Susan Blackmore: The Mystery of Consciousness

Проф. Сюзън Блекмор е писател с дългогодишен опит в представянето и промотирането на науката. Нейната работа засяга различни теми, свързани с психологията, като мемите, съзнанието, свободната воля, медитацията. Автор е на повече от 60 академични статии, спомогнала е за написването на над 80 книги и е основен автор на 14.

По време на Ratio проф. Блекмор представи темата за човешкото съзнание. Нейните изследвания в тази сфера разглеждат съзнанието от различни гледни точки: от неврологията и психологията през квантовата теория до източната философия. Темата на презентацията й включва отговор на въпросите как от стандартни мозъчни процеси се пораждат субективни изживявания, какво представляват понятията за съзнателно и подсъзнателно, как възприемаме света около нас и дали имаме свободна воля.

[nimim.markomikkila]

Sue: "It would be stupid think otherwise... that would be incomprehensible for science..."
Sounds like some very strong metaphysical assumptions, that something which is at the present moment is incomprehensible to science cannot be. Just a notion:)

With all due respect, Sue confuses some concepts in the field of her expertise: is not a synonym for mindful-consciousness. So, yes, You are there already before you pop the question "Am i conscious?" Some more zazen might reveal that, I hope:)

And us having illusions doesn´t mean  - cannot mean - that the sense of existence, of being aware, the feeling of I AM is an illusion: I am aware, therefore I am.
But, yes, I cannot be sure about anything "out there" - is it really real?.

Sue: "It´s all a big illusion... This sorta like feeling that I´m in here... This feeling I am having a stream of conscious experiences? I am controlling the world! It´s all not true!"
Here´s another grand confusion with concepts and phenomenons - those are not all equivalent:
I´m in here as a personality is an illusion, BUT I am this awareness is not. When we say "I" or "I am" we fundamentally refer to our most intimate sense of existence, which cannot be denied, BUT what it´s nature is, is a different question, like say, am I in here in this body? So, we usually are deluded, thinking we are a certain personality.
"This feeling I am having a stream of conscious experiences" is synonomous to THE ever present awareness, that cannot be denied. I am aware moment to moment - even in sleep.
But, no, it does´t mean that you control the world, that´s a whole other "ball game"; even controlling your own experience of the world. BUT, make no mistake, you are "the one" that is aware of any experience you have - illusory or not.
Conclusion: Plato, with his cave-metaphor was more "on the ball", than most of the present day western philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists. (Even if they have practiced zen, apparently.)

[thewiseturtle]

The best definition of consciousness I've found is that it's an individual that has a model/representation of reality inside itself.

The more complex (multidimensional) the model an individual is capable of making of reality, the more conscious it is.

We start with simple matter, with only the ability to model it's own state, right now (a 0D model). (Most wouldn't call that consciousness, but it's more useful to say it's the most minimal level of conscious possible. There are things that do NOT even have that level of consciousness, and those are things that we call "imaginary", or "fictional", or "concepts").

By the time we get up to us animals, especially the primates (and whales, and some birds), we get a complex ability to model reality in 3 or even 4 dimensions at once. For example, in one moment, in my brain, I can be aware of (model) my own state and my own goal state, (1D), as well as YOUR current and goal states (2D), and the current and goal state of some other individual/group (such as "YouTube") (3D), AND, if I'm lucky, I can even be aware of how all of these things might change over time (4D). (But all this takes a huge amount of energy to process in the brain, so most of the time us humans are only thinking in 1D, 2D or maybe 3D.)

[anduinxbym]

I see no reason to believe the physicalist idea that consciousness is a magically emergent property of non-conscious "stuff". By Occam's Razor, the idea that mind is fundamental is the more parsimonious position.

[hsitasamrahs]

Really Beautiful and Excellent in all aspects... thanks 🙏 Dr. Sharma, Mumbai India

[GeorgeTsiros]

it is _theoretically possible_ to open a fridge door quickly enough, _if_ the mechanism that controls the light is spring loaded. However, the door would need to be accelerated so violently it would most certainly just snap in half.

[peterlemer]

the 'illusion' cube illustration would be improved by adding the missing cube edges.

[zedrikdaheretik]

OK. I'm missing her point. What's her point?

[johnjacobs]

John Lennox: How Math and Science Point to God / Kirk Cameron on TBN

[tjssailor]

Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question.

What is the principled explanation for why:

A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?

Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?

Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?

Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?

A clump of conscious atoms over here would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?

Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.

[sidious]

For folks with an open mind, there is a really good channel on YouTube for an alternative look at this material. It's called Afterlife Topics And Metaphysics 😁😁

[philpreston]

There is NON duality! NOT duality. There is no seperation. This is dillusion. The world is a dream from within. There is no physical world out their. Use all the math, you like. You'll never find it - because your doing your math, from within a dream.

[zebonautsmith]

who is inside the man in the cartesian chair?

[victorjcano]

I think the definition of conscienness needs be defined before you can ask such a question.

[onefilter]

Consciousness is the intrinsic knowledge of what it happens. For example, a plant, a thermostat a young baby have no consciousness, because they simply react to the environment or act instinctively. Humans or even rats have the ability to expect / have conscience of what is happening. This could also be applied by conscious A.I and unconscious A.I.
The only possible way to gain consciousness is having about the physical world(outer environment)

[senecaaurel]

I realy Like her but she Talks Most of the time about perseption and Not about concesnes. It is still intersting but she missed the target, i would say.

[lnbartstudio]

I'm pretty sure that she could have resisted that hair. I'm certain that there is no reason to listen to this robot.

[thomasfisher]

SUSAN YOU CAN'T POSE LIKE THAT!!!

[Aluminata]

She cannot see her audience - but she knows they are pre-schoolers.

[Brian.]

I'm appalled and astonished at what gets people some attention. Chalmers' 'hard problem' is a joke. There is no virtue in coming up with such an obvious label. Nevertheless it has been vigorously promoted as if it were some sort of super-insightful flash of terminological enlightenment. Dan Dennett is equally eager to point out that several years before this HE came up with 'the hard question'. Who cares? Most of us are interested in the philosophy.

[eddserrano]

Everybody have it’s way of making easy money. The beauty of capitalism.