John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousness 1 of 2
December 28th, 2009
John Hagelin, Ph.D ON Consciousness & Superstring Unified Field Theory, How is knowledge lost and The Observor
Duration : 0:10:28
25 Responses to “John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousness 1 of 2”
Leave a Reply
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
and what do you …
and what do you mean when you say: don’t think in objective terms? Can you say that with different words?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 he …
@moegreen2 he already did. your just taking one possible set of meanings. I have been trying to encourage you to think about other alternative ideas. see Hinduism and Buddhism, particularly the concept of “Atman” as well as the bundle theory of the self and you will start to scratch the surface.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
what does he mean …
what does he mean when he says trying involves effort??
this is a very important point imo
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
ummmm so does this …
ummmm so does this mean science has discovered God?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
that means dont …
that means dont think in subjective terms
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
this person is dumb …
this person is dumb, there is no such thing as physics of consciousness ( be aware ), you and I can be certain about something else which isnt you or I, but you and I certainly different at neuronal level, even at base programs senses when we borns, single field of universe is out of logic, the atomic particals, sub partical exists with reason to others,proton+neutron+electron makes one atom, changeing in it changes the particles – he/she lost the grasp of the subjects, its going all philosohica
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
son of a preach
son of a preach
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
John must be a …
John must be a reincarnated yogi he is amazing thank you
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
It is never what …
It is never what you think it is
Being is
Om Tat Sat
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
my god, this is an …
my god, this is an amazing video
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 they …
@moegreen2 they have solved it, or at least they are arguing that they have solved it, to sound less arrogant, because, there no exists the dilemma of how unconscious objects (matter) in an ensemble (the brain) become consciousness. your question is what is consciousness? try to understand what it means to be a subject without interpreting that with a reductionism. stop looking to “causes” of your consciousnesses being and investigate it as it is.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@ex0gen They have …
@ex0gen They have only put the problem a step back, instead of explaining consiousness they say everything is built up from it. That is not solving consiousness. They only hide it. Can you tell me how they have solved it, or am I right?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 again …
@moegreen2 again you have to understand these terms and be able to understand a different outlook before you will be in a position to reason about it. according to modern physics determinism is false. according to the philosophical interpretation in this film, it is false also. also they haven’t inverted the mind body problem, they have dissolved it.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
yes, in other words …
yes, in other words, it is philosophy. I dident see that it was a mixture of philosophy and science at first. I would say you have only inverted the mind body problem. Why is not everything consiouss at this level? Or are they claiming a rock can think? And how can they get predictibility too act so deterministic?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 think of …
@moegreen2 think of it like this. what is it like to “be” a partial? how about a wave? what about a mass of partials waving? what is it like to be these things? how is it that the brain “is” consciousness? not that it has consciousness but is? what does it mean to be “I”? are you your thoughts? as for acausation and freedom of will. see D.c. Dennit “on giving libertarians what they want”.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
this guy puts …
this guy puts richard dawkins to shame
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Anyone that says ” …
Anyone that says “String Theory is made up and has no validity” is someone I already could care less to listen to. It seems his mind is already made up. But String Theory is relatively new, so what’s with the 1500s connection? To say that String Theory is mere inference or what?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 or what …
@moegreen2 or what you take to be vague is something you don’t understand.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
lol, pure abstract …
lol, pure abstract potential beeing, self aware consiouss, that vibrates. I would say that what is random, we have not understood. This man apply rationality and logic too something he don’t understand. Why cant he accept that we don’t understand everything yet. I think Dr. V.S. Ramachandran are much closer too explaining consiousness. And the vuage language hints at the amount of knowledge.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@AndyO1987 You tube …
@AndyO1987 You tube>> In lak’ech – I am Another Yourself ,, and the rest will fall into place once you know how the atom reacts to ones emotional Consciousness through the eyes of the observer .
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 because …
@moegreen2 because talking about objects will never get you to consciousness or meaning. it seams vague to you because you are thinking in objective terms.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@ex0gen if you …
@ex0gen if you understands it in other than vague words, maybe you could explain it better? How does he get from string theory too consioussness?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Sure, I think in …
Sure, I think in objective terms, but your other points are debatable. Does 2+2 give meaning too a calculator? Well, I would say it gives the same meaning we have of it. And I think we work in that way. Another point he made was that free will is not compatible with determinism, another thing I would say is false (depending on the definition ofc). If you define free will as rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices, it can be deterministic.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@moegreen2 he never …
@moegreen2 he never said anything on determinism. and yes determinism is compatible or not depending on how you define it which means compatiblism is false being that it assumes one definition. but this is beyond that. I’m saying if you stop thinking in “objective terms” then what he is saying becomes no longer vague.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
You are right, he …
You are right, he dident say anything about it in this video, I guess it was the other one I watched. I have no problem with string theory, only the assumption he makes from it. Every pice of philosophy is just a jump too an conclution.
Like vectors in space and vibration is pure consiousness. When he can not say what consiousness is, he can not say that vectors that we can not determine, is just that. Randomness does not give you free will. How can he make that conclution? It is just a jump?