[INFJ] The God Within
- Thread starter ThomasJ79
- Start date
Interesting video but I think this guy is disappointed for all the wrong reasons.
Blaming physicists for not looking at consciousness is like blaming an auto mechanic for not looking at acupuncture therapy.
Physics must explain everything that is explainable because in order to observe one depends on physics. I think this guy is the one who does not understand. He doesn't understand that he is not separate from the quantum universe, and even when he was reading Hawking's book, it was quantum events which allowed him to read it and think about it.
The universe is material, and without physics, one cannot be conscious of it. Without physics nothing would ever touch your awareness. Without physics, even if you somehow could exist, you would be 'dead' and in void - you couldn't even be aware of your own existence.
Why can we not explain consciousness? Perhaps it's because we are conscious. Why can the eye not see itself without a mirror?
We cannot expect people to explain what they don't know, and what they aren't looking for moreover.
Edit: he's also wrong about several ideas. The main one being that consciousness causes collapse - it doesn't. That's a false notion that laymen came up with due to insufficient understanding.
Blaming physicists for not looking at consciousness is like blaming an auto mechanic for not looking at acupuncture therapy.
Physics must explain everything that is explainable because in order to observe one depends on physics. I think this guy is the one who does not understand. He doesn't understand that he is not separate from the quantum universe, and even when he was reading Hawking's book, it was quantum events which allowed him to read it and think about it.
The universe is material, and without physics, one cannot be conscious of it. Without physics nothing would ever touch your awareness. Without physics, even if you somehow could exist, you would be 'dead' and in void - you couldn't even be aware of your own existence.
Why can we not explain consciousness? Perhaps it's because we are conscious. Why can the eye not see itself without a mirror?
We cannot expect people to explain what they don't know, and what they aren't looking for moreover.
Edit: he's also wrong about several ideas. The main one being that consciousness causes collapse - it doesn't. That's a false notion that laymen came up with due to insufficient understanding.
Last edited:
Also there's a serious flaw with his argument about determinism: something being unpleasant does not make it untrue, therefore the idea of pre-crime cannot be used to refute determinism.
I don't see full determinism as a fact, but even if it is, then pre-crime could also be a fact. If it's true, we can't wish it away just because it's unpleasant. If we could do that we'd never have had the plague, polio, starvation and well anything else that you don't want to have. So that argument has a serious problem.
My hypothesis is that base consciousness is in fact deterministic. With base consciousness, what most people experience most of the time, your path probably is determined and predictable. However, base consciousness is not the only kind of consciousness you have. You also have meta consciousness which is at least one level higher.
Meta consciousness is what lets you be conscious of consciousness. It's what lets you see that you have a habit for example. Let's say one has an eating disorder - stress has lead their consciousness to develop behaviors which feel difficult to control, but the meta consciousness is what sees their self doing it, and is what recognizes that it is a problem. Meta consciousness is the navigator which directs the pilot - it can see far ahead and recognize and come up with a strategy to solve problems that the consciousness can't seem to solve for itself.
I don't see full determinism as a fact, but even if it is, then pre-crime could also be a fact. If it's true, we can't wish it away just because it's unpleasant. If we could do that we'd never have had the plague, polio, starvation and well anything else that you don't want to have. So that argument has a serious problem.
My hypothesis is that base consciousness is in fact deterministic. With base consciousness, what most people experience most of the time, your path probably is determined and predictable. However, base consciousness is not the only kind of consciousness you have. You also have meta consciousness which is at least one level higher.
Meta consciousness is what lets you be conscious of consciousness. It's what lets you see that you have a habit for example. Let's say one has an eating disorder - stress has lead their consciousness to develop behaviors which feel difficult to control, but the meta consciousness is what sees their self doing it, and is what recognizes that it is a problem. Meta consciousness is the navigator which directs the pilot - it can see far ahead and recognize and come up with a strategy to solve problems that the consciousness can't seem to solve for itself.
I don't know, there certainly a lot to chew on, lol. I think the narrator raised some credible objections. While I don't entirely agree with him, I do think that there is phenomenon that will forever elude physicists because it cannot be directly observed. We are ultimately limited by our own biology, and while our senses have been extended through the use of sophisticated tools, there are limits to what we can know through physics, as it is by definition concerned with what can be observed. Throughout the history and development of human knowledge, a line has always been drawn between what is natural and what is supernatural. The expansion of knowledge since the advent of the scientific method has redrawn that line countless times, but I think there will always be a line. What is supernatural is simply that which cannot be explained using the laws of physics. However, just because consciousness cannot currently be explained through biology, and by extension through chemistry, and hence, the laws of physics, does not mean that it can never be. It is entirely logical to assume, based on what we do know about the physical universe that neurons create consciousness on their own accord. But, to me, it seems, and I am hardly an expert in physics or neurobiology, that there are unobservable forces that work in conjunction with the known physical universe which gives rise to life and to consciousness. To an observer outside the universe, like say God, these would not be supernatural forces because they are observable according to the observer's perspective. To me, someone focusing solely on the physicality of the universe is missing part of the picture and may not be living as full of a life as a results. This does not mean that religion gets a free pass, as I am far from a religious person, but I think there are spiritual paths that are just much more open than others and it is up to us to find the one that strikes a balance between the physical and the nonphysical.
I want to respond to more of what you have commented on, but unfortunately I've run out of time today. Hopefully, I'll get a chance later
[MENTION=6303]Jimmers[/MENTION]
Right, that's what I think.
If there's an observer outside the universe then the scope of reality contains more than the universe. The observer does not change the nature of the observed.
This is worse than Schrodinger's cat because it's like saying that if I have a vault and nobody else knows what's in it, the contents of the vault is supernatural until it is opened. Maybe it is, who knows, but I think it's a bit absurd, like wondering if the light actually goes off when you close the refrigerator.
Edit:
Also I think a lot of people have it a bit backwards. I don't see what assuming that something is nonphysical does to help anyone. Science has gone well beyond the "it's only there if you can see it" stage, yet many people are still making the antiquated assumption that if you can't see it or know it, it must be non-physical or supernatural.
I believe it is overstating human knowledge and awareness to assume that we've seen the entire natural world and that anything we can't see must be some mystical 'beyond'. People probably thought that the sun and moon were gods, but nope. One's a giant space rock and the other is a giant nuclear reactor.
Right, that's what I think.
If there's an observer outside the universe then the scope of reality contains more than the universe. The observer does not change the nature of the observed.
This is worse than Schrodinger's cat because it's like saying that if I have a vault and nobody else knows what's in it, the contents of the vault is supernatural until it is opened. Maybe it is, who knows, but I think it's a bit absurd, like wondering if the light actually goes off when you close the refrigerator.
Edit:
Also I think a lot of people have it a bit backwards. I don't see what assuming that something is nonphysical does to help anyone. Science has gone well beyond the "it's only there if you can see it" stage, yet many people are still making the antiquated assumption that if you can't see it or know it, it must be non-physical or supernatural.
I believe it is overstating human knowledge and awareness to assume that we've seen the entire natural world and that anything we can't see must be some mystical 'beyond'. People probably thought that the sun and moon were gods, but nope. One's a giant space rock and the other is a giant nuclear reactor.
Last edited:
Also, interestingly the words "scientist" and "physicist" were invented by an Anglican priest (and scientist) - William Whewell.
Whewell believed that natural laws were necessary truths.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/#SciNecTru
Whewell believed that natural laws were necessary truths.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/#SciNecTru
