You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[westwall]

That is maybe one your most weirdest comments.

Yet factual.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Okay. You too, thank you for playing.

next

Is there any point in talking with you I wonder. What would you like me to have said? what could I have said that would have been interesting to you in relation to your post?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What Creates Consciousness?

AI and consciousness. (First 5 1/2 minutes. Wow!)

Renowned researchers David Chalmers and Anil Seth join Brian Greene to explore how far science and philosophy have gone toward explaining the greatest of all mysteries, consciousness--and whether artificially intelligent systems may one day possess it.This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

Participants:
David Chalmers, Anil Seth

Moderator:
Brian Greene


Problems of Consciousness The Hard and the Real

Interesting but I've heard much of this before, good stuff but not really anything amazing. The assumption that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical system is one that I am always mindful of. As Greene (briefly) mentioned there is the view that "mind" somehow precedes "gives rise to" matter.

If that's true then scientific analysis of the matter will never reveal "how" or "why" consciousness exists. It's a bit like asking why do particles exist, what causes them to be.

 

[Dante]

Is there any point in talking with you I wonder. What would you like me to have said? what could I have said that would have been interesting to you in relation to your post?

In the context of the thread?
Most anything than this inanity "He's correct, since universe literally means everything that exists, no matter what form that takes."

the quality of being extremely silly or having no real meaning or importance, or something that is extremely silly like this: I was amazed at the inanity of her comments. His speech was full of inanities that were meant to be funny. See. inane.

 

[ding]

What Creates Consciousness?

AI and consciousness. (First 5 1/2 minutes. Wow!)

Renowned researchers David Chalmers and Anil Seth join Brian Greene to explore how far science and philosophy have gone toward explaining the greatest of all mysteries, consciousness--and whether artificially intelligent systems may one day possess it.This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

Participants:
David Chalmers, Anil Seth

Moderator:
Brian Greene


Problems of Consciousness The Hard and the Real

From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

.What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

The universe was created from nothing. Consciousness without form is no thing.

 

[Dante]

Interesting but I've heard much of this before, good stuff but not really anything amazing. The assumption that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical system is one that I am always mindful of. As Greene (briefly) mentioned there is the view that "mind" somehow precedes "gives rise to" matter.

If that's true then scientific analysis of the matter will never reveal "how" or "why" consciousness exists. It's a bit like asking why do particles exist, what causes them to be.

True? Who said it was "true?"

And you've "heard much of this before" I guess making you a credibly informed commentator on it all? You're reputation would get in the wya.

 

[Dante]

From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

.What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

The universe was created from nothing. Consciousness without form is no thing.

"George Wald said...Arthur Eddington wrote...Von Weizsacker stated...In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said..."

What makes Greene, David Chalmers, and Anil Seth special is that they can speak of scientific things without regurgitating jargon and quoting others to make a point that could be made quite simply.

You see, conversational speech, and discussion between lay people are quite different from a classroom where an expert lectures people.

For some weird reason you always fail here? Is it an insecurity or something from your years in an educational setting? I have to wonder.

I put in a search "What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles..." and boy oh boy do the rantings, lecturing, and posturing of pseudo-intellects and other gadflies pop up.


note:
"From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind...You have no more basis for...What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles...The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around. The universe was created from nothing. Consciousness without form is no thing." grading the lecture c-

 

[ding]

"George Wald said...Arthur Eddington wrote...Von Weizsacker stated...In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said..."

What makes Greene, David Chalmers, and Anil Seth special is that they can speak of scientific things without regurgitating jargon and quoting others to make a point that could be made quite simply.

You see, conversational speech, and discussion between lay people are quite different from a classroom where an expert lectures people.

For some weird reason you always fail here? Is it an insecurity or something from your years in an educational setting? I have to wonder.

I put in a search "What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles..." and boy oh boy do the rantings, lecturing, and posturing of pseudo-intellects and other gadflies pop up.


note:
"From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind...You have no more basis for...What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles...The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around. The universe was created from nothing. Consciousness without form is no thing." grading the lecture c-

You mean besides the fact that Wald explained it clearly?

Can you?

 

[Dante]

You mean besides the fact that Wald explained it clearly?

Can you?

You have never impressed me, no matter how hard you've tried. You blew it when you had the chance. Kept trolling and playing sophomoric games

Dante has rarely suffered a fool gladly.

You see, unlike you Dante doesn't pretend to be on the same level of anything with Wald. Which is why we view videos, read articles, books, mags and listen to podcasts, radio and watch videos online and on tv. We seek a learning experience, not an opportunity to lecture and appear to be an expert on something far beyond the grasp of most every normal person on Earth. Then again, I've seen your nominations for awards in science --

 

[ding]

You have never impressed me, no matter how hard you've tried. You blew it when you had the chance. Kept trolling and playing sophomoric games

Dante has rarely suffered a fool gladly.

You see, unlike you Dante doesn't pretend to be on the same level of anything with Wald. Which is why we view videos, read articles, books, mags and listen to podcasts, radio and watch videos online and on tv. We seek a learning experience, not an opportunity to lecture and appear to be an expert on something far beyond the grasp of most every normal person on Earth. Then again, I've seen your nominations for awards in science --

That doesn't sound like you explaining it. I think I'll go with Wald's explanation until you can come up with one of your own. Maybe go back and listen to your podcasts until you understand it and can explain it.

 

[Dante]

That doesn't sound like you explaining it. I think I'll go with Wald's explanation until you can come up with one of your own.

Unlike you, I don't believe I was here suggesting I can and will explain certain things. Which is why I link to people who do.

You suck as a lecturer.

 

[ding]

Unlike you, I don't believe I was here suggesting I can and will explain certain things. Which is why I link to people who do.

You suck as a lecturer.

You can't explain what you have supposedly heard and studied.

 

[Dante]

You can't explain what you have supposedly heard and studied.

I could, in my own way, but why would I when I have access to experts who do it so well, and actually know what they are talking about from experience, rather than...

 

[ding]

I could, in my own way, but why would I when I have access to experts who do it so well, and actually know what they are talking about from experience, rather than...

No, you can't.

 

[Dante]

No, you can't.

You're the expert

next

 

[ding]

View attachment 998269

You're the expert

next

Do I have to be an expert to know you have never discussed anything you have posted concerning science?

 

[Dante]

Do I have to be an expert to know you have never discussed anything you have posted concerning science?

Dante has been here off and on for years. You have no idea what We have posted concerning science. What you do know is the pain from the butthurt Dante delivers to fools.

You should go hang out with Ropey (who shall eventually appear here as most sock puppets do when summoned).

 

[ding]

Dante has been here off and on for years. You have no idea what We have posted concerning science. What you do know is the pain from the butthurt Dante delivers to fools.

You should go hang out with Ropey (who shall eventually appear here as most sock puppets do when summoned).

This is your level of discourse.

 

[ding]

We

We? How many of you are there?

 

[ding]

What you do know is the pain from the butthurt Dante delivers to fools.

I think you are a legend in your own mind. I really do wish you were all that you thought you were.