Is Consciousness a Miracle? feat. Hamza Tzortzis | Thought Adventure Podcast #5 (2021-03-14) ​

## Description

00:00 Introduction and Arguments

• Guests - 1:02:00 - Elmo (Christian) 1:14:45 - Muzzy (Muslim) 1:21:27 - Adnan (Muslim) 1:29:26 - Karan Tushar (Atheist) 1:47:15 - Sultan Mirza (Muslim) 1:53:32 - Mo El (Muslim) 2:04:20 - Momo (Muslim) 2:11:31 - Adam

• Summary -

2:29:40 Final Thoughts

Special Guest:

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis https://twitter.com/HATzortzis

Thought Adventure Support ◄ PayPal - https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6KZWK75RB23RN ◄ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ThoughtAdventurePodcast/join ◄ PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/thoughtadventurepodcast

---

Thought Adventure Social Media ◄ Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_A_Podcast​​ ◄ Clubhouse https://www.clubhouse.com/club/thought-adventure-podcast ◄ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7x4UVfTz9QX8KVdEXquDUC ◄ Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast ◄ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast​

---

The Hosts: ----------------------| Jake Brancatella, The Muslim Metaphysician

• Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcGQRfTPNyHlXMqckvz2uqQ
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/MMetaphysician​​

----------------------|

Yusuf Ponders, The Pondering Soul

• Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsiDDxy0JXLqM6HBA0MA4NA
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/YusufPonders​​
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/yusufponders​

----------------------|

Sharif

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/sharifhafezi​​

----------------------|

Abdulrahman

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/abdul_now​

----------------------|

Admin

Riyad Gmail: hello.tapodcast@gmail.com

miracle #consciousness #islam ​

Summary of Is Consciousness a Miracle? feat. Hamza Tzortzis | Thought Adventure Podcast #5 ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

Hamza Tzortzis discusses the hard problem of consciousness, which is the question of what it's like to be in a subjective conscious experience. He explains that while it is a first person fact, no one can deny that they are aware of their own awareness or that they are undergoing or experiencing a form of phenomenal consciousness. Tzortzis argues that consciousness is a miracle, and that materialism cannot account for the existence of qualia.

00:00:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the hard problem of consciousness, which is the question of what it's like to be in a subjective conscious experience. He explains that while it is a first person fact, no one can deny that they are aware of their own awareness or that they are undergoing or experiencing a form of phenomenal consciousness.

• 00:05:00 Discusses the epistemic gap between scientists and those who believe in consciousness, and looks at how neurobiology might help bridge that gap. It argues that physicalism, the philosophical position that consciousness is nothing more than physical processes, is the correct philosophy of the mind to understand the reality of consciousness.
• 00:10:00 The presenter discusses the argument that consciousness cannot be understood through neuroscience because physicalist assumptions are used. He then talks about reductive materialism and eliminative materialism, two different approaches to the problem of consciousness. He says that consciousness cannot be explained without admitting an inner subjective experience, and concludes that consciousness is not necessary for physical phenomena.
• 00:15:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the problems with materialism and consciousness, and provides different responses to those problems from a physicalist perspective. He then goes over some of the issues with each of those responses.
• 00:20:00 Discusses the philosophical question of whether consciousness can be explained by materialism. Brother Sharif discusses how there are two problems with trying to explain consciousness in this way. The first problem is that there is no language or descriptive way to explain consciousness to someone who has never experienced it. The second problem is that even if scientists were able to point to specific neurons in the brain that are responsible for consciousness, it is still an experience that is first person subjective.
• 00:25:00 , Brother Sharif discusses the in-principle problem that materialists face when trying to explain consciousness. He says that consciousness is a first-person perspective, which makes it impossible to reduce it to the physical. This poses a problem for naturalism, as it requires a radical paradigm shift in the way that science is currently understood.
• 00:30:00 Thomas Nagle, an atheist philosopher, discusses the problem of intentionality, which is the difficulty of explaining how the neurons in the brain could be intrinsically about things outside of the brain. He argues that on a materialist worldview, you can't even think about anything.
• 00:35:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the hard problem of consciousness, which is the problem of explaining how thought relates to physical reality. He argues that, on a materialist perspective, consciousness cannot ground intentionality, which in turn means that knowledge cannot be grounded on materialism. He says that this problem has significant implications for the philosophy of mind.
• 00:40:00 Discusses the problem of explaining consciousness in terms of physical properties and mental properties. Brother Hamza Tzortzis argues that consciousness is a miracle, and that materialism cannot account for the existence of qualia.
• 00:45:00 Hamza Tzortzis and Jake Chapman discuss the various arguments for and against the existence of consciousness. They discuss the concepts of eliminative materialism, reductive materialism, panpsychism, and Professor Johnson's Chinese Room Argument, among others. They conclude by discussing the possibility of artificial intelligence being conscious.
• 00:50:00 Hamza Tzortzis, a philosopher, discusses how consciousness can be seen as a miracle by naturalists, and how this causes problems for theism. He also asks brother Hamza a question.
• 00:55:00 Discusses the concept of consciousness, and argues that consciousness can be explained by the way the brain works. It suggests that an integrated dualism, which sees the physical and non-physical as existing together, makes sense under theism. Prof. Hamza Tzortzis also discusses how skepticism could undermine claims about religion and other matters.

01:00:00-02:00:00 ​

Hamza Tzortzis discusses consciousness and how it cannot be explained by physical means. He also discusses how the Islamic conception of panpsychism is incompatible with the idea of a unified conscious experience.

01:00:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the difficulties of understanding consciousness, and how a materialist view would imply that it cannot be explained. He also discusses the idea of "integrated dualism," which posits that consciousness is a product of the interaction of matter and mind. He ends the video by discussing the need for a metaphysical stopping point that makes sense of reality.

• 01:05:00 Discusses the different aspects of consciousness, focusing on the idea that computers are not capable of thinking or experiencing meaning as humans do. One argument against this is that computers can learn to do complex tasks based on their syntactical arrangements, but without the accompanying semantic understanding.
• 01:10:00 Professor John, who is on a plane, discusses the Chinese Normal Experiment and how it differs from the "weak AI" debate. He also talks about the system's reply and how it doesn't prove that consciousness is physical. Finally, Mazzy from Thought Adventure Podcast 5 shares her thoughts on conjoined twins and whether or not their individualistic wills remain despite their motor functions being controlled by their brains.
• 01:15:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses consciousness and how it is not reliant on physicality. He also discusses how neurocardiology is a newer field that is evidence that the heart has its own brain. Finally, he mentions a Hadith that suggests the stomach sometimes lies.
• 01:20:00 The discussion about consciousness in Islam revolves around the concept of fitra, or innate tendencies that humans have. Some believe that it refers to the desire to worship one God, while others say it is the mind's ability to make thinking processes. Adnan asks what the Islamic definition of consciousness is, and Salaam alaikum replies that it is something that can be ascertained through rational evidence.
• 01:25:00 Brother Hamza Tzortzis responds to a caller who asks if consciousness is a miracle. He argues that consciousness is assumed throughout the Quran and Sunnah, and that it is not something that can be known in detail.
• 01:30:00 The heart problem of consciousness is the problem of experience, or "who experienced the blankness?" David Chalmers explains that this problem is based on two questions, "what is it like for me to have a particular conscious experience," and "what is it like for you to have a particular conscious experience?" Science has been unable to answer either question satisfactorily, which is why the hard problem of consciousness exists.
• 01:35:00 Hamza Tzortzis talks about the problem of consciousness and how it is difficult to understand. He says that there are two parts to the problem- one is qualia (experiences), and the other is how physical matter produces consciousness. He says that the problem can be reduced to the neurons alone, and that it is very simple to understand.
• 01:40:00 The "hard problem of consciousness" is a problem for materialism, as it cannot prove that there are any neurons that experience emptiness.
• 01:45:00 Discusses the problem of consciousness and how it is not explainable by physical means, which leads to the conclusion that consciousness must be caused by a creator. The brothers discuss this further and come to the conclusion that this creator must be conscious.
• 01:50:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the pros and cons of the idea that consciousness is a miracle, arguing that it fits more naturally with a theistic worldview.
• 01:55:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the Islamic conception of panpsychism, which is the view that everything has some form of proto-consciousness. He argues that this conception is incompatible with the idea of a unified conscious experience, as individual parts of a whole cannot have individual conscious experiences.

02:00:00 ​

Hamza Tzortzis discusses the philosophical issue of consciousness and how it cannot be explained by Neuroscience or Materialism. He argues that panpsychism, or the belief that everything has some level of consciousness, is a better way to account for the existence of consciousness than materialism. He also mentions that even atheist philosophers agree with panpsychism in order to avoid the problem of having to believe in a separate deity.

02:00:00 Discusses the various narrations regarding consciousness and how they each could be interpreted. He goes on to say that while the issue of individual consciousness is philosophically insignificant, the idea of a unified consciousness across all things is still a part of Islam.

• 02:05:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the conception of panpsychism, which he defines as the idea that individual atoms have a form of consciousness. He argues that this is one of the problems of panpsychism, as it makes it difficult to understand a unified conscious experience.
• 02:10:00 The podcast features a discussion between four Muslims concerning the relationship between belief in determinism and consciousness. While determinism technically states that everything in the universe is independent and necessary, it is often confused with metaphysical necessity, which is a requirement that something exist in order to bring about its own effects. Adam, one of the guests, discusses how determinism and consciousness are related and how it might be difficult for some people to understand.
• 02:15:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses determinism and metaphysical necessity. He argues that determinism does not mean that everything is necessary, but that there is no other option for the chain of cause and effect.
• 02:20:00 Hamza Tzortzis argues that consciousness is not a miracle and is contingently necessary, but not metaphysically necessary.
• 02:25:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the concept of consciousness and how it is a brute fact that humans must accept. He argues that panpsychism, or the belief that everything has some level of consciousness, is a better way to account for the existence of consciousness than materialism. He says that even atheist philosophers agree with panpsychism in order to avoid the problem of having to believe in a separate deity.
• 02:30:00 Discusses the philosophical issue of consciousness, and argues that it cannot be explained by Neuroscience or Materialism. Hamza Tzortzis makes his final comments on the discussion.
• 02:35:00 Hamza Tzortzis discusses the argument from reason and how it relates to consciousness. He also mentions that he would like to do a different stream on the topic, focusing on arguments from reason and determinism.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:07 i am0:00:31 assalamualaikum everyone welcome back0:00:34 to the thought adventure podcast and0:00:36 today we have a special episode this is0:00:39 episode number five here on the podcast0:00:42 uh today we're going to be discussing if0:00:45 consciousness0:00:46 is a miracle now it's a little bit0:00:48 tongue-in-cheek0:00:49 um but the main thrust of what we're0:00:51 going to be talking about0:00:52 is whether or not consciousness can be0:00:55 grounded0:00:56 on materialism and so we're going to0:00:59 intro the topic give our thoughts on0:01:02 answering that question0:01:03 um and then we will eventually make it0:01:06 to the audience0:01:07 to where you guys can call in and give0:01:09 us your thoughts and comments on it uh0:01:12 we especially would like to hear from0:01:13 atheists or materialist because we want0:01:17 to hear what you guys0:01:18 have to say about this he's mainly going0:01:20 to be addressing0:01:21 the naturalists here in the audience but0:01:24 i do want to point out that we've got a0:01:26 special guest on our panel today his0:01:28 brother hamza0:01:29 uh he's nice enough to bless us with his0:01:32 presence and join us0:01:33 um he's got a little bit of an expertise0:01:36 on the matter because0:01:37 he's done his master's on consciousness0:01:39 so0:01:40 we do want to hear his thoughts and uh0:01:43 brother hamza if you want to start off0:01:45 by just0:01:45 addressing the audience maybe uh most0:01:48 people here i'm sure already know who0:01:50 you are but if you want to just explain0:01:52 a little bit of your background um in0:01:54 the field because you've done a masters0:01:56 on0:01:56 and then answer the question as to0:01:59 whether or not you think0:02:01 consciousness can actually be grounded0:02:03 on materialism or not0:02:06 okay good thanks for the introduction0:02:08 jake well i bless you all0:02:09 just ask me for the opportunity0:02:13 well my name is hamza and uh0:02:16 i wrote a book called the divine reality0:02:19 and0:02:20 i did an m.a in philosophy0:02:24 my dissertation was on the heart problem0:02:26 of consciousness0:02:27 and other bits and pieces and i'm0:02:30 continuing my postgraduate research at0:02:32 the university of london0:02:33 and i have a particularly interesting0:02:35 consciousness because0:02:37 i had a bit of an issue when i was i was0:02:39 around i don't know maybe 11 or 12 years0:02:41 old0:02:42 i had this kind of existential crisis0:02:46 not from the point of view of meaning or0:02:47 the point of view of0:02:49 um you know purpose and life it was more0:02:53 on it was more a form of solipsism which0:02:56 was0:02:57 i had a realization just dawned on me0:03:00 that0:03:01 i was the only one aware of my own0:03:03 conscious awareness0:03:05 and i wasn't aware of other people's0:03:07 conscious awareness0:03:08 at the same time that i'm aware of my0:03:10 own awareness0:03:11 [Laughter]0:03:14 that might be confusing but that was0:03:16 extremely lonely0:03:18 it just dawned on me it was such a0:03:19 lonely thing0:03:21 that i i think i started crying i'll get0:03:23 slightly you know0:03:24 contextually depressed because i felt0:03:27 like i was maybe the only one who0:03:29 really exists right now people may not0:03:32 empathize with this at all because they0:03:34 haven't had this experience0:03:36 thank god but some people just have0:03:38 those experiences and i think that was0:03:40 the kind of emotional0:03:42 existential driver in order for me to0:03:44 try and0:03:45 explore the whole topic of consciousness0:03:47 a little bit more0:03:48 and that's why i was very fascinated0:03:50 with the hard problem of consciousness0:03:52 now0:03:53 as many of you may know or not know the0:03:56 hard problem of consciousness0:03:57 in the philosophy of the mind is really0:04:01 based on two key questions people think0:04:03 it's only one question but in actual0:04:04 fact is two key questions0:04:06 the first key question is what is it0:04:09 like for a particular0:04:10 organism to have a in a subjective0:04:12 conscious experience0:04:14 okay so i know i have inner subjective0:04:17 conscious experiences0:04:18 and i know what it's like for me to have0:04:20 a hot chocolate on a sunday looking at0:04:22 the sunset0:04:23 but what about jake's in a subjective0:04:26 conscious experience0:04:27 can i know what it's like for jake to0:04:30 have a hot chocolate on a sunday0:04:32 looking at the sunset no i just have my0:04:35 own0:04:36 now it's subjectivity for sure0:04:39 however it is a first person fact no one0:04:42 can deny the fact that they0:04:44 have an awareness of their own awareness0:04:46 or they are0:04:47 undergoing or they're experiencing a a0:04:50 form of phenomenal consciousness because0:04:52 in the literature it's also called0:04:54 known as phenomenality or phenomenal0:04:56 experience which basically means0:04:58 in a subjective conscious experience so0:05:01 i may be able to describe0:05:03 my experience as warm sweet0:05:06 beautiful and you may use exactly the0:05:09 same words and we're thinking we're0:05:10 talking about the same type of0:05:12 in a subjective conscious experience but0:05:14 in actual fact we still wouldn't know0:05:16 why because words are vehicles to0:05:18 meaning and meaning is like a reflection0:05:20 a0:05:21 mirror of the inner subject of conscious0:05:23 experience so when i say0:05:24 warm and beautiful and amazing0:05:28 i have a certain kind of experience that0:05:30 backs it up that's personal to me but0:05:32 that doesn't necessarily mean0:05:34 that jake has exactly the same type of0:05:36 experience even though he's using the0:05:38 same words0:05:39 right so this is what you may call the0:05:42 epistemic0:05:42 gap there's an epistemological gap0:05:44 meaning there is a gap of knowledge0:05:46 how do we bridge that gap under0:05:48 materialism and by the way0:05:49 when we use the word materialism and the0:05:51 philosophy of the mind0:05:53 it's used synonymously with physicalism0:05:56 yes they have two different histories0:05:59 however they really mean the following0:06:01 that0:06:02 consciousness can be reduced to or0:06:06 is identical to physical processes0:06:09 materialism historically used to talk0:06:11 about uh0:06:12 sorry materialism historically used to0:06:13 talk about bits of matter0:06:15 but in the philosophy of the mind in the0:06:17 literature as far as i'm aware of it0:06:19 that those two terms are used0:06:20 synonymously and0:06:22 they're used in the context that we've0:06:24 just said that all0:06:26 conscious consciousness can be reduced0:06:28 to in some way or identical to0:06:30 physical processes so that's the first0:06:32 question of the hard problem0:06:34 the second question is not an0:06:36 epistemological question0:06:37 it's not an epistemic question because0:06:39 people a lot of the naturalists they say0:06:41 oh you know we're going to bridge the0:06:43 gap right we're going to bridge that gap0:06:45 when we know the science we learn more0:06:47 science we'll bridge it0:06:49 which i think is a huge fallacious0:06:50 argument we could discuss later and0:06:51 unpack it later0:06:52 but the point here is they say we could0:06:54 bridge the gap but they've misunderstood0:06:56 the hard problem because the heart0:06:57 problem is not just an epistemic issue0:06:59 it's an ontological issue meaning the0:07:01 source and nature of reality0:07:03 so the second question is why and0:07:06 how do phenomenal experiences meaning0:07:09 how and why do inner subjective0:07:11 conscious experiences0:07:12 arise from neurobiological processes0:07:16 this is has some epistemic issues but0:07:19 it's also an ontological issue0:07:21 given the fact that we have a kind of0:07:23 first person fat0:07:24 sincere sensation of what it's like to0:07:27 have in the subject of conscious0:07:28 experiences and we know0:07:30 what kind of physical processes are0:07:33 supposed to be because even according to0:07:35 the naturalists physical processes are0:07:37 what0:07:37 they're blind and non-conscious what0:07:39 does that mean let's unpack that0:07:41 when we say physical processes are blind0:07:44 it means there is no intentional force0:07:45 directing them anywhere0:07:47 when we say they're non-conscious we're0:07:48 saying physical processes0:07:50 do not have something called0:07:52 intentionality i know that's a massive0:07:55 issue in the philosophy of the mind0:07:57 there's lots of0:07:58 as they say differences of opinion but0:08:01 just to0:08:01 break it down in in a simple way0:08:03 intentionality is about aboutness0:08:06 for example i'm looking at my mobile0:08:09 phone0:08:10 my my stream of consciousness now is0:08:12 about something other than0:08:15 what's in here it's outside it's about0:08:17 something else0:08:18 physical processes by definition0:08:22 are not about anything they're not even0:08:24 about themselves they just are0:08:26 cold and non-conscious from that0:08:28 perspective so one would argue0:08:30 if that's the ontology of physicalism0:08:32 which also relates to0:08:34 philosophical naturalism then0:08:37 how can we have inner subjective0:08:39 conscious experiences0:08:40 arise from seemingly0:08:43 cold and non-conscious physical0:08:45 processes0:08:46 it's like whoa right so how do they0:08:49 try and answer these questions so let me0:08:52 go backwards0:08:53 the first way they're trying to answer0:08:55 this question0:08:56 especially from the kind of atheistic0:08:58 perspective is that science0:09:00 neuroscience neurobiological studies is0:09:03 going to solve the problem now with all0:09:05 due respect0:09:06 right with all due respect0:09:09 neuroscience is predicated on a0:09:12 philosophical assumption0:09:13 this is well known if you read the works0:09:15 of um0:09:16 rex wilson anti romancio manzotti0:09:19 moderato0:09:20 blah blah blah blah the philosophers of0:09:23 the mind and even neuroscientists0:09:25 themselves0:09:26 understand that neurobiological studies0:09:28 neuroscience0:09:29 it assumes physicalism0:09:33 so all new biological studies can do0:09:37 is basically give you a physicalistic0:09:40 approach or a materialistic approach to0:09:42 this question0:09:43 and by definition it won't really solve0:09:45 the problem because it will be always0:09:48 assumed0:09:50 what we're trying to show is well is0:09:52 physicalism true0:09:53 is materialism of physicalism the0:09:55 correct philosophy of the mind0:09:57 to understand the reality of0:09:59 consciousness right they can't even0:10:01 start dealing with that question because0:10:02 all neurobiological studies are0:10:04 basically0:10:05 uh predicated on this philosophical0:10:08 assumption which is0:10:09 physicalism so neuroscience will never0:10:12 be able to address this issue because0:10:13 neuroscience generally speaking is a0:10:15 study of correlations as one of my0:10:17 friends0:10:18 who's a who did a master's in0:10:19 neuroscience he called it pixelated0:10:21 phrenology0:10:22 yeah the phenology of the study of the0:10:24 brain is pixelated phonology0:10:26 and and listen to this this is my0:10:28 challenge even if we're to map out the0:10:31 entirety of jake's brain0:10:32 right say we might be out0:10:36 and we can correlate every single0:10:38 pattern0:10:39 and the minutiae the differences and0:10:42 correlate them0:10:44 to in the subject of conscious0:10:46 experiences0:10:47 and correlate those to his utterances of0:10:50 the descriptions of his inner0:10:52 experiences0:10:53 it still would not he still won't solve0:10:55 the problem he will still answer both0:10:57 questions0:10:57 he won't answer okay well what is it0:10:59 like for jake to undergo a particular0:11:01 inner subject of conscious experience we0:11:02 just have his0:11:03 we just have his descriptions right0:11:05 right but what is it like0:11:07 and we won't be able to answer the0:11:09 question well how on earth does he have0:11:10 this inner subjective conscious0:11:12 experience0:11:12 arising arising from0:11:15 seemingly cold blind physical processes0:11:20 so even if neuroscience were to map0:11:23 everything in the brain because this is0:11:24 one of the arguments from the atheist0:11:26 look man when we know everything about0:11:28 the brain we'll know everything about0:11:29 consciousness0:11:32 that would only make sense if you're an0:11:33 eliminative materialist right but we0:11:35 could discuss a bit later0:11:37 so neuroscience can't really deal with0:11:38 the problem and0:11:40 i've got something here from professor0:11:44 forgot his name now he's from king's0:11:47 college university in london0:11:49 he actually articulated a really0:11:51 powerful undercutting defeater0:11:53 to people who claim that neuroscience is0:11:56 actually0:11:57 if we know more about the brain will0:11:58 know more about consciousness from the0:12:00 point of view of inner subjective0:12:02 conscious experiences so he makes a0:12:05 really beautiful point here0:12:07 it's pepino the professor papinel yeah i0:12:10 think his name is david papino he0:12:11 presents0:12:11 a really nice argument i want to0:12:13 summarize the argument for you it's the0:12:14 seven statements0:12:16 so he says number one and i'm0:12:18 paraphrasing a neurochemical event0:12:20 e is identical with the conscious0:12:23 experience0:12:24 p number two e0:12:27 cannot be absent when p is testified to0:12:31 be present0:12:32 three e cannot be present when p0:12:36 is testified to be absent four0:12:39 e must be present to be necessary for p0:12:43 five e is sometimes absence when p0:12:46 is testified to be present six e0:12:49 is sometimes present when p is testified0:12:51 to be absent0:12:52 seven conclusion therefore e is not0:12:55 necessary for p0:12:56 so his conclusion is that the0:12:57 neurochemical event e is not0:12:59 necessary for in a subjective conscious0:13:02 experience0:13:03 p because when you do a study of all the0:13:05 neurobiological0:13:07 correlations you will see that sometimes0:13:10 the neurobiological event e0:13:12 is not always present for a particular p0:13:14 and sometimes it's absent sometimes it's0:13:16 present and so on and so forth0:13:17 so it shows that the correlations they0:13:20 have found so far0:13:21 are not necessary for p which is a0:13:23 really interesting argument by0:13:25 papino now i've gone too long i don't0:13:27 want to take too much time so i just0:13:28 want to0:13:28 mention what are the physicalist claims0:13:31 so i'm not going to go into them and0:13:32 refute them i think we should do that0:13:33 together0:13:34 right so one approach0:13:37 is what you would call eliminative0:13:39 materialism okay0:13:42 and one would argue that the church0:13:44 lands had this view0:13:45 then it had this view in 1991 he wrote0:13:47 the book consciousness explained0:13:49 some philosophers said that book should0:13:51 have been called consciousness explained0:13:52 away0:13:53 because he doesn't deal with the0:13:56 questions of the hard problem of0:13:57 consciousness he just he just thinks0:13:58 that we're just like you know0:13:59 robots we don't have any consciousness0:14:01 right yeah so it's eliminative0:14:03 materialism which basically says that0:14:04 there is no consciousness that's0:14:05 essentially what they're saying0:14:06 and we could unpack what it means and0:14:08 unpack and how we can address that0:14:10 during0:14:10 the podcast today and by the way a lot0:14:14 of the0:14:14 empirical neurobiological studies that0:14:16 have fancy names right there are so many0:14:18 fancy names for many different0:14:20 you know uh neuro0:14:23 the neuro correlations and all that0:14:25 fancy names right all of these things0:14:27 still have0:14:28 these um approaches as the philosophical0:14:31 assumptions so it's very important to0:14:32 deal with the philosophical assumptions0:14:34 because0:14:34 the kind of minutiae of the empirical0:14:36 neurobiological study0:14:38 is interesting but it's really0:14:39 predicated on these approaches anyway0:14:41 so one is eliminative materialism the0:14:43 other one is reductive materialism0:14:45 which basically says it doesn't deny0:14:47 inner subject of conscious experience0:14:48 but it says0:14:50 that that the brain or0:14:53 understanding or science or0:14:54 understanding of the brain would0:14:56 eventually close the gap0:14:58 and we'll be able to understand that0:15:02 that that that that consciousness can be0:15:05 explained or reduced due to physical0:15:07 processes0:15:07 in some way so don't say individual0:15:10 process or individual bits of matter0:15:12 they will say you know you could reduce0:15:14 it to physical processes in some way0:15:16 then we could discuss0:15:17 why that's that fails right the other0:15:20 the other physicalist approach which is0:15:21 very popular0:15:22 is called functionalism functionalism0:15:25 just to0:15:26 really make you understand this is like0:15:27 a mirroring a computer system0:15:29 you have inputs mental states and0:15:31 outputs0:15:32 and you know they say when you have an0:15:34 input for example0:15:35 your your your bus is coming right0:15:39 and your mental state is oh my god i'm0:15:42 going to be late0:15:43 right you have the inner subjection0:15:44 cause experience i'm actually late0:15:46 and then the output is that you start0:15:48 running for your bus0:15:49 so there is a connection between inputs0:15:51 outputs and mental states0:15:54 but as you know that doesn't even answer0:15:55 any of the problems of the heart0:15:57 the problems of consciousness but we0:15:59 could address that later0:16:00 another view well probably the final0:16:02 physical is to be main physicalist views0:16:04 what you call0:16:05 emergent materialism which is getting0:16:07 quite popular and there are two forms of0:16:09 emergent materialism you have strong0:16:11 emergent materialism and weak emergent0:16:13 materialism0:16:14 strong emergent materialism says look0:16:16 consciousness exists0:16:19 but it's based on complex physical0:16:21 processes0:16:22 and these physical processes have0:16:23 complex causal relations0:16:25 and it's impossible to impossible to0:16:27 unravel them0:16:28 and they said to try and understand it0:16:30 it's equivalent of putting for example0:16:32 darwin's book on the original species in0:16:35 a hamster's cage0:16:36 thinking that hamster is going to0:16:37 understand its origins right it's a good0:16:39 it's an interesting0:16:40 point but it's a failed point because0:16:43 all they're doing they're really0:16:44 assuming0:16:45 some type of physicalism like reductive0:16:47 materialism anyway or reductive uh0:16:50 yeah reductive materialism and it's a0:16:52 bit of a compound we can unders we could0:16:54 discuss later why that's the case0:16:56 the other version which is called weak0:16:57 emergent materialism0:16:59 which basically says yes it's based on0:17:02 complex physical processes and these0:17:03 physical processes have complex0:17:05 causal relations when we unravel them0:17:08 we'll be able to understand subjective0:17:11 consciousness0:17:12 but really that's not a philosophy in0:17:14 itself0:17:15 that's reductive materialism you're0:17:17 assuming reductive metabolism0:17:18 to be true and if you've dealt with0:17:20 reductive materialism then you've dealt0:17:22 with0:17:22 uh weak emergence and they give you0:17:24 things like you know what about water0:17:26 you know you have the the molecules of0:17:29 oxygen0:17:29 and and hydrogen and they combine0:17:32 together to give you properties that0:17:34 don't exist in0:17:35 in the original individual processes0:17:37 that's what emergent materialism0:17:38 basically says0:17:39 that you're going to get something an0:17:41 emergent property like consciousness0:17:43 and the properties of consciousness0:17:45 cannot be found in the individual0:17:46 processes or in the0:17:48 physical system that is causally related0:17:51 and causally connected0:17:53 and they say look this exists in science0:17:55 anyway look at look at water h2o0:17:57 you have hydrogen you have oxygen0:18:01 and you put them together and they0:18:03 causally relate in some way0:18:05 and you have properties of water that0:18:07 don't belong to the individual0:18:09 uh molecule molecules for example the0:18:12 individual0:18:12 atoms hydrogen atoms oxygen atoms right0:18:15 so you have water that is shiny and it's0:18:17 a transparent liquid but those0:18:18 properties cannot be found in the0:18:19 individual process themselves0:18:21 which we know that example is a really0:18:23 bad example for many reasons0:18:24 which we could discuss so those are the0:18:26 main type of physicalist ontologies if0:18:28 you like0:18:29 or the physical asses of physical0:18:31 approaches to the mind0:18:33 and i would argue from this we could0:18:34 even talk about god's existence from the0:18:36 heart problem of consciousness but0:18:37 that's0:18:38 maybe for another day sorry for waffling0:18:41 but that's the introduction no that was0:18:44 great no no no it was a great0:18:45 introduction0:18:46 really do appreciate it so as far as0:18:49 what i understood you saying brother0:18:50 hamza is that0:18:52 there there's two main problems uh with0:18:54 consciousness0:18:55 and materialism uh one is an ontological0:18:59 problem and one is an epistemological0:19:01 problem0:19:02 and then you went over various different0:19:04 um possible0:19:05 responses that are offered in the0:19:07 literature0:19:08 in philosophy of mind from a materialist0:19:12 or0:19:12 physicalist paradigm and then you0:19:15 explain some of the0:19:16 some of the issues or potential issues0:19:18 with each one of those0:19:20 responses to the to the two problems0:19:23 that you mentioned0:19:24 so i think that was a great intro to0:19:26 explaining sort of the foundations for0:19:29 the discussion0:19:30 um i do want to point out to the0:19:32 audience that um0:19:33 we are going to spend a little bit more0:19:35 time on the introduction portion of this0:19:38 because it is a bit more in-depth and0:19:41 kind of uh gets in the weeds a little0:19:43 bit philosophically so we want to0:19:45 lay the groundwork for the discussion0:19:47 before we invite guests on0:19:49 and we're probably going to shoot for0:19:51 maybe around 45 minutes to an hour to0:19:54 when we start to0:19:55 invite guests on um but yeah once again0:19:58 hamza do appreciate that intro now0:20:01 brother sharif i want to hear what your0:20:03 thoughts are on the question0:20:05 can materialism actually account for or0:20:08 ground consciousness what are your0:20:10 thoughts on that0:20:12 yeah um so i think brother hames has0:20:14 mentioned a lot of points and0:20:16 really covered the subject area0:20:17 comprehensively0:20:19 it seems on this uh how i i also see it0:20:23 is0:20:24 when we look at the issue of0:20:26 consciousness what we're asking0:20:28 is how is it that non-physical0:20:31 things become self-aware become have0:20:34 this0:20:34 internal experience how do non-physical0:20:37 sorry0:20:37 physical non-conscious things have this0:20:39 internal experience0:20:41 that's the first question we're trying0:20:42 to work out the second question0:20:44 is okay how do we approach that how can0:20:47 we0:20:48 analyze the internal experiences of0:20:51 something that's physical0:20:53 you know what what do we do so normally0:20:55 the scientists will say well0:20:57 we'll use science to try to investigate0:20:59 that and i think as hamza's mentioned0:21:01 and0:21:02 also yourself jake is that there is a0:21:04 problem there's like an0:21:05 in-principle problem the in principle0:21:07 problem is this let me give an example0:21:10 if i've got a color red yeah uh i0:21:13 thought this bottle was red but it's0:21:14 actually more purple0:21:15 but if i've got this this purple ribena0:21:18 yeah0:21:18 shouldn't be showing that we're not0:21:20 sponsored by them so0:21:21 if we've got this yeah which is sort of0:21:23 a purpley color yeah0:21:25 we experience it as purple yeah0:21:28 now science what's science going to tell0:21:30 us about this science is going to say0:21:33 well it has a particular reflection of0:21:36 light at a specific wavelength and a0:21:38 specific energy0:21:39 it will tell me the properties of the0:21:41 light none of those properties0:21:44 are related to my experience yeah0:21:48 so there's an experience there's an0:21:50 attribute that i'm sensing0:21:52 which is not physical for the light0:21:55 itself0:21:56 yeah it goes beyond the light in essence0:21:58 beyond the physical0:21:59 so what science is going to tell me is0:22:00 going to give me a third person0:22:02 objective analysis of some reality0:22:05 but consciousness my experience of this0:22:09 is a first person subjective experience0:22:12 and there's nothing about the reflection0:22:15 of the wavelength of0:22:16 light and its energy that tells me i0:22:19 will experience it0:22:20 as being purple or red or whatever color0:22:24 there's another problem if i have a0:22:27 person who's been blind from birth0:22:30 and i try to describe that color this0:22:33 color here0:22:34 there is no language there's no0:22:37 descriptive way to describe the color to0:22:40 the person who's never seen it0:22:42 yeah so we've got another problem in0:22:44 terms of being able to describe0:22:46 something because the language doesn't0:22:48 exist because it is0:22:50 first person experience which means if0:22:52 you've not experienced it or i've not0:22:54 experienced it0:22:54 there's no way of being able to describe0:22:56 it because nothing in the property0:22:59 that allows us to describe describe it0:23:02 as the experience that we're having0:23:04 and that's not just like color that's0:23:06 everything else as well taste0:23:08 pain you know as hamza mentioned you0:23:11 know0:23:12 see you know having a coffee on a sunset0:23:15 aftermarket maybe with salah and stuff0:23:17 like that so0:23:18 you know this this is uh so these things0:23:22 we don't any experience it's these0:23:24 things we can't describe0:23:25 because the quality is not in the object0:23:28 yeah it's within our own mind so the0:23:31 question then becomes well how do i0:23:32 access the mind now some people say well0:23:34 as hamza mentioned about this0:23:36 correlation about how0:23:38 the brain states tells us0:23:41 you know if we work out the brain states0:23:43 we can work out the correlation0:23:45 yeah and this is very the analogy that0:23:48 you know strikes home to me is if i had0:23:52 ones and zeros0:23:53 which are binary code for computer0:23:55 programs yeah0:23:56 now there's nothing in the ones and0:23:58 zeros that tells me what the computer0:24:00 program is0:24:02 you need something that occurs before0:24:04 the computer program0:24:06 and that's the mind that's the conscious0:24:09 ability to interpret the ones and zeros0:24:12 it's like most code dashes and dots0:24:14 the dashes and dots are not gonna give0:24:16 me information what's going to give me0:24:18 information is the fact that i can0:24:20 interpret the dashes and dots0:24:22 into a language that i can understand so0:24:24 i need a mind0:24:26 before the signals0:24:29 whether that signals in the brain you0:24:31 know the action potentials and the0:24:32 neurons0:24:33 or whether that is the ones and zeros on0:24:34 a computer i need something that has the0:24:37 has already existed separate from0:24:40 the actual code in order to interpret0:24:43 the code0:24:44 and the third example or the third0:24:45 problem0:24:47 is even if people are able to point to0:24:50 and say okay0:24:50 this neuron or these group of neurons in0:24:52 the brain if they fire0:24:54 they'll make you perceive the color0:24:56 purple yeah0:24:57 but the problem is is that the ability0:24:59 to say well okay the firing0:25:02 how does that make it purple it's like0:25:05 and this is a an example that professor0:25:07 donald hoffman said0:25:09 it's like you've got a bottle and you0:25:11 rub the bottle0:25:12 yeah you rub the bottle and a genie pops0:25:14 out0:25:15 yeah okay fine we rub the bottle0:25:18 yeah and the genie pops out every time0:25:20 but you're not going to say that the0:25:21 bottle is causative0:25:23 of the genie you're going to say well0:25:25 this phenomenon is occurring and i can't0:25:27 necessarily connect the two yeah and0:25:29 that's what's happening when it comes0:25:31 to the hard problem of consciousness0:25:33 consciousness is the inability to0:25:35 you know have the tools in science to0:25:38 access it0:25:39 there's nothing within the properties of0:25:41 the reality or the brain that tells us0:25:44 how we're going to experience a reality0:25:46 and even if we're able to show a0:25:48 correlation between the0:25:50 nerves and the neurons in the brain we0:25:52 still don't have the ability to explain0:25:54 how this first person subjective0:25:56 experience comes about0:26:01 right so yeah that was uh0:26:04 a little bit more to tack on with this0:26:06 discussion about consciousness i mean0:26:08 there's so many different ways um we can0:26:11 explain it0:26:12 so i think each one of us giving our own0:26:15 perspective0:26:15 and describing the problems should be0:26:17 really helpful to the audience0:26:19 i really appreciate your explanation uh0:26:21 brother sharif0:26:22 um now brother abdul what are your0:26:24 thoughts on the question0:26:26 uh can consciousness be grounded on0:26:29 materialism0:26:30 what do you think um well i think it0:26:33 can't0:26:33 uh but um i think this question really0:26:37 is0:26:37 the most essential question when it0:26:39 comes to these0:26:40 um theist atheist discussions because0:26:43 um i think this is as brother hamza and0:26:46 sheriff mentioned this is just an0:26:48 in-principle problem for science which a0:26:51 lot of atheists do rely on0:26:52 to account for their naturalism right0:26:55 and uh0:26:56 like when we talk about cosmological0:26:58 arguments you you can conceive of0:27:00 you know at least a naturalist account0:27:03 that at least0:27:03 gives you some sort of a causal chain0:27:06 back to some sort of beginning0:27:08 and then they just cut the calls will0:27:11 change short0:27:12 at some arbitrary point we think it's0:27:13 arbitrary but at least there's a0:27:15 coherent picture there0:27:17 from their point of view but my view is0:27:19 that on the consciousness discussion0:27:21 they can't really get off the ground in0:27:23 the first place because0:27:25 it's about a state of self-awareness0:27:27 that's just categorically0:27:29 unlike anything else in the natural0:27:31 world0:27:32 and and it is the starting point of our0:27:36 interaction with the world right so i0:27:38 mean we start from this sort of like0:27:39 epistemic dualism that we already have0:27:42 our experiences of things and what the0:27:45 things themselves0:27:46 are right so it's uh for me this poses0:27:50 an0:27:50 in-principle problem for science and if0:27:53 we're going to define naturalism as0:27:56 you know if naturalism is committed to0:27:59 the idea0:28:00 that everything in reality is explicable0:28:03 through uh natural means or you know if0:28:07 they're committed to the causal closure0:28:08 of the physical or if they say that0:28:10 everything is reducible0:28:11 to the physics and the chemistry that0:28:14 we see in the world then this is the imp0:28:18 principle problem that they face because0:28:20 you have this sort of qualitative leap0:28:23 when it comes to uh consciousness that0:28:25 you don't find in0:28:27 anything else really in the observable0:28:29 world so0:28:30 like brother hamza mentioned the wetness0:28:32 and and these other like let's say0:28:34 emergent properties that you can think0:28:36 of uh0:28:37 that can be a result of physical0:28:38 interactions at the end of the day0:28:41 you're not going to have that0:28:42 qualitative leap there0:28:43 they are going to be explainable in0:28:46 physical terms and0:28:47 you know we wouldn't disagree that a lot0:28:49 of those properties and a lot of those0:28:51 things0:28:51 are reducible to the physical but when0:28:54 it comes to consciousness0:28:55 and a lot of materialist philosophers0:28:57 like john searle agree that0:29:00 it is really irreducible to the physical0:29:02 because you can't reduce your0:29:04 experience of the physical to the0:29:07 physical you0:29:08 actually couldn't possibly do that and0:29:10 the in principle problem0:29:12 comes for many reasons is because first0:29:14 of all you can't put consciousness under0:29:16 a microscope i can put your brain under0:29:18 a microscope0:29:19 but i can't put your experience under a0:29:20 microscope so0:29:23 and science relies on third-person0:29:25 perspectives0:29:26 in the first place right so0:29:27 consciousness is a first-person0:29:29 perspective thing0:29:30 so you have an in-principle problem and0:29:32 when you do have an in-principle problem0:29:34 we're not saying that you know0:29:36 you know this is a problem because of a0:29:37 lack of information that future0:29:39 science can solve no we're saying that0:29:41 you couldn't possibly solve it0:29:43 without some kind of radical paradigm0:29:45 shift that would0:29:47 kind of change the meaning of science0:29:49 has naturalists understand it right now0:29:51 and maybe would be able to encompass0:29:53 some kind of supernaturalism right0:29:55 but science as it is right now and0:29:57 naturalism as it describes the world0:30:00 in physical and chemical terms and as0:30:02 they attempt to reduce0:30:04 everything to the material couldn't0:30:06 possibly account for something that is0:30:09 so0:30:09 qualitatively unlike everything else in0:30:12 the physical world0:30:12 and i think the bigger problem actually0:30:15 for me comes0:30:16 with uh when we talk about grounding0:30:18 rationality0:30:19 right and arguments from reason and i0:30:22 know we put that in the poster it is0:30:24 related0:30:24 but i think that's really the bigger0:30:26 problem for naturalism in the sense that0:30:28 it makes it really self-defeating0:30:30 if all your beliefs couldn't possibly be0:30:34 explained in non-non-rational terms or0:30:36 couldn't be reduced to it0:30:38 then your belief in naturalism is0:30:39 self-defeating so0:30:41 generally speaking i think this is0:30:42 really the biggest problem for for0:30:44 naturalism0:30:46 in general and i think it's a more0:30:49 powerful of an argument whether we're0:30:50 talking about consciousness or reason0:30:52 than any argument uh against naturalism0:30:55 we could come up with0:30:58 i mean i would agree with you i think0:31:00 it's a it's a huge problem0:31:02 um for naturalism and the way that i see0:31:06 it is that0:31:07 when we talk about consciousness0:31:08 generally speaking there's five states0:31:10 of consciousness so0:31:12 there's things like sensations thoughts0:31:14 beliefs desires and acts of will0:31:17 none of which i think can reasonably0:31:20 be grounded on a materialist paradigm0:31:23 whatsoever0:31:24 i mean you guys have kind of gone into a0:31:26 lot of detail about that0:31:28 um but thomas nagle who's0:31:32 an atheist philosopher he's famous he0:31:34 has his paper on what it's like to be a0:31:36 bat0:31:36 and he explains that it's a sort of0:31:39 in-principle0:31:40 problem that science and we could really0:31:42 never0:31:43 understand what it's like to be a bat0:31:46 because in order to do so you would need0:31:47 to be a bad0:31:48 and we just don't even have the language0:31:51 to explain that as you guys were talking0:31:53 about0:31:54 science deals with what's called the0:31:56 third person perspective0:31:58 and it only has uh language that can0:32:01 describe the phenomenon0:32:03 uh via this third person perspective not0:32:06 by the first person perspective which0:32:08 consciousness is so it's an in-principle0:32:11 problem that science can't really deal0:32:13 with the subject0:32:14 in a meaningful way to explain it0:32:17 whatsoever0:32:19 and there's one thing that brother hamza0:32:21 mentioned which is something that i0:32:23 like to focus on it's something that i'm0:32:24 personally really interested in0:32:26 and it's what you talked about0:32:28 intentionality and it's a bit0:32:30 difficult to understand so i'm going to0:32:32 do the best that i can explain it but0:32:34 if you do the research on it there's a0:32:37 well-known problem called the problem of0:32:38 intentionality0:32:40 and basically the problem is uh from a0:32:43 physicalist stand up uh standpoint0:32:45 how you can explain how the neurons in0:32:48 our brain0:32:49 would be intrinsically about things0:32:52 outside of our brain0:32:54 um and i'm gonna i'm gonna show you guys0:32:57 an example i don't know if you can see0:32:58 it but there's a book here by0:33:00 alex rosenberg an atheist guy to reality0:33:03 which he describes this issue0:33:05 he's got a diagram here and he says how0:33:08 can you understand0:33:10 how the top picture which is the neurons0:33:12 in the brain0:33:13 can be intrinsically about the bottom0:33:16 picture which is0:33:17 paris and so he he talks about the issue0:33:20 of0:33:21 uh the paris neurons um and the0:33:24 basically the neurons that are0:33:26 responsible um0:33:28 these neurons that are responsible uh0:33:31 for0:33:32 your thoughts about this physical object0:33:34 which is paris0:33:36 now the question is how on a physical0:33:39 physicalist paradigm do these thoughts0:33:41 in your brain0:33:43 these neurons how could they0:33:45 intrinsically0:33:46 be about paris it just doesn't it0:33:49 doesn't add up it doesn't make any sense0:33:50 it's0:33:51 it's it's so mysterious and when you0:33:53 start to think about it more and more0:33:55 um you get to a point which he talks0:33:58 about in the book that he0:34:00 he makes the argument that on0:34:02 materialism you can't actually think0:34:04 about0:34:05 anything whatsoever and it it devolves0:34:08 into sort of this um0:34:10 you know very strange uh picture i'll0:34:12 just read one paragraph from this book0:34:15 um it's on a page 179 and0:34:18 in the title the chapter is the brain0:34:21 does0:34:22 everything without thinking about0:34:23 anything at all0:34:25 and he says this to explain the problem0:34:27 that i'm talking about he says0:34:28 physics has ruled out the existence0:34:32 of clumps of matter of the required sort0:34:35 meaning the the clumps of matter that0:34:37 are0:34:38 um used to talk about intentionality0:34:42 the function of the brain in this case0:34:44 which0:34:45 we would disagree with but he's saying0:34:47 physics has ruled out the existence of0:34:49 clumps of matter of the required sort0:34:52 there are just fermions and bosons and0:34:55 combinations of them0:34:57 none of that stuff is just all by itself0:35:00 about any other stuff there is nothing0:35:03 in the whole universe0:35:04 including of course all the neurons in0:35:07 your brain0:35:08 that just by its nature or composition0:35:11 can do this job of being about some0:35:14 other clump of matter0:35:16 so when consciousness and listen to this0:35:19 so when consciousness0:35:20 assures us that we have thoughts about0:35:23 stuff0:35:23 it has to be wrong the brain0:35:26 non-consciously stores0:35:27 information and thoughts but the0:35:30 thoughts are not about stuff0:35:32 therefore consciousness cannot retrieve0:35:34 thoughts about stuff0:35:36 there are none to retrieve so it can't0:35:39 have0:35:39 thoughts about stuff either and so what0:35:42 he's explaining to you0:35:44 is that on a physicalist paradigm and0:35:47 based on physics0:35:49 you have to come to the absurd0:35:51 conclusion that you can't actually0:35:53 think about anything but the very0:35:56 thought0:35:57 about not being able to think about0:35:59 anything is a thought about something0:36:01 itself0:36:02 so the view become devolves into this0:36:05 sort of self-refuting0:36:06 understanding and so i'm just pointing0:36:09 out0:36:09 um this one aspect that i think that i0:36:13 actually0:36:13 think rosenberg's conclusion is correct0:36:17 that he's trying to give an what he0:36:19 calls the atheist guide to reality0:36:21 that if you are a physicalist it results0:36:24 in these0:36:25 absurd position that you can't actually0:36:27 think about anything0:36:28 which is ridiculous because most0:36:31 assuredly the the words in his book have0:36:33 to be about something0:36:35 otherwise what is he telling us he's0:36:37 just wasting our time putting0:36:38 ink on paper right so um0:36:41 and then i do want to touch on an issue0:36:44 that results in this which is what i0:36:46 think0:36:48 is the problem that you can't actually0:36:49 ground knowledge0:36:51 on uh materialism whatsoever based on0:36:55 this account of what we're talking about0:36:57 with intentionality0:36:58 and i'm just going to give a very brief0:37:00 argument for this is that0:37:02 knowledge is typically understood as0:37:04 justified true belief0:37:06 now this means that knowledge assumes0:37:09 truth because in order for it to account0:37:11 for knowledge it has to be true0:37:13 now truth in the literature uh for the0:37:16 most part is0:37:17 understood as that which corresponds to0:37:20 reality0:37:21 now this notion of corresponding to0:37:23 reality or0:37:24 matching up meaning that the things in0:37:27 your brain match0:37:28 up to something real outside of it0:37:30 assumes the function0:37:32 of consciousness intentionality which is0:37:34 the thing that i was describing0:37:36 now if the materialist cannot actually0:37:39 ground0:37:40 intentionality on their own paradigm0:37:43 then that means they wouldn't be able to0:37:45 ground truth0:37:46 because truth assumes this sort of0:37:48 corresponding0:37:50 or matching up now if it cannot ground0:37:53 truth0:37:54 it cannot ground knowledge because0:37:56 knowledge assumes truth0:37:57 so it's this domino effect in which if0:38:00 you cannot ground0:38:01 intentionality on a materialist paradigm0:38:04 you cannot ground truth and if you0:38:06 cannot ground truth0:38:07 you cannot ground knowledge and then0:38:10 therefore0:38:11 atheists or materialists cannot actually0:38:14 ground0:38:14 knowledge on their paradigm whatsoever0:38:17 now i know this is a little bit of a0:38:18 shift from consciousness0:38:20 but i do want to point out because that0:38:22 people may thinking well0:38:23 this is kind of an abstract concept you0:38:26 guys are going into so much detail about0:38:28 consciousness is it really that0:38:30 important and i'm saying yes it has0:38:32 massive implications for our ability to0:38:36 even ground the concept0:38:37 of knowledge or something like it and so0:38:40 i do want to point that out0:38:41 um but yeah so you know in summary i0:38:45 think we've done0:38:46 a a great job of sort of explaining0:38:49 what the hard problem of consciousness0:38:51 is the different facets related to it0:38:54 um some of the potential responses from0:38:57 a materialist that they could possibly0:38:59 make0:39:00 what the problems with that are and the0:39:02 implications of this0:39:04 in general that we cannot ground things0:39:06 like intentionality0:39:07 which results in not even being able to0:39:09 ground things like knowledge0:39:12 so yeah i do want to open it up back to0:39:14 you guys we're at about the 40 minute0:39:16 mark i don't know if there's0:39:18 anything else any of uh the panels here0:39:21 i just want to say something about the0:39:24 hard problem0:39:24 in particular it's not really a hard0:39:27 problem unless you're a materialist0:39:30 and you can really see the significance0:39:32 of this question i think over the past0:39:34 100 or 200 years the philosophy of mind0:39:37 in general in in in0:39:38 western you know contemporary philosophy0:39:42 i think the whole domain of the0:39:44 philosophy of mind has been just0:39:46 an attempt to get as far away from0:39:49 dualism as they possibly can0:39:51 and it was just a bunch of um basically0:39:54 bandwagoning0:39:55 on these physicalist theories of mind0:39:58 very mindlessly to the extent that they0:40:00 adopted some very radical0:40:02 and i mean how to put it nicely0:40:05 like ridiculous ideas like behaviorism0:40:09 eliminative materialism is probably the0:40:10 worst but i think identity theory is up0:40:13 there as well i mean your mental states0:40:15 are identical to your brain states i0:40:17 think that's just as0:40:18 ridiculous as eliminative materialism0:40:22 and right now they've they shifted to0:40:24 things like what brother hamza mentioned0:40:25 with functionalism which doesn't really0:40:27 deal with the problem i mean0:40:28 i can be a dualist and accept what0:40:30 you're telling me about functionalism0:40:32 so it doesn't really deal with the0:40:33 problem of qualia so i think0:40:35 yes it is a problem and and you can0:40:37 really see that from0:40:38 their very desperate attempts to get0:40:41 away from dualism0:40:43 we we we're not saying it's it's a0:40:45 problem in general0:40:46 we're saying it's a problem for0:40:48 materialism and because they have so0:40:50 radically you know0:40:52 uh invested themselves in this0:40:54 materialist world view in general0:40:56 uh in the western world over the past0:40:59 couple centuries0:41:00 all of their attempts in explaining0:41:03 explaining consciousness0:41:05 have been uh basically attempts at0:41:07 getting away from any notion of dualism0:41:10 yeah i mean just to add to that to be a0:41:12 little bit more0:41:13 maybe reflective of what's going on in0:41:15 academia there are a bunch of atheists0:41:18 that are not physicalists believe it or0:41:19 not0:41:20 right so i try to mention this when i0:41:22 define atheism sometimes when we deliver0:41:24 courses that0:41:25 yes most atheists practically speaking0:41:28 are philosophical naturalists0:41:31 but it's not the case that all of them0:41:34 are0:41:35 so yes to be an atheist you know0:41:38 uh so to be a philosophical naturalist0:41:40 you have to be an atheist0:41:42 but to be an atheist it doesn't doesn't0:41:44 necessarily necessarily entail that0:41:46 you're gonna be0:41:47 a a a philosophical naturalist so for0:41:49 example you have0:41:51 professor david sharma's who adopts what0:41:53 you call the spooky thing called pan0:41:55 psychism i don't know if you've read a0:41:56 book0:41:57 yeah yeah yeah like i think some of0:42:00 these things are just god replacements0:42:01 man0:42:02 i'm telling you you know the multiverse0:42:04 pan psychism0:42:05 all of this stuff these are just like0:42:07 you know almost conceptual0:42:09 replacements for god really bad versions0:42:12 of them right anyway so i just wanted to0:42:13 just0:42:14 mention that because uh sometimes hamza0:42:16 could you explain what pan psychism is0:42:18 just in case yeah well i i think i i0:42:21 think0:42:21 psychists have a problem in explaining0:42:23 what it is as well but basically0:42:26 psychics are basically saying in a0:42:27 really brief nutshell0:42:29 that you have physical properties in the0:42:31 universe0:42:32 right and you also have conscious0:42:34 properties in the universe right0:42:35 so some would argue there's a form of0:42:38 proto-consciousness in an electron0:42:40 so an electron maybe can have a proton0:42:43 consciousness of having an existential0:42:45 crisis0:42:46 why am i here why am i whisping around0:42:49 and i know that's a crude representation0:42:51 of it but basically what they're saying0:42:52 is0:42:53 in the physical universe it's not just0:42:55 physical properties0:42:56 you also have conscious properties a0:42:59 form of proton consciousness0:43:01 the problem with pan psychism there are0:43:03 many problems and they try to address0:43:05 them0:43:06 is the problem of having a unified0:43:08 conscious experience so if for example0:43:10 in the in the fundamental building0:43:12 blocks of the physical world0:43:13 call them electrons or whatever you want0:43:16 to call them0:43:17 if there's a form of proton0:43:18 consciousness in them then if they0:43:20 amalgamate together to form a human0:43:22 being for example how can you explain0:43:24 the unified conscious experience0:43:26 from that perspective so pang psychism0:43:28 uh is is0:43:29 you know some people just laugh at it0:43:31 but it's actually gaining i think a0:43:32 little bit more traction0:43:34 but the interesting thing that brother0:43:35 sharif mentioned was i felt that he0:43:37 summarized everything beautifully and he0:43:39 summarized the heart problem of0:43:41 questions really well0:43:42 it really echoes i don't know if you've0:43:44 heard of frank jackson's mary's example0:43:46 mary thought experiment0:43:48 so the mary thought experiment is0:43:50 basically0:43:52 that he knows all the kind of0:43:55 science if you like and all the0:43:58 everything about color0:43:59 everything about the visual processes0:44:01 from a kind of0:44:02 physical fact point of view she knows0:44:04 all the physical facts about seeing0:44:06 color0:44:06 she knows all the physical facts about0:44:08 the visual processes0:44:09 and so on and so forth but she's been in0:44:12 a black and white0:44:13 grey room all her life she's never seen0:44:16 color in her life0:44:17 yeah but she is the master0:44:20 of understanding the physics and the0:44:22 biology and the chemistry and the0:44:24 physical processes concerning color and0:44:26 visual experience0:44:28 now one day she's allowed to go out of0:44:31 her room0:44:32 and she sees the red rose for the first0:44:34 time0:44:36 the question here is does she learn0:44:39 something new does she now know what0:44:42 it's like0:44:43 to observe a red rose many people0:44:46 intuitive will say yeah it's the first0:44:47 time she's seen a red rose so she's now0:44:49 learned or she has knowledge or0:44:51 knowledge of an experience of what it's0:44:53 like to see a red rose this shows0:44:55 that knowing all the physical facts is0:44:58 not0:44:58 knowing all the facts and there are0:45:01 facts0:45:02 other than physical facts now obviously0:45:03 in the literature there are0:45:05 um responses to this one is called the0:45:07 ability hypothesis and so on and so0:45:08 forth but they're really weak0:45:10 um but i i i think what's interesting0:45:12 maybe to move forward just as a0:45:14 suggestion0:45:15 there are physicalist responses to0:45:18 our kind of attack or our understanding0:45:21 of the heart0:45:22 of consciousness for example eliminative0:45:24 materialism0:45:25 reductive materialism which i just0:45:27 summarized i didn't really discuss0:45:29 why there's problems in and maybe we0:45:32 should we could allow0:45:33 for our guests who come on board to ask0:45:35 us those questions relate to those0:45:37 uh approaches or maybe we should0:45:40 summarize it ourselves0:45:42 it's up to you you're the host but i0:45:44 don't want to preempt anything but0:45:45 usually0:45:46 you know people either talk from the0:45:48 perspective of an eliminated materialist0:45:50 point of view0:45:51 reductive materialist and they have0:45:53 their own arguments0:45:54 functionalism and measured materialism0:45:56 as some are quite you know0:45:58 they think they have a good argument but0:46:00 really uh0:46:01 obviously they don't but i don't know if0:46:03 you want to summarize them and respond0:46:05 to them now or just leave that for later0:46:08 uh about about the pan psychism i just0:46:10 wanted to say real quickly0:46:12 that it's it's it's actually gaining so0:46:14 much traction to the extent that0:46:16 some people are actually proposing for0:46:18 that to be0:46:20 the basis for a scientific paradigm0:46:22 shift0:46:23 in order to allow us to account for0:46:25 consciousness0:46:27 and i think my problem with0:46:30 non-physicalist0:46:31 uh atheist accounts of consciousness and0:46:34 reality0:46:35 is that they really blurry the lines0:46:37 between naturalism and supernaturalism0:46:39 to the extent that as i was saying0:46:41 earlier if you're gonna make that kind0:46:43 of a radical paradigm shift0:46:44 you can even you know include0:46:47 supernaturalism within your worldview as0:46:49 well so0:46:50 we don't really have a meaningful0:46:51 distinction between the two at this0:46:52 point0:46:55 and he makes he um theism far more0:46:57 credible0:46:58 credible in the secular academy0:47:01 right yeah well you know if you're0:47:03 willing to talk about pansexism0:47:05 well there is another new phenomenon0:47:06 phenomenon which you don't really find0:47:08 it in the online world but it's in0:47:10 academia it's called the phenomenal0:47:11 concept strategy0:47:13 so brian law he developed this thing0:47:15 called phenomenal concept strategy0:47:17 and it's been developed by others now0:47:19 but basically what the idea is that you0:47:20 have one property which is a physical0:47:22 property in the universe so it's a0:47:24 physical scientology0:47:25 but they say you have two types of0:47:26 consciousness yeah so two types of0:47:28 concepts0:47:30 so one concept is what you call a0:47:32 physical functional concept and another0:47:33 concept is0:47:34 a disciplination of conscious experience0:47:37 conflict it's a phenomenal0:47:38 concept so they say that when you0:47:41 observe a physical reality you0:47:45 the the the mind what emerges from it0:47:48 is a physical concept and0:47:51 a phenomenal concept so they're trying0:47:54 in so many different ways to try and0:47:56 understand all of these are trying to0:47:58 respond to all of these0:47:59 uh points of view um0:48:02 and uh obviously they have their own0:48:04 problems as well in actual fact i had to0:48:05 write an essay on brian law's0:48:07 phenomenal concept strategy and uh it's0:48:10 like0:48:10 you know as jake said in the beginning i0:48:12 think it was jake um0:48:15 it's a contradictory paradigm0:48:18 consciousness0:48:19 is the final frontier if you like yeah0:48:22 and you know maybe we could also discuss0:48:24 about artificial intelligence because0:48:26 professor johnson's got the very famous0:48:27 chinese roman experiment argument which0:48:29 i think is very powerful0:48:30 against a strong artificial intelligence0:48:33 and i don't believe0:48:34 that they share these articles and take0:48:35 them seriously like0:48:37 a.i is going to be fully conscious like0:48:39 a human being like0:48:40 i'm like what on earth right0:48:43 and brian professor um sells0:48:47 chinese room folks from it's very0:48:49 powerful so maybe we could get to0:48:50 discuss that later as well inshallah0:48:52 and jon searle is a materialist right so0:48:54 he um0:48:58 no no no no no i think he's emergent0:49:03 he believes it's non it's not reducible0:49:06 but i don't know how that's materialism0:49:08 but whatever we can yeah0:49:09 yeah that's that's the thing i was gonna0:49:11 actually comment on is because0:49:13 uh both what abdul and brother hamza are0:49:15 saying0:49:16 is that um i agree with you that there's0:49:19 accounts from0:49:20 a atheist naturalistic paradigm0:49:23 in which they allow for some of these0:49:25 things like john searle's emergentism0:49:27 the problem is that they're starting to0:49:30 muddy the waters0:49:31 and from what i see in my research in0:49:34 academia0:49:35 is that the naturalists are actually0:49:38 starting to move closer to what we would0:49:41 call0:49:42 supernatural things like the0:49:45 consciousness being immaterial0:49:47 um even pan psychism to me it just0:49:50 confounds the problem even more because0:49:52 it's saying0:49:52 well not only is our brain or human0:49:55 beings conscious0:49:56 but every little tiny molecule is some0:49:59 kind of0:50:00 uh has some level of consciousness in it0:50:02 well it doesn't really to me0:50:05 it just makes it even more difficult to0:50:08 for me0:50:08 from my perspective to fit in a0:50:10 naturalist ontology0:50:12 because once you allow for something0:50:14 like that0:50:15 then your most of your arguments against0:50:18 a0:50:19 theism or supernatural supernaturalism0:50:23 seem to fade away0:50:24 because you have a large a lot of the0:50:27 same things within your ontological0:50:29 scheme0:50:30 and so the way i see it is well0:50:33 yeah naturalism is starting to move0:50:36 closer to0:50:37 supernaturalism but it's it's in doing0:50:40 so0:50:41 it's losing ground to criticize the0:50:44 theistic picture0:50:46 and so that that's what the issue is i0:50:49 i think i think it's better to try to0:50:52 push the0:50:53 the naturalist more towards what0:50:55 rosenberg is saying and you guys may0:50:57 disagree but0:50:58 i think it's i think it's to try to show0:51:00 them well no0:51:02 once you start redefining terms in such0:51:04 a way that you can0:51:06 be a materialist and also be a pan0:51:09 psychist0:51:10 and what does materialism really mean at0:51:12 that point0:51:13 i think we start to lose track of of the0:51:16 distinction between the terminology0:51:19 so what i try to do normally is i try to0:51:21 push them towards well no this is0:51:23 you know a hard physicalist picture is0:51:25 really what the true0:51:27 understanding of naturalism would be0:51:29 otherwise okay you can move closer0:51:32 towards me but then0:51:33 don't try to criticize me on on my0:51:36 picture of god or0:51:37 um angels or things like that because0:51:39 you guys are allowing for this0:51:41 you know i don't know i don't know i0:51:44 don't know if you remember it jake but i0:51:45 think you were on the call and we were0:51:47 having a discussion with an atheist0:51:49 friend0:51:49 of ours i think he was an ex-muslim who0:51:51 who was like a proponent of pan psychism0:51:54 and i was talking to him and he accepted0:51:56 like cosmological arguments generally he0:51:59 accepted that there is a necessary0:52:00 foundation for reality0:52:02 and then i think he sort of forgot that0:52:04 he was a pan psychist i'm like so you0:52:06 believe that there is some kind of a0:52:08 conscious cause0:52:09 or a conscious necessary foundation and0:52:11 he was like uh he really hesitated0:52:14 i'm like even if you say it's some kind0:52:15 of a proto-consciousness0:52:17 we're really blurring the lines here0:52:18 between what it is to be a naturalist0:52:20 and a supernatural is because right now0:52:22 you believe in a conscious0:52:23 uh foundation for reality so do i now0:52:25 let's talk about what the nature of that0:52:27 what0:52:28 which which theory better explains the0:52:30 data0:52:32 since we have this huge common ground0:52:34 right so um0:52:35 i i do think the reason i think uh0:52:37 philosophers like graham opie are0:52:39 very good at building this common ground0:52:41 is because he's very straightforward in0:52:43 his definitions of what it means0:52:45 to be a naturalist and a supernaturalist0:52:47 when he said when he says he believes in0:52:48 a natural0:52:50 initial item as he puts it that created0:52:52 the universe or that caused the universe0:52:54 he explicitly says that it's a0:52:56 non-conscious0:52:57 initial so i can work with that right i0:53:00 but then when you say you know it can be0:53:02 anything and you just slap the label0:53:03 natural on it0:53:05 i'm just not not sure how how how that0:53:07 can be philosophically0:53:08 useful in fairness to them if they adopt0:53:12 psychism they've already moved away from0:53:14 a terrorism anyway because yeah0:53:17 is not considered a physicalist uh0:53:20 uh conception of the philosopher of the0:53:22 mind so0:53:23 right they've already moved way away0:53:25 from materialism step on psychists0:53:26 that's for sure0:53:27 right right yeah yeah and the the issue0:53:30 with that like i said is that0:53:32 um one of the things that i'm noticing0:53:35 is that you have people like chalmers0:53:36 moving towards pan psychism0:53:39 and what i see from the theistic0:53:40 paradigm is even with the all the new0:53:43 scientific evidence0:53:44 even the philosophical discussions our0:53:47 view0:53:47 for the most part has stood the test of0:53:50 time0:53:51 all of these things like consciousness0:53:53 and what we're talking about now0:53:55 fit very nicely and neatly within the0:53:57 theistic0:53:58 ontology whereas they don't for0:54:00 naturalism and0:54:01 naturalism is the thing that is having0:54:03 to make room for it0:54:05 where all along we're just saying well0:54:06 yeah guys this is what we've been saying0:54:08 for thousands of years pretty much so i0:54:11 i0:54:12 see that as a a genuine thing that0:54:15 people should be paying close close0:54:17 attention0:54:18 attention to in the sense that0:54:20 naturalism0:54:21 seems to be moving a bit more towards0:54:24 the supernatural0:54:25 and not having as clear of a hard line0:54:28 in between those two things0:54:30 whereas we are perfectly fine with it0:54:32 and it fits very nicely0:54:34 in our ontological uh structure so yeah0:54:37 i want to ask brother hamza a0:54:38 quick question maybe before we bring0:54:40 guests on because um0:54:42 i mean generally uh when we talk about0:54:45 consciousness or arguments from reason0:54:46 they're they're generally arguments0:54:48 against naturalism0:54:49 uh and not necessarily a direct you know0:54:53 we can't0:54:53 we don't have an a direct route to god0:54:56 necessarily it's not like a direct0:54:57 inference0:54:58 i don't know if you disagree with that0:55:00 but um how would you0:55:02 turn this discussion about consciousness0:55:04 to a0:55:05 you know an inference to the to theism0:55:08 basically0:55:10 yeah well i think for me what i would do0:55:12 is0:55:14 it depends what kind of conception of0:55:16 non-physicalistic conception of the mind0:55:18 you adopt so0:55:19 if you adopt a dualistic integrated type0:55:22 of0:55:23 dualism so an integrate type of judaism0:55:25 which basically says that your ontology0:55:27 is0:55:28 that there are physical properties and0:55:30 non-physical properties but at the same0:55:32 time0:55:33 we can still engage with the project of0:55:35 neuroscience neuroscience0:55:37 in order to understand you know how the0:55:39 brain works and so on and so forth0:55:41 but with that kind of metaphysical0:55:43 backdrop that there are0:55:45 physical and non physical properties and0:55:48 all of that makes sense together0:55:50 so you know can you be can you adopt a0:55:54 kind of integrated type of dualism0:55:56 uh like professor tell your pharaoh and0:55:58 others0:55:59 yes you can can that be a good argument0:56:01 for god's existence0:56:03 well from a metaphysical point of view0:56:05 one would say well0:56:06 you know in meta what is metaphysics0:56:08 really it's like your first principles0:56:10 it's like you kind of um first principle0:56:13 framework if you like your lenses in0:56:15 order to understand reality0:56:16 it coheres well with understanding0:56:19 yourself0:56:20 reality and how you relate to reality so0:56:23 one would argue0:56:25 does integrated dualism make sense0:56:28 under theism and then you'd have to make0:56:30 her inference between the two and make a0:56:32 connection between the two0:56:33 and you'd have to show how it's some0:56:35 kind of metaphysically necessary0:56:37 and i don't mean that in a kind of0:56:39 philosophical sense necessary yeah0:56:41 how it's metaphysically necessary0:56:44 to to to to bring in the to bring in0:56:47 theism0:56:49 in order to upgrade and enhance your0:56:52 metaphysics0:56:53 and make sense of integrated dualism0:56:56 that's how you would make the link you0:56:57 say fine0:56:58 okay we believe in dualism we believe in0:57:01 non-physical and physical properties and0:57:03 we also believe that you could do the0:57:04 science to understand the physical no0:57:05 problem so neuroscience is not thrown0:57:07 under the uh you don't throw the baby0:57:09 out with the bath water but it has its0:57:11 scope because it only can deal with the0:57:12 physical stuff0:57:14 no problem right what makes sense of0:57:16 that what makes sense of the fact that0:57:18 there are non-physical0:57:19 properties in the universe and physical0:57:20 properties in the universe and we'd be0:57:22 given a mind0:57:23 to do the science in order to understand0:57:24 the physical stuff what makes sense of0:57:26 that0:57:27 then you say well god makes sense of0:57:28 that how and then you start0:57:30 you have to talk about well who is god0:57:33 and what are the kind of0:57:34 you know essential names and attributes0:57:35 of god that would make sense0:57:37 of of integrated dualism for example so0:57:39 you can0:57:40 say that theism a theistic type of0:57:42 integrated dualism actually makes sense0:57:45 uh but that's how you would have to try0:57:46 and do it and that would be a starting0:57:48 point0:57:49 and would when we bring rationality into0:57:51 the picture i think it just makes it0:57:52 much stronger right like because it's0:57:54 not0:57:54 right now it's not just self-awareness0:57:56 you have self self-awareness but0:57:58 also these truth-bearing faculties that0:58:00 we've been given0:58:01 and if they are reliable then i think0:58:03 that just makes the case for0:58:05 a rational foundation of reality just0:58:08 much stronger0:58:09 well yes it depends if0:58:12 because funny enough i did an essay on0:58:14 this so michael dean0:58:16 he he did a response to planting and0:58:18 stitch0:58:19 on the issue of basically0:58:23 reliable of cognitive faculties0:58:26 so can does natural selection can it0:58:29 basically0:58:29 explain the fact that we have um0:58:34 truth bearing cognitive faculties we0:58:35 have we have reliable cognitive0:58:37 faculties that can produce0:58:39 true beliefs right reliable true beliefs0:58:42 and obviously you know planting his0:58:43 argument you know stitch's argument0:58:45 i think prank taker goes too far in my0:58:47 view he goes way too far i think there0:58:49 is a middle ground0:58:50 i think the the thing that we should0:58:51 suggest is that0:58:53 if you're going to adopt0:58:56 a naturalistic explanation like the0:58:57 darwinian mechanism to explain your0:58:59 truth bearing cognitive faculties that0:59:00 could produce0:59:01 um reliable true beliefs um0:59:05 you they they have to basically adopt0:59:07 skepticism0:59:08 which really undermines their claims0:59:10 about religion and their claims about0:59:12 other things right0:59:13 but that's a big topic that is actually0:59:16 quite a lengthy topic because if you0:59:18 think plantinga went too far then i0:59:20 i i'd say you'd probably say the same0:59:21 about cs lewis because cs lewis makes0:59:23 basically0:59:24 an incompatibility argument between0:59:27 reason and naturalism that0:59:29 it's not just it's not a probabilistic0:59:31 argument that0:59:32 reliable rational faculties would be0:59:34 unlikely under naturalism0:59:36 he says they're completely incompatible0:59:38 as and it's impossible0:59:39 so would you make that strong claim or0:59:42 or would you make america0:59:44 my reading and it could be totally wrong0:59:46 i would say that's a bit too far0:59:49 so um but0:59:53 both would have to actually provide some0:59:54 evidence for the position the best thing0:59:56 that you can do i think which is safest0:59:58 philosophically0:59:59 is just to say you can't claim truth1:00:03 you have to be a skeptic if you adopt1:00:05 natural selection1:00:07 as your primary mechanism to explain1:00:10 your cognitive faculties your reliable1:00:12 cognitive factors that supposedly1:00:14 uh bring about uh reliable true beliefs1:00:17 if you believe natural selection leads1:00:18 to that well you have a problem1:00:20 the safest thing you need to do1:00:21 philosophically is adopt skepticism yeah1:00:24 and you're talking about like a radical1:00:26 kind of skepticism not a healthy1:00:28 kind of skepticism global skepticism1:00:31 you can't make more claims you can't1:00:33 make truth claims you can't even make1:00:35 claims1:00:36 you go to sleep don't enter the debate1:00:38 you're not in the forum1:00:39 you don't even have the keys to the1:00:41 house of reasons you've lost the keys to1:00:43 the house of reason my friend1:00:44 yeah and um uh yeah so i'll show you the1:00:47 essay i did for that it's quite1:00:49 interesting it was for university but1:00:51 yeah so i think it's a little bit too1:00:53 far but to be honest if we bring it up1:00:54 now1:00:55 so it will just take divert tests for a1:00:57 totally different topic yeah yeah yeah1:00:59 yeah i agree but other things should be1:01:01 uh quite crazy so1:01:03 um but yeah so i mean i think yeah i1:01:06 think we're there i mean we've explained1:01:07 what the hard problem of consciousness1:01:09 is two main problems what is it like for1:01:12 a particular conscious organism to have1:01:14 an inner subject of conscious experience1:01:16 and how and why do these inner1:01:18 subjective conscious experiences arise1:01:20 from1:01:20 seemingly cold1:01:23 physical processes physicalism can't1:01:26 answer that1:01:27 you have eliminative materialism which1:01:28 just denies the fact that you have1:01:30 inner subjective conscious experiences1:01:32 obviously they got more to say but we1:01:34 could unpack that when we speak to1:01:35 people today1:01:36 we've got reductive materialism you've1:01:37 got functionism you've got a limited1:01:39 materialism1:01:40 and you should and inshallah we'll be1:01:41 able to deal with these when we get1:01:42 people on board1:01:43 there's no point i'm packing them right1:01:45 now yeah but yeah1:01:47 let's do that inshallah all right so we1:01:49 got um1:01:50 elmo here in the stream i'm going to add1:01:53 you uh mr elmo1:01:57 just maybe a reminder as well to the1:01:59 guests to try to keep their comments1:02:01 questions short1:02:02 unless you want to engage in a pushback1:02:04 and critique the points1:02:07 yeah so how's it going elmo hello what's1:02:09 up hey man1:02:10 yeah i just came from justin's debate1:02:12 with a christian1:02:13 i moderated but i wanted to join here1:02:17 but um1:02:18 yeah you got um well thanks for having1:02:21 me back guys1:02:23 no problem so um i don't know how long1:02:26 you've been watching but we're talking1:02:27 about um1:02:28 consciousness and whether or not it can1:02:30 be grounded on materialism did you have1:02:33 a particular comment or question1:02:37 uh i guess to hamza um1:02:41 in this case then you you talked about1:02:43 like how1:02:44 would we link i guess or directly1:02:46 correlate1:02:47 integrated dualism with theism1:02:50 can you clarify like how you1:02:53 you would do that for yourself in your1:02:55 own belief system1:02:58 uh no i just don't have it in my head1:03:02 i didn't really prepare for the god's1:03:04 existence stuff to be honest1:03:06 uh all right so i'll leave it to someone1:03:08 else to answer1:03:09 i'd have to think about back what i1:03:11 wrote in one of my chapters from my book1:03:13 which had to do do with the fact that1:03:15 you know1:03:16 does you know if god is an all-aware1:03:19 being1:03:20 and the all-knowing being does it make1:03:22 sense that1:03:23 he created organisms that have a mind1:03:26 that have a brain that can also be aware1:03:28 of themselves as well does that follow1:03:30 so it's along the lines of that now one1:03:33 would then argue now well1:03:35 how do you know there is this kind of1:03:37 all aware being1:03:38 that can bring into existence beings1:03:41 with minds that can be aware of1:03:42 themselves but1:03:44 that misses the point of actually having1:03:46 a coherent metaphysic to explain reality1:03:48 because1:03:49 if you continue like that then you'll1:03:50 have no metaphysical assumptions and1:03:52 therefore you'll have no1:03:53 understanding of most of reality so you1:03:55 need what they call1:03:57 a metaphysical stopping point that makes1:03:59 sense1:04:00 of reality so um i haven't really1:04:04 prepared for it i don't really remember1:04:05 what i wrote or stuff so1:04:07 you'd have to ask someone else to be1:04:08 honest okay so can you tell me like what1:04:10 your definition of consciousness is like1:04:13 what1:04:13 exactly is consciousness for you1:04:16 i guess consciousness okay so1:04:22 echoing professor david chalmers he1:04:25 makes a distinguishing1:04:26 a distinction between the easy problems1:04:29 and1:04:30 the hard problems okay so when he1:04:33 discusses the problems of consciousness1:04:35 he elaborates on what consciousness is1:04:37 so with regards to the easy problems is1:04:40 that you're able to1:04:41 think you have a stream of thoughts1:04:45 you have the ability to1:04:49 to perform cognitive functions that1:04:52 result1:04:53 in thinking such as1:04:56 mathematical thinking you can make1:04:58 inferences1:04:59 you can make deductive arguments you can1:05:02 conceptualize1:05:03 you could infer you could deduce you can1:05:07 reflect you can ponder you have1:05:11 memory for example that's another aspect1:05:13 the connected to consciousness1:05:15 and then the other aspect was is that1:05:17 you have what you call1:05:19 the experience the inner subject of1:05:21 conscious experience1:05:23 so for example when you eat a1:05:24 marshmallow something is happening1:05:27 obviously to your physical senses1:05:30 something is happening in your brain for1:05:31 sure1:05:32 but you're also undergoing a particular1:05:35 experience1:05:36 eating that nice soft i don't know1:05:39 strawberry flavored marshmallow whatever1:05:41 kind of marshmallow you like right1:05:43 so there's the inner sub innocent in it1:05:46 in the subjective experiences like pla1:05:49 and pleasure and the experiences of1:05:52 having1:05:53 i don't know a romantic dinner with your1:05:55 wife or whatever the case may be right1:05:57 um and then you have the easier problems1:05:59 which you know one would argue1:06:00 functionalism may address or the other1:06:02 kind of1:06:04 physicalist ontologies may address which1:06:06 include things like1:06:07 you know we have a stream of of thinking1:06:09 of conscious thought1:06:10 we can infer we can deduce and so on and1:06:12 so forth1:06:14 so that would basically hopefully1:06:16 summarize what it means1:06:18 when we're saying consciousness so1:06:21 can i ask you so you said that um for1:06:23 the easy definition like it's1:06:26 the ability to think would you say that1:06:28 a computer1:06:29 you know that a very complex complex1:06:32 computer1:06:33 is it would you say that's that1:06:35 something that's able to think1:06:36 and have this stream of cognitive1:06:38 functions or would you say that oh1:06:41 like consciousness is only limited to1:06:44 biological uh1:06:46 material and not something like a1:06:48 microchip1:06:49 it's a very good question well it1:06:51 depends what you mean by thinking1:06:53 so if thinking you relate it to meaning1:06:56 and to meaning you relate to1:06:57 intentionality1:06:58 then computers don't do anything like1:07:00 that computers1:07:02 are just about syntactical arrangements1:07:05 so1:07:06 the basis of all computer programs are1:07:08 zeros on ones so1:07:09 it's based on syntax in other words1:07:11 symbols it's a rearrangement of zeros1:07:13 and ones1:07:14 do these zeros on ones are they aware of1:07:16 their own1:07:18 zero and one and or are they aware of1:07:20 something outside of themselves right1:07:22 do they have an ability to attach1:07:24 meaning to the symbols1:07:26 and that's a kind of interesting1:07:27 argument in consciousness1:07:29 so you know as uh brother charisse1:07:32 mentioned earlier he1:07:33 eloquently talked about the kind of1:07:35 computer system and then zeros and ones1:07:38 and when it comes to computer systems1:07:40 the problem that you have is that really1:07:42 it's a you need a mind to interpret the1:07:44 zeros on ones anyway you need an1:07:46 external1:07:47 mind to do that and that's why william1:07:48 hasker he makes a really good point1:07:50 he basically says that computer programs1:07:52 or computer systems are just a1:07:53 protraction1:07:54 of human of human consciousness anyway1:07:57 of human rationality anyway right1:08:00 so can computers think like us of course1:08:03 not1:08:04 can they do kind of abstract reasoning1:08:06 based on their syntactical arrangements1:08:08 and come up with you know very fast1:08:11 kind of uh solutions to complicate1:08:13 algorithms1:08:14 for sure can computers be seemingly more1:08:17 intelligent than humans1:08:18 in this particular way 100 they already1:08:22 they're already showing this1:08:23 but what do you mean by thinking if1:08:25 you're talking about meaning and1:08:26 intentionality as well1:08:28 which is the kind of you know the1:08:30 cautious stream of1:08:31 thoughts right then absolutely not1:08:34 because1:08:35 let me let me show you what i mean by1:08:37 making a distinction between1:08:39 syntactical and semantic arrangements so1:08:42 for example let me give you three1:08:43 sentences1:08:44 in in language1:08:50 and i love you a lot so that's greek1:08:53 turkish1:08:54 and english okay they all have the same1:08:57 meaning which is1:08:59 i love you a lot now say you only know1:09:02 english1:09:03 if i give you the greek alphabet and1:09:05 i'll tell you to put1:09:06 sigma which is the like the s sigma1:09:11 epsilon right which is like the e then1:09:13 have a space and i'll tell you take1:09:15 the alpha and put it here take the gamma1:09:18 put it next to the alpha take the alpha1:09:20 again critics of the gamma so1:09:22 i could train you on without even1:09:25 talking about meaning1:09:26 on arranging those symbols in a1:09:29 particular way1:09:31 by virtue but by by virtue of you1:09:34 knowing how to arrange those symbols in1:09:36 a particular way1:09:37 it will never give rise to the meaning1:09:38 of i love you a lot1:09:40 you just never know because you have no1:09:41 way of attaching the meaning to those1:09:44 symbols right1:09:45 so that's an interesting distinction to1:09:48 make between1:09:49 uh syntactic and semantic arrangements1:09:52 and computer programs are very similar1:09:54 they're based on basically zeros and1:09:55 ones fundamentally1:09:57 and even when you talk about machine1:09:59 learning and all of these crazy1:10:00 beautiful terms that you learn about now1:10:01 in artificial intelligence it's still1:10:03 reduced to1:10:04 zeros on ones arranged in a particular1:10:06 way yeah so1:10:07 just to wrap this up professor john so1:10:10 came1:10:10 uh developed a really powerful thought1:10:13 experiment he was on a plane i think1:10:15 when he was thinking1:10:16 about this and he's called the chinese1:10:17 normal experiment and he wants to make a1:10:19 distinction between strong ai and weak1:10:21 ai1:10:21 which is the kind of distinction that1:10:22 we're making now can computers really1:10:24 think like reading kind of thing1:10:26 and the chinese room experiment in in1:10:30 summary is this you have someone in a1:10:31 room1:10:34 and there are chinese speakers outside1:10:35 of the room1:10:37 and the chinese speakers are giving1:10:39 questions in chinese1:10:41 to the person in the room the person in1:10:43 the room does not know chinese1:10:46 but they do have an english rule book1:10:48 and the english rule book is telling him1:10:50 when you see a squiggly thing plus1:10:53 another squiggly thing that looks like1:10:54 this1:10:55 then give some cards about to the people1:10:59 outside of the room1:11:01 that include these squiggly things so1:11:03 he's got a rule book1:11:04 that teaches them how to look at the1:11:07 shapes1:11:08 and the syntactic arrangement of the of1:11:11 the symbols and shapes of chinese1:11:13 the characters and the rule book tells1:11:15 them if you see this type of1:11:17 kind of arrangement then give them these1:11:21 characters now the people outside of the1:11:23 room every time they ask a question1:11:25 they're getting the right1:11:26 answer so the people outside the room1:11:27 who know chinese they think1:11:29 the person in the room actually knows1:11:31 chinese1:11:32 but he doesn't he just has an english1:11:34 rule book1:11:35 that helps him uh deal with the kind of1:11:38 syntactic arrangements not the semantic1:11:40 arrangements because that has no way of1:11:42 adding semantics to syntax right1:11:44 so that shows that the computer system1:11:48 can do1:11:49 complex uh symbolic arrangement or1:11:52 syntactic arrangements but1:11:53 there's no way of attaching meaning to1:11:55 the symbols now one would1:11:56 there's there is a reply to this is1:11:58 called the system's reply1:12:00 and one would argue is well doesn't the1:12:02 whole system know the meaning1:12:04 well what does that mean there is no way1:12:06 of the system attaching meaning to the1:12:08 symbols1:12:08 in in any shape or form even if the rule1:12:11 book was in the person's head1:12:13 they would still not know uh chinese the1:12:16 meaning of1:12:17 of those words right yeah okay uh one1:12:19 letter1:12:20 yeah elmo i just i just want to say that1:12:23 we've got a bunch of people waiting1:12:25 so yeah we're gonna we're gonna yeah1:12:26 we're gonna have to move on to the next1:12:28 guest1:12:29 but sorry uh yeah yeah i do appreciate1:12:31 you calling no no no no no problem1:12:33 brother hamza1:12:34 but i do appreciate you um calling in1:12:37 and uh1:12:38 asking some questions thank you guys1:12:39 thank you take care1:12:41 thank you nice to meet you take care1:12:45 all right we're gonna go to uh muzzy1:12:48 here1:12:50 hey mazzy you hear me yeah yeah1:12:54 sound welcome so uh what i wanted to ask1:12:57 you1:12:58 is um how do you1:13:02 not not reconciling a way but square up1:13:04 this idea of them1:13:06 you know like traumatic incidents to1:13:07 like people who have had like brain1:13:09 injuries1:13:10 who have lost their um in way sense of1:13:13 self1:13:14 like there was a famous um incident back1:13:16 in the 1800s when someone got a ball1:13:19 um through their head it was a train1:13:20 it's quite famous they teach it in1:13:21 psychology medical school they did1:13:23 everything1:13:23 and he had a pole go through his um1:13:26 brain1:13:27 and his perception changed but he was1:13:30 still himself1:13:31 but something changed about him so i was1:13:32 thinking if they could use this as an1:13:34 argument to say that1:13:35 there's something physical about1:13:37 consciousness and but just another1:13:39 interesting thought1:13:40 obviously i'm like a medical school i1:13:41 mean so i1:13:43 you know like you know when you study1:13:44 conjoined twins who are conjoined in the1:13:46 brain1:13:47 it's interesting that they still have1:13:49 this individualistic will1:13:50 despite their motor functions in the1:13:52 brain it's quite interesting1:13:54 but then obviously i was going to ask1:13:56 you about the um thing about traumatic1:13:57 brain injuries to see what you guys1:13:59 think1:14:01 yeah i don't know who wants to tackle it1:14:05 first if anybody1:14:06 i'll just say one sentence that i think1:14:09 i mean if i'm not misunderstanding this1:14:11 i think this is more related to the easy1:14:12 problem of consciousness1:14:14 because we do we do acknowledge that1:14:16 there are interactions and there are1:14:17 correlations between1:14:19 the physical aspects of our neural1:14:21 activity and our consciousness1:14:23 and and this is more a question to do1:14:25 with you know personal identity and1:14:27 mental continuity and stuff1:14:29 which i think is is a problem that is1:14:31 related to consciousness but it's not1:14:33 i don't think it's dire like like the1:14:34 hard problem of consciousness itself1:14:36 which1:14:37 deals with like self-awareness and1:14:39 qualia but um1:14:40 yeah but it's it's a good question i1:14:42 just i don't think it's it's it's it1:14:44 directly tackles the hard problem of1:14:46 consciousness it1:14:48 all shows us is that there are1:14:49 correlations between our neurological1:14:52 activity and our uh perceived personal1:14:54 identity1:14:55 or even our consciousness which we do1:14:56 acknowledge i mean dualists don't deny1:14:59 that there is uh you know some kind of a1:15:01 correlation or an1:15:03 inter interaction or interdependence1:15:04 between the physical and the1:15:05 non-physical1:15:07 yeah so yeah1:15:10 any any of those scientific uh1:15:13 uh medical examples to know in any shape1:15:16 or form1:15:17 undermine the kind of independence of1:15:20 non-physical consciousness1:15:21 and the physical brain it doesn't1:15:23 undermine it at all in any shape or form1:15:24 and a really easy thought experiment is1:15:26 to think about someone driving a car1:15:28 right so in order for the so you have a1:15:31 driver you have a car1:15:33 in order for the driver to start driving1:15:36 the car1:15:37 the car has to work right if the car1:15:40 doesn't work and the driver is okay1:15:43 then the the driver is not going to go1:15:45 anywhere1:15:46 conversely the car1:15:49 even if it's working and this and the1:15:50 drive is dead right1:15:52 the car's not going to go anywhere so1:15:54 that's a really interesting1:15:56 simple way of showing that the guy in1:15:58 the car is like the mind1:15:59 and the car itself is like the brain1:16:02 yeah just because they need each other1:16:05 to kind of1:16:06 uh function in the physical world it1:16:08 doesn't mean they're the same thing1:16:11 it's and that's why you can make a very1:16:12 clear distinction between the driver and1:16:14 the car1:16:15 just because the brain is damaged in in1:16:18 this case maybe the car's damaged maybe1:16:20 i don't know the the gear stick's not1:16:22 working properly1:16:23 if something's gonna happen the the1:16:25 driver he may be a fully functional1:16:27 great driver but if the gear stick's not1:16:30 working properly then the car's not1:16:31 gonna be moving that well right1:16:33 so these examples in1:16:37 medicine even in medical history do not1:16:39 undermine in any shape or form the fact1:16:41 that consciousness can be independent1:16:44 to physicality in any shape or form um1:16:48 and yes i would echo what abdul said as1:16:50 well even if they were to try and make1:16:52 that claim1:16:52 still doesn't undermine doesn't solve1:16:55 the hard problem of consciousness which1:16:57 is1:16:57 what is it like for an individual human1:16:59 being to have an inner subject of1:17:00 conscious experience1:17:01 and why do these phenomenal conscious1:17:03 states in a subject of conscious states1:17:05 arise1:17:06 from neurobiological physical things in1:17:08 the first place so1:17:09 that would be my answer to that1:17:11 particular question right and even when1:17:13 you have1:17:14 cases like when they remove half of1:17:17 someone's brain1:17:18 it's not like you have half of the1:17:20 consciousness or half of the person1:17:22 there's still a unified consciousness so1:17:25 if you thought that there was a direct1:17:26 correlation we would expect to find1:17:28 something different1:17:30 and interestingly enough there are some1:17:32 people1:17:33 you can actually look it up i forget the1:17:35 name of uh1:17:36 the brain disorder issue but there are1:17:38 people that actually only have1:17:40 10 percent of the normal brain matter1:17:44 and yet they can function to up to 751:17:47 percent1:17:47 as quote-unquote normal as we would with1:17:50 a full brain1:17:52 so if that were true we would expect to1:17:54 see something1:17:55 dip radically different than that so i1:17:57 think that also1:17:58 helps to understand and capture what's1:18:00 happening well you throw something1:18:03 in the way i'm sorry just very quickly1:18:05 to throw something as a span into the1:18:07 works this new thing called1:18:08 neurocardiology1:18:09 that's been discussed for the past 20 or1:18:11 30 years or something1:18:13 that the heart now has its own brain1:18:15 it's1:18:16 like 40 000 neurons right stomach as1:18:19 well1:18:20 sorry the stomach as well yeah1:18:24 and it makes it's very interesting when1:18:27 you refer to some hadith talking about1:18:28 the stomach right the stomach lied1:18:30 right now obviously there's an1:18:32 interpretation to that but it just gives1:18:33 a different spin to these hadith1:18:35 so the heart you know and1:18:38 neuroscientists by the way are not i1:18:39 haven't studied this properly it's in1:18:41 the literature it's in the medical1:18:42 literature they're not studying this1:18:43 probably it's actually cardiologists1:18:44 that are studying the kind of1:18:45 uh the brain of the heart if you like1:18:47 it's got about 40 000 neurons1:18:49 and this also shows the scientific1:18:52 method is based on induction we'll have1:18:53 new data that can undermine previous1:18:55 conclusions it's influx1:18:57 so god knows you know and that's why1:18:59 there's been some evidence to show i'm1:19:00 not saying it's conclusive that when1:19:02 heart1:19:02 when people have heart transplants1:19:04 people's memories they have different1:19:06 memories1:19:07 or slight personality personality1:19:09 changes as well1:19:10 so you know what they're going to say1:19:12 about that that now consciousness is is1:19:14 in the heart1:19:14 okay well thank you that's like the1:19:16 islamic paradigm do you see my point1:19:18 i just want to throw that in there1:19:19 because that's very interesting so yep1:19:22 yep and um you can make a quick comment1:19:25 and then we're going to have to go to1:19:27 the next guest1:19:28 if you have any final thoughts yeah i1:19:30 was going to say with what you said1:19:31 about1:19:32 it's the um they split the corpus1:19:33 callosum which is the land of like nerve1:19:35 fibers in the middle of the brain1:19:37 and your right consciousness doesn't1:19:38 really split and i've seen atheists try1:19:40 to redefine it and saying that we've1:19:41 discovered1:19:42 changes but they they mean like uh1:19:44 certain like physical emotional1:19:45 experiences1:19:46 because you're affecting physical brain1:19:48 so they try to redefine the term but1:19:50 yeah it's funny1:19:50 even when you split them in the1:19:52 consciousness is still unified yeah1:19:54 all right well appreciate you coming on1:19:56 and asking your question muzzy uh i1:19:58 guess we'll talk to you another time1:19:59 so i'm like1:20:03 just really quickly before you move on1:20:05 to the next guest really quick1:20:06 to make one point which is that i think1:20:08 the discussion here is not necessarily1:20:10 about whether1:20:11 if you affect the neurons are you going1:20:13 to affect certain perceptions or1:20:15 emotional states1:20:17 i think the discussion is is that does1:20:19 the brain state does the physical matter1:20:21 of the brain1:20:22 does it provide us the complete picture1:20:24 of consciousness1:20:25 can it bridge the gap between1:20:27 understanding the physical processes of1:20:29 the brain1:20:30 and consciousness itself and the point1:20:32 being is that it doesn't1:20:33 and it's not because we just don't know1:20:35 the science enough1:20:37 it's because it's an in-principle1:20:39 problem there's an unbridgeable gap1:20:41 yeah so you can so even if i think there1:20:43 was a question somebody asked uh1:20:45 in a in a comment when we were1:20:47 advertising this uh stream1:20:49 he said well yeah but you could you know1:20:51 do a head transplant1:20:52 yeah and you could you know take the1:20:54 consciousness of a person into another1:20:56 person1:20:56 then i said okay look even if they were1:21:00 able to do this it still does not1:21:02 explain consciousness1:21:04 yeah and i think hamza's exact example1:21:06 of the car in the drive is a very good1:21:07 example1:21:08 in order to explain that point it's not1:21:10 really explaining1:21:12 where that consciousness comes from it's1:21:15 just simply explaining that1:21:16 one of the facets or the vehicle by1:21:19 which consciousness1:21:21 comes into the world is for a brain1:21:24 right right all right we're gonna go to1:21:27 the next1:21:28 guest we've got adnan here1:21:32 salaam alaikum everyone1:21:37 i have a quick question uh what do you1:21:39 guys think1:21:40 is the islamic definition of1:21:42 consciousness1:21:44 not like the philosophical you know in1:21:46 terms of the western tradition1:21:48 but what is the islamic like where is1:21:50 somewhere we can point in the quran and1:21:52 sunnah1:21:53 and say this is consciousness1:21:56 that's my question basically1:22:00 uh i don't know which one you guys want1:22:02 to start to address that that's a little1:22:04 bit out of my1:22:04 house i think the question is1:22:08 is when we're talking about1:22:09 consciousness are we talking about a1:22:11 phenomena1:22:12 that we can ascertain from the mind by1:22:15 our investigation1:22:17 or are we talking about a phenomena that1:22:19 requires some textual information to1:22:22 inform us about1:22:23 for example when we talk about angels1:22:25 maletica1:22:26 that's not something that i can sense1:22:28 rationally yeah or scientifically in1:22:30 order to come to the conclusion that1:22:31 angels exist1:22:32 that comes from the text so because it1:22:35 comes from the text and the text informs1:22:37 us1:22:38 we don't try to rationalize it now other1:22:40 things that we can1:22:42 sense and we can understand for example1:22:44 the earth is round1:22:45 yeah or is a sphere then we can sense1:22:48 these things so then we can1:22:49 interpret and understand that from the1:22:51 reality so this this would be considered1:22:54 yeah rational evidence as opposed to1:22:58 which is like textual evidence from the1:23:00 quran in the sunnah1:23:01 now there may be an overlap yeah so1:23:04 there are certain things that the text1:23:06 will refer to which are phenomenas that1:23:09 you can sense within the real world1:23:11 yeah and one of those may be the aspects1:23:13 of consciousness or the fitra of a human1:23:15 being1:23:16 if there were you know the prophet1:23:18 sallallahu alaihi1:23:23 of opinion as to what the fitra means1:23:26 some1:23:26 explain it to mean the desire to worship1:23:28 one god some believe it's the1:23:30 innate you know instinctual behaviors1:23:32 within human beings others say it's the1:23:34 uncle the mind1:23:36 there's discussions within the mentions1:23:38 in the quran about the1:23:40 heart some explain this to be like the1:23:42 rational center the ability to make1:23:44 those thinking processes1:23:46 so there are things that the text may1:23:48 say which has some correspondence to1:23:50 reality1:23:51 so if we can we can try to harmonize the1:23:53 two being sincere to the text and also1:23:56 correct the reality if there isn't then1:23:58 it's a textual matter which we believe1:24:00 in1:24:00 and we don't try to superimpose upon the1:24:02 text so1:24:04 the original discussion about1:24:05 consciousness is a discussion that1:24:07 exists that we can sense we can talk1:24:10 about in the real world1:24:11 irrespective whether we've got1:24:12 revelation or not yeah1:24:14 so that's where the the area of1:24:16 knowledge exists1:24:18 and in the quran allah talks about1:24:21 you know uh that there are signs for1:24:24 people of thinking of death you have to1:24:26  __  your own people1:24:28 of thought so there's mentions many1:24:30 points about1:24:32 this uh phenomena of being able to think1:24:35 and come to certain conclusions1:24:37 uh and being rational uh and come to1:24:39 conclusions all those panels that exist1:24:41 quran is a rational process that's going1:24:45 on in the mind1:24:46 i don't know if uh hamster wants to1:24:52 add or mention anything no i think it1:24:53 was very good but i think just to add to1:24:55 that i think some brothers they1:24:56 mistakenly1:24:58 yeah sure uh so1:25:01 i some brothers and sisters they think1:25:04 that when we talk about this issue1:25:07 um can you hear me1:25:20 looks like we lost him there um1:25:23 yeah sorry about that uh brother but1:25:26 none of that answered your question or1:25:29 because the temptation is to talk about1:25:31 nerfs and1:25:32 raw yeah exactly be careful whether1:25:35 these things1:25:36 are something that's mentioned in the1:25:38 text yeah1:25:40 and they're talking about the phenomena1:25:41 of consciousness or they're just talking1:25:43 about the text1:25:44 that's mentioned in the quran and sunnah1:25:46 but we shouldn't try to interpret it or1:25:48 rationalize it in the way1:25:49 so hamza's backing now so i think we can1:25:51 go back1:25:52 yes sorry so basically some people1:25:55 conflate the whole consciousness issue1:25:57 with1:25:58 the with the reality of the raw and the1:26:00 soul1:26:01 and we have to understand that allah1:26:03 subhanahu wa ta'ala when he talks about1:26:05 he said it's the command of your lord1:26:06 and you've been given this little1:26:08 knowledge1:26:09 so we're not going into the in-depth you1:26:11 know what is this the nature of the soul1:26:13 and the essence of the soul the makeup1:26:15 of the soul1:26:16 this that allah who created the soul and1:26:19 created us1:26:19 is telling us we've been given very1:26:21 little knowledge what we're doing is1:26:23 if you read the quran in the sunnah just1:26:25 like what brother shuri said1:26:27 our understanding that we have the1:26:30 ability to have inner1:26:31 inner subject of conscious experiences1:26:33 is assumed throughout the quran and the1:26:36 sunnah1:26:37 it's assumed throughout the quran and1:26:38 the sunnah in so many different hadith1:26:40 so many different ayat in the quran1:26:43 the issue of that we have inner1:26:45 subjective conscious experiences1:26:47 is assumed in the quran and the sunnah1:26:49 so even if you wanted some kind of1:26:50 texture evidence1:26:51 then you can go to the text and1:26:54 understand right what is the assumption1:26:56 here well the assumption is that there1:26:58 is a conscious human being that has an1:26:59 ability to have inner subjective1:27:01 conscious experiences1:27:02 and that's not necessarily the same as1:27:04 saying oh we're gonna know what the1:27:06 essence of the soul is now1:27:07 no this is beyond us uh because it's1:27:11 part of the unseen and allah subhanallah1:27:13 told us1:27:14 that we have been given this little1:27:16 knowledge about1:27:17 so i just wanted to add that because1:27:19 people usually mention that as some kind1:27:21 of1:27:22 you can't talk about this it's1:27:23 un-islamic because allah says you can't1:27:25 talk about the law1:27:26 or you don't have much information about1:27:28 it but hopefully i've made that1:27:29 distinction inshallah1:27:31 yeah one i want to add a very small part1:27:33 just because it's important to1:27:34 contextualize these discussions1:27:37 and as i mentioned earlier that the hard1:27:40 problem of consciousness1:27:41 is only a hard problem as far as1:27:44 materialism or1:27:45 science is concerned the quran doesn't1:27:47 really need to come down and tell you1:27:48 that there is consciousness or what1:27:50 consciousness1:27:50 is you you need to be conscious to read1:27:53 the quran1:27:53 right and the the common sense1:27:56 understanding1:27:57 of our experience is a dualistic1:28:00 understanding like people common1:28:03 sensically1:28:04 have a dualistic ontology of the world1:28:07 the problem comes the radical shift1:28:09 comes is when the materialist comes and1:28:11 says that no no everything1:28:13 is reducible to the physical now that1:28:16 radical shift that's not something that1:28:19 you find1:28:20 that's not a fatally thing that that you1:28:22 found throughout human history1:28:24 it's not widespread in that sense so the1:28:26 quran is not it doesn't come down to1:28:28 give you these things about the futuri1:28:30 aspects that we already know1:28:32 we we we have to be conscious in order1:28:34 to1:28:35 read the quran or receive it or or1:28:37 whatever1:28:38 and as brother hamza said what1:28:40 consciousness is isn't really this1:28:42 discussion this this and and i don't1:28:44 think we can ever say that1:28:45 because allah says1:28:49 it's from the command of my lord it's1:28:51 not something we can ever1:28:53 you know come to know about in detail1:28:56 but the question is what world view1:29:00 best accounts for this reality and1:29:03 uh what world view is completely1:29:06 incompatible1:29:07 uh with this reality i think that's1:29:09 that's that's the issue but the1:29:10 existence of consciousness1:29:12 or self-awareness is is something that's1:29:14 kind of taken for granted1:29:15 everywhere yeah all right brother well1:29:18 we appreciate the question we're gonna1:29:20 have to move on to the next1:29:21 guest now but uh thanks for calling it1:29:24 all right so i'm liking brother1:29:28 okay let's move to1:29:32 tushar we have here hello guys1:29:35 thanks for having me i'm right not too1:29:38 bad1:29:39 yeah yeah thank you guys uh i think i'm1:29:41 here first time with you guys1:29:43 probably yeah yeah right now do you have1:29:47 a comment or question1:29:49 yes comment uh consciousness as your1:29:51 topic today is consciousness1:29:53 is a miracle i don't think so it's a1:29:55 miracle1:29:56 uh when he said the can you please1:29:58 explain when david chambers said the1:30:00 heart problem of consciousness what that1:30:04 means1:30:06 i'm sorry you said can we explain the1:30:07 hard consciousness from1:30:09 commerce yes what that means when david1:30:12 was a heart problem of consciousness1:30:14 yeah brother hamza touched on it earlier1:30:16 i don't know if you heard it but maybe1:30:18 he can just repeat it again for you1:30:20 please if you can't yeah but he's not1:30:22 very briefly like it1:30:24 yeah i'll pull out his coffee it's right1:30:28 in front of me1:30:29 so david chalmers what he says about1:30:32 consciousness1:30:32 is as follows he says the really hard1:30:35 problem of consciousness is the problem1:30:37 of experience1:30:39 when we think and perceive there is1:30:40 aware of information processing1:30:42 but there is also a subjective aspect1:30:45 this subjective aspect is1:30:47 experience when we see for example we1:30:49 experience1:30:50 visual sensations the quality of redness1:30:53 the experience of dark and light the1:30:55 quality of depth and a physical field1:30:57 other experiences go along with1:30:59 perception in different modalities1:31:01 the sound of a clarinet the smell of1:31:03 mothballs1:31:04 then there are bodily sensations from1:31:06 pains to1:31:07 orgasms mental images that are conjured1:31:10 up internally the felt quality of the1:31:12 emotion1:31:12 and the experience of the stream of1:31:14 conscious thought and what he said1:31:16 it's as follows what unites all these1:31:18 states is that there is something1:31:20 there is something it is like to be in1:31:22 them all of them1:31:24 experience if any problem qualifies as1:31:27 the problem of consciousness1:31:28 it is this one in this central sense of1:31:31 consciousness an1:31:31 organism and a mental state is conscious1:31:34 if there is something it is like1:31:36 to be in that state and in his other1:31:38 works and in the same literature1:31:40 he talks about that's one of the main1:31:42 problems of the heart problem1:31:44 which is what we don't know what it's1:31:45 like for a conscious organism to have a1:31:47 particular1:31:48 in a subjective conscious experience and1:31:50 you also have example1:31:51 thomas uh you have professor alter when1:31:54 he talks about the ontological problem1:31:56 and he says1:31:57 how does my brain's activity generate1:31:59 those experiences1:32:00 why is more than others indeed why is1:32:03 any physical event accompanied by1:32:05 conscious experience1:32:07 problems is known as the hard problem of1:32:09 consciousness yeah1:32:10 so1:32:18 you explain all the or whatever as you1:32:21 i've also read1:32:22 david chalmers and everything you1:32:24 explain all the parts which is subject1:32:26 to the brain1:32:28 the heart problem of consciousness the1:32:30 part you missed i'm sorry with the1:32:32 precisely i'm saying that1:32:34 the heart problem of consciousness is1:32:36 who experienced the blankness1:32:39 science neurosciences stuck on that what1:32:42 you said this is right absolutely right1:32:44 whatever have we experienced we1:32:45 experience dreams taste1:32:47 love emotions everything is we have1:32:50 found it1:32:50 there are some neurons in your brain1:32:52 which experience that now1:32:54 let me explain you that if you don't1:32:55 mind so the where the issue comes from1:32:57 if you come from1:32:58 when we are awake as you are awake and1:33:00 we all awake we experience the world1:33:02 with our1:33:02 senses i think someone typing behind is1:33:05 it1:33:06 a yeah thank you so when we experience1:33:09 the world we experience with our senses1:33:11 with our smell we look at things we1:33:13 touch things so we experience that1:33:15 so this is what we call awakened world1:33:17 and then we have a dream world1:33:19 where you dream the things like you know1:33:21 when you which is imagined by your brain1:33:23 and you also experience that as it is1:33:24 like uh as it has happened1:33:26 like let's say you wake up tomorrow1:33:28 morning and you say oh i had a dream1:33:29 last night1:33:30 and i felt about it like you know1:33:31 probably gone for holiday or you had a1:33:33 bad nightmare or whatever1:33:34 you experience that but your only brain1:33:37 you know imagine this1:33:38 but the problem comes from when you1:33:40 didn't have a dream1:33:41 like you know let's say you slept one1:33:43 night1:33:44 and you wake up in the morning and you1:33:46 said i didn't have a dream last night1:33:47 now the problem come here how do you1:33:49 know you don't have a dream1:33:51 when your brain not active your body is1:33:52 not active so that's the heart problem1:33:54 of consciousness1:33:55 which means we the sciences agree to1:33:57 there is there is something which1:33:59 witness the blankness but we cannot1:34:01 establish that1:34:04 yeah i don't know i don't know if that's1:34:06 the correct reading of the current1:34:07 literature from my1:34:09 understanding the hard problem is based1:34:12 on two main questions1:34:13 which is what is it like for me to have1:34:17 a particular conscious experience and1:34:19 what is it like for you to have a1:34:20 particular conscious experience so for1:34:22 example1:34:23 we could have the two identical meals we1:34:25 could have a1:34:26 biryani right yeah yeah we both have the1:34:29 same biryani1:34:30 i am1:34:34 experience and so are you i know what my1:34:37 subjective experience feels like1:34:40 my brother just a second but it is an1:34:42 experience1:34:43 yeah but let me finish yeah the problem1:34:46 is so i just want to articulate the1:34:47 problem so you can understand the1:34:49 distinctions that are being made1:34:50 the problem now is if i were to try and1:34:53 find out what it's like1:34:54 for you to have the same biryani1:34:58 knowing everything about your brain will1:35:00 not lead to me knowing about your1:35:03 particular experience as we discussed1:35:04 earlier in this pro in this in this1:35:06 podcast1:35:06 but it's still subject to your senses1:35:08 i'm sorry sorry to interrupt you that1:35:10 but it's still your senses experience1:35:13 people can have a different taste1:35:14 maybe some people are going to like1:35:15 biryani some people aren't going to like1:35:16 it1:35:20 it is subject to your just a second guys1:35:22 it is subject to your1:35:24 senses your taste smell touching1:35:27 we all have that we all have that it can1:35:30 be different that's nothing to do with1:35:31 but the conscious play is the important1:35:33 part but we all1:35:34 experience that biryani without with1:35:36 that conscious1:35:38 it's in a well i don't know how much uh1:35:40 well1:35:41 okay probably next time whatever but1:35:43 that's the point i want to1:35:44 make it uh the problem the heart problem1:35:47 of consciousness is1:35:49 who witnessed the blankness who told you1:35:51 you didn't have a dream last night1:35:53 that's the we are stuck in as a science1:35:56 i think i think1:35:57 no one's disagreeing with the fact that1:35:58 you need you need1:36:00 senses you need um and and there is1:36:03 someone experiencing something that's1:36:05 not undermining the fact that there1:36:06 isn't a problem there is a problem1:36:08 the issue is is when we use those senses1:36:11 and we have experiences then yeah1:36:15 can we know the reality of someone1:36:17 else's experiences1:36:19 by just using your own senses but we1:36:21 have nothing to do with1:36:22 others experience it's all about ours1:36:25 your experience always going to be1:36:27 different than mine but1:36:28 who's experiencing that's the one thing1:36:31 for example1:36:32 if i give you i'm sorry to interrupt you1:36:34 you eaten biryani1:36:36 we depend on our likes and dislikes good1:36:38 or bad but we all have experience you1:36:40 guys are making me hungry1:36:42 [Laughter]1:36:44 i know yeah me too but this is like you1:36:47 know yeah1:36:48 please we agree we're both gonna have1:36:50 experience so the question here is1:36:52 the first part of the hard problem of1:36:53 consciousness is then1:36:55 what is your experience like from my1:36:57 perspective1:36:58 if i were to map out everything in your1:37:00 brain understand all of your1:37:02 descriptions of that experience1:37:04 it would never allow me to understand1:37:05 what it's like for you to have that1:37:07 experience so what you're saying is1:37:09 exactly exactly what we're saying1:37:10 and that's one part of the heart problem1:37:12 and the second part of the heart problem1:37:14 is1:37:14 well how do you have this inner1:37:16 subjective experience arising1:37:18 from a so-called physical brain and a1:37:20 physical brain is based upon physical1:37:22 processes1:37:23 which are fundamentally blind and1:37:25 unconscious so you're right so what1:37:27 you're saying is it's in a different way1:37:28 of what we're saying so1:37:30 i think we just it's a slight1:37:31 misunderstanding in the way of it's been1:37:33 articulated1:37:34 but i agree with you we're both having1:37:36 experiences for sure1:37:37 that's it that's the main thing yeah but1:37:39 that's that's that's the1:37:40 two absolutely yes yes1:37:44 yes please do you agree that there is a1:37:46 hard problem with consciousness1:37:49 uh becky pardon i i think i missed that1:37:51 can you repeat the question please i1:37:52 said do you1:37:53 do you believe that there is a hard1:37:55 problem in con1:37:56 no no no no no i don't believe it can be1:37:59 explained1:38:00 yes yes it's already explained oh well1:38:03 it's already explained1:38:04 yes yes this is already explained so1:38:07 just explain what hamza said do you1:38:08 understand what hamza said hamza says1:38:10 that your ability to taste and1:38:13 experience1:38:14 biryani is going to be very is going to1:38:16 be1:38:17 different to the experience of hamza1:38:20 and even if you want to say that they're1:38:22 the same1:38:23 there's no way you can describe them1:38:26 such that you can say that they1:38:28 are the same but that's not on about1:38:31 what is the taste of biryani we are on1:38:33 about who experience that1:38:34 no no in in when we talk about hard1:38:36 problem of consciousness it's like1:38:37 two areas there's one which is called1:38:39 qualia which is our experience1:38:44 not first time just experience of the1:38:45 world if i see red if i feel1:38:48 pain this is an experience it's called1:38:49 qualia1:38:51 there's a first aspect of uh as amazon1:38:54 mentioned first problem also1:38:55 so there's two parts of the problem one1:38:57 is qualia the other one is how1:38:59 does physical non-conscious matter1:39:02 produce1:39:03 consciousness so how does that that's1:39:07 the problem the problem is how did you1:39:09 explain that1:39:10 can that be reducible to the neurons1:39:12 alone1:39:13 so okay right i now we are mixing it up1:39:16 it is very simple it's not rocket1:39:17 science if you just put your1:39:19 the what what what awakened world1:39:21 experience like what we awake now1:39:23 that everybody will have a different we1:39:25 agree to that1:39:26 even though like you know we have all1:39:28 have different opinion on anything1:39:30 that's our experience and the dream1:39:32 world also we have all experience1:39:33 separately1:39:34 but the question rise who experienced1:39:36 the deep world1:39:37 deep sleep world we all have1:39:46 let me ask you a question because i'm1:39:48 trying to understand you yeah1:39:50 you don't think that there's two things1:39:53 do you think there's a hard problem of1:39:55 consciousness and that it's been solved1:39:58 or you don't think that there's even one1:40:00 to start out with1:40:01 that's what i'm trying to get from you1:40:03 well there is no heart problem of1:40:04 consciousness1:40:06 the the only it's very it is only heart1:40:08 problem of consciousness1:40:09 on the basis on on the on the subject of1:40:11 science because according to science1:40:13 there is no need would you say on1:40:15 materialism that it would be hard1:40:17 if you let me fish my brother all the1:40:19 science is saying we don't have any1:40:21 neuron active when you go to deep sleep1:40:23 so that's why we can't prove it they1:40:26 acknowledge science1:40:26 and science acknowledge consciousness1:40:28 they say there is something which is1:40:30 experienced nothing1:40:31 blankness but we can't prove it because1:40:33 there's no neurons with that1:40:34 that's why it's called by bipartisa1:40:36 that's why it says1:40:37 consciousness is not byproduct of your1:40:39 brain it has nothing to do with your1:40:40 thinking1:40:41 your likes and dislikes that's the1:40:44 that's1:40:44 what i want to say maybe maybe just to1:40:46 try to simplify it a bit further i want1:40:48 to ask you a question because you were1:40:50 saying it isn't rocket science i think1:40:51 it's much more difficult than rocket1:40:52 science i mean rocket science you can1:40:54 you can you can explain fully in1:40:56 physical terms i mean there's no1:40:58 mystery in rocket science it's difficult1:41:00 i agree that it's difficult but there's1:41:02 no mystery1:41:03 but let me try to give ask you this1:41:05 question1:41:06 uh yeah let's say you're looking at a1:41:08 red car right1:41:09 so you have this experience of seeing a1:41:12 red car1:41:13 yeah now now we both agree that there1:41:15 are these physical1:41:16 aspects that lead to the experience as1:41:19 in1:41:19 the light hitting your retina and1:41:22 everything else that follows1:41:23 yeah very good with that and then you1:41:26 experience the red car1:41:27 now the question is from your1:41:29 perspective just picture yourself1:41:31 looking at the red1:41:32 car yeah is your experience of that red1:41:35 car1:41:35 identical to the physical processes that1:41:38 are occurring1:41:39 are they the same thing yeah because1:41:41 you're experiencing that red car1:41:44 but remember remember i'm asking about1:41:46 your experience two shards of experience1:41:48 right now1:41:49 is looking at the red car would you say1:41:52 that this experience1:41:53 is literally the electrons and the atoms1:41:57 bumping into each other out there and1:41:59 leading to the are they the same thing1:42:00 no no no it's not the same thing1:42:02 okay so there's a gap that explains1:42:04 inventory gap1:42:05 is what we call the hard problem of1:42:07 consciousness my brother like you know1:42:09 what he's saying1:42:10 when i look at the red car but my sense1:42:13 my senses say my neural side is a red1:42:15 color1:42:15 well it doesn't say red color my neurons1:42:17 doesn't say red1:42:18 we made up this word and like and if i1:42:20 speak1:42:22 forget about the words experience it's1:42:24 it's1:42:25 my experience i agree to that and as i1:42:27 like what now we speaking in english we1:42:28 will call it red1:42:30 right so this is a common this is the1:42:32 experience of my neurons1:42:34 we have it's nothing to do with that it1:42:36 is about who1:42:37 it is about it is my friend this is all1:42:39 about who experience your brain1:42:41 that's the main thing i mean1:42:47 i think we're actually saying i i think1:42:49 we're saying the same thing here1:42:51 yeah i think what you're saying is that1:42:54 it's not a hard problem because yeah we1:42:56 know that there is a mind1:42:58 yeah in the person independent of his1:43:02 physical1:43:03 product you know physicality that1:43:05 experiences things1:43:07 that therefore you know forget about you1:43:10 know trying to explain1:43:11 how the physical causes the1:43:13 consciousness1:43:14 is just something called consciousness1:43:16 so it's just something called the mind1:43:18 is that what you're saying to me no no1:43:19 no no no no it's not right1:43:21 uh i'm sorry i didn't get your name off1:43:23 brother sharif1:43:24 sharif yeah look uh mind have nothing1:43:29 why the reason science says there's a1:43:31 heart problem of consciousness1:43:33 because science cannot prove there is1:43:35 any neuron who experience1:43:37 emptiness that's why they say it is a1:43:39 hard problem for us to prove1:43:40 because as you can as you can understand1:43:42 science need evidence to prove it1:43:43 anything if they have to prove1:43:45 like you know physical evidence like you1:43:47 know they need to like you know go to1:43:48 the1:43:48 algorithms and they need to go formulas1:43:50 and stuff like that so that's why they1:43:52 can prove it1:43:53 the reason they're saying it's a hard1:43:54 problem because they can't prove it1:43:56 but they acknowledge something1:43:57 experience the blankness1:43:59 that's the two different things yeah but1:44:01 brother i think we need to understand is1:44:03 it's a hard problem in relationship to1:44:06 materialism1:44:07 of course we don't think it's a hard1:44:09 problem here because1:44:10 we have a good response to it based on1:44:13 our1:44:14 prior ontological commitments but the1:44:17 question is1:44:17 whether or not materialism can respond1:44:21 adequately to the hard problem1:44:24 that's what the question is materialism1:44:26 have nothing to do with consciousness1:44:27 like you know we have not put it like1:44:29 this way if we don't if1:44:31 if the time we didn't know that there's1:44:33 a gravity1:44:34 because of gravity we walk on earth so1:44:36 you think we were we used to fly1:44:38 we used to walk anywhere so it doesn't1:44:40 make any materials1:44:43 i don't think you're understanding the1:44:44 point too shy you need1:44:56 is what they're saying is this is it's a1:44:58 hard problem1:45:00 because they can't bridge the gap1:45:02 between physical1:45:03 matter and conscious experience they1:45:05 can't do that1:45:06 that's the problem that they're sensing1:45:08 yes that's it because1:45:10 this is what i'm saying they don't have1:45:12 any neurons to connect that1:45:14 right1:45:20 okay then you don't have a heart problem1:45:21 of consciousness you're good1:45:24 if you're not a materialist then you1:45:25 don't have a problem we're in agreement1:45:27 that's basically what we're telling you1:45:29 we're saying this is a problem for1:45:30 somebody who says1:45:32 that the world is entirely explainable1:45:35 by the physical1:45:36 and chemical processes that are out1:45:37 there that is all you need to explain1:45:39 the world1:45:40 someone who says that is gonna face a1:45:42 problem you're not a materialist1:45:44 so you're okay so so we agree that it's1:45:46 not a hard problem1:45:48 do you think that materialists can1:45:50 explain it by purely1:45:52 uh physical means that's the question1:45:55 well it's depend on them i don't but1:45:56 i don't think so materialistic would be1:45:58 any bother about like anything to do1:46:00 with the consciousness it's a1:46:01 brother it's not about being bothered1:46:03 it's whether or not1:46:04 it's a philosophical problem it's1:46:06 whether or not1:46:08 the materialist paradigm can account1:46:11 adequately1:46:12 for consciousness i don't think that you1:46:15 can i don't1:46:15 think that you think you can jack well1:46:18 it's depend on them i don't know how1:46:19 they're gonna take it1:46:20 but all i'm here to guys to put add a1:46:22 bit like you know my side of it into the1:46:24 conversation and that's it1:46:25 i don't know what they think and good1:46:27 luck to them whatever they think yeah i1:46:28 think we're in agreement1:46:30 but i think you're you're on our side1:46:31 here and we're in agreement1:46:33 yeah yeah i think just just for the1:46:35 record materialists do care to the1:46:37 extent that they come up with these very1:46:39 radical ideas1:46:41 like they would even deny the existence1:46:42 of mental states like a limited edition1:46:46 if if you guys talking about atheists or1:46:48 i don't buy anything from them like that1:46:50 okay then we're on the same day yeah1:46:52 yeah we're i think we're on the same1:46:54 page you're just uh maybe articulating1:46:57 it a bit differently but1:46:59 we're on the same page but i i1:47:02 appreciate you uh coming on and asking1:47:04 questions we're gonna have to1:47:05 move on to the next guest though all1:47:08 right tuchar1:47:09 thanks a lot man thanks for coming on1:47:13 all right take care um1:47:17 see who we got here i think we've got1:47:19 mirza waiting i think he's been waiting1:47:21 a while1:47:23 how you doing1:47:28 so i just have a question so1:47:31 the discussion around consciousness and1:47:33 the heart problem1:47:34 effectively we're saying that this is1:47:37 something that1:47:38 is coming from god himself as in the1:47:41 source of consciousness1:47:43 so if you know your opponents were to1:47:45 reply saying1:47:46 that you are effectively putting in a1:47:48 god of death1:47:50 how would you respond to that1:47:53 well we didn't actually we didn't1:47:54 actually make it necessarily an argument1:47:56 for god1:47:58 is this so time that i know yes yes it's1:48:00 me1:48:01 all right okay1:48:05 so i think just said jacob for the other1:48:07 brothers so he's asked the question1:48:09 is this a god of the gaps argument yeah1:48:11 so1:48:12 so in essence we can't explain this1:48:14 therefore we're going to put god into it1:48:16 so we can't explain conscious1:48:18 we put god i think the the and i'll let1:48:20 the brothers answer as well but i think1:48:22 the issue is this is that it's not a god1:48:24 of the gaps because god of the gaps1:48:26 presupposes that there's a point which1:48:27 we just don't know but if we do a bit1:48:29 more investigation we'll get the1:48:31 knowledge1:48:32 yeah so it's a case of imprints it's a1:48:35 problem1:48:35 of just not having enough of the science1:48:37 so far1:48:38 what we're saying here about1:48:40 consciousness is that it's an1:48:41 in-principle1:48:42 problem it's not a problem that can be1:48:44 bridged by greater knowledge1:48:47 yeah so it's not going to be solved just1:48:49 by ex you know1:48:50 getting more and more information uh and1:48:53 more and more knowledge1:48:54 but rather we won't a be able from a1:48:56 scientific point of view1:48:58 access that knowledge that doesn't1:49:00 necessarily necessarily1:49:02 mean that it points straight away okay1:49:05 therefore god exists1:49:06 but what it does do is it provides1:49:08 greater indications1:49:10 that a creator exists especially i think1:49:13 in our1:49:14 previous streams um we had discussions1:49:16 and inshallah we're gonna have another1:49:18 one about1:49:18 uh the uh was it stage two of the1:49:20 cosmological argument and if hans is1:49:22 free1:49:22 it'd be great to have him to discuss1:49:24 that but in stage one of the1:49:26 cosmological argument where we came to1:49:27 the conclusion of a necessary being or1:49:29 necessary foundation1:49:31 and then the question becomes well is it1:49:32 conscious or not well you've got an1:49:35 added reason to believe that this1:49:36 necessary foundation necessary being1:49:39 would be conscious because we can't1:49:41 explain consciousness by materialism1:49:44 so for the existence of consciousness1:49:46 you would need something to have caused1:49:48 it1:49:48 that itself is beyond quote-unquote1:49:50 contingent or material beings1:49:52 and therefore that would be a creator1:49:54 yeah i think uh maybe let the1:49:56 other guys as well to answer that1:49:58 question as well from sultan1:50:00 yep yeah i just want to point out that1:50:01 this is not necessarily the discussion1:50:04 we're having1:50:04 is not necessarily an argument for god1:50:08 and hamza touched on that a bit earlier1:50:10 but it is an1:50:11 argument against materialism that's what1:50:14 the argument really is it's an argument1:50:16 against materialism1:50:17 not necessarily an argument for god's1:50:20 existence1:50:21 but what we would say and and hamza kind1:50:24 of1:50:24 hinted at this earlier is that in the1:50:28 theistic picture where1:50:29 where we have this ultimate mind in a1:50:31 sense that is god at the very foundation1:50:34 of everything1:50:34 that is responsible for creating1:50:37 everything1:50:38 it fits much more naturally and nicely1:50:41 in a theistic picture of the world1:50:44 rather than an atheistic one or a1:50:46 naturalistic one1:50:47 so it's more based on a worldview1:50:50 perspective of seeing1:50:52 which one fits more neatly and easily1:50:56 into one's ontology given your prior1:50:58 commitments about the world1:51:00 and i would argue that it you know in a1:51:03 probabilistic sense not1:51:04 in terms of making a such a forceful1:51:07 necessary argument but i think we can1:51:09 see1:51:10 that consciousness fits much more easily1:51:13 and nicely1:51:14 with a picture of god being at the1:51:17 very beginning and center of everything1:51:19 and responsible for everything1:51:21 rather than at a mindless sort of1:51:24 uh production out of nothing or whatever1:51:27 you want to say1:51:28 so i think that's kind of what we're1:51:30 we're explaining we're not even1:51:31 necessarily going into1:51:33 making an argument for god's existence1:51:36 we would just say it's an argument1:51:37 against materialism1:51:38 and that the overall structure of one's1:51:41 worldview1:51:42 consciousness fits very nicely with a1:51:45 theistic1:51:46 picture rather than an atheistic one1:51:49 so i hope that answers your question uh1:51:51 brother yeah1:51:53 just just a broader a broader point1:51:54 there sorry because i think this is1:51:56 important1:51:57 the this whole god of the gaps thing is1:51:59 a really overused you know1:52:00 cliche that you know sometimes atheists1:52:03 just think it's a trump card that can1:52:04 just1:52:05 destroy any argument but um the thing is1:52:08 nobody here is saying that i don't know1:52:10 x therefore why1:52:12 nobody's saying that what you what you1:52:14 can say like if i say that based on the1:52:16 information i have this is the best1:52:18 explanation for example if i make an1:52:20 abductive argument that's not1:52:22 uh that's not a god of the gaps argument1:52:24 uh and1:52:25 and i also think that alongside the1:52:28 probabilistic1:52:28 argument there are deductive arguments1:52:31 i'm going to have to read1:52:32 brother hamza's papers on that but i1:52:34 think the deductive arguments the cs1:52:36 lewis style1:52:37 arguments from reason are actually1:52:40 deductive arguments that1:52:42 make reason and naturalism incompatible1:52:46 and the conclusion of these arguments1:52:48 act it actually concludes the existence1:52:50 of god1:52:51 and that's also not a god of the gaps1:52:53 arguments of course there were1:52:54 he made modifications to the argument1:52:56 there were many um1:52:58 responses to it peter van impe wrote a1:53:00 few papers on it1:53:02 but i think all in all i think it's a1:53:03 very solid argument1:53:05 that makes naturalism and and reason1:53:08 in general or the reliability of our1:53:10 reason incompatible1:53:12 and it concludes god in a1:53:14 non-question-begging way and1:53:16 and it has nothing to do with god of the1:53:18 gaps whatsoever1:53:19 all right yeah all right brother we1:53:22 appreciate your question i think um1:53:24 we're gonna have to move on to the next1:53:26 guest now but really appreciate you1:53:28 coming on1:53:29 thank you all right thanks tom alaikum1:53:32 all right so i'm gonna go to uh mo1:53:35 l real quick we got here so i'm like1:53:43 okay so i have a few comments i want to1:53:45 say and hopefully1:53:47 ham's uh brother hans resources can1:53:49 elaborate you know1:53:51 so uh i would i believe that1:53:54 consciousness is uh1:53:55 mystical okay it's from the divine at1:53:56 the end of the day because1:53:58 or else if we deduce it uh realistically1:54:02 it becomes uh more like zombie robots1:54:05 identity biological zombie robots1:54:07 you know what i'm saying but nonetheless1:54:09 uh it seems as if the academic atheists1:54:12 are presupposing things beside allah1:54:16 beside god like1:54:17 hand psychism for example and they're1:54:20 taking baby steps1:54:22 towards allah eventually because that's1:54:24 the ultimate truth at the end of the day1:54:26 allah1:54:26 you cannot presuppose something beyond1:54:28 that and it's innate and it1:54:31 provides a coherent worldview and1:54:34 foundational1:54:34 worldview at the end of the day you know1:54:36 it's coherent it's along with our1:54:37 rational faculties at the end of the day1:54:39 what i'm trying to say is this1:54:41 we have a concept that is panned1:54:42 psychistic as well um1:54:44 the angels and um everything is1:54:47 conscious of allah1:54:48 all the material things in this world is1:54:50 conscious of the create1:54:52 of the ultimate being so this pens1:54:55 pansakism doesn't provide a1:54:56 justification still you know what i'm1:54:58 saying1:54:59 so this is all i wanted to say if hamza1:55:02 can elaborate and1:55:03 emphasize more on what i said they'll be1:55:06 great thanks1:55:08 a lot1:55:12 my dear brother it's muhammad muhammad1:55:18 so basically what i would say is well it1:55:20 depends what conception of pan psychism1:55:22 you adopt so if you believe that1:55:24 like that the fundamental building1:55:26 blocks or the constituents of1:55:28 things have a form of1:55:30 proto-consciousness1:55:31 then that doesn't necessarily tie in1:55:34 line1:55:34 with the islamic narrative because from1:55:36 what i understand1:55:39 everything has maybe a form of1:55:41 consciousness allah says in the quran1:55:43 that1:55:43 you know everything in the cosmos you1:55:46 know1:55:47 praises of love glorifies allah but you1:55:49 just don't know how allah says you don't1:55:50 know the how1:55:51 but what's interesting when you look at1:55:53 that hadith concerning the tree that1:55:55 cried1:55:56 or you know and and other non-human1:56:00 objects if you like that seem to have1:56:02 some form of consciousness1:56:04 it was always in reference to it having1:56:06 a kind of1:56:07 unified conscious experience the1:56:11 hadith and the ayat from what i1:56:13 understand and i i1:56:14 i'm willing to be corrected on this is1:56:16 that it refers to these whole1:56:18 things that have a unified sense of1:56:21 consciousness1:56:23 pan psychism or at least a particular1:56:24 conception of psychism1:56:26 may agree with that but they1:56:28 specifically say that the1:56:30 individual constituent parts or the1:56:32 fundamental building blocks of the1:56:33 individual things1:56:35 they have a form of proto-consciousness1:56:37 and they may affirm a unified conscious1:56:39 experience1:56:40 but the problem with that conception of1:56:42 pansexism is1:56:43 well how do you make sense of a unified1:56:46 conscious experience1:56:47 if that thing that whole thing that is1:56:50 having that conscious experience1:56:52 is made up of individual parts or things1:56:54 or elements if you like that have1:56:56 forms of consciousness they don't know1:56:58 how to basically1:56:59 square the circle here so i wouldn't say1:57:03 the islamic narrative adopts a pan1:57:05 psychism1:57:06 from this perspective but yes you may1:57:10 want to argue that that trees are1:57:12 conscious1:57:13 mountains are conscious you know1:57:15 everything in the cosmos praises a lot1:57:16 but allah says you don't know how1:57:18 but you can't at least make the1:57:20 inference that when allah mentions these1:57:21 things in the quran or in the sunnah you1:57:24 see that it's referred to1:57:25 whole things that had a unified sense of1:57:28 consciousness1:57:29 but rather psychism says something1:57:31 different especially this conception1:57:32 protagonism1:57:33 that's the individual parts that have1:57:35 formal1:57:36 consciousness1:57:50 experiences1:57:53 uh i think hamza broke up exactly then1:57:55 yeah i think hanzo we might1:57:57 did you yeah did you get the uh1:58:00 did you get what he said hamza was1:58:02 saying1:58:03 okay so he's saying that basically he's1:58:06 talking about proto-conscious1:58:07 is that it there is a distinction1:58:10 between islamic pan-sachism and1:58:13 consciousness and uh and what exactly1:58:16 because i can't fathom that1:58:18 how could you explain what you mean by1:58:20 collective consciousness1:58:25 well for example when i'm looking at my1:58:27 computer screen i'm having a unified1:58:29 conscious experience i'm not basically1:58:30 having a conscious experience of1:58:32 every single pixel individually yeah so1:58:35 whenever i i'm not1:58:36 it's not an accumulation and1:58:38 amalgamation of all of these1:58:40 individual conscious experiences of1:58:42 every individual pixel that would be a1:58:43 total nightmare i would never1:58:45 i wouldn't be able to have any proper uh1:58:47 meaningful1:58:48 uh experience so when we experience1:58:51 things i'm experiencing the whole1:58:52 right so likewise when the quran sunnah1:58:56 referred to non-human objects like1:58:58 trees or stones or or or mountains that1:59:02 seem to have some kind of consciousness1:59:04 but even though allah says everything in1:59:06 the cosmos praises allah but we just1:59:08 don't know how1:59:09 so to elaborate more on that i think1:59:11 wouldn't be that useful but even if you1:59:13 were to1:59:13 make the point that there are other1:59:16 things that can be conscious other than1:59:18 humans1:59:18 the point is the quran and sunnah1:59:20 referred to them as1:59:22 having a holistic experience a1:59:25 a a a a a a a a a a unified conscious1:59:30 experience1:59:31 but panseikism especially a that1:59:34 particular conception of pancychism that1:59:36 we're talking about1:59:37 it agrees with that but it says that the1:59:40 whole1:59:41 has individual parts or things or1:59:43 fundamental building blocks or elements1:59:44 whatever the case may be1:59:45 that have forms of proto-consciousness1:59:48 and that's why the detractors against1:59:50 pansexism say1:59:52 how can individual components of a whole1:59:55 thing have individual parts of1:59:57 consciousness1:59:58 how can you now make a case that that2:00:01 thing has a unified sense of2:00:03 consciousness2:00:04 if every single thing that that it2:00:07 contains2:00:08 has proto-consciousness that's one of2:00:11 the kind of arguments against2:00:13 panpsychism2:00:14 so what i would say to brother muhammad2:00:16 is2:00:17 i wouldn't say that islam says agrees2:00:19 with psychism2:00:21 um i would more say because we don't we2:00:24 wouldn't really articulate the case2:00:26 we can't make that strong inference from2:00:28 the quran and sunnah2:00:29 that the individual parts of the2:00:32 mountain or the individual parts of the2:00:34 tree2:00:35 are actually conscious as well yes we2:00:37 can affirm the hadith that the tree2:00:38 cried2:00:39 so he had a unified conscious experience2:00:41 but can we now2:00:42 make the pancakes claim that every2:00:45 single part of the tree2:00:46 had a form of consciousness that's2:00:48 something that you can't infer from the2:00:49 hadith2:00:50 and you can't infer from the quran and2:00:52 the sunnah so2:00:54 my conclusion is i would not say i would2:00:57 not agree with the idea that2:00:58 islam agrees with psychism from that2:01:00 perspective2:01:01 but if it can happen yeah2:01:04 i was gonna say so if i if i understand2:01:06 what you're saying maybe also to explain2:01:08 to2:01:08 uh muhammad moelle when i experience2:01:12 something2:01:13 it's not every molecule in my body2:01:16 and every atom and every subatomic2:01:19 particle that is now consciously2:01:20 experiencing it with me2:01:22 yeah so it's not every single part2:01:25 that's having this conscious experience2:01:27 it's me as a as a whole being yeah2:01:31 so is is that what you basically say2:01:33 this is the problem which2:01:34 causes this this discussion about pan2:01:36 psychism which is that2:01:38 in essence when you experience something2:01:40 your2:01:41 or every molecule every atom every2:01:44 electron2:01:45 within your whole body is also2:01:47 experiencing it but they're not having2:01:49 their own2:01:49 experiences it's you having your2:01:52 experience2:01:52 of the whole i want to add something2:01:55 what about the hadith that says2:01:58 the hand will testify you know and so on2:02:01 your limbs will testify against you2:02:03 if you have used them in a wrong way2:02:06 what what is that supposed to mean2:02:07 wouldn't that be in line with2:02:09 such uh thinking2:02:14 or no is that a question to hamza anyone2:02:17 i mean2:02:18 hamza would be great because he's the2:02:19 guest2:02:22 you're not interested in speaking to us2:02:24 no no i spoke about a lot man2:02:27 that's my first partner2:02:33 yeah so did he carry yes so i would2:02:36 yeah i did i quote i i wouldn't know how2:02:38 to answer that i haven't looked at the2:02:40 specific toughest concerning what does2:02:42 it mean when the hand speaks on the day2:02:44 of judgment2:02:45 so i'm not going to talk about something2:02:47 that i haven't really analyzed already2:02:49 i have my kind of i have my intuitions2:02:51 on that i don't think it actually2:02:53 means that per se um it's more of the2:02:56 fact that2:02:57 you know um that type of language is2:03:00 using the quran2:03:01 to make an emphasis that our deeds will2:03:04 be exposed on the day of judgment what2:03:06 our hands did2:03:07 is gonna come out on the day of2:03:09 judgement and we're gonna be taken to2:03:10 account2:03:11 but i'm not gonna make a categorical2:03:12 statement because i haven't really2:03:13 analyzed that2:03:16 question so i i allow our beloved to2:03:19 explain a lot further inshallah2:03:21 okay i think in a sense2:03:25 i think in a sense mo it's like almost2:03:27 theologically insignificant like in2:03:29 in the sense that um you whether you2:03:32 have i mean i2:03:33 i too wouldn't know what to say about2:03:35 the hadith and the the tafsir of the2:03:37 hadith2:03:37 but but it could it could either be that2:03:41 they're conscious or they're not but2:03:42 either way we don't really have that2:03:44 issue in our world view because there's2:03:46 no problem2:03:47 with anything at all being conscious so2:03:50 i i just don't think it's it's very2:03:52 important i mean once you do have this2:03:55 dualistic understanding of the world and2:03:57 once you have this2:03:58 overarching worldview that can account2:04:00 for this subjective first-person2:04:01 experience2:04:03 uh the finer details of that aren't very2:04:06 significant i think2:04:07 philosophically or theologically in my2:04:09 point of view2:04:11 okay so yeah that's it thanks2:04:20 all right we've got momo here he's been2:04:22 waiting2:04:30 it's actually regarding the same topic2:04:32 of pan psychism2:04:34 so basically uh there's like many2:04:36 narrations regarding uh2:04:38 like uh you know how the hill talks to2:04:40 the prophet and2:04:41 how stones also talk to the prophet and2:04:44 stuff like that2:04:46 yeah and yeah as the previous brother2:04:48 mentioned2:04:49 like the hand and like testifying so2:04:53 and there's also like other narrations2:04:55 regarding how the sun2:04:56 prostrate the sun and moon prostrate to2:04:58 allah2:04:59 so doesn't that kind of like signify2:05:01 like uh some sort of2:05:03 uh pants like i don't know like some2:05:06 oneness of consciousness or something2:05:08 well yeah i'm just going to repeat the2:05:10 same thing i said2:05:12 the particular conception of pan2:05:13 psychism we're talking about is that2:05:15 individual parts of the whole are also2:05:17 conscious2:05:18 but when you look at the hadith2:05:20 concerning the hand or the stone2:05:22 or the sun or whatever you want to call2:05:24 it even if you don't take a metaphorical2:05:26 view on this2:05:26 right which i i would disagree with2:05:29 because the majority of the2:05:32 metaphorical view for example concerning2:05:34 these type of things right2:05:36 um the point here is that2:05:39 it's talking about a unified conscious2:05:42 experience2:05:43 and that's the problem of pansysm we2:05:45 have to understand that pansysm doesn't2:05:47 just say that it says2:05:49 that say that this hand is conscious2:05:52 right and it has a unified conscious2:05:53 experience they're going to testify2:05:55 against me2:05:56 what panpsychism is saying is every2:05:59 single2:06:00 atom it has a form of consciousness2:06:04 so when they articulate that we would2:06:06 say well how can you now make sense of a2:06:09 unified conscious experience this hand2:06:11 having a unified2:06:12 conscious experience if every single2:06:14 atom has a form of consciousness2:06:17 how can you make sense of that how do2:06:19 you kind of you know make2:06:20 sense of a unified conscious experience2:06:23 if you2:06:24 affirm that every single part of that2:06:27 thing2:06:28 also has forms of consciousness that's2:06:31 one of the problems of pansexism so what2:06:33 i would say is you can't2:06:34 say that islam adopts pan psychism from2:06:38 that perspective because2:06:39 all you can say is that when if the hand2:06:42 is going to speak or the stone is going2:06:44 to speak or the sun's going to persuade2:06:45 whatever the case may be2:06:47 these are referring to whole things like2:06:49 the whole hand2:06:50 and the whole sun and the whole stone2:06:52 and the whole tree2:06:53 that actually has a unified conscious2:06:56 experience if you2:06:57 if you even want to call it that right2:06:59 and if you even want to move away from2:07:01 a metaphorical understanding even if you2:07:03 adopt that view2:07:05 you can't say it's a pan psychist view2:07:07 because the conception of pansexism that2:07:09 we're talking about is that2:07:10 individual each individual element in2:07:14 each individual part each indiv2:07:16 each individual fundamental building2:07:18 blocks whatever you think the2:07:19 fundamental books are2:07:21 have a forms of proto-consciousness2:07:24 and that's one of the conceptual2:07:25 problems of psychism2:07:27 is because well you are then you say2:07:29 well how does that now make sense of a2:07:30 unified conscious experience that's the2:07:32 point2:07:34 okay for that and just one more small uh2:07:37 question how does the how does the uh2:07:40 you know the alkali the intellect relate2:07:42 to the the2:07:43 soul so is the alcohol connected to the2:07:47 the physical brain or is it connected to2:07:49 the soul2:07:50 or the heart the spiritual heart yeah i2:07:53 mean2:07:53 i'm gonna look you know these questions2:07:56 are debated in our classical traditions2:07:58 so2:07:58 the intellect according to many of the2:08:02 ulama2:08:02 is a function of the khan what is the2:08:05 nature of the cult2:08:07 i'm not even going to go into that i'm2:08:09 not going to unpack that because that is2:08:11 a massive school of debate i have my own2:08:13 particular position on this2:08:14 but i think it won't be right to2:08:16 articulate that the point is2:08:19 not knowing this doesn't affect today's2:08:21 topic right2:08:22 not knowing about what is the dynamic2:08:24 interplay between the akal and the cult2:08:26 and the roh and the fitra and the nafs2:08:29 all of these things what is the dynamic2:08:30 interplay here well there's lots of2:08:32 discussion amongst our beloved2:08:34 in the classical tradition and i ask you2:08:37 to explore that2:08:38 but even if you take any of those2:08:40 positions it doesn't undermine what2:08:41 we're saying today which is there is a2:08:43 hard problem of consciousness2:08:44 based on two key questions what is it2:08:46 like for an individual2:08:47 conscious organism to have a phenomenal2:08:49 conscious experience2:08:50 in a conscious experience and and number2:08:53 two2:08:54 how is it how and why does a inner2:08:57 subjective conscious experience arise2:08:59 from seemingly non-conscious blind2:09:01 physical processes2:09:04 materialism can't answer those questions2:09:07 and uh2:09:08 that's the main issue so your question2:09:09 is a nice question but i2:09:11 definitely i have to stay in my lane i'm2:09:13 not going to answer it2:09:14 although i have my intuitions on the2:09:16 topic but if anyone else has a complete2:09:18 answer2:09:19 on something which i think is uh not2:09:20 even uh2:09:22 not even conclusive amongst venue or2:09:24 lima about the dynamic interplay between2:09:26 these things2:09:27 uh yeah no no i mean i totally agree2:09:31 with you2:09:32 uh you know there's difference of2:09:34 opinion within the tradition i don't2:09:36 think it's really2:09:37 a hill to die on you know sort of yeah2:09:40 yeah2:09:41 yeah so um but momo we appreciate you2:09:44 uh coming on and appreciate your2:09:46 question okay2:09:50 before you just leave did you understand2:09:52 hamza's response though in terms of the2:09:53 fact that2:09:55 what the what the quran and the sunnah2:09:57 talk about on the matters of the rule2:09:59 yeah2:10:01 it does not affect the discussion about2:10:04 consciousness2:10:05 and the fact that it cannot be explained2:10:07 under a materialistic paradigm2:10:08 yeah yeah yeah i get that okay2:10:12 yeah one more thing can you can either2:10:16 like uh one of you guys make a vid on2:10:17 like uh2:10:18 like creed like either home brother2:10:21 hangzar or maybe jake2:10:23 like regarding creed and just like maybe2:10:24 as a broad overview of like the2:10:27 three creeds i i mean it may interest2:10:30 you2:10:31 on my own channel uh muslim2:10:33 metaphysician i just did2:10:34 a video on divine simplicity2:10:38 and its position in the islamic2:10:40 tradition um2:10:42 so you know broadly speaking in all2:10:45 three schools2:10:47 um the ashari matariris and asaris2:10:50 we all reject uh absolute divine2:10:52 simplicity in the sense we believe that2:10:55 uh2:10:56 god has real distinct uh attributes and2:10:59 that are not identical to each other um2:11:02 but going into much more detail2:11:04 about the you know fine details2:11:07 and the distinctions between the creeds2:11:10 um2:11:10 yeah i don't know if i'm honest i don't2:11:12 think that that's going to be2:11:15 the place to really do it on this2:11:16 podcast um2:11:18 but maybe i'll touch on it a bit more in2:11:21 my2:11:22 on my personal youtube channel2:11:25 okay exactly2:11:32 so we've got adam here and adam you're2:11:35 going to be the last guest because2:11:37 typically we go for about two hours2:11:39 uh we've actually gone over the two hour2:11:42 mark and2:11:43 brother hamza's been gracious enough to2:11:45 stay with us this whole time we don't2:11:47 want to take up too much more of his2:11:48 time2:11:50 unfortunately we were looking to get um2:11:52 some more atheists on2:11:54 i don't know um maybe they're watching2:11:56 but they didn't want to this would be a2:11:57 foreign nonetheless2:11:59 don't worry yeah so so adam um you're2:12:02 gonna be the last guest2:12:03 um you've been on before on2:12:07 other shows so i'm glad that you came on2:12:10 with2:12:10 your correct name this time yeah2:12:14 no worries so um i2:12:17 i just have a personal belief that uh2:12:20 even though i am a muslim i do think2:12:23 that2:12:24 uh that everything in the universe is2:12:27 conscious2:12:28 um so i don't know if i can i don't i'm2:12:31 not necessarily a pantheist i don't2:12:32 believe everything is god2:12:34 but i do think that everything in the2:12:36 universe is conscious2:12:38 because i'm also a a determinist2:12:43 but i i i'm a compatible2:12:46 i don't know how to pronounce it sorry2:12:48 i'm sorry2:12:50 what's what's the relationship between2:12:52 determinism and consciousness2:12:55 it it usually goes the other way around2:12:58 brother2:12:58 i'm gonna be honest with you so the2:13:00 relationship is that2:13:02 um because due to the contingency2:13:05 argument2:13:07 if everything is independent then2:13:09 everything uh2:13:11 then that's where i extrapolate and say2:13:13 that everything's necessary and2:13:15 conscious who said everything is2:13:17 independent2:13:19 uh according to the contingency argument2:13:21 everything no2:13:22 there is something that is independent2:13:24 but not everything2:13:26 no uh can i you know yeah i'm saying2:13:28 everything is2:13:29 independent because according to2:13:31 determinism2:13:33 um everything could it must be the way2:13:36 it is2:13:36 according to determinism but brother2:13:39 you're confusing me2:13:40 like maybe you're making a good argument2:13:42 but i just don't understand it right now2:13:43 so you're talking about the contingency2:13:44 argument2:13:45 forget about determinism for a bit how2:13:47 they're deeply related2:13:49 okay they might be related but you're2:13:50 gonna have to bridge that gap for me2:13:52 maybe i'm slow so the contingency2:13:54 argument right how does it say that2:13:56 everything is independent2:13:58 it says that there is something that is2:13:59 independent the premise2:14:01 is that anything which could not be2:14:04 any other way is independent and2:14:06 necessary2:14:08 and since i believe that everything in2:14:10 the universe cannot be any other way2:14:11 okay2:14:12 okay yeah and so i believe every2:14:14 everything in the universe is2:14:16 independent uh because i'm because i'm a2:14:18 blueprint it couldn't have been any2:14:19 other way2:14:21 there but you're okay okay sorry to cut2:14:23 you off but you're not talking about2:14:24 metaphysical necessity here or2:14:26 independence2:14:27 so when you talk about a lot of a lot of2:14:28 people confuse this sometimes so2:14:30 determinism when you talk about2:14:31 determinism and how2:14:33 a certain chain of causation is2:14:34 necessary we're not speaking of2:14:37 metaphysical necessity we're just2:14:39 speaking of like2:14:40 logical or causal necessities so i think2:14:42 there might be a bit of an equivocation2:14:44 between the necessity of like2:14:46 the necessary entity that the2:14:48 contingency argument takes us to2:14:51 the necessary relation between a cause2:14:53 and its effect those are two very2:14:54 different things2:14:55 and adam how does this relate to the2:14:57 discussion of consciousness2:14:58 sorry yeah i mean that is a more2:15:01 important question2:15:02 because after this i extrapolate to say2:15:04 that since everything is necessary then2:15:07 everything2:15:09 it's it's conscious in that it must it's2:15:11 basically like an independent being the2:15:13 everything but i don't consider a god2:15:15 because i still believe in a2:15:17 uh god yeah but did you know because i i2:15:19 understand that that's where you're2:15:20 going2:15:21 you understand that you're equivocating2:15:23 between a metaphysical necessity2:15:25 and this like cause effect necessity2:15:28 yeah so the contingency argument even2:15:31 when i'm not2:15:32 when i've when you hear it like it's2:15:35 just by the name it doesn't only deal2:15:36 with2:15:37 uh because people will say okay every2:15:39 they'll use examples of2:15:41 things which exist in the physical world2:15:43 the universe2:15:44 so they'll say okay the sun must be2:15:47 dependent because2:15:49 it could have been or any of it could2:15:51 have been another way so it doesn't2:15:54 it doesn't necessarily lead to a2:15:55 metaphysical2:15:57 conclusion it it deals because what i'm2:16:00 saying is everything in the universe2:16:01 it must be independent so that's not2:16:05 necessarily metaphysical2:16:06 the idea is that the contingent world is2:16:08 metaphysically contingent but you're2:16:10 trying to say that because of2:16:11 determinism somehow2:16:13 and the necessary flow between cause and2:16:15 effect2:16:16 that somehow that necessity is a2:16:18 different kind of necessity you're2:16:19 trying to say that that necessity2:16:21 implies2:16:22 some metaphysical kind of necessity2:16:25 could you clarify what do you mean by2:16:27 every the metaphysical world the2:16:30 contingency yeah so so so if i if i2:16:33 drop my phone it's going to fall maybe2:16:36 you could call that some kind of an2:16:38 empirical necessity yeah it's not a2:16:40 metaphysical necessity2:16:41 yes so what you're trying to say is2:16:43 because of determinism and this chain of2:16:45 cause and effect2:16:46 because you're a determinist you have to2:16:48 believe that everything is necessary i2:16:50 don't think that follows2:16:51 not in the you know metaphysical sense2:16:54 or the2:16:54 you know how we use it in modal2:16:56 epistemology necessary2:16:58 not in that sense your example with the2:17:01 phone being dropped that's2:17:02 that's a physical uh that's a that's a2:17:04 cause-and-effect relationship in the2:17:06 physical world2:17:06 it's not metaphysical yeah yeah that's2:17:09 my point2:17:10 no that's yeah so maybe i'm lost maybe2:17:13 someone else if someone else understands2:17:14 what adam is saying i'm just lost2:17:16 because i think you're trying to say2:17:17 that the contingent world is necessary2:17:20 somehow2:17:21 because of this cause effect2:17:23 relationships and this determinancy2:17:25 but what i'm trying to tell you is that2:17:26 even if you're a determinist even if the2:17:28 world is2:17:28 you're truly deterministic that doesn't2:17:31 make it2:17:32 metaphysically necessary that that's2:17:34 what i'm trying to tell you you2:17:35 understand that point2:17:36 yeah you're use yeah i understand you2:17:39 you're using metaphysical even though2:17:41 i don't i don't think that you're what2:17:42 you're saying is metaphysical2:17:45 no so metaphysical necessity is2:17:47 something that could couldn't have been2:17:48 otherwise2:17:49 so let's say let's talk about2:17:51 determinism there's a certain chain of2:17:52 causation2:17:54 cause leads to effect right that's2:17:57 that's a causal necessity that could2:17:59 have been otherwise it could have been2:18:01 that instead of x leading to y x could2:18:04 have led to someone else2:18:05 why something else y could have let x2:18:08 there's a metaphysical possibility that2:18:10 it could have been otherwise2:18:12 you don't agree no so that's the whole2:18:15 idea of determinism is that there is no2:18:18 there is no there are no multiple2:18:19 options there is no probability2:18:21 that's not sorry that's not true2:18:29 metaphysical necessity it's because of2:18:31 the causal chain between x and y that2:18:33 x must lead to y that way2:18:37 it didn't doesn't mean that there2:18:38 couldn't be a possible world where y2:18:40 could lead to x or there could be some2:18:42 different kind of causal foundation2:18:44 it's just so so i think you're2:18:45 conflating two things here2:18:47 why could there be could you uh you're2:18:49 just you're assuming that right yeah but2:18:50 right now2:18:51 so right now i have to explain it you2:18:54 can continue2:18:54 right you're assuming there's no2:18:59 that's in determinism this world could2:19:01 not have been any other way everything2:19:04 like everything of 14 billion years ago2:19:06 or ever since the first2:19:08 since the big bang whatever has happened2:19:11 must have happened there's that's the2:19:13 whole idea of determinism2:19:15 there's no i don't think we're gonna2:19:17 have the time to go2:19:18 yeah i don't think we're going to have2:19:20 the time to break this down to you but i2:19:21 think2:19:22 you're you just misunderstand what it2:19:24 means to be determined is because some2:19:25 determinists2:19:26 they acknowledge that although this2:19:29 chain of cause and effect this chain of2:19:31 causation2:19:33 is necessary in the sense that no effect2:19:36 uh is is is is independent of the causal2:19:40 chain that precedes it2:19:41 they don't meet by that they don't2:19:43 elevate that to some kind of uh2:19:45 they don't make that uh you know modal2:19:48 shift2:19:49 right to make it metaphysically2:19:51 necessary in the sense that2:19:52 it isn't even conceivable it couldn't be2:19:55 otherwise2:19:56 that this cause would lead to this2:19:58 effect those are two2:19:59 entirely different things adam how does2:20:02 this relate to the consciousness2:20:04 well it does the other point adam is2:20:07 that2:20:07 it's what you're describing determinism2:20:10 they would say it's contingently2:20:12 necessary2:20:15 let me finish please so what it means2:20:18 is that given the current state of2:20:20 affairs and given the big bang and2:20:23 everything that you explained2:20:24 yes it's contingently necessary now that2:20:27 we are2:20:28 in the place that we are but it is not2:20:31 metaphysically necessary in the sense2:20:34 that it couldn't have been2:20:35 otherwise in other possible worlds and2:20:38 existences2:20:38 so these are two different things that i2:20:41 don't think you2:20:42 understand or appreciate i do and i know2:20:44 where our contention is2:20:45 our contention is that the first cause2:20:47 could not2:20:48 have been any other way i i say that and2:20:51 you disagree2:20:52 what do you mean you think it couldn't2:20:54 have been any other way yeah i say the2:20:56 first cause could2:20:57 what was the first cause was the first2:20:59 cause god2:21:01 yes and everything which followed he he2:21:03 had to god didn't have a free will he2:21:05 couldn't have2:21:06 been otherwise meaning he couldn't have2:21:09 chosen not to create is that what you're2:21:10 saying2:21:12 yeah this is this is the problem this is2:21:16 not2:21:16 my world view for my world right and2:21:18 this is the issue2:21:20 i explained it on the stream on my2:21:22 channel yesterday2:21:23 when i talked about divine simplicity is2:21:26 that2:21:26 divine simplicity results in what you're2:21:29 explaining2:21:30 that god doesn't have free will2:21:32 everything becomes necessary and there's2:21:34 this modal collapse2:21:36 if you want to take that position and2:21:44 but it is not the traditional islamic2:21:47 position and it's considered heretical2:21:49 so to claim that god doesn't have free2:21:53 will when the quran2:21:54 and the sunnah actually clearly state2:21:56 that he does have free will2:21:58 is problematic2:22:02 okay so you're you're really at you're2:22:05 posing questions to me so let me2:22:06 actually2:22:07 well i didn't ask a question i made2:22:09 steve no you you said2:22:11 from okay so let me explain my belief2:22:12 because that so we've gotten to this2:22:14 point so far2:22:16 i think that this so the first cause2:22:18 which god i don't think it's god2:22:20 i think so the first cause is not god2:22:23 i'm talking about the first physical2:22:24 cause2:22:25 that god created which led to all the2:22:28 other2:22:28 causes the physical causes in the2:22:29 universe which led up to this point2:22:32 i think that could not have been any2:22:33 other way and it was god's free will who2:22:36 chose that the2:22:37 before he created it but it you're2:22:40 talking about the [ __ ]2:22:41 choice to create it or not you're2:22:43 talking about a dilemma2:22:44 you're talking about the determinism and2:22:46 free will dilemma2:22:48 i'm saying with respect to god did he2:22:50 have a choice to create this world or2:22:51 not2:22:54 the first thing yes i think i think2:22:56 metaphysical beings have free will2:22:58 yes okay so adam adam just going back to2:23:02 what abdul rahman2:23:05 you're conflating metaphysical uh2:23:08 determinism2:23:09 with causal determinism and you're doing2:23:12 and this is exactly what he meant2:23:14 which is you can talk about something2:23:15 being contingently caused in a2:23:18 chain of events where x causes y2:23:21 y causes z and so on yeah2:23:24 but what what this doesn't necessitate2:23:27 is that x would cause y it could be the2:23:31 case2:23:32 that the system that's set up could be2:23:35 that x causes z2:23:36 and z causes y and then that becomes2:23:39 contingently2:23:40 uh deterministic just look at the2:23:43 difference between the two well2:23:44 god actually had to to create us in the2:23:47 quran2:23:48 it says i'm not talking about the quran2:23:50 i'm talking about what is meant2:23:52 when we when abdullah is talking about2:23:55 you just said you just said that god has2:23:57 free will let's not go back there you2:23:59 just said2:24:00 that god could no you're chosen not to2:24:02 create2:24:03 okay but adam i think the problem here2:24:04 we're going to off track from the topic2:24:06 in order for you to2:24:08 to show us what you're trying to say2:24:09 about everything being conscious2:24:11 you have to take us through these you2:24:13 know2:24:14 huge uh considerations that we're not2:24:17 going to agree on we're going to have to2:24:18 go through the fountains2:24:20 the quran says everything's conscious2:24:30 it doesn't sound like a muslim but2:24:32 anyway anyway anyway we're not talking2:24:34 about the quran2:24:35 we're not here if you think i'm a muslim2:24:37 or not okay no i'm just saying that2:24:39 doesn't sound2:24:40 we will accept that you are muslim yeah2:24:42 so don't worry we're not going to say2:24:44 that yeah2:24:44 i'm saying you're not i'm i'm i'm not2:24:46 saying you're not a muslim i'm just2:24:47 saying that doesn't sound like a very2:24:49 muslim thing to say so i'm not saying2:24:50 you're not a muslim but2:24:51 anyway the the the the point is that the2:24:54 topic of this stream2:24:56 is unrelated to the quran and right now2:24:59 if we're going to have to go through2:25:00 contingency arguments2:25:01 and if we're going to have to go through2:25:03 contingency arguments and determinism2:25:06 and take into consideration your2:25:07 metaphysical commitments2:25:08 versus our metaphysical commitments and2:25:11 walk you through epistemology and modal2:25:13 logic2:25:13 in order to for you to drive us you're2:25:16 throwing out these terms as if2:25:18 i mean yeah to be honest they're very2:25:21 they're fairly2:25:22 they're very well known terms that you2:25:23 shouldn't know if you're trying to make2:25:24 this kind of an argument i mean this is2:25:26 not2:25:26 i'm not trying to make up any big terms2:25:28 or anything i'm just throwing up these2:25:30 terms2:25:30 if if you're talking about adam if2:25:33 you're talking about necessity2:25:34 and contingency and you're making these2:25:36 bold claims about everything having2:25:39 consciousness on that basis2:25:42 you should know what modal logic is i2:25:45 mean i i think2:25:46 but anyway anyway that's not the point2:25:48 the point is that right now we're gonna2:25:50 have to go through so much baggage in2:25:52 order for you to take us to this2:25:53 conclusion so is there another route2:25:56 where we can through which we can2:25:58 address this the topic of this stream2:26:00 from your perspective2:26:01 without going through all yeah okay fine2:26:04 fine2:26:07 how do you explain consciousness do you2:26:09 think it's something i'll use2:26:10 i'll use the i'll use islamic uh2:26:13 response instead of this2:26:14 the metaphysical arguments we can get2:26:16 into that some other stream if you guys2:26:18 want to2:26:18 okay for but just based off the quran it2:26:21 you should believe2:26:22 based off the quran that everything is2:26:24 conscious the2:26:25 the what's the kaaba is conscious2:26:28 according2:26:29 and obviously i don't have the phrase2:26:33 you're misunderstanding the question the2:26:34 question isn't is everything conscious2:26:37 you're in a room we don't we didn't ask2:26:39 that question i asked a question2:26:41 is there a hard problem of consciousness2:26:45 that's the question i asked is there a2:26:47 hard problem of consciousness yeah2:26:49 is it is there a hard problem trying to2:26:51 predicate2:26:52 consciousness within a materialistic2:26:54 world yeah adam2:26:55 do you know what the heart problem of2:26:57 consciousness is yeah it is it's trying2:26:58 to explain consciousness2:27:00 on physicalism and i i i think that2:27:02 consciousness arises2:27:03 in a metaphysical real it's a2:27:05 metaphysical reality2:27:08 then so yeah yeah i thought we were i2:27:11 thought we were2:27:12 uh discussing whether everything's2:27:14 conscious right now no that's just2:27:16 one of your discussions there is a2:27:17 certain view in philosophy of mind and2:27:21 some philosophers come up with these2:27:22 these theories that are2:27:24 pan you know about psyche2:27:27 that everything is conscious or2:27:29 everything has some kind of a2:27:30 proto-consciousness to it2:27:32 that's that's one theory but then it's2:27:34 not necessarily mutually exclusive with2:27:37 a2:27:37 theistic worldview we're not saying that2:27:40 islam2:27:41 is explicitly committed to this maybe2:27:43 some muslims might think otherwise2:27:45 well i think that besides that's besides2:27:47 the point the point is2:27:49 is there a hard problem of consciousness2:27:51 on materialism and can they deal with it2:27:53 we think they can't2:27:55 you kind of seem to be agreeing with us2:27:57 so i i don't think there's a problem2:27:59 unless you just want to talk about pan2:28:02 psychism from an islamic perspective but2:28:03 i think we've already touched upon that2:28:06 oh yeah i heard you that's why i heard2:28:07 you guys talking to the guests about the2:28:09 uh i might have misunderstood so adam do2:28:11 you understand2:28:12 why uh even atheist philosophers2:28:15 uh agree with pan psychism why they2:28:18 approach the approach it that way2:28:21 uh why some atheist philosophers are pan2:28:24 psychists i think yeah2:28:27 uh i mean i'm sure there are different2:28:28 reasons for holding the belief2:28:30 probably to get around to not believe in2:28:32 god that's one2:28:34 to complexity without believing in a2:28:37 separate conscious being2:28:40 well one of the key ways one of the key2:28:42 reasons2:28:43 uh why uh they propose pancychism2:28:48 is because they they they say that2:28:50 because there's an2:28:51 in-principle problem trying to bridge to2:28:54 get between materialism and2:28:55 consciousness2:28:56 they will take consciousness as a brute2:28:58 fact2:28:59 something we just have to accept and2:29:02 that2:29:02 as a result we will accept it in all2:29:05 material objects2:29:06 yeah that's not scientific at all well2:29:09 that's what2:29:10 pan psychism is that's what they believe2:29:12 adam unfortunately we've been going on2:29:15 here for about two and a half hours2:29:17 we're gonna have to cut you short2:29:19 maybe we will have a future stream on2:29:23 determinism and sort of related to the2:29:26 question that you're asked and2:29:28 you can join in at that point and and we2:29:30 can have a discussion about that then2:29:32 but2:29:32 yeah we're gonna have to end the stream2:29:35 now unfortunately okay2:29:40 thanks adam jake uh you might want to2:29:43 mention that hamza had unfortunately had2:29:45 to go2:29:46 yeah yeah hamza unfortunately he was2:29:48 having a little bit of connection issues2:29:50 early on which2:29:52 i think people were able to see um but2:29:54 then2:29:55 um he unfortunately had to go2:29:59 so we do appreciate brother hamza coming2:30:02 on he was2:30:02 like i said gracious enough to stay for2:30:05 over two hours2:30:07 um masha'allah and um2:30:11 really enjoyed and appreciate him coming2:30:13 on i don't know if you guys have any2:30:16 final thoughts on the discussion that we2:30:19 we've been having today uh before we2:30:21 wrap it up2:30:25 uh no i think uh i think we've pretty2:30:28 much2:30:29 spoken about this topic and addressed a2:30:31 lot of the issues i think um2:30:34 uh there's there's a lot more even more2:30:37 that we can probably discuss on this2:30:38 topic and2:30:39 you know a lot more discussions to break2:30:41 down i think the issue is is that what2:30:43 people try to do2:30:44 when they talk about consciousness is2:30:47 they try to say2:30:48 oh it's the brain yeah oh we just don't2:30:51 have enough information yet we can2:30:53 answer it once we get more science2:30:55 uh or you know they'll try to say oh2:30:58 you know it can be worked out if we know2:31:01 which neuron2:31:02 causes what type of sensation or feeling2:31:05 in the brain or experience2:31:06 so they give these various explanations2:31:08 and i think what you find is that2:31:10 every time they give an explanation so2:31:12 the issue of the science well it's not2:31:14 it's not the fact that we don't know2:31:16 enough of the science it's the fact that2:31:17 it's an2:31:18 in-principle problem that science cannot2:31:20 address so that's first thing2:31:22 you know just simply saying what's the2:31:24 brain does not actually then2:31:25 explain to us how these experiences come2:31:28 about2:31:29 and neither does this simply identify2:31:31 neurons and which neurons produces what2:31:33 type of2:31:34 uh you know conscious awareness so none2:31:38 of these things can really explain it2:31:40 and i think2:31:41 hamza i think really want you to talk2:31:42 about elimination2:31:44 is it eliminating the elimination food2:31:46 where basically they deny consciousness2:31:48 eliminative materials eliminated2:31:50 materialism so where they just deny2:31:52 consciousness and some2:31:54 some atheists some philosophers of2:31:56 science2:31:57 end up physically end up going down the2:32:00 roots say well2:32:00 there is no consciousness as a result2:32:03 which2:32:04 seems ridiculous which i mean rosenberg2:32:06 in the book i was reading earlier that's2:32:08 what he2:32:09 literally says because that's eventually2:32:12 what it leads to2:32:13 but i do want to just make one last2:32:16 comment on2:32:16 identity theory because fortunately we2:32:18 didn't get too many atheists on2:32:21 uh the two main theories that i hear2:32:23 when i speak to atheists or2:32:25 identity theory and emergentism um2:32:28 brother hamza touched on emergentism a2:32:31 little bit2:32:32 but identity theory basically2:32:37 says that the the brain states and the2:32:40 mental states are identical to one2:32:41 another2:32:42 so that there's no difference between2:32:43 the two i just want to point out that2:32:45 the issue with this2:32:46 is within the name of the theory itself2:32:50 identity so um we talked about identity2:32:53 in the past with things like the trinity2:32:55 and the issue is is that as per2:32:58 leibniz's law and classical identity2:33:01 that if two things are identical that2:33:03 whatever's true of one also has to be2:33:05 true2:33:06 of the other and vice versa and2:33:07 unfortunately when it comes to the brain2:33:10 states and the mental states2:33:11 there are things that i can say that are2:33:13 true of my mental states that are not2:33:15 true2:33:16 of my brain states for example i can2:33:19 have an experience of2:33:20 color for example i can see this red hat2:33:23 but2:33:24 everyone knows no one is obviously going2:33:26 to make the claim that my2:33:28 brain state which is supposedly2:33:30 identical to that2:33:32 is actually uh colorful and is actually2:33:35 red2:33:35 or whatever same way likewise i can make2:33:39 comments about uh for example typically2:33:42 mental states are understood as not2:33:44 spatial temporal they're not located in2:33:47 space2:33:48 um whereas a brain state obviously is2:33:51 so the issue with identity theory is2:33:53 that it says that the2:33:54 brain states and the mental states are2:33:56 identical to one another2:33:58 but the problem is that we can say2:33:59 things that are true of one that are not2:34:01 true of the other2:34:03 uh i did just want to touch on that very2:34:05 briefly before we ended it because of2:34:07 the fact that2:34:09 we didn't get any atheists on to really2:34:12 mention that and i didn't want that to2:34:14 pass us by but abdul i don't know if you2:34:17 have2:34:18 anything you'd like to add before we end2:34:20 the stream2:34:21 uh just very quickly i i i don't think2:34:24 we've touched enough on2:34:25 the argument from reason so i just think2:34:27 we should have a different stream for2:34:28 that because it's uh2:34:30 it's a it's a very very important one2:34:32 and i think it's a very important2:34:34 discussion it's about grounding2:34:35 rationality2:34:37 on naturalism uh i think we've mentioned2:34:40 it but we haven't really2:34:41 gone through much of the details but i2:34:43 think this is a more direct route2:34:45 to uh to god as in this is an argument2:34:49 in2:34:49 it's both against naturalism and in2:34:52 favor of theism2:34:53 i think consciousness can be uh the the2:34:56 argument from consciousness can be2:34:57 formulated in that way too2:34:59 uh probably not as straightforwardly as2:35:01 the argument from reason2:35:03 but uh but yeah i think we we should2:35:05 probably do2:35:06 a different stream on that and uh and2:35:08 also on determinism but but2:35:10 yeah i think that's it for me yep2:35:12 inshallah yeah so maybe next time we2:35:14 will do2:35:15 a stream building on this discussion in2:35:18 which we will2:35:19 talk about uh arguments from reason um2:35:23 and things like that because it is2:35:24 related to consciousness kind of2:35:26 offshoot from that but once again i2:35:28 appreciate brother hamza for coming on i2:35:31 appreciate appreciate everybody uh2:35:33 watching do uh consider liking this2:35:36 video subscribing to the channel and2:35:38 sharing on it um2:35:40 on your social media especially no2:35:42 matter how big or small your platforms2:35:44 are2:35:44 we really do appreciate it and once2:35:46 again guys thanks for watching2:35:52 assalamualaikum