Since 1998 Norwegians John Hegre and Lasse Marhaug have been making sound t… Read Full Bio ↴Since 1998 Norwegians John Hegre and Lasse Marhaug have been making sound together as Jazzkammer. Debut album "Timex" in 1999 have been followed by a string of releases on labels like Staalplaat, Abisko, Xerxes, Smalltown Supersound, Utech, Bottrop-Boy and OHM Records, as well as touring and playing shows around the world. Remixed by friends on the "Rolex" CD in 2001. Live collaboration CD with Merzbow later the same year. Have done music for theatre and dance performances. Visited and worked in Singapore during the SARS-crisis in spring 2003, but survived. Co-produced Maja Ratkje's "Voice" album in 2002, which was awarded with a price at the Prix Ars Electronica in 2003. Slightly altered their name to Jazkamer in 2004, to get rid of the jazz. In 2005 released their complete tour of Japan in a deluxe cassette box set.
More Genres
No Artists Found
More Artists
Load All
No Albums Found
More Albums
Load All
No Tracks Found
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Search results not found
Song not found
Pure phenomenology is the science of pure consciousness
Jazkamer Lyrics
No lyrics text found for this track.
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
@drtevinnaidu
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:33 - What is Consciousness?
6:30 - What is the Self?
10:12 - The Mind-Body Problem
24:56 - Christof Koch & David Chalmers - "the infamous bet"
27:34 - New Approaches to Consciousness (Karl Friston, Computational Modeling etc.)
34:11 - Philosophy of Psychiatry & Philosophy's Implications on Mental Health
44:48 - Daniel Dennett & Illusionism
49:17 - Epistemic Agent Model, Introspection & Mind Wandering
1:04:36 - More on Illusionism
1:14:13 - Panpsychism & Existence Bias
1:24:52 - Bewusstseinskultur, Negative Egalitarianism & Practical Ethics
1:41:39 - "The Elephant and the Blind" (forthcoming book)
1:50:04 - Differences & Similarities to Mark Solms' "The Hidden Spring"
1:55:58 - Thomas' Philosophers/Scientists recommendations
2:00:06 - A better Culture of Consciousness
2:05:07 - Applied Ethics
2:11:50 - Religious World-views & the Naturalist Turn
2:14:35 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
@dcleve2353
Dr N, I LOVED this interview! What a pleasure it was to hear you and Dr M explore the waterfront in philosophy. THIS listener did not have a problem with you two throwing away your script! I have not had the benefit of reading any of Dr M's books, so I did probably miss out a bit when you threw the script away, but I was able to catch up on most of his views from the discussion.
Dr M appears to lean in the direction of eliminative materialism and illusionism, but does not take his views nearly as far as some philosophers do. He agrees that consciousness is real, but also that SOME of what we think we know about ourselves is not true. He also seems to agree that emergence is part of naturalism, and most notably, agrees that first person experiences are as well. This perspective -- openness to question our introspective view, but also use of first person to test introspection, and use of emergence to build naturalist models -- strikes me as the most productive and interesting route toward a naturalist understanding of consciousness.
I was pleasantly surprised by his citing Popper and Eccles "The Self and its Brain" as part of his reading history. Few physicalists take dualism seriously, and Popper's reputation took a massive hit when he published a full throated defense of it. From "respected wise elder philosopher" he quickly was reduced to "irrelevant afterthought" after its publication. That Metzinger was not convinced -- is fine. He at least read it and considered it seriously.
The objections to Dr M's "naturalism" are not only going to be from the religious. I don't know if you or he have read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age. Taylor notes that disquiet is part of our era. Both the religious, who suspect that religion cannot survive the application of naturalist epistemology, AND the secular, who suspect that naturalism provides no place for values, morality, or treating humans any differently than a keyboard. The most interesting secularists are trying to leverage strong emergence to build morality and values, but Dr M's naturalism seems to be far narrower than that.
As a spiritual dualist, I am on the other side of the disquiet, and am seeking ways to embrace methodological naturalism in a dualist ontology.
@dcleve2353
@@edzardpiltz6348 Edzard -- Yes, I understood my motivation when I committed myself to spiritual dualism in my relative youth (college age). I had established, early in my exploration of philosophy, that the "best" philosophic arguments were the ones deployed against competing philosophic views. I.E. -- all philosophic views are incompletely supported or justified, so we are not dealing with a dispute between proven vs disproven, but a collection of ALL "disproven" views. I had not at that point found Lakatos and his Research Programme theory, but I intuited its point. All philosophic worldviews are works in progress, none are complete, and all have apparent contradictions they need to work to address. This gives any intellectually honest person a significant degree of discretion in choice of a worldview, so long as they admit to the current flaws, and work to close them.
I was interested in a worldview which could provide meaning to human lives, and I do not see much potential for that in materialism/physicalism, which is the primary alternative that is widely argued for within philosophy. Dualism provides a much more plausible potential for values and meaning to play a significant role in our universe.
I have, in the decades since, continued a self-education in philosophy, while undertaking an investigation and critique of spiritual dualist perspectives. I consider spiritual dualism to be the single best framework for explaining the observations we have of our world. Religions -- not so much. This drives me to the empirical spiritualists -- found mostly in the New Age and parapsychology.
Philosophy, has reinforced this point. Karl Popper's critiques of all materialist/physicalist ontologies are -- devastating. Physicalism needs to accept as a minimum substance/abstraction dualism. Science needs all of: abstract theories, math as causal, and information as real. And consciousness is clearly causal, as the evolutionary tuning of our minds reveals. Popper's strongly emergent dualism, plus his world 3 of abstractions, is what physicalists will eventually have to modify their worldview into. Most physicalists today have already accepted strong emergence and apply it to consciousness. And most treat information as a second type of property of matter, and have ignored that the way information principles are multiply realizable, they cannot be a property of matter, because the substrate is not critical to the rules. This realization, that Popper's 3 worlds, OR interactive spiritual dualism plus lower p platonism, are the current best worldviews we have to describe our universe, is gradually spreading among physicalists. the major theoretical works i have found on physicalism in this century all accommodate both strong emergence, and platonism.
So -- I disagree that spiritual dualism raises more questions than it explains.
If you are interested in my take on spiritual dualism, and how it addresses the best critiques I have found, I can offer my book reviews of four books by critics/rivals of spiritual dualism, in the order I wrote them:
Susan Blackmore's Very Short Introduction to Consciousness: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1C1TJFIWBZ8ZQ?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
Julien Musolino's The Soul Fallacy: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R293PDYZ9ZN9SN?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
Edward F Kelley's idealist compilation Beyond Physicalism: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RZY1A4EL2JOZ4?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
And Martin and Augustine's compilation The Myth of an Afterlife: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R10Z02T2ZEYPFY?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
@fireballfitness1702
Thanks for the time stamps chapters and I appreciate the video
43:00
44:43
45:20...said things that were false
46:20..PMIR
47:20...47:49... It's not you that has this property of being conscious it's the epistemic space as a whole
48:37
49:39, 49:50... Not in control of cognitive processes more than 50% of our conscious life..
51:20
54:20, 54:50... Timer "am I on task"
1:04:30... illusionism 1:21:15...
1:22:00, 1:23:00, 1:24:00,1:25:00,
1:26:44... Thought experiment, super intelligence, benevolent artificial antinatalism..
1:27:00, 1:27:20... Nonexistence is in our own best interest...
1:28:00...highly problematic...
1:28:50...NP negative phenomenology
1:29:00,1:29:39...
1:33:07...
1:35:20...
1:44:00, 1:45:00, 1:46:00, 1:47:00 1:48:00, 1:50:00, 1:52:20, 1:53:00.
@fundseconomics
I'd take every moment into the afterlife. It's like being sisyphus.
You roll up the stone forever. But it's a joy for each time it's new, even though you know it already. Imagine you see these scenes infinitely - at some point in infinity you simply can do something else for in infinity two parallel lines are matching. Infinity is a potential room, in which things are possible which do not follow bi-logical sytemizing (Blanco).
This thought experiment has a logical implication for an infinite repetitive process was only possible in infinity as being part of a group of infinite possible variations.
Also I do not understand why he is saying that human experience is an ocean of suffering.
To underline this: We know that if one observed a runner doing her or his rounds in the park and suddenly time would be stretched into infinity, the runner would actually never hit the ground, it would only approximate the ground, but never would touch it, only in infinity he'd touch it. Infinity seen as a finitum makes infinity then again to the potential room. So, given this and given that one moment of experienced happinnes could be stretched as well into infinity - one is not able of making qualitative statements about quantitatively perceived emotional states. Because, continue this thought, the most beatiful experience stretched to infinity becomes the most horrible or the most whatever experience.
Emotional experiences are perceived therefore as suffering, because (this is only my own theory) the human being as an infant when realizing due to the mothers gaze, that it itself is reflected in the mother, needs to suppress the mother-object for being able to continously attach to her, therefore the infant is in effect splitting off itself by itself - perceived in the gaze of the mother. Why? Because the mother can not reflect her personality to the baby, the mother mirrors to the baby the baby itself - how could she do else? The baby is a blank sheet of paper so to speak. She has to project what she thinks of the baby in her innerpsychic realm - which has only to do with her own view of the world and the quality of her ego. Well, by this rejection of itself by itself, the baby creates two things: a black hole and symbolic thinking patterns. The black hole stems from the needed suppression and splitting of itself. The relating agency it develops stems from the same origin. The baby can only relate "stuff" for it denies the fact that the mother is mirroring itself. So, thereby the baby becomes an observer, which only by that process is able of developing healthy narcissism.
The reason why people do perceive something as suffering is due to the splitting.
This guy that got into an argument with his girlfriend (mentioned in the interview) was not aware of this at all. Because where these fears stem from? Suppressed, split off situations which manifest now as the unconscious, acting out the trauma.
Suffering is existing because by the creation of our let's call it cognitive reasoning apparatus we were forced to split ourselves.
In one black hole, which is dominated by somatic and interoceptive experience, for emotional states are related to body expression - the gut feeling which each baby listens quite natural to. No baby is able to suppress crying when it's hungry.
The mind on the other hand as our outside reasoning apparatus.
Everything were not aware of or what we find pre-conscious goes into the black hole.
That's how genetic reaction is triggered I can imagine. And this body that we have as I say has various morphic fields and as you can see as well organs have brain structures inherent, which do have a connection to the central nervous system. That's why we have aversive thoughts - because simply were not just thinking with our brain.
If you train yourself and you become aware of pre-conscious thoughts or impressions, which are thoughts triggered by interoceptive changes. At least me I can be aware of them.
That to me is the reason why many perceive life as suffering. But it's only because they do not think straight to me.
Not denying that life can be suffering, but usually only momentarily. If we would not split things off all the time it would be only momentarily.
@drtevinnaidu
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:33 - What is Consciousness?
6:30 - What is the Self?
10:12 - The Mind-Body Problem
24:56 - Christof Koch & David Chalmers - "the infamous bet"
27:34 - New Approaches to Consciousness (Karl Friston, Computational Modeling etc.)
34:11 - Philosophy of Psychiatry & Philosophy's Implications on Mental Health
44:48 - Daniel Dennett & Illusionism
49:17 - Epistemic Agent Model, Introspection & Mind Wandering
1:04:36 - More on Illusionism
1:14:13 - Panpsychism & Existence Bias
1:24:52 - Bewusstseinskultur, Negative Egalitarianism & Practical Ethics
1:41:39 - "The Elephant and the Blind" (forthcoming book)
1:50:04 - Differences & Similarities to Mark Solms' "The Hidden Spring"
1:55:58 - Thomas' Philosophers/Scientists recommendations
2:00:06 - A better Culture of Consciousness
2:05:07 - Applied Ethics
2:11:50 - Religious World-views & the Naturalist Turn
2:14:35 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
@peteraddison4371
... okay thenow, basic-ally, consciousness is perceived awareness, awe, awareness perception is consciousness. & Please don't ask for the math, & may-many-multy- mini-miracules manifestir up 'n' be ...
@Chris-Ian
Weren't you talking about Negative Utilitarianism not Egitalirianism? If I'm mistaken - excuse me.
@edris47
After all the comments that I maid, I find a great deal honestly in Mr. Metzinger and good understanding of tragic condition of we humans.
@dcleve2353
Dr N, I LOVED this interview! What a pleasure it was to hear you and Dr M explore the waterfront in philosophy. THIS listener did not have a problem with you two throwing away your script! I have not had the benefit of reading any of Dr M's books, so I did probably miss out a bit when you threw the script away, but I was able to catch up on most of his views from the discussion.
Dr M appears to lean in the direction of eliminative materialism and illusionism, but does not take his views nearly as far as some philosophers do. He agrees that consciousness is real, but also that SOME of what we think we know about ourselves is not true. He also seems to agree that emergence is part of naturalism, and most notably, agrees that first person experiences are as well. This perspective -- openness to question our introspective view, but also use of first person to test introspection, and use of emergence to build naturalist models -- strikes me as the most productive and interesting route toward a naturalist understanding of consciousness.
I was pleasantly surprised by his citing Popper and Eccles "The Self and its Brain" as part of his reading history. Few physicalists take dualism seriously, and Popper's reputation took a massive hit when he published a full throated defense of it. From "respected wise elder philosopher" he quickly was reduced to "irrelevant afterthought" after its publication. That Metzinger was not convinced -- is fine. He at least read it and considered it seriously.
The objections to Dr M's "naturalism" are not only going to be from the religious. I don't know if you or he have read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age. Taylor notes that disquiet is part of our era. Both the religious, who suspect that religion cannot survive the application of naturalist epistemology, AND the secular, who suspect that naturalism provides no place for values, morality, or treating humans any differently than a keyboard. The most interesting secularists are trying to leverage strong emergence to build morality and values, but Dr M's naturalism seems to be far narrower than that.
As a spiritual dualist, I am on the other side of the disquiet, and am seeking ways to embrace methodological naturalism in a dualist ontology.
@drtevinnaidu
It's comments like these that keep me motivated to continue with the podcast.🙂🙏🏽 Thomas and I have already prepped a more structured interview for Round 2, I hope you take away even more from the next session!
@dcleve2353
Supplemental comment -- I disagree pretty strongly with the reasoning and metric Dr M used to determine that most of life is not worth living. He asked people to compile a "greatest hits" playlist. It is entirely reasonable that very few events in any week belong on such a list. That does not make the week not worth living!
Note also, humans NEED massive variety. The radio stations that play ONLY "greatest hits" pretty quickly burn their audience out on the limited playlist. Any station that wants an audience long term -- will need a much deeper playlist. The methodology Dr M proposed -- "what will you want to relive for eternity" -- his subjects apparently suffered from limited imagination, and limited self-knowledge. By 20 cycles through their playlist -- they will ALL have wished they included at least 90% of every week. By 100 cycles though such a playlist, they will all want EVERY experience included, no matter how miserable it was!
So -- with my thought problem on what we humans would want after 100 lifetimes of a "best of" playlist -- the inference is that ALL of life is worth living, not only a tiny fraction. OR -- is the methodology he used to determine if life is worth living -- intrinsically flawed?
@edzardpiltz6348
So you understand your own motivation for your preference for dualism, even though you probably know that it raises more questions than that it explains anything?
@dcleve2353
@@edzardpiltz6348 Edzard -- Yes, I understood my motivation when I committed myself to spiritual dualism in my relative youth (college age). I had established, early in my exploration of philosophy, that the "best" philosophic arguments were the ones deployed against competing philosophic views. I.E. -- all philosophic views are incompletely supported or justified, so we are not dealing with a dispute between proven vs disproven, but a collection of ALL "disproven" views. I had not at that point found Lakatos and his Research Programme theory, but I intuited its point. All philosophic worldviews are works in progress, none are complete, and all have apparent contradictions they need to work to address. This gives any intellectually honest person a significant degree of discretion in choice of a worldview, so long as they admit to the current flaws, and work to close them.
I was interested in a worldview which could provide meaning to human lives, and I do not see much potential for that in materialism/physicalism, which is the primary alternative that is widely argued for within philosophy. Dualism provides a much more plausible potential for values and meaning to play a significant role in our universe.
I have, in the decades since, continued a self-education in philosophy, while undertaking an investigation and critique of spiritual dualist perspectives. I consider spiritual dualism to be the single best framework for explaining the observations we have of our world. Religions -- not so much. This drives me to the empirical spiritualists -- found mostly in the New Age and parapsychology.
Philosophy, has reinforced this point. Karl Popper's critiques of all materialist/physicalist ontologies are -- devastating. Physicalism needs to accept as a minimum substance/abstraction dualism. Science needs all of: abstract theories, math as causal, and information as real. And consciousness is clearly causal, as the evolutionary tuning of our minds reveals. Popper's strongly emergent dualism, plus his world 3 of abstractions, is what physicalists will eventually have to modify their worldview into. Most physicalists today have already accepted strong emergence and apply it to consciousness. And most treat information as a second type of property of matter, and have ignored that the way information principles are multiply realizable, they cannot be a property of matter, because the substrate is not critical to the rules. This realization, that Popper's 3 worlds, OR interactive spiritual dualism plus lower p platonism, are the current best worldviews we have to describe our universe, is gradually spreading among physicalists. the major theoretical works i have found on physicalism in this century all accommodate both strong emergence, and platonism.
So -- I disagree that spiritual dualism raises more questions than it explains.
If you are interested in my take on spiritual dualism, and how it addresses the best critiques I have found, I can offer my book reviews of four books by critics/rivals of spiritual dualism, in the order I wrote them:
Susan Blackmore's Very Short Introduction to Consciousness: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1C1TJFIWBZ8ZQ?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
Julien Musolino's The Soul Fallacy: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R293PDYZ9ZN9SN?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
Edward F Kelley's idealist compilation Beyond Physicalism: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RZY1A4EL2JOZ4?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
And Martin and Augustine's compilation The Myth of an Afterlife: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R10Z02T2ZEYPFY?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
@edzardpiltz6348
Wow, some of the reactions here sound a lot like the defense mechanisms of the existence bias that Thomas describes in the interview. I do wonder if this is coincidence😳🧐👍