The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist
2017 ж. 15 Ақп.
2 515 252 Рет қаралды
Alan Wallace, a world-renowned author and Buddhist scholar trained by the Dalai Lama, and Sean Carroll, a world-renowned theoretical physicist and best-selling author, discuss the nature of reality from spiritual and scientific viewpoints. Their dialogue is mediated by theoretical physicist and author Marcelo Gleiser, director of Dartmouth’s Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement.
Recorded February 9, 2017
Nourse Theater - San Francisco, CA
A Higgs Boson is denied entry to a church. It said, “but without me, you can’t have mass!”
Rim shot.....bada-boom. ;)
🤣
word ! ;b
To me, it doesn't matter!
It's theory, and size breaks down compared to energy.
"Spiritual awakening doesn't require a new experience,its simply seeing clearly whats already happening"
Define clearly?
Until Jesus shows up and changes your paradigm.
You have new experiences everyday, you dont live someone elses life. Hence spiritual enlightenment. Everyone has there own life path.
But how do you know ,, what's already happening because you will be seeing it as a filter by the influence mind of various circumstances ,,
@@kungadodhenx4038 imagine reality with-out any ideas,words ,thoughts,or concepts. What reason would there be to believe that you are anything other than what you are aware of.? What evidence is there that there is anything other than what you are aware of?
This is what humanity should be doing, talking respectfully to each other with love and decency, exchanging ideas and exploring the meaning of existence. It's the very lifeblood of progress.
so if someone, from a group being killed, was saying "we are being killed" would you say they were doing the wrong thing?
Define progress? Where are we standing now? Where are we going? How do we handle radical difference in the meaning of existence?
oh! you mean like pre-Uncle Ronnie times and a bit before the emergence of this current Republican Party.. (that includes Democrats too) ... it still drools no matter what it looks like.
progress from what and to what?
My gut disagrees.
Buddhism is empirical science. I born and brought up in a Buddhist family and I am an atheist. Both goes hand in hand. There is no compulsion to accept or deny any sort of theories/ Dogma that are existed.Buddha himself said and bluntly quote that,” don’t believe anything because it is written in a auspicious book or said by someone revered or even said by me, if is isn’t confirmed by evidence “. I think that’s one of the most scientific thing that anyone could say.
The brain is most important part of the body according to the brain
The elbow though, strongly disagrees.
you mean according to the mind.
@@mcgee227 correlation isn't causation
@@mcgee227 science hasn't proven it instead a school of neuroscientists proposed it . There's a lot of work happening in this field to explain the phenomenon called qualia which is if mind is a biproduct of brain then how can an objective brain experience subjective feelings.
Haha what a way to put it!!
It's amazing how people can take a cordial conversation between two respectful gentlemen and turn it into a reason to start calling each other names, devaluing each other's views. Having opposing views is a chance to grow and become a much more dynamic human being. So let's try to honor this discourse and act in kind. Namaste
Carey M X Thomas ditto. Proves we really do live on a planet still in kindergarten on a planetary 🌏 level!
lew bronstein Adults are having a conversation, go sit down and be quiet
lew bronstein There is no reason to be upset. Okay sure he may not be Nepali, nevertheless he's saying Namaste as a way to greet others and welcome them into a conversation with peace and respect. It's like slang for a person is "dude" or "bro"
Not really, just average claptrap
lew bronstein LoL where are you from. Looks like the west
My husband is a SCD Material Scientist. I am a sociologist, Art Historian, Poet, and Teacher. Our world views are almost opposite. We watched this wonderful video together. Enjoyed the many truths as well as the humor evident. Thank you!!!
Anyone that calls themselves a poet you can be certain is a pretentious self-deceiver.Real poets *never* call themselves poets.Apropos sociology, in universities where hard subjects are taught there is often have a sign above the lavatory paper reading:Sociology agrees please take one.
@@vhawk1951kl Every great poet has referred to themselves as a poet. Because they're poets. Also, you dropped out of community college.
@@vhawk1951kl spontaneous belittlement of a total stranger. I'm trying to grasp the contribution this makes to the dialog introduced in this video presentation. gfy
@@barryrempp1261 Balls, it's a fake a putup job by two lying mutual masturbaters Rehearsed questions and rehearsed answers - a classic example of mutual masturbation; the the whole thing is a con. *And-you-know- it*It is fake from beginning to end (and -you-know-that* *for-a-certainty* also, so don't bother to lie.
@@barryrempp1261 It is not any* kind of genuine dialogue, it is a put-up job p-r-e-t-e-n-d-i-n-g* to be a dialogue to deceive- A bit of mutual masturbation *pretending* to be a dialogue - I't's an act and you know it - pure fakery which I call lying because it *is* lying, something pretending to be what it is not, and you know that too because you have a special organ called with_knowledge or a sense of truth of which you may or may not, be aware. Those two mutual-masturbators are no more PhDs than you are, however, whatever is supposed imagined fantasied or racked up to be omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent- Call that what you will is as fond of lying conmen and mutual masturbaters as it is of Nazis murderers whores thieves robbers rapist idolaters concentration camps unborn baby slaughtering shops, sewerites or queers, rapist murderers and the deliberately cruel so it is hardly likely to balk at a couple of lying mutual masturbaters setting out to trick you poor stupefied credulous Elsies, because *Everything* --Absolutely_Everything* with *No* exceptions whatsoever that either is/exists or occurs, happens, takes place or can be experienced is the wish want will or fancy or suits the purposes of whatever is, superposed to be omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent., *Or* it is not not omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. Now what do you call *that* thing? Since that thing clearly takes no exception to liars frauds misery sorrow agony and or those that appear to cause or induce those thigs , far be it fro me to criticise a couple of mutually masturbating conmen tyinfg to con half-witted Elsies that mistakenly suppose themselves to be what re called Christians, mistakenly because there are no Christians because dreaming machines simply *cannot* *Live the preceps of one Josh Bar-Joseph aka jesus christ whose teachings have *Fcuk_Nothing* to do with any thing in the Jew-book or a chapter therein called Genesis which actually*means make-it-up-as-you-go-along in Aramaic or in n babytalk Noachian floods have fcuk_nothing to do with christianity the founder of which strictly *forbade*his pupils from*believing* *Any thing , pointing out to them that one of their weaknesses was their predisposition to passive mechanical acceptance without question known as belief which is the *Exact_Opposite of Faith which has Nothing_Whatsoever to do with faith because belief is *passive* while faith must be active and impartial because it is one of the functions of reason(the capacity to apprehend what-i-and-cannot-be-different). There are vast amounts of records of the teaching of the master known as Jesus Christ which are mostly kept secret and only shown to initiates because thathat tradition which has been extinct for thousands of years was an esoteric or secret/private tradition mostly based on Egyptian traditions, old Josh having been taught by Egyptian priests. Who knows why early conmen tacked what little they could discover of his teaching onto the Jewbook which has *Absolutely_Nothing* to do with his teaching/method/way, and of course he never once in his entire life used the word god for reasons which can be found set out in the more recondite sources. Hd you sked him whether or not he supposed there to have been a noachian flood he would have shrugged his shoulders and said don't know, don't care, there are floods of various definitions all over the place from time to time and the one thing he *definitely would have said is never ever ever * believe* anything pasively mechanically-certain don't fall for that con act put on by those two lying mutual masturbators. The contrived dialogue is an old forensic trick. Anyone who says there was or that he believes there was a Noachian flood is *L-y-i-n-n-g*to you. the writers of genesis are referring to a folk memory of the creation of the Mediterranean when - at the end of an ice age , of which there have been several, the atlantic overtopped the barrier between it and what is no the Mediterranean which may have been dry land at one time, and *that* would have ben " the world" of those living there at time. The Noah tale is simply a crib or copy of the kummerian epic of Gilgamesh- is thus not original. Your " world is pretty tiny too is it not? " world " is a weasel word - a specues of blaub which can mean almost anything. The " world" of English barristers is the Inns of court in an about the temple in the city of London and it is the rather small world of those in that professionfrom which you Elsies that are cut off if not specifically excluded for the world of law is a mystery to you just as most Elsies suppose books and writing to be a sort of magic - You are like children to we your betters whom you were bred to serve. Would you agree with me that anyone callinh himself doctor that *does not* have a PhD from an accredited or proper university is a liar? You do not have a degree or any kind of higher learning, do you?Mind you these days PhDs are a dime a dozen and worthless and in kinder land - America you can buy them. not one single genuine phd from s reputable university-*not*Makeitupasyougoalong University of Ahitkicker Tennessee, will tell you that there is no evidence whatsoever if any kind of Nochian or Gilgameshian flood anywhere and the will all tell you that the two lying mutual mastUrbaters stare *L-y-i-n-**-g-*- or being wholly disingenuously selective- which is lying by any other name. Intellectual dishonesty is *still* dishonesty. "World can men anything-you please and different -things-to-different-people, and that is the trick of lying, keep your lies as generalised and-nebulous as possible and *above_all* avoid specifics. use your brains Elsie; the omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent does not, nor does it *need* to fcuk about with rain particularly when it is perfectly at ease with concentration camps slavery(to which I take no particular objection) and the slaughter of the unborn on s scale which makes the holocaust amateur or positively benevolentand can bring about an entire solsr system merely on a whim or because it said to itself 'fcuk me it's a bit dark what I need is a bit of nuclear fusion- Oops no, since I am omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent, there is no need for that shit. if it exists occurs happens or can be experienced, By_defintion I *am* it, right down to lying mutual masturbators trying to con Elsies that imagine they are Christians - which is of course impossible.
The answer Alan give to Sushmitha's question is really mind blowing 🤯
How can people hate social media when you have debates like these for free 😭 It's basically what we use it for 🤷🏻♂️
Er what you might use it for.. *Vietname flashbacks of 1000000 Kardashianeque narcissists*
Great but cant debate merits of c0^id responses, origin or therapy, no less the scam behind these points. All is censored or outright quashed.
I wish.. Social media is mostly mass psychosis inducing marketing.
KZhead is a treasure. The rest? Not so much 😅😂
Well we need to make a distinction here: A KZhead video is not "social media."
Those two are asked "What is the nature of reality?" Scientist: "We don't know" Buddhist: "Scientists don't know"
Sean was somewhat humiliated.
@@deeplorable8988 yeah but his ego is so strong and hes happy that hes about to sell books. I wish he would take some mushrooms or something and get another perspective.
@@deeplorable8988 Good observation.
Bryan Guilford I remember hearing him say he took LSD with his wife when she was writing a book about something related, but he never disclosed the dosage. I doubt it was very high.
Sean Carroll is famous for using words such as "the short answer is ... we don't know" when asked about Quantum Mechanics many years ago. Well at least he is honest. But time can change a person. I am not saying he is lying now.
amazed that i watch and listened to the whole video without skipping. what i learned.. is that .. there is hope for humanity.. after witnessing this respectful conversation between two very reverential gentlemen with diverse viewpoints. kudos to the moderator too.
Humanity has to get rid of the parasite on its back if we are to have any hope beyond being cattle for the “elites”.
Oh, and if you don’t know, “elite” is a euphemism for Jew.
I felt exactly the same way, like I just watched one of the most remarkable exchanges of 3 very kind, open-minded and thoughtful humans! There was healthy skepticism, not cynicism, and so much hope and wonder!
A very quick way of showing the effect of mind with matter is to say to oneself "I want to raise my arm" and raise it! Thanks for the great conversation Alan, Sean and Marcello! 🌿
Once of the best parts about this is how contrarian the ideas are. Yet both gentlemen are able to have a respectful conversation without personal attacks on one another. In fact they complement each other multiple times even though they disagree. Hopefully this is the direction we can go in the future on a larger scale
Such a lucid point. 👍
Argumenting without lifting a finger is a gold standard in Indian Dharmic traditions. Shankara-Charya roamed allover India and won minds of Budhists in intense arguments. That tradition is rarely found in The history of Abrahamic religions - as there no way or my way
Well, that's how discussion is meant to be done. I daresay it's probably how life should be lived. Offering contrary perspectives in order to inspire others, but without trying to convince each other or fight against each other. Considering other viewpoints without feeling attacked. Thinking about what other people feel or believe without ruling out their belief, or assuming that they mean to invalidate oneself. Not dogmatically claiming to one's own perspective to be valid for everyone. It's an idealized goal, I know, but it's one to strive for. I'm pretty sad that in today's world, people more and more seem to be unable to do that.
My gut feeling is that it remained „gentlemanly“ because Sean had fallen asleep during Alan‘s contribution
@@amberazurescale5617 there is no such thing as different view points when dealing with facts. Its only when beliefs are involved that conflict arises.
People so often confuse the mind or the personality with consciousness. The exercise of not thinking, not behaving, not acting for a few seconds is so very insightful.
Also, being silent can be very active. Meditation is active. When increasing our ken or knowledge range, what helps is to diversify different types of intelligence. Bc each gives a different perspective of life that can be revealing. If one is tuned, one can see the issue as many truths and how limited our thinking can be. It is limited by one’s freedom of choice, we let go by our choice to believe. When we learn how illusory speech is, then we see more.
Thank you very much for stating in the description when this conversation took place.
Meditation, in my experience calms your mind and body, causing me to relax and achieve the best whole body relaxation - which in turn heals the mind and body. Thanks for the presentation.
1:19:02 I am a Buddhist (from Bangladesh) and I must say Sean Carroll is a true scientist who is so open to learn even more about reality (For the sake of Humanity) ! His last speech was amazing. However, For reference: Buddha said that even the consciousness does not have the ultimate reality, consciousness is not eternal, not constant, not lasting , therefore subject to suffering. In the Pheṇapiṇḍ-ūpama-sutta, Buddha said "Consciousness is like magician's trick in the crossroads."
You're too kind. This is a social danger of Buddhism. It's good not to assume malice where stupidity suffices as an explanation, but sometimes it is anger (i.e., willful ignorance, the cascade of disasters that follows from attachment to the contemplation of sense objects).
@cesar leon Don‘t confuse your close mindedness with intelligence.
"I am a Buddhist". What is the "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist? By making that statement, you have proved you aren't a Buddhist, but then again, as I say, what is the "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist? Answer that and you will find there is no "I AM" that thinks it's a Buddhist.
@@eclipse369. Don‘t confuse your close mindedness with intelligence.
@@mindyourownbusinessfatty KATSU!
What an absolutely fantastic discussion between two powerhouses in their respective fields. Both, super intelligent, open minded and light-hearted.
One is a powerhouse, the other is an insecure dote.
@Michael Terrell II the Buddhist demonstrates more openness, mental flexibility and recognition that his belief is a belief. The other guy insists that he knows, that he has facts, despite the evidence that neither one can really know. The "facts" aren't conclusive in either direction. I get a feeling of rigidity and insecurity, and that doesn't read as strength, whereas the Buddhist is asking questions, addressing doubts and speaking to the human questions of existence. That's authentic engaging. I'll take a pass on the guy who responds like a robot and is too insecure to entertain the possibility that there are things he doesn't know and can't know based on current knowledge. Meh! They're operating in two very different levels, and one of them is flat-out obnoxious in his arrogance.
@@gplionk1 Uhh the Buddhist monk forgets the unanswerable questions of buddha? "The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2[4]) also mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self. What am I? How am I? Am I? Am I not? Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, did I become what in the past? Shall I exist in future? Shall I not exist in future? What shall I be in future? How shall I be in future? Having been what, shall I become what in future? Whence came this person? Whither will he go?" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions The buddha warned against trying to "find where the mind interfaces with the brain". This Buddhist monk has a bit too much ego to be a real Buddhist. Also, this conversation was supposed to be about the "nature of reality". And the buddhist instead attacks "colonial white" science for not having a good enough measurement for the human condition? I'm with Carroll. That's a bit ego-centric
@@mariociani4918 based on my first impression, I wouldn't care to listen a second time.
@@aidenmurphy9924 good thing is not a debate about buddhism, but about consciousness. I find your whole comment irrelevant.
Each point of view is unique and it is fantastic to share each with each other
Absolutely fantastic about the words they "choose" to describe their points and deliver them.
In case you missed it: It is within our power as human beings to gain insight into the nature of our own consciousness through self-observation.
Metacognition also indicatively accelerates evolution because obtaining the ability to understand our own consciousness is another layer of reality which happens to be the layer that perceives and unifies all others, including the biological makeup of our brains. Thus our brains begin to physically adapt to our own changes in pattern of thought overtime, because thought exists at the physical level shared at the same biological transparency.
"gain insight into the nature of our own consciousness through self-observation" Is that why people take so many selfies? LOL
Seems logical and common sense to me. But of course there are those who say that any insights you have about consciousness are delusory because science though.
Does that mean I have no consciousness if I'm blind and deaf, and therefore can't observe myself?
@@MackemChops If you are blind and deaf than you have no visual or auditory consciousness. You still have mental consciousness. Of course the self is not an object of consciousness and is unknowable. The mind, however, is an umbrella term for all conscious processes which they can be reduced down to (sensory and mental) and their functions (perception and so on).... Parts of the mind can indeed observe other parts of the mind. The mental consciousness can observe what the sensory cosciousnesses observe and form opinions about appearances. When you are observing the self, what is it that you are observing? Obviously, not the self, but merely the mind. But then, what is consciousness? Can it be identified?
I feel so lucky to have been in the room for this conversation. We need more discussions like this.
All the blablablahbla aside, ask a Buddhist, why women are never to be seen, or heard or exercise power, on equal terms like Buddhist men do. Have done for 2000+ years. What a bullshit religion. Like all organised religions.
@@AudioPervert1 cuz they know women And you are a pc simp
@@AudioPervert1 What? There are many different sects and monasteries that practice Buddhism. One example is Plum Village and they have many woman speakers and leaders. Even the Buddha himself spoke of an even more enlightened form of equality: seeing a person rather than a woman. There is a great quote I'll paraphrase here: "The wise man compares himself to no one. He seeks not what others have and does not pride himself on what he has. The wise man does not see himself as greater than, lesser than, or equal to others, for he is others and others are himself. Then, how could he be equal, less, or more than anyone else?" One of the core tenants on Buddhism as a whole is interconnectedness, and this is what dissolves any notion of us being seperate, which is where the terms "equal, lesser, and better" come from.
@@AudioPervert1 Did the Buddha ever preach about women never being seen?
@@AudioPervert1 you're mixing culture with religion, it's not your fault cuz that's what religious people also do LOL
This was an absolutely brilliant discussion.
I believe the Buddha was really enlightened since his teachings conclusively explained for everything including those that science couldn't answer and all his teachings have not found to be wrong, bad, illogical or debunked.
Except for reincarnation!
@@user-ub4id6ip5m Why? Do you understand reincarnation?
Siddharta Gautama never aske to be worshipped, but you did.
We learn - sometimes in life - or the after life (Bardo) or then - in the new life. We know things - in the heart - that we have never learnt - in the mind. It awakens an interest and then we may do - some research and then - if deep enough - the learning - increases vastly - about the wonder of life etc. To learn about transmigration - is to really enhance - the potential of humanity. Or, we do not do anything - to learn about ourselves - in this regard. Fare thee well.@@user-ub4id6ip5m
@@user-ub4id6ip5m reincarnation still not debunked as well.. 😮
Language is completely inadequate. So open to interpretation. The experience of consciousness is entirely within an individual. I may be able to share your experience but I can never have your experience
@LINUS spot on :)
Look into Body Mind Centering - for shared experience, not my experience or your experience but shared consciousness.
Indian practices include trans-person experiences. But that's aside the point. Why do you want anyone else's experience? That is one of the beneifts of interpretive meaning. You are provided with a structure upon which you can build an understanding if you want.
kzhead.info/sun/iJxtntx7qoOmqKs/bejne.html
Not for as long as we are not us.. If you and me are the same entity it is our experience
Throwing in my two cents. As a Zog Chen Buddhist for 45 years and an ardent follower of physics as well, I found the talk fascinating, erudite and enlightening with a lot of great ideas from both sides. I didn't even see them very much at odds with each other. Physics and Buddhism are two sides of the same coin and using them together is useful in understanding the nature of reality and the mind. Bravo to both of you.
This discussion followup shows me what Allan Wallace is up against, that you can't talk to people about an experience they haven't had. You can't give a non swimmer who never was in water a book or a lecture about swimming. It sounds outlandish until you can actually get in and experience the feel of it and what it takes for us to begin to try to understand it. Studying the mind requires stepping back into it and opening to the experience of it.
Steve Charney - I know this is an old post but hey, i'll throw this in. The only way you can believe that these two are not at odds is if you have not understood Sean's argument. What he is saying is that we now KNOW there is no non-material mind because we completely understand the matter that brains are made of. If quantum field theory is correct, and so far it has made some of the most accurate predictions in all of science, then things like reincarnation are simply impossible. Given that, I find it hard to see how you think these two are not at odds.
Annabel Boissevain - the key difference you are missing here is that neither Sean nor Alan is not talking about subjective experience, they are talking about what is real in objective reality. Transcendent experience alone , no matter how powerful, does not constitute evidence of objective reality. Just because you experience the memory of a past life, doesn't mean you actually lived it, no matter how real that memory feels. If you believe in objective reality, then science has something to say about consciousness.
Steve Charney Well said.
A reductionist model postulating that the brain is a collection of particles, that these elements can be 'charted' to deny mind or consciousness is not rigorous science: that the phenomena is materialistic and deterministic. That said. There is no 'underlying' mystery. It's all there, just because it is perplexing doesn't 'mean' in its supposed absence, the lack of a functional scientific descriptor, is meaningless. It's simply unknown.
Indeed, these interdisciplinary exchanges are vital to humanity beginning to better understand ourselves, each other and our place in the universe. I truly felt these erudite individuals conducted a challenging discourse and debate with mutual respect and some good humor. And now I am fascinated with the idea of studying states of consciousness with careful scientific rigor. Thank you. ☯️
`Alan Wallace, wish I had heard this years ago--
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that's just an error on your part." - Richard Feynman
Didn't he make some claims in which he was certain of?
@@nik8099 Can't he be mistaken?
he may have said that, but you are trying to twist his intention, and meaning.
@@rwjazz1299 Ah, I see. He said something, so we should ignore that in favour of what you want to hear. Got it :) Thanks.
@@talastra Feyman was being humble. He also said: if you think you understand quantum mechanics; then you don't understand it. Does that mean it's pointless in trying to understand it? No!
As an engineer and astrophysics enthusiast I really admire Sean and I appreciate all that he has done for science but I've always had an intuitive belief that what makes us human - our consciousness, is simply something that science have not been able to explain and I don't think they ever will because just like what Alan said, you can't measure it.
You can't measure because it has no affect, no influence. If it had an influence then it could be measured. "Consciousness" is a problem because it is so ill-defined. It means one thing in one context (say awareness) and something else in another (some spirit inside). That sort of fuzziness is the cause of all sort of muddled thinking.
@BenjaminFranklin99 Do you have any reading comprehension skills? There's a big difference between turning something on/off and measuring it.
@BenjaminFranklin99 you're confusing the inputs and outputs of consciousness with consciousness itself. It's like saying your computer is frozen when really the mouse and keyboard are unplugged. Or suggesting that the batteries of an RC drone control it's movement because the drone doesn't move when you remove the batteries.
Consciousness is the fabric of reality. What is there to experience of seeing for example other than the knowing of it? What is there to the experience of hearing other than the knowing of it? Knowing or consciousness is the underlying ground of everything. Without it, nothing could exist. Or if it did - nothing would be there to know it.
@@mattstocks4749 it’s the second one lol Existence exists whether any part of it ever knows it
Thank you for this fascinating discourse exploring our reality through physics, the intellect, consciousness and the supernatural. Since mankind hasn’t found the answers after thousands of years of inquiry perhaps we could serve the universe better through love.
On the Island of the Tonal . .
A both a student of science and a student of Vipassana meditation I have come to place each path to knowledge in its own domain. Science is the exploration of external reality and the modelling of this experience in language that is logically consistent and objectively verifiable. The original purpose of the teaching of Goetma before it was co-opted into a formal religion was to explain the cause and cure for the suffering of human beings based on his subjective examination of his personal consciousness. As he pointed out many times, the truth for him is not your truth. The truth that someone else tells you or that you believe is true because you revere a teacher or god is still not your truth. Only through the practice of meditation can you experience your own truth of the cessation of suffering. Science is more flexible. Most physicists have never actually done the fundamental calculations or reproduced the experiments of the giants of science in their own training. They accept these models of reality because they trust the methods used allow their truth to be regenerated. For Buddhists the only truth is the subjective experience of liberation and freedom from suffering that comes from meditating in the same way as people before you have been successful with. Buddhism is more a folk medical practice and not really an attempt to explain reality in any objective way. This ignores the suttas from the advanced Buddhist philosophies that were incorporated by Brahmin priests and later Mahayana schools long after Goetma died. The one thing that both Buddhists and Quantum Physicists do agree on is that everything is in a process of constant change. Reality in terms of eternal essences that transcend time and space can't exist.
Nature only changes in form but that’s what keeps it consistent. Reality is nature and that itself is eternal and it’s true essence. It also transcends time and space in how it performs in time and space. Reality is just this, dualistic and infinite. Infinite in silence though and only in silence is where nature can truly exist formless.
Wrong. Basis to all Buddhist practice is the trust in the teachings itself or the teacher you listen to. It's not just sitting down and training awareness, the practice is interwoven with teachings. And that's far from being 100% subjective aka. "rely only on your own experiences". The moment, you turn to (any kind of) teachings, you are not purely subjective anymore. So, this is similar to the trust of the Physics scholars trusting their scientific predecessors (as you pointed out). Furthermore, if you try to figure out everything by yourself, you are limiting your insights about reality immensely, bc then you highly underestimate the mental prowess of the last 100-200 years Science scholars. There were and are some damn smart people out there without an religious agenda. I practice Buddhist meditation myself, but if I want to more about the beginning and course of our Universe, I'd rather ask an astro physicist.
This was incredible. Thank you for uploading this!
It's so pleasant to listen to Sean. What a combination of scientist with an enlightened thinker.
Sean was somewhat humiliated.
@@deeplorable8988 I particulaly didn't see anyone being humiliated by anyone. Both managed to express their respective points and didn't contradict themselves. For me was just one more discussion on physicalism.
@@gustavodeoliveira702 I'm talking about when he was called out for his racism towards Eastern philosophy.
@@deeplorable8988 What? are you stupid? HE wasn't called out for racism against anyone. You can't be racist towards a philosophical system. He's probably skeptical of eastern mysticism ...but he's also skeptical of western mysticism.
@@qualiacomposite Tell it to the guy how called him out.
Great Discussion. I have watched Carroll's other videos and liked them. Here Carroll's belief seems to be deeply rooted in physicalism and realism. But as Alan Wallace pointed out Quantum Physics has not yet solved the "observer effect". So, consciousness and "first-person experience of the mind" are crucial to understanding the nature of reality. Alan Wallace is very eloquent in putting forth his points. As he said, we need a lot more empirical research into the mind and consciousness from a first-person perspective. And I am glad that Carroll is open to evidence like any good scientist should be.
@@jmc000 And the observer does not need to be conscious.
this a rehash of the "god of the gap".
Thank you very much for sharing this with us. A lot of information to work on and to think about and thanks too for the humour. I enjoyed it and I'll take few notes about this video. All of 3 are very interesting and it's good to see so much respect. Thank you very much to contribute to teach us (left university more than 40 years ago but still have the taste to learn) and for doing it this way. Namasté
Great presentation and subject matter. Excellent guests and host. Thanks for sharing.
Very thought provoking with some innate understanding on both sides in a courteous discourse. Very enjoyable to see and hear....thank you for this!
They all make very good points and all have aspects of truth in what they had to say. I'm excited to see what the world of science proves to be in the future.
Science is pseudo religion, a bunch of humans dictating reality based upon perception. Whereas the Dharma is here and now and no human can change it.
Its simple, just like Allan Wallace said thats what everyones missing. Even with science expanding every year and there being breakthroughs; theres always some sort of missing puzzle to the piece and that is people are not studying the mind. Without this, science in itself will not give you a fundamental answer to this question.
Consciousness in its Utilitarian form is a string of recorded subjective experience of a living being that evolved to form the ability to record said experience. Not only to react but to participate in the timing of its environment. Consciousness is Memories. Memories came from evolution. And this is the same reason why writing and reading became the paradigm shift of our global civilization because memory can be passed down through generations w.o exhaustive life cycles. From that evolution you can repose that Consciousness is a constant for Life evolution. But it is not central to what the universe is. The highest form of consciousness in the universe will be that of the indigenous Americans doing bushfires to clear forest floors of dead leaves. Keeping the pristine condition of the universe while being unnoticeable in its grandest schemes. I would also like to add in an individual levels that when someone is UNCONSCIOUS. The body is alive yet it is not recording the experience of its current environment. Which is why for anyone who wants to use the mystery of consciousness to be the last bastion of "life after death"... They perhaps not have seen someone who has Alzheimer's. Someone's Consciousness slowly dying whilst the body continues to live. In that Utilitarian sense, thode that are conscious are often social brings, meaning that their actions in their environment will have ripple effects down the social line. Dus perhaps legacy and "life after death" and why people indigenous folks believe that even after death we live on as long as the memory of us lives on the living or has the effect of that life lived.
@Abram Rex Joaquin Excellent perspective. Thanks.
@@abramrexjoaquin7513 Really insightful. Nice!
I watched and listened, instead of the news, going on FB, or checking e mail etc. interesting and thoughtful. I have some new things to consider to compliment my own reality... knowledge and spiritual understanding. The nature of reality. I certainly am not a scientist, but it made sense. I followed both men. The idea of where dreams fit in, that seemed to open a new view of a part of 'reality' that doesn't fit into the 'grip-able' scientific view. (I'll have to search the "Higgs Bozon'. I shall name drop it whenever I may.)
This is a DIALOGUE, nothing more. Food for the mind. So just take it as that, and enjoy. Maybe it will spark something within you, which is the ultimate point of this being presented for you. It's not a contest of who's right, or, who has evidence supporting the points they make.
Couldn't agree more...... BUT this is KZhead and us humans being what we are, we will protect the reality we perceive as if our lives depended on it. 1st rule, All things perceive their own reality. 2nd, reality is greater than the sum of it's parts. 3rd, the only source of knowledge is experience. I could go on but wars are fought over definitions of reality. We even murder each other defending our realities. So while you are correct, I counsel wisdom and understanding as the solution not correct behavior
People's belief systems are at threat here. The three things you aren't supposed to discuss in polite company are sex, politics and religion - but especially religion. The first one irritates people, the second pisses them off, the third drives them batshit crazy.
valar: LOL!!!
right!
Dark matter is imagination juice
If I was programming a simulation I would have put this in just to mess with myself.
Me2
;)
Haha yes. Hiding the truth in plan sight.
I would've made the buddhist the physicist's equal, by having him also speak for himself, rather than reading off a notebook.
That’s a religion I could get behind
What a great and respectful debate this was! Very informative and enjoyable! Thank you gentlemen!
Wonderful! We should have more dialogues and fewer debates.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” ― Max Planck, Where is Science Going? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Godels incompleteness theory
Godels incompleteness theory what? Are you trying to say something or just writing random words?
Therefore while Quantum physicist when asked where is observer (human-themselves) than they get stuck. So comes explaination from 3000s years of contemplative indian knowledge called "Atma" which was again refined by buddha- Buddhist phylosophy which explains throughly about selfless theory or emptiness or theory of interdependence or not inherently existing.
@@user-ix7ym3jq3h ... nowadays also known as new age bullsh*t which doesn't explain anything.
Same for the religious. They can't solve it either. So let's quit pretending.
This was a great discussion: The chasm existing between matter and consciousness IS in fact the prime directive of material-based science itself. If it can't be measured physically then Sean has made up his MIND that it is not part of the universe. Alan points out perfectly that it is this scientific point of view which is firmly entrenched into its very own 3D physical hole of matter, space and time. It suggests that we become what we think; attaching meaning to certain thoughts over and over becomes that body-mind problem alluded to in the conversation. It doesn't take a PhD or a Doctorate to understand that consciousness precedes everything: Without consciousness there is no thought, no body, no things, no time. Every human being experiences this every time they lie down and rest in dreamless sleep. Would love to see more of this type of dialog between the scientific and philosophical in public. Although Sean wasn't prepared to begin to explore his own experience of consciousness during this talk, certainly there are many other scientists that would open to doing so: Sean needs to brush up on 21st century neuroscience, which has discovered that the heart also contains neurons, and is in fact more powerful than the brain in terms of generating electromagnetic energy. The science of body mind exists today - relevant discoveries made within the fields of epigenetics, neuroplasticity, cognitive neuroscience, endocrinology, and in the latest field of psychoneuroimmunology reveal that the mind (thought) and the body (experience) are intricately linked and intertwined. The Institute of Noetic Sciences has been around since 1975 - it is a research center and direct-experience lab whose mission for the last 45 years has been to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through scientific exploration and personal discovery. Main-stream scientists' understanding of consciousness is long overdue and must begin exploring the fundamental cause of mind, thought, emotions, the body, and everything we see and experience in our physical existence - it originates in this conscious waking 3D dream we call life on Earth.
Beautiful and unfortunately too true, Sean conveniently leaves out non locality and the double split experiment which provides evidence that an intelligent observer creates reality. Therefore our most up-to date scientific thinking is that non- local consciousness creates our 3d reality we live in.
I wish he would have asked him about so many people today they are pronounced clinically dead and brought back that describe seeing their loved one who passed on, and they all describe similar things, Also people that have been in comas say they could hear and knew everything being said and done. I think the reason they have so much trouble understanding quantum physics it because it is hitting on the supernatural, such as something being in 2 places at once or communication across vast distances. The CIA was using remote viewers to spy on the Russians and visa versa. There are documented cases of spontaneous healing. The placebo effect is well known to science, I just wish they had discussed some of these things.
Brilliant! It is just so deeply satisfying to listen to this kind of discussions from this kind of amazing people :D
Brilliant on one side, hubris, arrogance, ignorance, and egoism on the other.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt I don't know who ur talking about since I haven't watched it yet, but I know from knowledge of both sides this could literally be referring to either one
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt Most Buddhists are ironically very arrogant
@Greg LeJacques Haha, truth hurts. Damn Greg, man after my own heart. Women refuse to give up their little fantasy land world views though so It is a vain cause but at least you said it.
@Greg LeJacques It is good to trust intuition, but even the most intuitive are right at tops 80 percent of the time, the other twenty has to be adjusted for. Can't throw out too many baseless claims hoping they will stick. Sincerely, your great uncle Jesse
Only 35 minutes in and Alan is now touching on the very thing I noticed Sean never touched on? Consciousness, the observer and it's affects on the material realm or the outcome thereof as a result of the observer. And this from a supposed Quantum expert none the less? Consciousness is THE thing, subject, object, question, or whatever label you want to give it, today, to try and figure out and understand just what it is, how it operates, where it comes from, etc? There was also a Proverbist called Solomon many millennial ago that said, "As a man thinks/believes in his heart so is it." Proverbs 23:7 As Alan points out, he would expect nothing less than the explanation/belief of reality from any physicist/materialist. What a shame that Sean and possibly the host haven't awaken to the level of awareness that some others have about the true nature of reality. But then, one would hope that through wonderful dialogues such as this that we can become more aware and awakened to what and who we truly are, our true nature, that which is beyond the flesh and blood or material realm. There was another well respected ancient teacher that would quote an even more ancient writing when he stated, in Matthew 13: "13 That’s why I teach the people using parables, because they think they’re looking for truth, yet because their hearts are unteachable, they never discover it. Although they will listen to me, they never fully perceive the message I speak. 14 The prophecy of Isaiah describes them perfectly: Although they listen carefully to everything I speak, they don’t understand a thing I say. They look and pretend to see, but the eyes of their hearts are closed. 15 Their minds are dull and slow to perceive, their ears are plugged and are hard of hearing, and they have deliberately shut their eyes to the truth. Otherwise they would open their eyes to see, and open their ears to hear, and open their minds to understand. Then they would turn to me and I would instantly heal them. 16 “But blissful are your eyes, for they see. Delighted are your ears, for they are open to hear all these things." At an hour and two minutes I can see the host does have ears to hear and eyes to see, while sean remains deaf and blind, sadly. If only our pride and hubris would not get in the way.
It is thought, thought is both a reaction and a creation of a product, all at the summon of the physical or ones own living meta verse.
阿們陀佛
Very nice discussion to watch. Should be an example for how to have discussion in general. Calm, open minded, humble, and yet extremely enriching and informative.
I wish Democrats and Republicans spoke like this.
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
Right off the bat, one thing that bothers me is Sean Carroll's use of the word "contain" when discussing how everything in the room works on a molecular level. Our bodies do not contain atoms, we are atoms. There's no container that is not made up of atoms. The particles are not in us, we are them. There is no physical separation in the interaction between our beings and the rest of the world on a molecular level.
Consciousness inside of a body that’s made out of atoms
@@a.bagasm.7253 If you believe that consciousness exists, then either a collection of atoms can have consciousness or atoms themselves have consciousness. With regard to reality, a physicist says only atoms are reality, whereas, a Buddhist says consciousness is reality and atoms are a way of measuring the physical reality of consciousness.
@@maketracksoffroad6602 atoms combined in very specific ways to make neural cells which combined and connected in specific ways to allow consciousness to emerge. There's no magic involved - just the magnificent emergence of new properties caused by the right combinations and interactions of molecules. For example: Hydrogen and oxygen combine in specific ways that make the amazing material substance of water.
@@rckflmg94 I think my statement “collection of atoms” covers your point. Not ruling out “magic” or “divine Providence” however. It’s still a lot of speculation and assumptions until someone can actually locate, define and measure consciousness.
@@rckflmg94 atoms combined in very specific ways "BELIEVED" to make (what we have observed and identified as) neural cells which, combined and connected in different ways "ARE BELIEVED" to allow (the phenomenon obscurely understood as) consciousness to emerge. (emerge from what, exactly?) I don't doubt the validity of this interpretation, but I also don't believe it's anywhere near complete, and as such deserves greater scrutiny as well as an introduction to different perceptions to test it's reliability. The point made by Wallace is that we are, indeed, not paying rigorous attention to the hard problem of consciousness in any manner that can be considered rigorously scientific. It's really being swept under the rug by the western science community, which is a shame because that gives all these pseudoscientists and bugouts more incentive to spread misinformation regarding consciousness, and manipulating the ignorant masses who have no reliable, thoroughly-tested source for information on the matter
Thanks so much for posting.
Consciousness may become yet another branch of physics in the future. I would certainly like to know more about this topic.
That's fantasy, Neil. Physics has no way at all to investigate consciousness.
Its a wild goose chase. Just live
Nothing magical of conscientious whatever. This religious chap keeps asserting mind this and mind that. Minds are made of matter, and matter is made of atoms. We don't know of any minds that exist apart of material so he is taking nonsense. It's all bunk.
@JohnGrove310 I can say a complete opposite of what you said and it would be also a valid conclusion. Since everything we know is from our senses and in our minds, existence of material world can't be proven. Yes, there are some rules that our experience does follow which results in laws in physics but it doesn't change the fact that it's still within our minds. There are things that are missing and we don't or can't take into account, that's why this duality of interpretations is possible.
First off, thanks to both of these guys for keeping this a formal dialogue and respecting each other's differences. That should be the main focus whenever we have any types of discussions. Second, this discussion captures the 2 sides of the same coin which we call reality. There's the quantitative (what you can measure) and the qualitative (what you experience; qualia). Neither can prove their existence purely by using what can be observed in both those realms. This is the reason why I respect Sean Carroll for coming because in his mind(the quantitative mindset), if there is no physical evidence to prove your claim, then it is invalid. However, he came on to hear a new perspective so he can ponder about the questions which were presented. But the main argument that Allan Wallace presented is that all we know fundamentally is what in the mental, which is the qualitative (our consciousness). Our earliest memories are memories of our emotions to a specific occurrence. It is not a quantitative memory. These are things that we can not measure physically, at least not yet. This is the part that Western objective science has neglected and should incorporate so that there is a full description of the 2 sided coin that we call reality. I think having both these 2 types of "radical" viewpoints expresses their ideas was a great balance. We should look at the world objectively so we can remove all the invalid superstitious beliefs but we should not neglect the very perceiving force which is experiencing life on all levels of existence.
The hard problem of consciousness is the core of this debate and the general public, including most scientists, need to realise that this IS a huge blind spot in contemporary science, as Alan Wallace correctly points out. The colour red is not a particle nor made of particles. There are physical causes and conditions which allow the colour to manifest to us, but that does not explain for subjective experience of the colour arising in consciousness and it cannot be measured empirically. There are some comments here which argue that Alan is talking a load of jibberish and yet they are comfortable with Sean's technical jargon because they either have a pre-established bias to accepting what he says or have studied the same theories and realised their underlying truth. Alan has his own jargon which anyone who is experienced with meditation is very comfortable with. Observe your critical stance and test it yourself, don't just allow this to be another habitual fobbing off of what you already regard as nonsense.
No one, absolutely no one, has any idea of what exactly consciousness is. In a world where we like certainty, this is a frightening prospect.
1+1= 3 .......reality is more than the sum of it's parts. If you are sensitive you know this organically, if you are not, the natural evolution of your consciousness will lead you to that place eventually. Whether you like it or not. It's that last part that scares the control driven, science fundamentalist types.
Knowing it organically will not be enough to change the overall situation, though. In order to enact real change, we need to be able to prove this mathematically and in physics. And also, we need to find ways to make deeper experiences of reality more widely available, because by far the biggest reason there is such questioning of subjective experience is because it takes a ridiculous amount of time and effort to deeply shift your perception. Things that may be evident to Alan Wallace after 50,000 hours of meditation (according to himself) are simply not accessible to the 99% of us who do not have that kind of time to burn on retreat or whatever. Dude started when he was 20 and was a monk for 14 years.
+valar well we've kinda been here before, we agree about a lot BUT we disagree about some important things. My view, my reality is that nothing is broken so nothing needs to be fixed. There is nnnothing to be proved we don't all have to agree. I've meditated off and on for many years. The growth I've experienced is relative to my level of awareness. Tibetan Buddhists say it is useless to expect a child to understand tantric realities. Another way to say this is to each his/her own according to his/her capacity. Some people, like Dan will not be available to input that does not conform to their preconceptions because they are just not ready.
Sorry, I often forget things that I post :) But yeah, we very much disagree on the subject of skillful means and that's fair. Time will tell as to this subject in the next few decades. On the other hand, I would be open to debate with Dan if he showed any interest whatsoever in engaging other than to swear at us and sort-of-not-but-actually-really compared us to ISIS.
I enjoyed this video, Thank you both and Marcelo for mediating. We are inquisitive beings, we are searching for truth and meaning, and we derive pleasure in this pursuit which serves the ego, I guess. Since we are no longer just trying to feed our bodies, we are trying to feed our minds. We are limited by our expression and language of course. It seems that in this discussion we are trying to enact an unknown dimension. For argument’s sake I will use the material and immaterial world. They may coexist but one is physical as Sean studies and the other is spiritual as Alan studies. Neither are fully understood, and the immaterial world may not exist. The question of consciousness is not fully understood, and the meaning of the word is vague. The way I think about it, is that there are different levels of consciousness. When we sleep, we are not very conscious, when we awake, we are more conscious and when we awake further, we are even more conscious as the east has learned a long time ago. (I am from the west, so this is new to me). but one thing I do find since practising meditation is that meditation trains the mind to discern more quickly and thereby helps us relate in a more intelligent manner. Even though this newfound experience may lead one to a more enjoyable state of being, we must be careful not to construe its joy as evidence of the existence of an immaterial world. When I ponder the concept of death. I view it as we can no longer interact with that material or physical being because the being has transformed, but if there is an immaterial dimension associated to that being, that may be who we really are? But we should be honest with ourselves and say, “we do not know” … unless one has experienced otherwise. Then the challenge becomes, is the experience they perceived a reality or imaginary. The exploratory process may be stimulating for some, including myself. Staying grounded is paramount. Enjoy life here and now. Trying to alleviate the suffering of oneself and others is a worthwhile goal in this life. Meditation in my experience enhances one’s consciousness and hence one’s capabilities and appreciation of existence. Love and Peace to all 🙏
I confess, I'm only 3/4 through the presentation, having taken a moment to read some of the comments. Still, a thought: if even the smallest particle of which we are aware contains/ has energy, might it be that energy ( immaterial) is the base/ fundamental reality, which manifests to us as the material world - with physical objects forming and losing their forms to transform back into energy? [Short version :-)]
Excellent discussion. Thank you.
Great conversation! For all who want to experience what Allan is talking about - try Vipassana meditation. There should be a center nearby you and they teach you for free and in the same way that the Buddha taught 2500 years ago.
Well I can say that clearly you don't meditate lol
@@myutubechannel_nr1 this actually perfectly summarizes the fundamental difference... it's a matter of levels of awareness. you can tell if someone works out because their physiology reflects it, very clearly. how can you tell if someone is lying? what if someone is on the verge of having an epilepsy flare up or if they're about to break down into tears if you say something triggering? each of these involve different observable patterns present in an individual that, if you can pick up on and know what they mean, lead you to certain conclusions/hypotheses.
@@myutubechannel_nr1 Only one who does not meditate, cannot tell if others meditate or not.
I am a Buddhist. I am a poet. And also a scientist who’s spent most of his life immersed in the scientific exploration of consciousness. That said, I find that my sympathies are closer to Sean’s in this discussion. Alan largely frames his perspective in terms of what we perceive as central to reality, the different perspectives we might hold as our fulcrum in trying to understand the world. That focus on centrality is why Sean’s reference to Copernicus is so salient. But what I find most fascinating about our particular universe is that through its history our cosmos has promoted a stable succession of ever more complex emergent layers of organization. Quarks and gluons gave rise to primitive nuclei. Then the plasma cooled enough for electrons to be captured, forming simple atoms. Then slight anisotropies allowed gravity to organize primordial stuff into lumps that became stars and galaxies and planets. Then some of those stars fused simple atoms into heavier, more complex ones and blew them out into space as supernovae or spectacular interstellar collisions. Then chemistry used those atoms in places like our planet to form geological systems and promote the growth of regular patterns like crystals that may, along with other emerging chemical features like lipid coacervates, have served as the precursors to make protected bubbles of even higher organization that emerged over time as autonomous cells. And then, these cells developed into communities - probably in ways and through teleological pathways that we little understand but that preceded our more familiar notion of Darwinian imperatives. And then those most primitive drives evolved to support perception and purposeful action and the earlies stages of conscious choice. Then language and persistence of thought through time and across generations (lots of steps skipped here!!) and in time reached our current stage of awareness, including introspection about the nature of introspection itself. Even with all these emergent layers, consciousness remains difficult to understand for the same reason we can’t see our own eyes. Our eyes are always occupied looking out at the world and are therefore unavailable to look directly back at themselves. This is a good analogy for why we need science, using our minds to reflect back to us what our eyes and experiences suggest but can’t directly perceive. My point is that the question about the nature of reality is less about what we prefer to put in the center of our worldview - physics, psychology, primordial/universal consciousness - ¬ than an appreciation for the exquisite choreography of stages and levels of ever more rarified and complex emergent phenomena. I love the stories our ancestors have told and preserved through the generations. Taken as a whole, they describe the ladder humanity has, and continues, to climb, towards ever greater understanding. As the late Paul Grobstein said, science isn’t ultimately about being right. It’s about being progressively less wrong. Amen (or Svāhā, if you prefer)!
Buddhism is technically a science of the mind is it not? Love your comments too!! Very interesting
Wonderful reading your lengthy comment. I am a novice to Buddha Dhamma coming from Evangelical Christian tradition. Metta to all sentient beings [that drew me into Buddhism]
@@timetoreason7090 Hi there. I'm glad you liked my comment. I actually love the original Christian teachings. From the perspective of our lived human experience, putting the primacy of love in the center, holding a spiritual imperative to find compassion and connection in even the most unlikely places, is a pretty great teaching. I think if I had been alive in the age of early Christianity I would probably have been a follower. But the gospels took the story of a man, living a wise man's life and making a great soul's sacrifice in order to demonstrate the transcendent power of love ("Father...forgive them" etc.) and turned it into a Marvel superhero comic with ever more outlandish sci-fi embellishments. That, for me, is the worm in the apple that over the centuries transformed a simple and beautiful teaching about universal love and turned it into a kind of Disneyland commercial operation - from selling indulgences in the middle ages so that reprehensible behaviors could be "erased" in the eyes of God by paying off the priests to the mega-churches of today that are nothing more than a con game played against the gullible. It's not just the crimes I hate - it's that good-hearted people looking for love and meaning in their lives are being fed a false diet and in the end are actually be cheated out of the great lessons attributed to Jesus. Sorry for the rant - I really care about this stuff. I love Buddhism because there are still teachings that retain the original notion that the Buddha was just a man, one who, like Jesus, attained a transcendent understanding of the world and attempted to teach people about it. There are certainly sects within Buddhism that fused the simplicity of the original teachings with existing religious traditions. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is filled with God and Monsters that are nowhere in the actual teachings of the Buddha but carried over from local traditions - much like we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December but there's no historical information that this date has anything to do with the birth of Jesus. Actually, that was the date of the Roman holiday Sol Invictus - the day associated with the sun reaching its lowest point in the sky and then beginning to climb again - the victory (Invictus) of the sun (Sol) over darkness. Anyway, science is supposed to be free of such biases and preferences - but it's not. I don't know if you're aware of Sean's dedication to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but he points out that it's practically taboo to study the foundations and deeper meaning of quantum theory. "Just shut up and calculate!" is the way many scientists approach the foundations of physics, but Sean - whether or not I always agree with him - is a rabble rouser, and good on him! OK - it seems I like to write a lot of words, but I hope you enjoy them. I understanding a rational person wanting to leave the evangelical world behind and I salute you - but I hope you can also retain that spiritual dedication to love and compassion so richly present in the original teachings of Jesus who, like the Buddha, Sean Carroll, and you and I, are simply good people trying to make sense of a complex world and experience both love and reason living in harmony. Peace.
Beautifully put! The most incredible thing about being a conscious being at this precise time in history is the cognitive access to the emergent layers of reality. Our ability, because of what we know and continue to learn, to feel a seemingly limitless sense of awe is something I am ever growing in gratitude towards.
@@dylandutson1626 Thanks Dylan. I'm with your sentiments 100%. Gratitude on, brother. - Stuart
Imagine having to debate Alan Wallace on the nature of reality. I hope he realizes what a blessing it is to simply be in the presence of this wish-fulfilling jewel of the west🙏🙏🙏
*Must* you crawl and simper?
Longed to see something like this for a while now... One of the most beautiful dialogues
Alan Wallace's talk was quite brilliant... thank you.
I studied with Alan Wallace for a couple of years around 1990, just as he was leaving Seattle to found the Santa Barbara Institute. Now I am 72 years of age, and I can vouch that the principles he offers are profoundly fruitful in developing a meaningful experience of life, of reality…including the idea of taking nothing on faith, but prove it out for yourself. I am not Buddhist, and I agree with Dr. Wallace’s statement in this dialogue: “I don’t even think of Buddhism as a religion; it’s a radically empirical way to investigate the nature of reality from the inside out.”
VirginiaL H How do you check against confirmation bias?
Dear Sage Agbonkhese, Confirmation bias...I think for me the best thing I can do is to be aware of my tendency for it, and just assume that I am always doing it, and try to see it ever more clearly...continually sharpening my discernment....to see the reduction of confirmation bias as a journey, and not a destination at which I will ever arrive. Excellent question, I felt I saw a lot of it here - and that is perhaps another check, to see confirmation bias in other people, and then immediately reflect for it in myself.
" the principles he offers are profoundly fruitful " Apparently it's invisible fruit because like all superstitions, there's nothing specific that anyone can point to. Can you name anything specific that it produced.
Dear Dan Haynes, I had no intention to offend...just giving my own experience. However, to me the productivity the empiricism, is there, rock-solid.
"the principles he offers are profoundly fruitful in developing a meaningful experience of life, of reality" Can you name anything specific? It doesn't matter if it's personal. As Feynman said, if you can't say anything specific about a subject, then you can't claim to know anything about it. Astrologers claim their word salad is profoundly fruitful too. When you press them to name specifics, it's turns out they're just making shit up. I'm not offended by your claim, I just question your basis for making it. If there's some measurable benefit, even if it's just a personal one, seems like you should be able to describe what it is.
This is a stellar talk. These two chaps are really listening to each other. It’s almost as if they agree: two viewpoints saying that science and spirituality are the same.
Spirituality is science. Matter is derivative of consciousness. Multiplicity is only apparent in truth there is only one mind. No matter as such. Matter is 99.99999% empty space held together by virtue of the force of vibration. The mind is the matrix of all matter. We are forced to witness the ego and the universe become one, over and over again in the never ending cycle of rebirth death and destruction. I have known you since before you were in your mother belly. I sanctified thee before you came forth from the womb. I ordained you as a prophet to the nations. The lord said "Do not tell me you are a child. You will go where i command of thee and you will say the things I tell you to say." And he reached out and touched Jeremiah by the mouth and said "the words that you speak are my words." Do not fear the looks on their faces for I am right beside you and I will fight alongside you. Jeremiah 1: 5-8 The creator lives through the eye of every living being. He is getting to know himself and we are him.
Death is not the opposite of life, death is the opposite of birth. Before birth, during life and after death we were, we are and we will be an integral part of the Infinite Cosmic Consciousness that permeates everyone and everything ❤
Extremely fascinating discussion. Loved it.
What a brilliant dialogue between these two fantastic men! Sean is an excellent/ impeccable speaker and Alan is captivating! I am so happy so have seen this video! I will be watching it again and again
Sean is horriblle ! conscious of being a public personality..selling
@@OscarWrightZenTANGO grow up.
Interesting and now allowing to delve , surrendering to the deepest parts of my inexplicable subtle connections , a greater expanded awareness , experiencing what was before.
Beautiful! Thank you!
20:15 Nobody's gonna talk about how Sean's ankle disobeys the laws of Physics
What are you talking about?! The other guys ankle is way more weird
They both have rubber ankles. It's required for a Ph.D
bro he took off his shoe.
Damn you, now I have to stop reading comments and go check Sean's ankle.
I find it curious that Alan Wallace spent his entire opening 20 minutes quoting other physicists in an attempt to challenge or discredit Sean Carroll's argument, instead of making his own affirmative argument about what he (and other Buddhist scholars) believe to be the case. It is as if he is borrowing the credibility of scientists to add strength to an argument against the credbility of the scientific process, without staking his own skin in the game. I say this as someone who has been studying Buddhist concepts for many years and incorporating some of them into my own thinking and actions. There is indeed an affirmative case to be made about the nature of reality according to Buddhism, but it was not presented here.
Totally agree. I found it really difficult to understand what he was trying to get at. At the end of 20 minutes, I realized he had no point other than appealing to the emotional responses of the audience. I felt really bad for Sean Carroll. The audience wasn't there to change their minds, they were there to seek validation.
Namaste and thank you for saving my time.
@@alvarny77 It's clear that Allan Wallace is on a mission to throw rocks at science and challenge them to approach questions regarding the nature of reality in a different way. He used the stage to do what he thought would have the most impact. That's the way i saw it anyway.
Here Here young man - a great point well made and very eloquent - i almost took the stance not to ever listen to a Buddist again after this video, but refreshingly i read your comment - the very best of regards
Hi Johnathan. I don't think Mr. Wallace was presenting "an argument against the credibility of the scientific process." Rather, he appeared to be arguing against Mr. Carroll's assertion that reality is circumscribed by physics. I don't think Wallace intended to advocate for Buddhism, per se. He appeared to be aiming at a more fundamental disconnect between materialism and metaphysics. It would be pointless, in some respects, to discuss Buddhism without first uncovering the limitations of the materialist view.
Loved loved loved the opening statements using analogies to the chair and iPhone! Really helped lay a foundation for the discussion - beautiful 'framing' to open the mind for better comprehension of the topic.
Amazing talk that will "never" get old.
Congratulations to the all participants in this conversation. Alan and Sean are belong the same quality of humans, respectful. honest, lovers of truth and experts in their fields. Even though I am an atheist and follower of the scientific method, seem to me that science should be open to consider the possibility that maybe Nature has some aspect that escape the scientific measurement, until now. We need more research and absolutely no dogma. Thank you for sharing such interesting conversation.
i agree with you brother. But I would argue that materialistic reductionism, and identification to any sort of method is dogma because it is an attempt to encapsulate reality, but reality cannot be encapsulated by anything. Its simply a filter of understanding. This is why consciousness is the hardest problem of science because its attempting to measure and localize it somewhere in the body. This is not possible because consciousness is not physical, and exists outside the boundaries of space and time.
"Im a follower of science but HEY maybe there is something else" ............. Lol
@@zach3305 Huh? The scientific process is supposed to continually search for truths, perhaps you are confused.
@@FreakMeat74 "Even though I am an athiest and follower of the scientific method, seem to me that science should be open to consider the possibility that maybe nature has some aspect that escape the scientific measurment." Well then.....you aren't an athiest.... Lololol. Nor a follower of science.
@@zach3305 So one can't identify as an atheist or user of the scientific method and yet also be open to further data/possibilities? How do you think science advances? Lol you silly guy.
I wish this had been more of a conversation. The format was rather tedious like a high school debate, each side giving their insights, but not enough one on one challenging of each other.
It's propaganda for people looking for prizes and funding.. Luckily, genuine science exists.. www.spaceandmotion.com
Buddhism are extreme compatible with science, the most compatible actually i think.
It would have been a blood bath.
Yes beautiful discussion. It was at very general level. I think a good opening for being open. But then again I beleive we need to go to specifics from both sides of schools and establish the truth, which is not happening these days. Because we now one school of thought should be the truth.
What a fantastic discussion! Hoe lucky to be alive at a time we have access to this kind of media and material. I have been a long time fan of Sean Carroll, but am embarrassed to admit this is the first time I hear about Allan Wallace. Can't wait to go through his books. If anyone knows of any other discussion of that caliber (even if on unrelated topics) let me know! I am all ears!
This was incredible. Couple jaw drops
"Intersubjectivity" … .What a great word!
Yes, it is.
You mean to say you had never heard the word "intersubjectivity" before?
@@b.g.5869 why are you being so judgy?
@@miguelnewmexico8641 I'm not being "judgy"; I was expressing astonishment that the OP had apparently never heard the word "intersubjectivity" before. You're being judgy in judging me to be judgy.
Just a wonderful discussion.
Great talks. Thank you!
Omg! "Do you believe in freewill? Yes ofcourse! Do I have a choice?"
“Of course you have free will, the boss says so” Christopher Hitchens.
No
This is a very important point I wish Alan would have elaborated on. If mind is simply the brain--a collection of atoms obeying physical forces--then free will cannot be said to exist. All of our thoughts and decisions are deterministic--determined by the elementary particles of the brain obeying physical forces. Free will requires a Mind which is capable of directing the energy of the brain to have certain thoughts or perform certain actions. So the question becomes: What's directing the energy in our brains? Material particles/energy acting on blind physical forces, unguided by any intelligence OR Mind intelligently guiding the particles/energy in our brains to produce desired outcomes (thoughts and behaviors)?
Christopher Hitchens missed the point with that quote
MysticDan, having a biology does not negate Transcendence. I assume you are for the abolition of the courts, as no one without free will can be held responsible.
They're both honest to themselves and knowledgeable. They both deserve all the respect
@@jimbomb3318 Being impressed by the knowledge of others and feeling their honesty doesn't necessarily mean I know any any better. Maybe it means I feel respect and grateful for them for educating me about topics in their expertise. You need to relax
Very good discussion & commentary by mediator.
I am just starting to listen to this and I know I have waited my whole life to hear Allan Wallace. Will be looking for him
"The greatest gains and values are farthest from being appreciated. We easily come to doubt if they exist. They are the highest reality. It is a little star dust caught, a segment of the rainbow which I have clutched." --- Henry David Thoreau
Good conversation to practice on discerning the differences between a left-brain thinker and an integrated one. Thank you for putting this event on and online as well.
hi Ben- sorry what do you mean by this exactly? Wallace seemed prepared to face questions with grace but kind of nervous and insensitive to me. Carroll i Think is the left brained thinker? He was quite full on but prepared to be more open during the discussion - is that your understandings of the men?
@@mrscoles100 Yes, it was Sean I was alluding to as the left-brain thinker. To attempt to flesh out my comment a little bit more: by and large, I see certainty as the main 'exploit' of the left hemisphere (it knows what it knows and doesn't place much value, if any, in the uncertain). So while I agree that Mr. Carroll was extremely well prepared and articulate to his points, I think I'd stop short of claiming he was the more open of the two on the grounds that it came off, to me, as a little 'too certain' in the delivery. I would point to what you describe as nervous and insensitive behavior in Mr. Wallace as more of an (somewhat intentional) unpreparedness than either nervous or insensitive; but this makes sense to me based on what I understand of how a Buddhist scholar might approach an event such as this (which is to say: of the two, he'd be the one more inclined to take a "first we show up, then we see what happens" approach). I sure hope that makes some kind of sense. Take care.
@@TheGamingMonkeyFTW Well, admittedly, my original comment was indeed meant to (to use your word) minimize the discussion down to a single factor of analysis and note my particular hot take. I'm glad you got something from it as well.
@@mrscoles100 Carroll was not prepared at all. He brought a persecution complex related to Catholics on a discussion about the relationship between Eastern Religion and Science.
I think it's just me and my concussion and it's guides me Yes you explain it beautifully.
"It doesn't seem to me that we need to invoke new stuff outside the laws of physics." "New stuff... consciousness is not new stuff." Love that interaction.
kzhead.info/sun/iJxtntx7qoOmqKs/bejne.html
But Carroll didn't mean that consciousness was new. Simply that however it works, it doesn't require completely different laws of physics, laws or phenomenon the people suggesting might exist, can provide zero evidence for.
*Mic drop*
@@fern4508 you should read some David Chalmers. Consciousness might be thought of as a fundamental element in the universe, like gravity or electromagnetism
Alan clearly explains that the study of consciousness is not stuff, it’s been there since our existence of life, but it’s was Asian philosophers like Buddha who started observing the mind radically and imperially it’s nature or the reality of nature through observing our mind…
This reminds me of what prof. Harari onc said , “when I found out it’s not ME who has control of my mind ,while trying to meditate , I learned something NEW “!
Enlightenment has always been about who not why--excellent comment.
We were all born on this planet to suffer. Now everyone is thinking, where's your proof. I have no proof but I do have a couple of hints. At all of our births, neither the mother nor the infant is laughing and likewise at our moment of death. What people today need is a new practice that shows us a way to handle our suffering with dignity and grace instead of trying to escape it. Falun Dafa, Falun Gong. May God be with you.
This was a very insightful dialogue
Very good and such a civil discussion. "Enlightening"!!!
Alan Wallace should have a debate with a neuroscientist. Neuroscience deals with consciousness more than geology, astronomy or physics.
he has debated all the neuroscientists from chalmers to christof koch. the downside of that is you are dealing with 19th century physics. he prefers to debate with leading quantum physicists such as anton zeilinger.
It feels to me that the brain is the epiphenomena of the mind, and the wise attitude towards reality is just curiosity and agnosticism. We can know some things, but Mystery is greater.
I'm sad that a lot of people will just not get how delightful and correct "the brain is the epiphenomena of the mind" is.
@jdebri Indeed. And if you check, you will find that mind is prior to brain.
That sounds similar to what Donald Hoffman says
@@talastra Please explain your argument. This way, your remark may be meaningful.
@@Pheer777 Very similar, yes. It's also what 5000 years of sadhu insight from "the east" says.
Great discussion, I have been troubled with the word, the idea of consciousness for decades, and deserves a better explanation. We do need to study and measure it better. Also, the idea of reality being described by various levels, ideas that grab our intention was also fascinating. Perhaps, every human being perceives reality with great differences, and at times with great agreement. Reality is not as it seems.
“This is a very narrow sliver of humanity that seems to regard itself as the center of the universe”
"The scientific ways of observing the mind are not scientific." Very well put. Mind is not gna be understood by studying the brain. It is gna be understood by studying the mind itself. Actively. In the first person.
That is a false dichotomy, friend. Both are true and are done every second of every day.
@@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube the scientific method can study which regions of the brain are active and all that, but the subjective experience of the mind can only be gained through firsthand observation.
A very wise man at an advanced age told me once: “you know, at some point in my life I thought that when I grew old I was going to understand so much more; the reality is that you realize you are just as ignorant of mostly anything and everything”.
You only end up more ignorant if you stop learning
Language and Programming Channel Lovely quote! Might use it in conversation so I sound less ignorant! lol
I really enjoyed listening to Alan Wallace. Carroll's hubris is almost beyond belief. 'We can't measure this thing so it obviously does not exist. There can't be anything out of our perception.' That's as bold as 'there are 4 elements' etc...
Nobody is trying to take Santa away from you, kid. If you believe in him, he must exist, right? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 kid 😐. What are you babbling about?
@@lepidoptera9337 Bruh. It's ok to just admit that we don't know. If it can't be measured then it means we don't know. It doesn't mean it does not exist.
@@lepidoptera9337 do yourself a favor and search the 'net to see how many of the intellectual greats , inventors, and philosophers believed in adult Santa. I think you will surprised.
@@lepidoptera9337 Not at all. I'm just taking your claim and showing it for what it is. Have you checked to see how many intellectuals are theists?
Very thought provoking discussion. One of the best I have experienced. I tend to agree with Mr. Wallace that there is an intrinsic Western bias in regards to how science sees the mind/ consciousness. What I strive to know is; what METHODS can be used to empirically begin to understand what consciousness really is. Perhaps what Alan suggests in his Tuscany Institute idea of intensive study to develop a methodology is what we are missing in trying to answer this question. We must develop better TOOLS to define all these concepts and incorporate them in our search for the truth.
Wow. The yogis of Tibet are talking about their experiences, this is information we’ve never had privy to until very recently. (Long story that I’ll skip). These people have spent years meditating in isolation. They claim to remember previous lives, even back to being animals. The U of Virginia has researched reincarnation. The information they have gathered is incredible! The discussions about Near death experiences… our consciousness is not what we’ve been led to believe.
I was fairly delighted when Alan Wallace quoted Wolfgang Pauli saying: "It isn't even wrong."
@Dirk Knight Great Argument, Good points. Buddhism is a genuine path to liberation and the truth of the universe. Of course, if one is stuck in close mindedness and his conceptual mind, he/she wouldn‘t understand because he/she loves his/her ego, similar to you. :)
@Andreaz-64 He never said that he isn't. By the way, "the ego" is not the same as "arrogance". The ego is a layer of the conscious mind, described by Freud, that deals with problem-solving within your experience of reality. It's clear that you just wanted to insult the guy, because you don't like his way of talking, but you haven't really understood what he said.
@@pierrolunar8561 how very ironic of you.