The consciousness of the Universe[i]

In this short video, Rupert Sheldrake criticizes the mind´s concept of the materialism and defends a kind of universal consciousness, but in layers.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn starts saying that the brain scientists, like neurophysiologists and neuroscientists are materialists and they are argue that consciousness is a (purely) product of the human brain (driven from the physical world).
Sheldrake answers asking how this is possible... would the consciousness come from nowhere? This sounds unconvincing for him and, more than that, this way we would live in a world strictly physical and without free will. It is a bizarre philosophy, in his words.
For Sheldrake consciousness is involved in choice and, as a matter of fact, it is a tiny part of all our unconsciousness processes (the vast majority of what we do). So, consciousness enables different possibilities to be handled together.
Rupert believes that every system in the nature that has possibilities and is not fixed can have consciousness, even the sun or galaxies. If as the materialists say that consciousness emerges from the brain (electrons) why it cannot emerge in the sun as well? If the sun has a mind why not the other stars?
For him, there are different kind of consciousness, one of the Chinese people, another of Americans, other of the sun and another of the earth. Maybe the entire universe has a mind, maybe the molecules have mind. Nature is nested, why consciousness is not?
In his opinion, the connection between brain and consciousness by an electrical way is a pretty good candidate of explanation, even though there are plenty of papers wrote by philosophers discussing on this. But we have electrical compounds in our body, in the starts and also in the plasma. If they are the principle, so every physical body with electrical compounds can have a mind.


[i] A short commentary on the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46kgmgI9fPs. Accessed in Mar, 3rd. “Rupert Sheldrake - Is Consciousness Fundamental?”
Location: Rua Henrique Schaumann - Pinheiros, São Paulo - SP, Brazil

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will and determinism*

          According to SoL (School of Life), the debate between free will and determinism has been crossing the Philosophy History since the beginning until our time reaching even the neuroscientists. It concerns about whether the human being is able to dominate their actions by themselves or they are determined by forces beyond their control, like fate and politics. SoL argues that the long running arguments in favor or against both sides are not conclusive because they are based on objective variables when they should be thought as what is relevant to me (to me… to me?). Also, they vary from person to person guided by two psychological aspects: defeatism and aspiration.           Does the course of our life belong to the others, like our parents, bosses and so on or can we change our life and our relationships based on our strenght and free will? The second should be even better but more difficult, of course. So moving far from the o...
Read more

The soul is just a function*

Image
Putman talks about the contribution of Computer Science to Philosophy of Mind in terms of thinking the mind as a kind of function rather than physical or chemistry. He says that the rise of computers could result in everything being explained in terms of machines but the paradox is that it didn´t contribute for this kind of reductionism . Generally, according to Putman, when we work with computer we think in its programs, instructions, rules, etc., and we ignore the hardware. Ironically, he says that there is an emergency (not violating the laws of physics) where we work in a high level of the organization, in the program level. So we can think in the mind the same way: instead of thinking we are spirit inboded would be better think in the relation between the mind and the body in terms of functions. * Short digest of short interisting vídeo: https://youtu.be/m0YIm8p30aU . Acessed in Jan, 28 th . Hilary Putnam on Functionalism.
Read more

Eudaimonia*

SoL (School of Life) worked with the eudaimonia concept in this video: a word that comes from Plato and Aristotle. Basically, SoL compares eudaimonia with a contemporaneous word - happiness - saying that the ancient philosophers didn’t propose us to have a happy life. The purpose of our life is not avoid suffering or be unhappy – the way the word is used today, but overcome the daily and simple challenges that come every day under pressure. For SoL, eudaimonia should be associated with the word fulfilment that is distinguished by happiness by pain. So, the word eudaimonia is able to accommodate happy and unhappy and, instead of pursuing a pain free existence, we need to go further and we can make the difference. In short terms, we need to do what is really important more than to smile all the time. Follows eudaimonia recommendation means that we can spend our whole life fighting in our job, relationship and political engagement but finishing our days feeling these tasks wer...
Read more