물질주의는 잘못된 것인가? 현실의 기초가 되는 무내용 인식

### 물질주의: 유물론: 신화인가? 현실의 토대인 무내용 인식에 대한 탐구
* 🧠 이 동영상은 유물론에 도전하며, 뇌세포 자체가 처리하는 특성(예: 빨간색을 처리하는 세포는 빨간색이 아니다)을 가지고 있지 않기 때문에 뇌 연구만으로는 의식을 완전히 설명할 수 없다고 주장합니다.
* 🤔 연사는 의식이 콘텐츠를 필요로 한다는 일반적인 정의를 거부하며, 이러한 오해의 잠재적 원인으로 나겔의 "박쥐가 된다는 것은 어떤 것일까?"를 인용합니다.
* 🧘 생각과 감각 사이의 '틈'에 초점을 맞추면 화자가 현실의 토대라고 가정하는 무의식, 즉 자신만을 인식하는 의식이 드러납니다.
* 🤯 물질 세계는 근본적인 실체가 아니라 창조물이며, 우리가 인식하는 현실의 근원으로 물질 세계가 아닌 무내용의 인식이 제시됩니다.
* 🔬 연사는 신경과학의 가치를 인정하면서도 뇌와 신경계를 그 자체 이상의 것을 이해하는 도구인 '환상적인 예술 작품'으로 간주합니다.
* 🌌 이 관점은 양자 현상과 초자연적 사건을 설명할 수 있으며, 물질 세계는 이러한 근본적인 인식에서 비롯된다고 발표자는 제안합니다.
* ✨ 이 영상은 현실은 인식이 근본적인 힘으로 끊임없이 창조되는 '예술 프로젝트'에 더 가깝다는 결론을 내립니다.
* 🤔 연사는 현실에 대한 궁극적인 설명으로서 유물론에 대한 기존의 관점에 도전하면서 시청자들에게 이러한 대안적 관점을 고려하도록 초대합니다.

물질적 세계가 아닌 콘텐츠 없는 인식이 현실의 토대를 형성합니다.

So in this video, I'm going to explore the idea of materialism. I'm going to argue against it, not in favor of

idealism either. In fact, whatever it is, it seems to be beyond anything that the thinking mind can conceptualize using

simplistic categories. But materialism—again, we're at a strange place where you'll still find it. So I

just reread Seth's *Being You: A New Science of Consciousness*. It's an excellent book and

all that's worth reading, but it really represents this idea of materialism that we'll get there if we

just study the brain. And it uses other examples in human history, and there have been so many where we're just

like, 'We'll never understand this,' but yet, after time, patience, and work, eventually the mystery is revealed. And

so that logic is, 'Well, you know, we just haven't had enough time with consciousness.' And I don't buy that, and that's what

this video is about. Because when we dissect the brain—and you don't have to be a neuroscientist,

dude, you could just—you know—but what are you going to find? You're not going to find something that a neuroscientist isn't

going to find. You're going to find cells and their connections and neurotransmitters. But you'll find cells that process

red, and you'll find cells associated with anxiety and fear. But those cells responsible for

anxiety and fear are not themselves afraid, and the cells that process red are not themselves red, and the cells

that process anxiety are not themselves anxious. And so that sets up something of a mystery.

It's like going to a movie; it's like you could find the film, but you can't find the audience.

Who's watching it? Which is to say, uh, yeah, you can find these cells, but who's observing them? Uh, consciousness and this

is maybe one of the biggest, uh, wrong turns I think consciousness took. Was a very famous definition by Nagel in

when he wrote his famous paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" And he came up with the

definition of consciousness that you'll find just about in every psych book and every consciousness book, and the definition goes something like this:

Of course, you use the bat because a bat has echolocation, and so there's something it's like to be a bat because

it has that particular type of experience. So, to be conscious, there has to be something it's like to

be that organism. And so, uh, that kind of overlaps almost entirely, if not is totally the same argument as saying, uh,

to be conscious, you have to be conscious of something; your consciousness has to have content to it. And I think that's where we

took a really wrong turn. And so I was talking about in the last video how you can become aware of the gaps

between thinking, and that's a very interesting place to start. Because if you focus awareness on the gaps between thinking, the gaps between

sensations, the gaps between perceptions, what you'll find is a—is it's sort of an emptiness. I mean, it's not a perfect—none

of the words are going to be perfect for this, but it's a it's a it's a contentless

type of consciousness. And I think that is the best proof we can get to that, um, rejects the idea of a

material world; that this material world is the substance of reality. And the reason I say it that way is because

if the material world—if this is it—um, how could it give rise to something that could experience a state that has no

material in it and so that contentless consciousness is awareness, aware of only awareness, and that sounds very strange, in fact.

I've never been able to communicate that to anyone who hasn't had the experience, and people who haven't

instantly know exactly where I'm going with it, and people who haven't had it continue to put their faith in the material world as

being the ultimate substance of reality. Uh, this is a completely backwards... uh, whatever that awareness is, uh, without content, that's

what's giving rise to what we call the material world. So this whole process of discovery, it's not really discovery at all; we're

not discovering physics, we're not discovering um, a physical reality; we're inventing it, we're creating it. And then what reality

ultimately becomes is more of an art project where we're creating it as we go. And of course, this perspective, at least

in my view, would explain all kinds of quantum strangeness, uh, you know, spooky action at a distance,

uh, every paranormal thing, up into things like the placebo effect, could very easily be explained if we start with the

idea of awareness giving rise to this material reality. And you might say, well, well, you know, you study neuroscience and

you've talked about the brain; why would you do that if you don't even buy into any of that?

Uh, well, for a lot of reasons; the same reason I would watch *Training Day* or *Goodfellas*, you know.

I don't believe in them; I don't think that they're ultimately real, but there is a certain entertainment and value in

that, uh, and and there's value in art. And so I, I watch that the same reason I would watch

any piece of art or literature. And so to me, this material world, and particularly brains and nervous systems, are fantastic works of art.

and they can act as interesting pointers to go beyond themselves, and so uh, that's the argument I would put forth

that the material world uh isn't at all the basic substance of reality; it's not idealism either. I

wouldn't say it's ideas; uh, ideas are still — have content. Ideas are still thoughts. I would say

uh, whatever this contentless awareness is, that's the foundation, and it's giving rise to, or dreaming, this material world.

Proof Materialism is a Myth

Chris Niebauer, Ph.D.

유물론에 대한 비판과 과학적 이해의 한계

연사는 이상주의를 옹호하는 것이 아니라 물질주의에 반대하는 주장을 펼칩니다.

현실의 본질은 단순한 개념화 이상의 것일 수 있습니다.

세스의 'Being You'에서 볼 수 있듯이 물질주의는 한계에도 불구하고 지속되고 있습니다.

뇌를 연구하면 의식을 완전히 설명할 수 있다는 믿음은 도전받고 있습니다.

화자는 의식을 연구하는 시간이 부족해서 이해력이 부족하다는 생각을 거부합니다.

유물론에 반대하는 신경학적 주장

뇌를 해부하면 세포와 연결이 드러나지만 관찰자는 드러나지 않습니다.

뇌세포는 정보를 처리하지만 정보를 나타내는 특성(예: 두려움, 색깔)이 부족합니다.

영화의 비유: 영화는 찾을 수 있지만 관객(의식)은 찾을 수 없습니다.

누가 또는 무엇이 뇌 활동을 관찰하고 있는지에 대한 의문이 제기됩니다.

나겔의 의식에 대한 정의('있는 것과 같은 것')는 비판을 받습니다.

연사는 의식에 콘텐츠가 필요하다는 생각에 반대합니다.

생각과 감각 사이의 틈새에 집중하면 무의식적인 의식이 드러납니다.

콘텐츠 없는 의식은 물질주의에 반대하는 증거로 제시됩니다.

물질적인 세계가 어떻게 비물질적인 경험을 불러일으킬 수 있을까라는 질문이 제기됩니다.

내용 없는 의식은 인식만 있는 의식으로 설명됩니다.

연사는 이러한 무내용적인 인식이 물질 세계가 아닌 현실의 토대라고 제안합니다.

현실을 이해하는 과정은 발견이 아닌 창조라는 틀에 갇혀 있습니다.

현실은 끊임없이 창조되는 예술 프로젝트에 비유할 수 있습니다.

이 관점은 양자 현상과 초자연적 현상을 설명할 수 있습니다.

위약 효과는 이러한 견해를 뒷받침하는 예로 제시됩니다.

유물론을 거부하면서도 신경과학을 공부하는 것의 가치

연사는 신경과학을 예술적 탐구의 한 형태로 연구하는 것을 정당화합니다.

뇌와 신경계는 환상적인 예술 작품으로 묘사됩니다.

신경과학은 유물론적 틀을 넘어서는 인사이트를 제공할 수 있습니다.