tries to blend the two (any complicated explanation always dilutes the issue imo), albeit not on purpose, but this never works I think and doesn't get down to the 'actual' explanation. I'd be really curious if anyone has an alternative to the computational and the intrinsic model, because I can't think of one. I'm starting to think we might be unable to mentally envision a correct model, because neither one makes any sense to me in lieu of the lack of physical evidence / observation.
I subbed to your channel like 9 or 10 years ago, and youtube has never given me a notification or recommendation for your videos before, but randomly sent this to me today. Part one was a little hard to follow because my knowledge of biology terms is lacking, but this one is much more accessible. You raise some interesting questions.
you gotta stoooopppp!!!!!!
excuse me. I am looking for fine format for learning actual and present view of philosophy. I am Korean, I have lots of Korean philosophers who studied in wests, but have no idea what's going on at 'real time'. For example I have no idea and information about the present progress of the discourses on consciousness and biology.
I hope you could give me some tips on getting brand new 'information'(like reading article of MIND).
p.s. I enjoyed your 18mins Hegel review.
It's the "hard problem of consciousness" for a reason. Hard to understand something we have no outside perspective for. We have one frame of reference and if I concede that other humans and animals have consciousness, why not the plants that spawned them? Why not the single celled life that spawned them, and why not the matter that makes up us all? Our conscious experience seems richer with more complex mental workings, but would the consciousness of any complex system also be enhanced? Maybe we can make AI and the ghost will already be dwelling within
hey, i wanna build off my comment from your previous video from today. i basically wanted to know why you choose the panpsychist approach over the enactive approach. this second video helped answer that a bit, i think. i am unsure how i feel about the assertion that consciousness was always there since "the beginning" of this unfolding of the universe.
i feel that organic life must exist in order for consciousness to emerge. im confident that consciousness wont be found in rocks for example. so, was the growth of consciousness, its emergence, latent until something like organic life could emerge to "tap into the signal?" or are rocks, space matter, heat particles, the lowest measurable thing retaining consciousness within itself? and what purpose does Life have if it's not a succession, a "graduation" even, of inert space heat becoming self-aware of itself through this new phase called Life? and what of human consciousness? and ecologically, isn't panpsychism reducing the obvious, enormous 2nd nature we've created back to 1st nature?
i might be misunderstanding something; does the panpsychist tradition have an answer to these questions? also, i'd really appreciate more on the cross section between semiotics and biology. what you talked about was super interesting.
These aren't my words but they reflect how I think:
"What most people overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real.” (Carl Jung, Answer to Job)
The psyche, in Jung’s view is not merely a by-product of a certain configuration of matter. Rather the psyche is an irreducible, a priori fact of nature that should be considered as real as the physical world, and just as impactful to our overall well-being. Most people, however, know little of this world within.
https://www.facebook.com/159759701342611/posts/281861862465727/
Of course there is consciousness in everything already. That’s why it’s an abomination to grow meat in a vat and deny it the ability to think or move .. which apparently some cells being grown in this way recently were discovered growing brain cells
The problem we have in evolving is that we are fragmented and compartmentalized through trauma repeatedly. I think maybe even some trauma is passed down through the genes. This causes the feeling of a bifurcation in consciousness I suspect. It’s a way to survive briefly, forgetting the cause of the trauma and the trauma, but it’s also an inherent doom as we repeat our mistakes
Surely any thumbs up or down are ad hominem without a commentated argued response……. (!) PS Discuss…… (!!) PPS Sorry, getting carried away…. PPPS Must listen properly to what you are saying! PPPPS Semiotics are purely adenda to living beings… PPPP?PPs…. I could continue…