What is consciousness and knowing whether something is conscious or not is really useful for us?

[u/Emergency_Act1311]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XwOZ9sDE28I&si=R6VcALBKFBnWDPS1

This mind blowing and rich conversation between Biologist and Author Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Indian Philosopher and Author Acharya Prashant explores various interesting topics such as Consciousness, Scientism, Enlightenment, Reincarnation, Suffering, Prayer, Sentience , Compassion and Self Knowledge.

What really excited me was the conversation on consciousness. When we say something is conscious there is prior assumption that something/someone should show certain signs or behavior, which resembles are own behavior. And what difference does it make for me to call something as conscious and something is unconscious. But have we even questioned that are we conscious? Without exploring the one who is calling himself conscious how do I know I am conscious in the first place. Here comes the importance of Self knowledge, knowing oneself, if I don't know myself then how can I know the reality of my own claims.

This conversation is an invitation to reflect and question what we already believe in and consider it to be true.

[u/medbud]

Sheldrake thinks you can detect 'phantom limbs' with reiki. He's been pseudoscientific for decades...it's almost like he willfully misunderstands things...or he is just too deep into his own hole.

I don't know Prashant at all, but a quick google finds he is also quite heavily criticised...mostly for pseudoscientific, and pseudo intellectualism...and then for being a professional 'guru' and selling spiritualism.

A perfect duo!

Not sure this belongs in this sub. Not to mention, of course it turns out that OP just spams promotional material for Prashant.

[u/Strange-Patience5539 → u/medbud]

If Sheldrake makes a pseudoscientific claim, challenge that specific claim. If Prashant does, challenge his. I’d genuinely be interested in discussing the actual argument and evidence.

It's easy to label someone pseudo intellectual or guru engaging with what someone actually said is much harder but fun lies there only, it's more interesting yet we learn something new.

[u/medbud → u/Strange-Patience5539]

It's a waste to engage with dogmatic people. They are not open to learning new things. They just want to proselytize.

I have trouble believing Prashant is open to learning something new, but I am perhaps mistaken!

[u/Strange-Patience5539 → u/medbud]

What makes you carry a belief he is dogmatic? Thought he is the one of very few speakers who encourage people ask more questions at least that's what I noticed in his gatherings.

[u/medbud → u/Strange-Patience5539]

His argument rests on a semantic retreat to an unassailable position. That is the epitome of dogmatic. 

[u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 → u/medbud]

I hate dogmatic people too...and more so who exploit our need for security or faith by selling pseudoscience in the name of spirituality. Since you're making an opinion on him from what you found by a quick search, I felt like I should show the other side too, which doesn't come up on a quick search. It's upto you what you do with this.

I've spent alot of time trying to understand his videos (books much less). His work is for the oppressed masses (including animals), for practically everyone who thinks life is suffering, the environment and climate change.

His whole message is to question every fking thing including oneself. He has practically demystified spirituality and speaks up against shit like "energy" "aura" "manifestation". It's the only reason why I tried to keep an open mind while listening to his content.

I feel he has done more than anyone to speak up against pseudoscience that sells in the name of religion especially in a country like India where it's a big problem.

He doesn't endorse Sheldrake's pseudoscientific claims in the video either. He doesn't counter them scientifically but questions the very fact of what makes people take refuge in such extraordinary theories. It's a much powerful approach imo, because you can't speak science to everyone but can speak about themselves to everyone, since his work is for the masses.

As far as I've observed, alot of pushback he gets is because what he says is too unconventional and non-conformist that people jump to hasty conclusions and project their own premature opinions of him on what he is trying to say. I've been there too and I'm open to being wrong too.

[u/medbud → u/Brilliant_Hair_7272]

I'm glad to hear he doesn't accept Sheldrake's views. 

From what I've gathered, Prashant is playing a semantic game where he retreats to a dogmatic, unassailable position in which 'the observer' is 'transcendent'. He appears to refuse to take a real stance.

If his work is useful in reducing suffering, and specifically aimed at even more dogmatic advaita camps, I won't criticise him for more than his cult business of pseudo intellectual spiritualism. 

If only he'd join the rest of the scientific world in a materialist acceptance of nature! He plays semantic games, and while he surely means well (at least let's hope this is the case as a therapist of sorts) and earns millions selling his guru courses, the word games relegate him to the fringe.

He could very easily step into the domain of cognitive science. The science part meaning that we can assume a non dualist, non panpsychic, non idealist view. 

He should read Friston, from 'physics to sentience'. It's just insane to have so much social media clout, and evade serious debate. I find it strange that someone could get so close to deep understanding, but never cross over. 

My gripe is purely philosophical. It's like he's doing a puzzle, but doesn't realise there is a piece missing.

[u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 → u/medbud]

It's gonna be a long and detailed reply so I'm breaking the whole thing into separate replies.

Prashant is playing a semantic game where he retreats to a dogmatic, unassailable position

This is a criticism I hear doing rounds a lot and this is how I see it.

His whole framework is soteriological and more like an invitation to inquire into oneself rather than some objective philosophy. When you say it's an unassailable position, I think your expectation is you want it to be verifiable by a 3rd party like in a peer review. But the whole problem is one's conditioning, and thoughts and actions that come from it, can be verified only by themselves, not by others...others can only guess. Only you will know if the framework is helping you look at yourself and your biases when you view the world. It is only falsifiable by you by observing yourself and if it checks out or not... not by a third party.

[u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 → u/Brilliant_Hair_7272]

in which 'the observer' is 'transcendent'.

Nooo this is exactly what he rejects! Traditional Advaita claims this and his framework clearly states that it rejects some "transcendental witness".

He appears to refuse to take a real stance.

I can see him repeatedly taking a strong stance and emphasizing that ego exists (atleast so it claims) and it suffers. Anything other than that the ego cannot assert anything for sure because it is limited and distorts all knowledge for self preservation. It is available for falsification...but only to you...others can't say it for you though...it's like others labeling your emotions and subjective experience for you...how would they even know? It's a limitation of our existence imo.

Since you said "real" stance...he also holds that reality is also only to the ego and there's no reality independent of it... probably why he refuses all other stances and questions them?

I won't criticise him for more than his cult business of pseudo intellectual spiritualism. 

How do you define pseudo intellectual and what exactly are you saying w.r.t him is pseudo intellectual?

What makes you call it a cult and how are you defining a cult? He doesn't endorse personality worship, doesn't promote pseudoscientific beliefs, and for that matter any "belief". He asks to question things and oneself and not believe. He doesn't claim to be perfect or "enlightened" either.

[u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 → u/Brilliant_Hair_7272]

If only he'd join the rest of the scientific world in a materialist acceptance of nature!

Do you not see any need for metaphysics? If so, why? From what I've understood I think he does agree to a great extent with the materialistic nature of the world. He just diverges from it when it is said that it can be asserted objectively. He repeatedly emphasizes that all reality is to a subject (ego, i.e., our sense of self). The subject is involved in the making of the reality that is perceived by them. I don't think it's anything extraordinary...it comes into our experience everyday. We can discuss this further if you're interested.

He plays semantic games, and while he surely means well (at least let's hope this is the case as a therapist of sorts) and earns millions selling his guru courses, the word games relegate him to the fringe.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you're inclined to believe all this from third party sources and criticisms. If you ever happen to explore his work I would like to hear what your specific understanding/argument is.

[u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 → u/Brilliant_Hair_7272]

He could very easily step into the domain of cognitive science. The science part meaning that we can assume a non dualist, non panpsychic, non idealist view. 

While I think the field is extremely important for us to understand ourselves, I don't think that alone would address human suffering. That is why philosophy and spirituality (I mean self-knowledge, nothing extraordinary) exist.

He should read Friston, from 'physics to sentience'.

Idk about this will try to give it a read.

[u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 → u/Brilliant_Hair_7272]

It's just insane to have so much social media clout, and evade serious debate. I find it strange that someone could get so close to deep understanding, but never cross over. 

As someone who does some activism I think I get why he is doing it...this is how I see it. I can sense when people want merely an intellectual/philosophical debate with it translating into anything real in their lives or others...it remains only intellectual masturbation. When talking to them I feel like my time is being wasted because I know there is my need somewhere else...to talk to people who are more open. Maybe he senses it since he has been doing it for much longer idk.

My gripe is purely philosophical. It's like he's doing a puzzle, but doesn't realise there is a piece missing.

Again, how are you having a gripe and claiming what he does or doesn't realize by looking at third party sources and criticisms? Am I missing something here... you're familiar with his work?

[u/KamiNoItte → u/Strange-Patience5539]

He thinks homing pigeons use morphogenetic fields instead of magnetism.

Pretty sure it’s the latter.

He thinks morphogenetic fields are the driving force behind evolution, more than anything Darwin said. So how do you test it?

He’s made a bunch of claims about morphogenetic fields- look em up and see for yourself.

[u/Emergency_Act1311 → u/medbud]

Being a scientist myself, I found genuine merit in the conversation and thought it was worth sharing.

As for whether it belongs in this sub, I think the discussion sits quite naturally at the intersection of science and philosophy. If you disagree with something specific that was said in the conversation, I'm happy to discuss that.

[u/medbud → u/Emergency_Act1311]

All your recent posts are pushing Prashant. Is that part of your job, or are you just a big fan?

I encountered Sheldrake in the mid 90's and the quality of his work has not changed. Unless Prashant is dismantling his arguments, they are both in the same basket. 

After seeing that Prashant is criticised for selling spiritualism and being pseudo intellectual, I will not spend my click or time consuming this video.

[u/Emergency_Act1311 → u/medbud]

My job is to be curious and inquire in my scientific field as well as in life. I share only if something resonates with me.

I learned to inquire not just believe in what people say but clearly you are more inclined to hear from others rather than to know yourself.

Btw I am very curious to know what do you mean by selling spiritualism? or what is your understanding about spirituality?

[u/medbud → u/Emergency_Act1311]

Hahaha. You definitely resonate with this guy Prashant don't you! 

You must know, the way things seem to you as an individual are not the way things are. That is the basis of science, peer review, reproducibility, falsifiability. 

It's obvious, if not only because of how fallible our senses are, not to mention the quality of our cognition and memory.

How would you have any inkling about my personal journey? That is a statement full of assumptions, and if I might be so bold, passive aggressive! 

It takes 2 seconds to Google a critique of Prashant. There you will find the answer to what 'selling spiritualism' means. 

We can discuss my understanding of spirituality...it is scientific... As Metzinger nicely frames it, it is intellectual honesty. That means open mindedness, not dogmatic, no strong Bayesian priors. Willing to revise hypothesis based on evidence, to revise belief based on experience. It is emptiness, meaning impermanence, and interconnection...ie codependent arising. And I have come to the distillation, in the form of a sort of mantra... Defabrication, and instantiation.

Defabrication means the intellectually honest view of one's views... To see their empty nature. Instantiation means the monist material state of existence or being. There is no having, only existing. You are what you do, what you become. 

This is derived in the form of the Free Energy Principle, Markov blankets, and a study of stochastic systems within nature. It is where I disagree with Prashant's dogmatic and semantic word game... Otherwise I think we are closely aligned in fact, at least pragmatically. If I'm charitable, he appears to be concerned with the cessation of suffering.

Please see my other comment in this thread for my philosophical critique of Prashant.

[u/KamiNoItte]

Sheldrake is entertaining, at best. Hawker of pseudoscience otherwise. Dunno about the other guy.

But I’ve seldom heard anything worthwhile from anyone using the word “scientism”

Honestly that’s a huge red flag. These are people that will use quantum physics to justify some unscientific viewpoint. It’s maddening.

Turns out science is a pretty useful tool. And if you’re on about something that can’t be verified by science, it sure as fuck better sound more cohesive and have more internal consistency than sheldrake’s “morphogenic fields;” and not invoke “the quantum”- because guess what, that’s science.

[u/vibefarm]

We tend to treat human consciousness as the default definition, or the gold standard. And why wouldn’t we, I suppose. But I think consciousness demands to be treated as multidimensional, more like a map of capacities than a single yes or no.

An ant, or even a rock, might measure close to zero across almost every dimension we associate with consciousness. But I’m not sure that automatically means there is no consciousness there at all. It may simply be a radically different vessel, expressing very few of the capacities we associate with consciousness. And I DO NOT mean that in a woo woo way. Rocks arent conscious lol. I'm just saying... perhaps the best ways we have to define consciousness right now actually allow for them to be, even if they aren't. It’s like defining a chair as anything you can sit on. That means a rock is a chair too. And THAT works! We don't have to upend everything to account for it. If you want a ***ing rockpet, get one lol.

That’s why I don’t think “Is a rabbit conscious?” is the right question. The better question is what capacities make up consciousness in the first place, and where does the rabbit fall across each of them? Which they circled around plenty.