Richard Dawkins – Subjective Consciousness

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

Richard Dawkins speaks about subjective consciousness. The complete video: www.youtube.com . See also www.youtube.com , or www.charlirose.com.

Comments

enormousforce says:

How does one know pure consciousness? We dont want people to believe this or disbelieve it.. There has to be a way to know for certain.

enormousforce says:

The other thing worth considering, especially nowadays with recent scientific research, is that if we alter our subjectivity, consciously, deliberately alter our thoughts and/or feelings, we can observe objective changes in biological and neurological functioning. … The implications of this alone are quite profound.

enormousforce says:

Subjectivity is predicated on the witnessing consciousness which “pre-dates” sensory perception (body) and mental cognition (thought). But to know this, you will have to “switch off” both the sensory inputs (body) and the mind (thought). If you switch these two inputs off, then you’ll experience what exists when these two variables are removed from your awareness. Theoretically, and from a classical standpoint, you should not be conscious w/o these inputs. Test it and find out for yourself.

itsabomberscope says:

Im really not sure. I suppose you could say DNA builds the machine, but where it drives is up to us? lol

Manny G says:

Part 2. You realize death is not the end. You do not fear death. Death is merely a transition, or a phase. You accomplish things out of love, experience, joy. Love overpowers fear. Love can exist outside of fear. It is a very simple concept, but sadly cannot be accepted by those who are left brain dependent.

Manny G says:

Well this is my opinion. Might take up 2 posts. Belief in matter being ultimate reality makes you do your actions out of fear. It may not seem as fear, but ultimately all your actions stem from fear. You want to accomplish things before you die. You have a deadline. You want to get things done because there is nothing after death. Belief that pure consciousness is ultimate reality makes you do your actions out of love. You realize you do exist outside this physical world.

Manny G says:

Would it be safe to say that it ultimately comes down to dna that determines our “taste” or what we “like” and “dislike”? Or it could be a combination of dna and your own personal past experiences.

joinery11 says:

Deepak, You have no more right than Dawkins to claim that “you know” the truth. Pushing perception may be a necessary thing in your field but you wield your opinion like you have no influence. Many will follow you and will take what you say as gospel. I am concerned that what you pass for wisdom is merely your opinion. If anything were a true fact it would be undeniable to all, and forums like this would have no place as there would be nothing to discuss. Great minds work better together. try it

methinxaweezil says:

Your explanation seems to be stated with a casual air of absolute certainty, but I don’t see how the assumptions you’ve made shed any more light on the subject than Dawkins’ question. Truth itself is old-fashioned, but still valuable, nonetheless. If one is honestly looking for the truth, certainty is probably not the best place to start.

Deepak Chopra says:

Pure consciousness is ultimate reality that makes species specific perceptual experience possible. Pure consciousness is invisible but makes the visible possible. Dawkins believes matter is ultimate reality and hence his atheism .Its very old fashioned

thatsmynamebud1 says:

Omg, this is probably the greatest question i have ever heard. This is truly what defines THINKING. There is os much we as humans cannot grasp and thats what makes this journey fun. We can learn so much yet there is so much we do not know. There are things in between and under and over things that we will never know. I truly believe that we will never know everything because everything cannot be known.

Ropepope says:

Consciousness is making a comeback. Or some sort of balance between idealism and materialism. I wouldn’t call it dualism as both necessarily have to emerge from the same ‘source’. Materialist reductionism will always fail, and it’s really holding us back right now. We can’t just deny consciousness and flee back to the materialist camp. There is no matter as such to begin with, as quantum physicists suggest. I’ve found David Bohms idea on a wholeness of implicate and explicate order fascinating.

pseudogenesis says:

Clearly lol

JulkaWilCZuR says:

“What is it that makes the smell of onions?” Plainly a spiritual question. xP lol

pseudogenesis says:

You attempt to explain an unexplainable phenomenon by using an equally unexplainable abstract concept? Alright. Seems like the easy way out.

Try to remove your head from the arrogance that’s constricting it.

Dan Frederiksen says:

qualia. qualities of experience in consciousness. it cannot be done in a physical system, including biochemistry.
spare me mindless objection. I’m the one who knows. try thinking for once in your life

pseudogenesis says:

Ha, you’re funny. Give me a single way that this video relates to spirituality.

shiz777 says:

Dawkins would probably be in the Dennett camp, consciousness is an illusion. Fortunately almost all the scientific researchers of consciousness hold the opposite opinion, that consciousness exists at the fundamental level of the universe. Dualism making a comeback?

Dan Frederiksen says:

it is the spiritual side of us o stupid Dawkins. a lovely irony given your stupidity

EVLWNS says:

So, sorry again for the delay. Peace out.

EVLWNS says:

Indeed, it tells us that all attempts to make sense of our world and ourselves – even the arguments that reality is subjective – are futile. And that falls flat in the face of scientific accomplishment.

EVLWNS says:

Wow, it’s been a long time. Sorry about that, I’ve had a LOT on my plate, and very little access to the internet. I just saw it, and I can only say that I agree with Matt entirely. The idea that reality is subjective, that “perception determines reality”, is utterly useless, and nonsensical. It’s illogical, and it teaches us nothing.

paulmrussell12 says:

Yes this is the most important questions indeed Mr Dawkins. Until we have answers I will remain agnostic. If you too ponder the same questions about consciousness how can you discount those who call themselves agnostic!

TakeshiAndTheKid says:

Because if it’s mechanical it would have a traditionally predictable cause and effect, a process that reaches that through obvious physical means, etc. You can’t trace the physical process that makes purple purple.

If it’s not mechanical it means there’s something else going on, such as some kind of quantum activity in the brain, which would greatly reshape how we think about consciousness. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem also presents a problem.

camraid9 says:

Does it imply something non mechanical ???? I ask in sincerity, why?….. I would like to know.

TakeshiAndTheKid says:

It’s difficult and it implies something non-mechanical. If anything more fundamental is found about the human consciousness, it’ll be lapped up by the terminally religious so I can understand why it’s a difficult subject.

ThisOneIsTaken says:

@TakeshiAndTheKid
I’m not sure if Dawkins identify his doubts with the hp: technically, the hp is the claim that we lack some “piece” to explain conscious experience; maybe he thinks we already have all the rules we need and we just have to use them correctly. Still, sadly, Dawkins is the exception. I’m an atheist myself and the way many other atheists react to this question is either ignoring them or mounting a strawman.

TakeshiAndTheKid says:

I think it’s interesting because the hard problem of consciousness is one of the things people use against atheism but admits great interest in one of the most important aspects of it. It does go to show that the important feature of science vs. religion is that science can at least admit it doesn’t know everything and there are mysteries still to be solved.

EVLWNS says:

I’ll look at it as soon as I can.

alberstube says:

Hi my friend, if you are interested I had a discussion with Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience on this subject. The episode number is #735. Perhaps you would like to respond to things that were said. Kind regards

EVLWNS says:

I couldn’t read the blog. It didn’t seem to exist. But that’s irrelevent. Science does not rely on people’s perceptions: it tries to remove them as much as possible. What does the speed of a falling object have to do with tastes? What does the charge in a capacitor have to do with preferences? How could multiple independent repititions not get rid of personal bias in a result? If your friend claims otherwise, he is a fool who knows nothing of the scientific method.

alberstube says:

skepticalsayhow.blogspot.com/2010/08/science-subjective-or-objective.html

alberstube says:

Here this is something I just found…” “The first and last paragraph basically state my problem.
It says that science is also subject to our perception.So my debater would say that it is obvious that everyone perceives reality different e.g..Taste/preferences/values and therefore the is just subjectivity and thereby nothing can really be known objectively. It would be a question of consciousness he says

EVLWNS says:

Uh, I thought I did. Could you rephrase your question?

alberstube says:

Thats what I am trying to do and I was asking you to demonstrate the truth of your statement.
Why not answer my question?
Peace to you too

EVLWNS says:

Keep thinking, keep learning. Peace out.

EVLWNS says:

By which I mean that the Laws of Nature have never been seen to be violated by anyone. Physics, the behaviour of this world we perceive, is the same for everyone.

Taking this into account, it is far more reasonable to act and believe as if the world has an indepedent, non-illusiory existence outside of our minds. It is simply a better assumption or estimate, based on how the world looks and behaves.

Write a comment

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.