Annaka Harris Explores Consciousness and the Cosmos | Closer To Truth Chats
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
Sean Carroll - Physics of Consciousness
Closer To Truth
57.4k views
David Chalmers - What Things are Conscious?
Closer To Truth
45.5k views
Sam Harris: The TRUTH About Consciousness & Free Will
Dr Brian Keating
78.5k views
Anirban Bandyopadhyay - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
Closer To Truth
111.7k views
David Bentley Hart - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
Closer To Truth
40.3k views
Stephen Braude - What is Consciousness?
Closer To Truth
49.3k views
Jaron Lanier - Is Consciousness an Illusion?
Closer To Truth
109.7k views
Sir Roger Penrose on Consciousness and New Physics (Part 3) | Closer To Truth Chats
Closer To Truth
55.3k views
David Chalmers - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
Closer To Truth
114.6k views
Hubert L. Dreyfus - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?
Closer To Truth
46.0k views
Top Comments (10)
“Lights On” is a great title. My life is rich partly because of this program. Appreciate you RLK!
Recently, I seem to observe that a growing number of female scientists are at the leading edge of furthering science by simply asking better (deeper) questions, Ms. Harris being a prime example for this loudmouthed observation of mine. But it's become papable to me that intuition is an essential driver in the scientific exploration of the universe we inhabit. Thank you, what fascinating arguments she presents, I might have to get the book and find the documentary!
Thanks Annaka. I enjoyed this. I, for most of my life ( I’m 71) have felt that consciousness was fundamental. And thanks Robert for the interesting conversation
Annaka Harris is a good counterfoil for RLK. Both want to listen to counterviews to their own thoughts. They even question themselves hard in the pursuit of truth.
For me there is a simple test on the nature of consciousness - is it naturalistic or mentalistic where mentalistic is not epiphenomenal on neurophysiological processes .. If you plug your instruments into my brain, can you output thoughts, images, ideas, emotions ? Or only measurements of neurophysiology on thermal imaging and graph outputs ? Until you can output that actual content just as machine code on a computer can output a movie, the default position HAS to be that consciousness is NOT reducible to physicalist states. This is the parsimonious view. It seems incredible that the default science view is anti parsimonious, that we should expect we will eventually ( promissory materialism) discover the physiological basis ( as opposed to correlation ) of consciousness. Regarding Harris' latest conclusion that consciousness is probably fundamental,the argument for this has been extensively and rigorously developed by Bernardo Kastrup. While Kastrup's idealist reductionist view is debatable by top down mentalists ( with which I sympathise) his fundamental primacy of consciousness is solidly established. The standard neuroscience physicalist view today just looks like a persistent superstition, part of the materialist schism from the mind-matter integrated view that started in the eighteenth century and became established as the naturalistic axiom of western thought by 1900. As for the idea that consciousness is fundamental, Max Planck already declared this view as early as 1931. Therefore listening to neuroscientists musing over content already substantially worked out by idealist philosophers and biocentric scientists like Robert Lanza or transcendental scientists like Rupert Sheldrake, the pioneering thinking on postmaterialist science has already been done. This discussion needs to look at this groundwork first, work that has already discussed the implications of quantum theory seriously. All that is happening here is that neuroscience , which for obvious reasons hangs on to the apron strings of physicalism ( except for bold thinkers like Donald Hoffman) , is starting to look at what other scientists and philosophers have already been investigating in some depth.
Suddenly or eventually, it becomes self evident that everything is an appearance in, of, and to consciousness.
Growth is truly beautiful! Especially when people show it with authenticity
Literally chomping at the bit because I have answers for many of these questions 😂❤👍🏻 Answers which CAN be addressed by science. The question of how consciousness can be irreducible but also addressed scientifically is something that stood out to me and I talked about in my first book. YouTube has become something of an echo chamber because of the same people being interviewed over and over. I have been trying for 5 years to get interviews… but people don’t know me and they don’t spend any time trying to understand or look into what I say. One interview and all of science will be on the right track. Revolutionary ideas have never been a popularity contest but the internet is making them into that. It’s actually very counterproductive. Thanks for everything you both do!! ❤❤❤
Forget about the Harris's. Its good to see Robert having an open mind. It has taken him a lifetime journey to get here.
Great interview!
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
“Lights On” is a great title. My life is rich partly because of this program. Appreciate you RLK!
Recently, I seem to observe that a growing number of female scientists are at the leading edge of furthering science by simply asking better (deeper) questions, Ms. Harris being a prime example for this loudmouthed observation of mine. But it's become papable to me that intuition is an essential driver in the scientific exploration of the universe we inhabit. Thank you, what fascinating arguments she presents, I might have to get the book and find the documentary!
Thanks Annaka. I enjoyed this. I, for most of my life ( I’m 71) have felt that consciousness was fundamental. And thanks Robert for the interesting conversation
Annaka Harris is a good counterfoil for RLK. Both want to listen to counterviews to their own thoughts. They even question themselves hard in the pursuit of truth.
For me there is a simple test on the nature of consciousness - is it naturalistic or mentalistic where mentalistic is not epiphenomenal on neurophysiological processes .. If you plug your instruments into my brain, can you output thoughts, images, ideas, emotions ? Or only measurements of neurophysiology on thermal imaging and graph outputs ? Until you can output that actual content just as machine code on a computer can output a movie, the default position HAS to be that consciousness is NOT reducible to physicalist states. This is the parsimonious view. It seems incredible that the default science view is anti parsimonious, that we should expect we will eventually ( promissory materialism) discover the physiological basis ( as opposed to correlation ) of consciousness. Regarding Harris' latest conclusion that consciousness is probably fundamental,the argument for this has been extensively and rigorously developed by Bernardo Kastrup. While Kastrup's idealist reductionist view is debatable by top down mentalists ( with which I sympathise) his fundamental primacy of consciousness is solidly established. The standard neuroscience physicalist view today just looks like a persistent superstition, part of the materialist schism from the mind-matter integrated view that started in the eighteenth century and became established as the naturalistic axiom of western thought by 1900. As for the idea that consciousness is fundamental, Max Planck already declared this view as early as 1931. Therefore listening to neuroscientists musing over content already substantially worked out by idealist philosophers and biocentric scientists like Robert Lanza or transcendental scientists like Rupert Sheldrake, the pioneering thinking on postmaterialist science has already been done. This discussion needs to look at this groundwork first, work that has already discussed the implications of quantum theory seriously. All that is happening here is that neuroscience , which for obvious reasons hangs on to the apron strings of physicalism ( except for bold thinkers like Donald Hoffman) , is starting to look at what other scientists and philosophers have already been investigating in some depth.
Suddenly or eventually, it becomes self evident that everything is an appearance in, of, and to consciousness.
Growth is truly beautiful! Especially when people show it with authenticity
Literally chomping at the bit because I have answers for many of these questions 😂❤👍🏻 Answers which CAN be addressed by science. The question of how consciousness can be irreducible but also addressed scientifically is something that stood out to me and I talked about in my first book. YouTube has become something of an echo chamber because of the same people being interviewed over and over. I have been trying for 5 years to get interviews… but people don’t know me and they don’t spend any time trying to understand or look into what I say. One interview and all of science will be on the right track. Revolutionary ideas have never been a popularity contest but the internet is making them into that. It’s actually very counterproductive. Thanks for everything you both do!! ❤❤❤
Forget about the Harris's. Its good to see Robert having an open mind. It has taken him a lifetime journey to get here.
Great interview!