🧠 Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth

[RE]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lyu7v7nWzfo" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/lyu7v7nWzfo</a>

• Tweet

[Eddie]

Looks good. I have to go, but I'll watch it later. It's 6:30 am on Saturday morning and I have to drive to San Marcos.

 I had school yesterday and I have Saturday school today, but this looks worth watching. I've given this general field of understanding quite a bit of thought over the years. Looking forward to seeing this.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oYp5XuGYqqY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/oYp5XuGYqqY</a>

• Tweet

[Golden Oxen]

Interesting to some folks, but not me.

This stuff will not feed you or your family, solve any of the urgent problems that confront us, there is an awful lot of them.

It only serves to confuse and give excuse for not dealing responsibly with problems we all perceive correctly. Poverty, wars, environmental degradation, corruption, political discourse, evil behavior we all know the list and they are reality to all but the Dim.   

                                 

      Look at the folks sunning on the beach. No problems with this lovely scene. Forgive me if I hallucinate reality. 



                               

                                       The Singing Fish - Joan Miro

• Tweet

[Nearingsfault]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

• Tweet

[Golden Oxen]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being a nuts and bolts man David.

We have all the Academics confusing a nut from a bolt than we need. Reality bores them it appears, while most are forced to deal with it.


                                     

                                           Farming with Oxen in Gambia

                               

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being a nuts and bolts man David.

We have all the Academics confusing a nut from a bolt than we need. Reality bores them it appears, while most are forced to deal with it.

I respectfully disagree. Philosophical, metaphysical and spiritual discussions are necessary in developed "secular" societies, because many people think that science and rationality is all we need to solve the world's problems. Their materialist worldview prevents them from considering a large aspect of human nature, human evolutionary development and human psychology. The "solutions" to poverty, environmental destruction, wars, etc. will treat the most superficial symptoms and not contend with the underlying roots.

In some ways, everything happening in the world becomes more serious when there is an underlying metaphysical reality to contend with, especially one that connects us all (via networks of consciousness perhaps, i.e. Donald Hoffman). The plights of others who are not "physically" connected to us via biology or immediate community still matter, and, more importantly, our actions may actually influence what happens to those people.

That being said, I understand how a purely scientific/philosophical discussion of how we perceive reality is seen as navel gazing and disconnected from the nuts and bolts of what is happening to people around the world. That's why it needs to be supplemented by a discussion and attempts to understand theology, social sciences, economics and politics (the latter much more rarely). An ethic needs to be embodied (made actionable) for us to pragmatically deal with the truths we discover.

• Tweet

[Golden Oxen]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being a nuts and bolts man David.

We have all the Academics confusing a nut from a bolt than we need. Reality bores them it appears, while most are forced to deal with it.

I respectfully disagree. Philosophical, metaphysical and spiritual discussions are necessary in developed "secular" societies, because many people think that science and rationality is all we need to solve the world's problems. Their materialist worldview prevents them from considering a large aspect of human nature, human evolutionary development and human psychology. The "solutions" to poverty, environmental destruction, wars, etc. will treat the most superficial symptoms and not contend with the underlying roots.

In some ways, everything happening in the world becomes more serious when there is an underlying metaphysical reality to contend with, especially one that connects us all (via networks of consciousness perhaps, i.e. Donald Hoffman). The plights of others who are not "physically" connected to us via biology or immediate community still matter, and, more importantly, our actions may actually influence what happens to those people.

That being said, I understand how a purely scientific/philosophical discussion of how we perceive reality is seen as navel gazing and disconnected from the nuts and bolts of what is happening to people around the world. That's why it needs to be supplemented by a discussion and attempts to understand theology, social sciences, economics and politics (the latter much more rarely). An ethic needs to be embodied (made actionable) for us to pragmatically deal with the truths we discover.

No one is denying the need for a spiritual mix or  the needed moral compass to deal with the worlds problems. It's when they become the only avenue that troubles me.

As you point out it's a "developed" country that requires it, meaning to me one where there are plenty of rich comfortable folks who can dwell on the philosophical side of life rather than the every day nitty gritty. How their intellectual discourse solves the most basic of our problems escapes me but one can make the argument they are a required part of the mix.

Discussions about my reality perceptions and other's reality perceptions mixed in with evolution and visual puzzle games is of little value and at best rather confusing rather than providing any clarity IMO.

Materialism is also a very encompassing word. My view is that Materialism is the first order of business. Food, shelter, clothing, providing for dependents before one can indulge in serious philosophical  discussion as well as the luxury of much leisure time to read and study such topics.

• Tweet

[K-Dog]

People who wonder if they exist or not, contemplating the fact that since it appears they are nothing more than the sum total of a giant chemical reaction conclude that therefore that must be all they are; have serious screws loose.  Flee from these people. 

A logical fallacy lurks.  I see no dragons therefore there must be no dragons.  Ooops one just bit me.  That is their false logic but these people never learn from their bites and repeat the same fallacy, forever.

• Tweet

[azozeo]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lyu7v7nWzfo" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/lyu7v7nWzfo</a>

My Instructor is the older woman, Alba. Geraldine is one of my fellow practitioners & is the woman in trance.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONvaOZo_l4A&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ONvaOZo_l4A&fs=1</a>

Enjoy 

• Tweet

[RE]

For those of you interested in more navel gazing, here's a longer vid from Anil.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRel1JKOEbI" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/xRel1JKOEbI</a>

RE

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being a nuts and bolts man David.

We have all the Academics confusing a nut from a bolt than we need. Reality bores them it appears, while most are forced to deal with it.

I respectfully disagree. Philosophical, metaphysical and spiritual discussions are necessary in developed "secular" societies, because many people think that science and rationality is all we need to solve the world's problems. Their materialist worldview prevents them from considering a large aspect of human nature, human evolutionary development and human psychology. The "solutions" to poverty, environmental destruction, wars, etc. will treat the most superficial symptoms and not contend with the underlying roots.

In some ways, everything happening in the world becomes more serious when there is an underlying metaphysical reality to contend with, especially one that connects us all (via networks of consciousness perhaps, i.e. Donald Hoffman). The plights of others who are not "physically" connected to us via biology or immediate community still matter, and, more importantly, our actions may actually influence what happens to those people.

That being said, I understand how a purely scientific/philosophical discussion of how we perceive reality is seen as navel gazing and disconnected from the nuts and bolts of what is happening to people around the world. That's why it needs to be supplemented by a discussion and attempts to understand theology, social sciences, economics and politics (the latter much more rarely). An ethic needs to be embodied (made actionable) for us to pragmatically deal with the truths we discover.

No one is denying the need for a spiritual mix or  the needed moral compass to deal with the worlds problems. It's when they become the only avenue that troubles me.

As you point out it's a "developed" country that requires it, meaning to me one where there are plenty of rich comfortable folks who can dwell on the philosophical side of life rather than the every day nitty gritty. How their intellectual discourse solves the most basic of our problems escapes me but one can make the argument they are a required part of the mix.

Discussions about my reality perceptions and other's reality perceptions mixed in with evolution and visual puzzle games is of little value and at best rather confusing rather than providing any clarity IMO.

Materialism is also a very encompassing word. My view is that Materialism is the first order of business. Food, shelter, clothing, providing for dependents before one can indulge in serious philosophical  discussion as well as the luxury of much leisure time to read and study such topics.

The necessary and ethical pursuit of personal and family survival (i.e. the Darwinian model) shouldn't be confused with materialist philosophy, which says that space-time, matter and energy is all that exists and all that we need to study to make sense of the world (i.e. the Newtonian model).

Anil Seth seems to be doing some interesting research on conscious phenomenon, but he is still stuck in a materialist framework, where consciousness must be the byproduct of complex nuerochemical mechanisms. But it seems that even he has given up on discovering such mechanisms, because they simply don't exist.

Hoffman, in stark contrast, posits that consciousness is fundamental, and the "material world" is an adaptive interface used by various conscious agents to navigate reality (whatever that is) and survive/reproduce. He is currently attempting to test his hypothesis using mathematical models.

At the very least, these fields of research show us just how little we know about what is "real" and "true" in this world. It should humble us to know that our conscious perceptions are only accurate enough to help us survive, which is not very accurate for humans. Once that is accepted, ideologically driven "solutions" to our problems are exposed as misguided and wholly inadequate.

• Tweet

[Eddie]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lyu7v7nWzfo" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/lyu7v7nWzfo</a>

My Instructor is the older woman, Alba. Geraldine is one of my fellow practitioners & is the woman in trance.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONvaOZo_l4A&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ONvaOZo_l4A&fs=1</a>

Enjoy 

I watched it. It gives one hope to think that maybe whatever that lady is channeling is the real deal.

That is the promise, that we all have all the time we need to get where we need to get, and that we all will get there eventually.

Thanks for  sharing that.

• Tweet

[Golden Oxen]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being a nuts and bolts man David.

We have all the Academics confusing a nut from a bolt than we need. Reality bores them it appears, while most are forced to deal with it.

I respectfully disagree. Philosophical, metaphysical and spiritual discussions are necessary in developed "secular" societies, because many people think that science and rationality is all we need to solve the world's problems. Their materialist worldview prevents them from considering a large aspect of human nature, human evolutionary development and human psychology. The "solutions" to poverty, environmental destruction, wars, etc. will treat the most superficial symptoms and not contend with the underlying roots.

In some ways, everything happening in the world becomes more serious when there is an underlying metaphysical reality to contend with, especially one that connects us all (via networks of consciousness perhaps, i.e. Donald Hoffman). The plights of others who are not "physically" connected to us via biology or immediate community still matter, and, more importantly, our actions may actually influence what happens to those people.

That being said, I understand how a purely scientific/philosophical discussion of how we perceive reality is seen as navel gazing and disconnected from the nuts and bolts of what is happening to people around the world. That's why it needs to be supplemented by a discussion and attempts to understand theology, social sciences, economics and politics (the latter much more rarely). An ethic needs to be embodied (made actionable) for us to pragmatically deal with the truths we discover.

No one is denying the need for a spiritual mix or  the needed moral compass to deal with the worlds problems. It's when they become the only avenue that troubles me.

As you point out it's a "developed" country that requires it, meaning to me one where there are plenty of rich comfortable folks who can dwell on the philosophical side of life rather than the every day nitty gritty. How their intellectual discourse solves the most basic of our problems escapes me but one can make the argument they are a required part of the mix.

Discussions about my reality perceptions and other's reality perceptions mixed in with evolution and visual puzzle games is of little value and at best rather confusing rather than providing any clarity IMO.

Materialism is also a very encompassing word. My view is that Materialism is the first order of business. Food, shelter, clothing, providing for dependents before one can indulge in serious philosophical  discussion as well as the luxury of much leisure time to read and study such topics.

The necessary and ethical pursuit of personal and family survival (i.e. the Darwinian model) shouldn't be confused with materialist philosophy, which says that space-time, matter and energy is all that exists and all that we need to study to make sense of the world (i.e. the Newtonian model).

Anil Seth seems to be doing some interesting research on conscious phenomenon, but he is still stuck in a materialist framework, where consciousness must be the byproduct of complex nuerochemical mechanisms. But it seems that even he has given up on discovering such mechanisms, because they simply don't exist.

Hoffman, in stark contrast, posits that consciousness is fundamental, and the "material world" is an adaptive interface used by various conscious agents to navigate reality (whatever that is) and survive/reproduce. He is currently attempting to test his hypothesis using mathematical models.

At the very least, these fields of research show us just how little we know about what is "real" and "true" in this world. It should humble us to know that our conscious perceptions are only accurate enough to help us survive, which is not very accurate for humans. Once that is accepted, ideologically driven "solutions" to our problems are exposed as misguided and wholly inadequate.

Thanks Ash, I wasn't aware as usual.   Highlighted are all that is understood but they are enough.

Wish I was behind you in the line where they were handing out brains.

Thanks again for teaching me something important.                                             Regards, GO

• Tweet

[Eddie]

I would strongly suggest watching the video at 1.5 times regular speed. It changes it from typical ted talk happy showman to more of a raw standup.  Interesting topic and it mirrors my own beliefs in consciousness.  I tend to agree with GO about its ultimate utility. I'm too much of a nuts and bolts person I suppose.

Nothing wrong with being a nuts and bolts man David.

We have all the Academics confusing a nut from a bolt than we need. Reality bores them it appears, while most are forced to deal with it.

I respectfully disagree. Philosophical, metaphysical and spiritual discussions are necessary in developed "secular" societies, because many people think that science and rationality is all we need to solve the world's problems. Their materialist worldview prevents them from considering a large aspect of human nature, human evolutionary development and human psychology. The "solutions" to poverty, environmental destruction, wars, etc. will treat the most superficial symptoms and not contend with the underlying roots.

In some ways, everything happening in the world becomes more serious when there is an underlying metaphysical reality to contend with, especially one that connects us all (via networks of consciousness perhaps, i.e. Donald Hoffman). The plights of others who are not "physically" connected to us via biology or immediate community still matter, and, more importantly, our actions may actually influence what happens to those people.

That being said, I understand how a purely scientific/philosophical discussion of how we perceive reality is seen as navel gazing and disconnected from the nuts and bolts of what is happening to people around the world. That's why it needs to be supplemented by a discussion and attempts to understand theology, social sciences, economics and politics (the latter much more rarely). An ethic needs to be embodied (made actionable) for us to pragmatically deal with the truths we discover.

No one is denying the need for a spiritual mix or  the needed moral compass to deal with the worlds problems. It's when they become the only avenue that troubles me.

As you point out it's a "developed" country that requires it, meaning to me one where there are plenty of rich comfortable folks who can dwell on the philosophical side of life rather than the every day nitty gritty. How their intellectual discourse solves the most basic of our problems escapes me but one can make the argument they are a required part of the mix.

Discussions about my reality perceptions and other's reality perceptions mixed in with evolution and visual puzzle games is of little value and at best rather confusing rather than providing any clarity IMO.

Materialism is also a very encompassing word. My view is that Materialism is the first order of business. Food, shelter, clothing, providing for dependents before one can indulge in serious philosophical  discussion as well as the luxury of much leisure time to read and study such topics.

The necessary and ethical pursuit of personal and family survival (i.e. the Darwinian model) shouldn't be confused with materialist philosophy, which says that space-time, matter and energy is all that exists and all that we need to study to make sense of the world (i.e. the Newtonian model).

Anil Seth seems to be doing some interesting research on conscious phenomenon, but he is still stuck in a materialist framework, where consciousness must be the byproduct of complex nuerochemical mechanisms. But it seems that even he has given up on discovering such mechanisms, because they simply don't exist.

Hoffman, in stark contrast, posits that consciousness is fundamental, and the "material world" is an adaptive interface used by various conscious agents to navigate reality (whatever that is) and survive/reproduce. He is currently attempting to test his hypothesis using mathematical models.

At the very least, these fields of research show us just how little we know about what is "real" and "true" in this world. It should humble us to know that our conscious perceptions are only accurate enough to help us survive, which is not very accurate for humans. Once that is accepted, ideologically driven "solutions" to our problems are exposed as misguided and wholly inadequate.

Do you see how we've come almost full circle here, back to the day when Ka was trying to help me get my mind around Owen Barfield?

This looks suspiciously like the same paradox.

• Tweet