for the recording to start. And, okay, good morning, everybody. Thank you for connecting to BC 308, our course on Revelation and Daniel, and we are continuing our journey in the book of Daniel, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, looking at all the main prophetic texts in this chapter. Let's pray together and we will start so somebody could lead us and pray, please. Anyone could pray. Can I pray first? Please, thank you. Dear God, thank you so much for this class and we are about to learn about the book of Daniel and Lord, as we are learning, Lord, that we need to understand and Lord that you have us to see the things that you have for us, God, and we're trying to know, Lord. I pray for Pastor Shish Gai who's about to teach Lord that you are at your spirit and as he's teaching Lord that we may be listening and paying attention to what he has to say, God, that we may not just be the person who listens, but be the doors of what he's teaching and who's so Lord that we may share to those who have not heard about it, God, thank you Lord for everything and you may pray in that. Amen. Amen, thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being on the class. So last week, we, in the second lecture, last week, we read through Daniel chapter eight and we just began to kind of, you know, look at the key things in that chapter. So today we will get into the details. Daniel chapter eight, the plan is to also cover Daniel chapter nine. I think we will be able to do both. So if you can do both today, that'll be great, okay? So just to quickly recap a few, you know, where we were, Daniel is recounting another vision or reporting or sharing with us another vision that he had and in this vision, again, he sees images of animals like what he saw in Daniel seven. He saw, you know, he referred to those as beasts, but here in Daniel eight, he sees a ram with two horns and then he sees a goat with one, with one horn. Again, that's a male goat with one horn. That's also very unusual, right? A male goat with just one horn coming up from its front. But anyway, so you have this male and then he sees things happening. He sees these two animals interacting and he kind of describes all of that. And then, and so, you know, so let's get into the details. Now, what we have mentioned earlier is the interpretation is often found within the chapter itself. So when we said, you know, we asked it towards the end of the last class, we asked the question and okay, so what do these animals mean? And that is already pointed out for us in this chapter. So I hope all of us have Daniel chapter eight open in front of us. So, Angel Gabriel comes near to Daniel and he explains to him. He says in verse 20, verses 20 and 21, he says Daniel chapter eight, verses 20 and 21, the ram which you saw having two horns, they are the kings of media and Persia, verse 21. And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that you saw that is between its eyes is the first king, right? So the interpretation is given to us right here. So Gabriel tells Daniel, Daniel, the ram is representing two kingdoms, Medes and Persians. Now, if you look at verse three, Daniel chapter eight was three, the ram had two horns, he saw. One horn was the second horn, the horn that came up later was bigger than the first horn. And verse 20 says they represent two kingdoms, Medes and Persians. And sure enough, the Persian kingdom became more stronger, became more stronger, more powerful than the Medes. So if you look at historically the sequence of events, the Babylonians were replaced by the Medes. The Medes were there for a brief period of time and then they were overtaken by the Persians. So they're from, he said, I saw this ram moving east. So they're coming from, sorry, they're from the east, moving west, north and south, right? So the eastern part basically representing what we know today as Iran, Iran, Persia, Iran. And this kingdom was moving westward. That means they were conquering and they were taking over regions west, north and south. So they were moving westward towards the Mediterranean. And so they conquered the Babylonians and so on. But after them came a goat. And then he says, what is the goat? Verse 21, kingdom of Greece. So on the other side of the Mediterranean Greece comes this goat and the goat is moving eastward. And this goat had, he says in verse five, I saw a male goat. It had a notable horn between his eyes, very big horn. And verse 21 says, this horn that you saw is the first king. So this horn, horns usually represent leadership, kings, leaders, and so on. So this goat was moving eastward. So Alexander the Great, who was the first leader, he moved east and he began to conquer. He began to take over territory. And we know historically, he came all the way to India, you know, the northern part of India, or northwestern part of India. He reached all the way there from Greece, okay? So Daniel saw that in this vision, right? If you see in verse six onwards, he says the ram that had, so this goat came to the ram that had two horns and it confronted the ram. That means the goat, the kingdom of Greece overpowered the Persians. It destroyed it, it cast to the ground, verse eight. Look at verse eight. Then the male goat, which is Greece, kingdom of Greece, grew very great. And that is true. From all the way from Greece, he extended his empire all the way to India. That's a huge territory, right? And says, but when he became strong, I'm looking at verse eight, the large horn was broken. And in its place, four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. So this first horn, this first king, right? As he was becoming strong, suddenly he was broken. And that is so true. Historically, that's what happened. Alexander the Great, he was a great conqueror. He grew very fast, but he also died very young. And that's what he says in verse eight. He became very great. He became strong, he was broken. And then in place of it, I'm looking at verse eight, in place of it, four notable ones came up. And that's exactly what happened. After Alexander the Great suddenly died, he had four generals. So the four generals basically took over parts of the Greek empire, his empire. And we mentioned some of that in the PDF, and maybe the PDF will have some map as well. So it's good to just look at it at this point. Let me go back here. So Daniel eight, right? So he died and four kingdoms came out of his empire. And broadly speaking, those regions covered. So of course, in those days, they were not called Turkey and Syrian Egypt, but they covered regions that today we can say predominantly, not exclusively predominantly, but at least Turkey, Syria, Egypt are part of those empires. Now, I'm showing you this picture. This is not the Greek empire, but it's the Roman empire. But think of it, he was here, right? Somewhere here. And he expanded, Alexander the Great expanded his kingdom all the way across. And he comes all the way through towards Northern part of India, that'll be somewhere here, right? He come all the way through, he comes and he takes over. Now, after he died, parts of his car. So this part, somebody took over. So which would cover major portions of Eastern Europe. And then Turkey, another person, another emperor took over. This part, another person took over, which basically is Syria in that part. And here, this part, Northern Africa, another person took over. So broadly speaking, right? These were the four major divisions of his empire that were taken over by his generals. Now, this map that you're seeing is that of the Roman empire, which came later. But I'm just trying to point out the regions of the Greek empire and how it was taken over, right? So what is amazing is that Daniel saw this while he was in the reign of King Belshazzar, who was the Babylonian empire king, right? So he saw this way before time. And he's speaking, of course, God is revealing and God is helping him understand it. He's speaking and saying, Meads, Persians, Greeks. Daniel is at that moment serving under Belshazzar, the Babylonian empire. So he's looking way into time. But then what is interesting is this. Morshnai. Out of one of them came a little horn. So what sequence? There's this goat representing the Greek empire. The goat had a big horn represented Alexander the Great. The horn became very great, meaning the empire grew very quickly. But then the horn was broken. He died. Then in its place came four notable ones. That means his four generals took over, right? That's end of verse eight. And then verse nine. Out of one of them came a little horn. Now this little horn is a very interesting phrase because we've been seeing it in the past, right? In the previous visions he had. He saw it in Daniel chapter two. He just mentioned 10 kings and then another kingdom being established, the kingdom of heaven. Then in Daniel six, he again sees this little horn who comes up and he speaks pompous things against God. And he overpowers three of the 10 horns. So that was in Daniel seven. Yeah. Right? Yeah. And then in Daniel eight, we're getting some more information. Where does this little horn come from? So Daniel chapter eight, verse nine, he says out of one of them, what is one of them? The four territories or kingdoms that were established or governed by the four generals from the Greek Empire. So this kind of gives us a clue of where the Antichrist is going to come from. Now we don't know precisely or exactly but we have a gentle idea that the Antichrist is coming from one of these four kingdoms or regions that came out of the Greek Empire which was governed by the four generals of Alexander the Great. Because he says very clearly and out of one of them came a little horn. And what did this little, so the question is when did this little horn come? Now, okay, let's kind of just read a few more scriptures. I'm just looking at this from verse nine towards 14. Okay, Daniel eight, nine to 14. So what happened? He says out of one of them came a little horn and he tells us about this little horn. He became extremely great toward the south, toward the east and toward the glorious land. That means this little horn was extending its influence in all of these directions, specifically he also mentions towards the glorious land, the land of Israel. Verse 10, and it grew up to the host of heaven and it cast down some of the hosts or some of the stars to the ground and trampled them. That means he is gaining so much influence that he is beginning to influence those in authority. And those who were in great places of influence. And verse 11, he even exalted himself as high as the prince of the host. That means he's now boasting, this little horn is boasting not only gaining influence, not only on the earth, but it's also speaking against spiritual powers. He's gaining influence. So, you know, the stars and the prince of the host and he's speaking against the Lord himself. Okay, this little horn and verse 11, and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away and the place of a sanctuary was cast down. So now he's talking about daily sacrifices and the place of a sanctuary, that is the temple.  He's gonna desecrate or damage the place of a sanctuary. That's the temple. Okay, let's read on. Because of transgression and army was given over to the horn, that means he had military power. He had military strength to oppose the daily sacrifices and he cast truth down to the ground. That means there's no respect for law, order, justice. No, he did all this and prospered. All right, so the question is when does this little horn come into play? Now, historically, and I've put this also in the notes, in the PDF, historically, there was a king called, I'm looking at here in the notes, Antiochus Epiphanus. He, and it's in the timeline. He came, you can find his name in the historical timeline of Israel, the Jewish people. So he came, this was after Daniel's time. He came and he actually desecrated the temple, right? But, and so some people think, oh, Antiochus Epiphanus, this was around 171 to 164 BC. Oh, he fulfilled these scriptures. But the timing of the fulfillment of Daniel chapter eight was nine to 12 is given in the same chapter. What is the timing? So you go down to verse 23, right? What do we see there? He says, and in the latter time, so the timing for verse nine is in the latter time. In the latter time of their kingdom, when transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise. So that's the little horn that he's speaking about who understands sinister schemes. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power. He will destroy fearfully. He will prosper and thrive, will destroy the mighty and also the holy people. Through his cunning, he will cause deceit to prosper under his rule. And he shall exalt himself in his heart and shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the prince of princes, that is the Lord Jesus, but he shall be broken without human means. And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true, seal up the vision for it refers to many days in the future. Okay, so verse 23 gives us the clue for when verse nine is gonna be fulfilled. He says very clearly in the latter times. So it didn't have an immediate fulfillment. It wasn't a near fulfillment. It was, he was speaking of, verse nine is speaking of something way out in the future.  He uses the phrase prince of the host in verse 11 and he uses the phrase prince of princes in verse 25. So he says, this man is gonna speak against the prince of the princes. When is he gonna come, verse 23, in the latter time? So this is why, you know, we don't say, well, I mean, we recognize that the Jews have always been persecuted and attacked and, you know, evil has been done against them, the Jewish people. But we don't look back historically and say, hey, that king, you know, whether it was Epiphanes or whether it was some other leader who ill-treated the Jews in terribly, we don't point to them and say, that's the fulfillment. We say, look, he says in verse 23, it's going to be in the latter time. So it's still way out in the future. It's going to happen. Then what is this little horn going to do? Where's the team? He says here, then I heard a holy one speaking and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, how long will the vision be concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation and the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be traveled under foot? So he's seeing two angelic beings talking, having a conversation, they're saying, you know, hey, when is this going to happen? Right? Then he hears them talking and it's intensely for Daniel to understand. For 2,300 days, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed. That means he's saying, hey, there's a period of time.  It's going to happen. So he's not saying literally when it's going to happen. He's saying basically how long it's going to happen. For 2,300 days, the sacrifices will be stopped and the temple will be desecrated. That is, the sanctuary will be cast down. Now, he explains this later on, if you look at verse 26, he says, and the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true. If you look back at verse 14 in many of our Bibles, the word days will have a little mark and say 2,300 evenings and mornings. So he's talking not days as in, you know, calendar days as we understand it, but he's talking about evenings and mornings. So the Jewish days started in the evening, 6 p.m. and then through the next day, 6 to 6 p.m. So he says evenings and mornings. So you'll have 2,300 evenings and mornings and one of the ways that you look at it is, okay, if there are 2,300 evenings and mornings, you divide it by two so that you get about 1,150 calendar days. If you're counting 2,300 evenings and mornings, of an evening and a morning put together makes up one day. So you divide it by two, you'll get 1,150 days. Now remember, there's a slight difference between the Jewish calendar and the Gregorian calendar, which we are used to. There's a 10-day difference approximately in every year. So the Jewish calendar has 3,553 to 3,555 days in a year. The calendar that we are used to is about 363 to 365 days generally in a year. So there's a 10-day difference. So we're not saying precisely, you know, in our terms, this is what's gonna be, but it roughly works out to about 3.5 years, slightly less than 3.5 years. 3.5 years in our calculation, the Gregorian calculation is 1,277 days. Now this one is 1,150 days. So you're short by about 127 days or something like that. The day difference. But basically it's talking about a period of 3.5 years. 3.5 years when the daily sacrifices will be stopped, the sanctuary will be cast down and there is a transgression of desolation, meaning this man is committing the sin of bringing desolation to the temple and what's happening there. Okay. So the last thing I wanna point out here and then we will take questions is when, this is verse 17, when Gabriel begins to explain it, he says verse 17, understand son of man that the vision refers to the time of the end. That means there is content in this vision that he's showing you, which is referring to the time of the end. So there are two things here, verse 17 and again in verse 23, that kind of that positions things that are happening in this vision for the very end. There are things that happened in the near fulfillment which is represented by the Ram and the goat, the Meads, the Persians and the Greeks. But then there is also things that are given in this vision which happens in the time of the end or in the latter time, which is in the last days to be fulfilled. So part of the vision that Daniel saw has already been fulfilled, the Ram and the goats, that part is already fulfilled. Part of what he saw is yet to be fulfilled, that little horn that came out of one of those four regions and stopped the daily offerings and daily sacrifices and desecrated the sanctuary and cast it down and spoke things against the prince of princes and all of that, that's yet to be fulfilled because he says it's for the time of the end, it's for the latter time, okay? So, did we all understand chapter eight? Any questions? Anyone's okay? Any questions? All right, okay. Asha and Mangi, please go at Asha and then Mangi can ask his question as well. Thank you, sir. I just had a question, where it says that in chapter eight was 72, so he came here, where I stood and he came and I was frightened for a minute please, but he said to me, understand how suddenly that vision is for the time of the end. So, is this about the time where we won't be there? Like, in the book, close to the book of Revelation, how it describes about everything that is, like, so this is a progression for the end time and not now, where it's talking about it, so I'm kind of confused in this passage. Some persons who can explain it. Thank you. Okay, so, remember, so this little horn is speaking about the Antichrist. So, to answer your question, when the Antichrist comes in to visibility, makes himself known, we won't be here. So, Revelation chapter six was one and two. That's when the Antichrist comes into visibility. We have been taken out of the way, the church has been taken out of the way. Revelation chapter four and five, we are in heaven, or you could read it and also in second Thessalonians chapter two, where when he who restrains is taken out of the way, then the man of perdition will be revealed, that is the Antichrist. So, when the Antichrist is revealed, or the Antichrist will be revealed only after we are taken out of the way, the church is taken out of the way.  Now, he's got seven years to do everything. The little horn, that's the Antichrist. The first, so initially he comes as a man of peace. Yeah, he puts in a peace treaty. So, the initial part of what he's doing, like he says he's gaining, he is verse nine, he's growing great towards the south, towards the east, towards the glorious land. So, his influence is increasing. We won't be around, but he is coming forth like a man of peace. But then, in the middle of somewhere in the middle, right, towards the end of the first three and a half years, this is Revelation 11, we will look at it. He breaks his peace treaty and that's when he does all these things that Daniel spoke about. That means he starts blaspheming against the prince of the princes. He starts speaking evil against everyone. He, through his use of military power, this is in verse 12, he stops the sacrifices in the temple and he casts truth to the ground. That means there is no regard for justice and law and he just becomes very powerful. Yes, master. Yes, master. Oh, isn't that told during our devotion time, they're talking about the second. So, just wondering about the antichrist, like, if he can come, is he coming before or like he just, because sadly he doesn't matter what type of gender or anything, but our perspective view, like my side, that in case, we know that Jesus is a man and so I don't think he'll come if he doesn't come because I'm not sure because sometimes he said, yeah. And then the first one is that during the, like once in the book of Matthew or Mark, I'm not sure in one of the gospels, blessed are those who have not seen the dead leaves. So, for those who are still like, you said that we won't be there, right master, for the faith? The church will be taken out of the way, but there will be people who become believers after that. Okay. Yeah, so there will be believers on the earth during the tribulation, right? The church being taken out of the way, will cause a lot of people to be saved, right? They will see this and they will say, hey, these guys were telling us about this all along and it has happened.  You can imagine, you know, there will be an aftershock for that shakes the world literally.   Many of them will become believers, you know, and so there will be believers. To answer your question, which is who is the antichrist? Okay, so in the text, in scripture, it always refers to him as a man, right? He speaks, right? He, he, he. So it's almost certain that this antichrist is a man. Now, in what, what is he? He's a man who's empowered by the dragon. That means he's empowered by Satan, right? We will see in the read Revelation 13, that there is this antichrist and then there is also a false prophet, a spiritual leader. Both are empowered by the devil, but they are the two representatives of the devil on the earth who are very powerful during these seven years. So there is the antichrist, there'll also be a false prophet or the Bible calls him the second beast. Sometimes the Bible calls the antichrist as the beast and calls the false prophet as the second beast, but both are empowered by Satan. So they have human beings, the antichrist and the false prophet are human beings, but they're empowered by spiritually by the devil. Thank you, Master. Yeah, all right. Mangi, your question, please. Thank you, sir. We see in Daniel 8, he says that, we say that the Jews will be, will sacrifice again in the temple. Our question is, Jesus made sacrifice once for all and we don't need sacrifice anymore. And here, and in Revelation, we see that God allowed you to sacrifice, to sacrifice animals and it seems like he accept it. And in the old time, in Old Testament, Jews sacrificed animals and other cultures and other people sacrificed animals to God, like Moses's father, Lord, for example, sacrificed, it got to the Lord. So my question, Pastor, is even now, is it wrong for those who sacrifice animals to God to continue sacrificing animals to God because God allows Jews to do it in the future temple. And if us who believe, we say, we want to give God bent offering, can we do it? Can we bend it and say, God, we're sacrificing this animal to you? Just that more questions. Yeah, interesting question. And my response would be, it depends on which covenant we are operating under. So remember right now, there is a covenant that God established with the Jewish people, starting from Abraham on, reinforced through the Mosaic covenant, reaffirmed through his promises to David. That covenant is in force for them, the Jewish people. But then God has established a second covenant, which we know is the new covenant, which we as people who have faith in Jesus Christ are in. So we who believe in Jesus, we are in the new covenant. And God is calling the Jews to believe in his son Jesus Christ and come under the new covenant. And in the new covenant, there is no more sacrifice for sins. But we know there are Jews who still read the law of Moses, they read the scriptures, Genesis to Malachi, and they are, did God hear the people under the old covenant? Of course, he heard them. Who did they worship? They worship Yahweh God, right? The same God that we worship, the God of the Bible. But they were under the old covenant. So today, there are Jews who are under the old, they're still operating under, we call it's a Judaism, today is known as Judaism, right? They're still operating under Judaism. Now, of course, there will be people who are just doing it as a part of their social life or by tradition. But then they are those who are really seeking God. They read the scriptures and they're seeking Yahweh God. So for them, that covenant is still in force, right? For them, not for us. For us, we are in a new covenant. Has God suddenly said, okay, I won't work any longer with the Jewish people? No, no, no. He's still working and you probably learned, I forget when you did the book of Romans last semester or this semester, but you read about it in Romans chapters 9, 10, 11, where Paul just beautifully explains how right now, God is working among the Gentiles to bring us all together so that when the time of the Gentiles is over, then he brings us all together. But he has not given up on the Jewish people, right? Whatever he promised Abraham is still in force and he still cares for them. So will God hear their prayer? Of course, he will. But he's gonna be pointing to Jesus Christ and he say, hey, I've moved on and I've established this new covenant. I need you to come into the new covenant. So that's why, as Paul writes in Ephesians 2, he's bringing both, making them one, Jew and Gentile through the blood of his son, Jesus Christ. So the question that you're asking is, you know, the sacrifices that these people are offering and will be offering, not only here in this third temple, which we call it the tribulation temple, but in the millennial temple, right? So Ezekiel refers to the millennial temple, which is in chapters 40 to 48. That means for a thousand years. Sacrifice is going to be offered in the millennial temple. While Christ himself is seated in Jerusalem and everybody are worshiping Jesus, there's the millennial temple and sacrifice being offered there. Now, for whatever reason, it's not given to us in scripture, why God has instituted that. But we can just say that it will be probably a constant reminder to them that all of these things they are doing is fulfilled in the person of Christ. Maybe that's just something we can think of, right? But it's not given, not written to us. But Ezekiel 40 to 48 clearly tells us there's going to be a millennial temple where sacrifices are being offered. The question is, will those sacrifices be accepted by God? And my thought is because it's put on, it is under the old covenant and God instituted the old covenant. Yes, he's going to look at that and he's going to accept it. But his pointing is always calling them to faith in Jesus Christ. You come to faith in Christ. You come to this Jesus who is a fulfillment of everything and in Jesus you don't need the sacrifices anymore. I hope I answered your question, Maggie. Yes, sir, you did. Thank you so much. Yeah, okay. Christopher, I see your hand, please. Yes, sir. Thank you, Pastor. My question is about the current times where there is a lot of mean fighting right now happening in Israel and with the Palestinians. And right now the main issue is the major threat that is coming or the country that is the major threat to Israel is Iran. And this is a country that possibly could also get nuclear arms and therefore be a force to destroy Israel as well as a lot of the other countries. So is there any sort of reference to that in Daniela revelations with regards to the fighting that is happening and it's been for many years now with the Palestinians and Israel is slowly getting larger and they seem to be taking more and more of the land. But again, the threat is actually coming from Iran. The biggest threat is Iran, for them. So I just wanted to get to understand if there's any sort of reference to that. Yeah, so the answer is yes. And we'll look at Ezekiel chapter 38 verses one through five. So Ezekiel 38 and 39 refer to the final battle of Armageddon and how it builds up. So it is referenced in the book of Revelation, both in Revelation I think it's Revelation 16 and then in Revelation 19, right? So when he talks about the armies from the east coming in and then the build up towards the battle of Armageddon. But to answer your question specifically, in Ezekiel 38, you look at the different tribes and nations being mentioned. So he says in verse two, he says, set your face against Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshach and Tubal. So the prince of Rosh, Meshach and Tubal. And again, I'm not a, I don't, I'm just going by the research that others have done. And you will read that Rosh, Meshach and Tubal are referring to tribes that are actually part of Russia, modern day Russia. So he's speaking, he says, look, the prince of Rosh, Meshach and Tubal. And he says in verse three, I'm against you or Gog. So Gog referring to the leaders from this region, Rosh, Meshach and Tubal. And he says, I will put a hook in your jaws and so on. And if you read the whole chapter, it kind of unfolds what they're going to do. But in verse five, he specifically mentions Persia. Persia in the Bible refers to Iran, right? Persia in Bible times, old times is modern day Iran. So verse five, Iran, Ethiopia and Libya. So what's going to happen? There's coming a time when Russians will invade Israel from the north and he describes, you know, what will happen?  It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against my land so that the nations may know me when I'm hallowed in you or Gog, before their eyes. Gog referring to the Russia, you know, we would interpret it as the Russians because it refers to the leaders of Rosh Mishai and Tubal tribes of Russia. They're coming against Israel. But whom are they supported by? They are supported by Persia, Ethiopia, Libya, meaning Persia is Iran. So, and you can see this happening, the way Iran, you know, probably, they already have nuclear weapons. They are in alliance with Russia. So you would have read in the news earlier, I mean, in the last recent months when some of the drone attacks that Russia was conducting against Ukraine, those armaments were supplied by Iran. Right, so there is that understanding. Iran, Russia, China, they're not necessarily like great friends, but they're aligned with each other, right? And they're kind of in a quiet way helping each other. So don't say question. Yes, Abish takes question. Is the false prophet from Catholic church because the pope has unified all religions of the world? Is the false prophet from the Catholic church? Now, when we read about the false prophet, Revelation chapter 13, and then later on we read again in Revelation 17, you read about the false prophet. These are the two chapters that doctors about the false prophet in which we will look at when we start going through the book of Revelation. Obviously the Bible doesn't tell us but doesn't give us any indication that the false prophet belongs to, would be the Catholic church or any of that. It doesn't give us. So there are a lot of people through the years who've speculated and tried to point, you know, the false prophet coming from the Catholic church. My answer is we don't know for sure, right? We just know that he's a religious leader who's got great influence and we'll read about it in chapters 13 and 17 and about his influence and so on. But the key thing is he's gonna support the antichrist and he's gonna be hand in hand with the antichrist. So put the Roman Catholic church to such a thing. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And so I think it's better not to say something like this because it's going to unnecessarily cause ill-will between people, especially when we're not sure about something, right? So better not to speculate like this and just say that, yeah, it is a world religious leader but we don't know exactly who it could be. Yeah, that would be my response. So we'll take a break now. Thank you for your questions. I wanna just come back to chapter eight, quickly review it and over the break time if you have any further questions, please come back after the break and ask them and then we'll quickly review chapter eight then move into chapter nine, okay? Thank you. See you in about 10 minutes. Thank you.


Hello my friends and welcome to the 32nd episode of Patterson in Pursuit. I'm your host, Steve Patterson, and today we're doing an interview breakdown. I can't wait to start. We're talking about the interview that I did with Professor Brahm about machine intelligence and consciousness. The first half of the interview was about machine intelligence, which was interesting, but I thought by far the most exciting stuff was the second half of the interview when we started talking about consciousness. So in this interview, there's a good 20 minute build up or so of preface to see exactly where we're going, and then the interview explodes into some pretty awesome discussions of consciousness and the limitations of physicalism. Then I give you my own analysis of why I keep coming back to dualism and even a little discussion about the theory of souls. Before we start, I want to tell you about the awesome sponsor for the show Praxis. If you think of yourself as being stuck in college. I can sympathize. I was as well, but you need to know about the company Praxis. They specialize in taking people who are in college and maybe want to take a gap year or people who haven't gone into college yet and placing them straight into the real world. It's a nine month program. It starts with three months of a professional boot camp followed by six months of a paid apprenticeship. The net cost of the program to participants is $0. So if that sounds like something you're interested in, then go to discoverpraxis.com and on their homepage, they have a button that says schedule a call, click it, set up an appointment and see if Praxis is right for you. So with this interview with Professor Brahm, I love his thought process. I think when we get to the later part, there's some very clear evidence that he's thought a lot about the relationship between the mind, between consciousness and the external world. In my own investigation of philosophy, I think it's an essential understanding that one must have is to grasp the nature of the relationship between consciousness, the mind, our theories of the world and the world. Enjoy. So when I highlight two things with this interview, one, how much of it comes down to language and the other, the interesting metaphysical agnosticism of Professor Brahm. Those two things will be more clear as we go into the interview. So take a listen to this first part. We talk about computers as well, maybe they wouldn't be interested in such and such. Is that correct? When we talk about, if I say I'm interested in some particular subject matter, that means something that I think is fairly clear to me, but does that port over to computer technology? Could computers be interested in things? Oh, I think at some point, it can be. I'm a believer in the possibility of artificial intelligence for sure that we create, that's possible to create something that we say, yeah, it has a mind of its own. It is intelligent. All the normal things we ascribe to humans in terms of those terms by having a mind that we will do this to machines too. Okay. So the first concept slash word to keep in your mind is mind. Professor Brahm thinks that machines could have minds someday. To me, the word mind means something kind of particular. And then as we keep talking, we're talking about two different things. So the immediate follow-up question is this. So does that include my conscious awareness and feeling and what we might call qualia and subjective experiences? Yeah. You have to go to it, didn't you? So that is, of course, a really tough one. How can machines be conscious? And like so many philosophers, yeah, consciousness is such a difficult one. I don't really know what to think about this. I do reject the sort of straightforward, oh, we'll be able to reduce it to brain activity. We'll see that connection. I don't see that. I don't buy into the typical materialist reductionist story. Nor am I a classical dualist. I don't believe any of this soul or spirit stuff. But there is something indeed, something very mysterious about consciousness, so what then is this then? Right? And we were missing something. Okay. So that's the metaphysical distinction that keeping your mind throughout this interview. He is not persuaded by the materialist reductionist standpoint, I totally agree. And for me, what I've been pushed into an uncomfortable position, like I call myself a reluctant dualist, but he says he's not comfortable going there, that he doesn't believe in any of this soul stuff. So an interesting question would be, what's the middle ground? If not physicalism, then what? So can machines have this? I see no reasons why they can't, but I also don't have a good argument that they would have, because I just don't understand consciousness. I spend a good part of my thesis on it, and in the end I make no progress. So you think it's at least conceptually possible that we could have something like thinking without consciousness, without conscious awareness? Yeah, I think that is really quite unproblematic thinking with that. I don't think consciousness is necessary for thinking or intelligence. I thought this was really interesting because of how casual he said this, because for me, the way that I use the word thinking is very much in the consciousness, like I stick consciousness smack in the middle of it. When I'm talking about what the phenomena of thinking is, it's something that includes a conscious first person perspective, but he says, no, I don't think that's the case. So that means that something as essential as a word is thinking, we mean two different things. So we keep exploring. As I said earlier, I hinted that maybe we already sort of talk about thinking machines. Turing, of course, predicted this 50 years ago, and I think he's right. We have gradually started to use that kind of vocabulary, or the machine is thinking or it's tentatively, but yeah, I gradually use that vocabulary of mental goings on to machines when they're working away, and certainly memory, and we have reasoning machines. We say this machine figures it out. I think we already do some of those descriptions. So what I'm interested in is the phenomena that's going on with mental happenings. When I'm thinking about something, what is the process of thinking? What he's focusing on is what do humans label as thinking, but that's definitely not what I want to get at. I don't really care about what humans call things. I want to know about that underlying phenomena, that underlying going on process. Is that the same between machines and humans? It doesn't really matter what we call it. When I use those terminology and I introspect and think about my own mental process when playing chess, it has to do with abstraction. It has to do with kind of conceptual reasoning that, okay, the bishop's got to be on the diagonal here. Is that what's going on with computers though? Is there any abstract reasoning? Or is it all just purely mechanical logic gates? So now you're clearly on Alan Turing territory. This is exactly what he responded to. He said so many people will object to this notion of machine intelligence on the basis of that very argument. They said, well, it's just moving symbols around. And it's just that. So how can that be intelligence? So that's what I want to get at is this underlying process. And then Professor Brahms' response I thought was interesting, where he essentially says, well, you assume that humans are doing this abstract process that you describe in such a way. But in reality, what humans are doing is what machines do. It's not whether machines can reason as humans. It's humans are reasoning as machines. And we trick ourselves to think otherwise. And Turing would say, well, first of all, take the human case.  And if you're zooming on the human brain, you see, well, it's just neural firings. You see something similar there, so why the difference? Well, hang on a second. Did you catch the little interjection there? I'll play it for you again.  Interesting little interjection here. Unless you're a classical dualist, then such and such and such and such. My position has been, as it is with the interview I did with John Searle and the one I did earlier with Dr. Westacott, let's grapple with the classical dualism. That seems to be the most powerful counterargument. When I'm talking about mental phenomena, from my perspective, I don't think I'm talking about just the physical goings on. I'm talking about this weird conscious abstraction process when I'm manipulating concepts in my mind that maybe have some physical correlation in my brain, but the actual concepts themselves don't seem to be some spatio-temporally existent phenomena. But this idea of classical dualism is seen by so many people as, oh, well, this can't be true, moving on. In fact, I've heard this type of casual interjection several times, even with interviews that I haven't released yet, where people go, okay, yes, if we follow that line of reasoning, then it leads towards classical dualism. Well, classical dualism isn't right, and so it must be that such and such is the case. And I don't see the serious grappling with the classical dualist claims. So the next word that we focus on is intelligence. What does it mean to be intelligent? And he says, essentially, intelligence can be separated from consciousness. Intelligence is something that we recognize through behavior. Machines could, at least in principle, act with that same behavior. Therefore, we should be willing to ascribe them the label of intelligence. Let's say it is the case, unequivocally, just for the sake of argument, that machines can have intelligence. It's kind of an ambiguous word, but whatever it is, they have it. There's still this other thing going on, which is the abstraction. So when we're talking about Magnus Carlson, who's best chess player in the world, when we say there's, is there something fundamentally different going on in the mental processes of a human than there is a computer? So is there, when we talk about abstraction, what is that? It's not referring to intelligence. Metaphysically, no. It's what is going on in Magnus Carlson. Was that right? Magnus Carlson is what is going on when he thinks, is it something other than computation? Alan Turing would say, no, and I'm one who's inclined to believe, no, I believe that it all reduces to computation. Again, they all leave consciousness aside, right? But as far as information processing goes, in the end, so that's all computation. So in that sense, there's no fundamental difference. So in principle, we could construct a computer that had some structure whereby you would get what we call abstraction? Yes, I believe it's true. And of course, the argument is all of cognition seems to be information processing, or at least can be looked at in such a way, memory, storage of information, reasoning, inferring information, decision-making, taking into account all this information and now doing further inference. If we can characterize cognition as information processing and computers, if there are anything, they're information processors. So I thought this is really interesting because when I think of abstraction, my metaphysical analysis of abstraction is that there's some, what we mean by abstraction is some kind of taking of the underlying principles of some phenomena and grappling with them in a conceptual non-physical level. And that doesn't fit very well into the physicalist framework. And what's interesting is because he deals with consciousness separately, he's saying, well, you could still have abstraction. Abstraction is just another underlying information processing phenomena. And I'm not exactly sure what to say about this. So for example, I could say something like, when I'm talking about abstraction, there could certainly be some physical information processing that's going on in my brain. I grant that. Perhaps the consciousness, the feeling of that information processing is what I'm calling abstraction. So when I see the color red, there's some kind of physical phenomena going on in my brain. That physical phenomena going on in my brain feels or correlates with a feeling of a certain way. And that feeling is different when I see red and when I see blue. Similarly, when I'm thinking about multiplication or I'm thinking about chess, these are two different types of information processing going on in my brain. And therefore they feel a different way. So perhaps the phenomena of abstraction, what I'm calling abstraction, is purely just information processing in the brain that feels a particular way. It's like seeing a different type of color. Maybe that's the case. But my suspicion is that that's not actually the case. There's another part in concept manipulation that's not just simply the phenomena of the concepts being manipulated. It's the intention of them being manipulated. It's me sitting down deliberately working through concepts. That intentionality also doesn't seem to easily fit into the materialist reductionist metaphysics. Usually we identify things you could say from the outside. So when I'm looking at objects, I look at what they look like, their form, their shape, whatever, and I assign them a label. But it seems like with these mental phenomena, we're not really categorizing things from the outside. We're almost categorizing it from the inside. That's the way it appears to me when I say, what am I and am I fundamentally a computer? I could say, okay, well, when I look at the machine, I got all these parts moving, okay. But there seems to be that thing lacking, which is what's on the inside. And the consciousness. That's consciousness. You're getting a consciousness not indirectly. I mean, that's what you're talking about. This is kind of a good way of getting back to the first question I asked you, because when I'm thinking about, maybe artificial intelligence isn't the right word, but when I'm thinking about the mind, can you have the mind as I'm referencing it as from the internal perspective on a computer, if that's a fundamental part of the equation, is that internal-ness, then my inclination is to think, well, how could you possibly get that? You can't even see it. You can't even see it from the outside. It's just that internal perspective. Yeah, no, I understand. But just as I said, you can have intelligence without consciousness. I totally believe you can have minds without consciousness. I have no problem with that whatsoever, right? I'm perfectly willing to ascribe minds to things without knowing that they even are consciousness. I mean, of course, the same is true of you. I don't even know if you are conscious. You're not claimed to be conscious. Oh, interesting. So then when you're conceiving of a mind, you're not adding the consciousness into the equation. That's right. Now this, I must say, I do strongly disagree with, and I think it's just about language. I think if you were to ask nearly anybody about what they mean when they're talking about their mind, they're talking about consciousness, or they include consciousness in what they're talking about. This seems like a very extreme position to say, oh, well, if we just take out consciousness, then we can say that other things are intelligent. They have minds. They have all these other properties. But the only thing that they lack is this one consciousness thing. I think taking consciousness out of what we mean by a mind kind of deflates the whole point. Again, I'm not saying this is like a jump in reasoning. I just think it's overly focused on one particular use of language I think that tries to get around some really difficult questions in the philosophy of mind. Of course, when I even say the philosophy of mind, central part of that is consciousness. It's not the philosophy of data processing. It's the philosophy of those mental goings on consciousness included. And this is the immediate transition to dualism. So if we grant all the physical goings on in the brain, in the world, in machines, we say, okay, yes, all of those things are fully explained with our language of minds and the manipulation of data and the firings of neurons and brains. Okay, let's grant all of that. Let's just say it's fully explanatory. Well, we're explicitly saying that it seems like there is this other thing. There is this other consciousness that doesn't fit into that particular narrative. So I ask him this. When you say that, it pushes me into something like a dualism because I say, well, hang on a second. I have this other thing. Doesn't that mean that there's something else going on here? Is there some other, I need to explain this somehow. Well, I mean, materialism and dualism are not the only options. Okay, that's good. So that non-physicalism, what are the alternatives? Let's explore. What are some better explanations than saying, okay, that conscious awareness is a soul that happens to be inside a machine? Well, so the sort of conclusion or tentative position I reach is, I think a big part of the answer is, is indeed, what is this physical thing? So we used to have a fairly clear conception of what is physics, right? It's something tangible. We conceived it as sort of tangible stuff. I can grasp it. I can paint it. I can kick it, right? And of course, in modern physics, it's like, well, what happened to that, right? And the question becomes, well, what doesn't even mean to say something is physical? And the best answer I could reach to answer that is, when we refer to something as physical, I think, well, what we're saying really here is, it's something that seems like a copper, but something that's physicist, we study. Just like, or it's a kind of a perspective we take on the world, right? We bring to bear certain concepts and perspectives on the world. And that perspective is physical perspective, right? So when you say something is physical, we basically, I think we're saying, right, I can take that perspective and make sense of consciousness. That to me is never going to work, right? Because whether it's physical, biological, chemical, anything scientific, remember, that is third person. That is objective. Okay, okay, so I'm totally on board. He's essentially just saying, in one way, the physical world can be understood as a theory. It's one way to explain the phenomena that we experience is, but the nature of physical explanations of phenomena is necessarily third person, external. And he's saying that theory, by its nature, given the base concepts in what we mean when we're talking about physical phenomena, cannot include first person phenomena. The way that I put it as the conceptual toolbox of physicalism is insufficient for explaining all the phenomena that I experience because I'm not just experiencing what I attribute to be external third person things, objects that are separate from my consciousness. I seem to also be having the first person experience, which given the language and the concepts presented by physicalism, it just cannot seem to be explained. And so when two scientists stand next to each other and point to the same thing, right? They point and they both have their hands out and they point to something and say, do you see that? And the other one says, yes, I see that too. It seems like it's publicly observable, right? But they don't directly see the same thing, right? So how then is something publicly, how is that even possible for things to be publicly observable? I think my best answer is because when I say, do you see, right? Are there three chairs in the room, right? You say, yes, there are. And I say, yes, I see those three chairs too. But we mean something different. Well, whatever your experience is that right now you're having looking around the room, right? There's a certain structure. There's certain abstractions that you have learned to make from your experience, right?  I see three chairs. And I do the same thing. Even though our experiences may of course be completely different, right? So in other words, all of science, right, is in a way an abstraction. Of course it is. It's a description, right? It's a description. But even when we say it's physical, it's a perspective, right? And a perspective only gets an abstract description of reality. But an abstract description of reality, again, works well to reduce chemistry itself to physics and explain things like life because those are all abstractions too. Those are all, that's all about functionality, composition, just the kind of things you can indeed reduce to each other. And be, have a third person perspective on. But consciousness just is. That's a first person thing. We can't abstract consciousness from consciousness, right? It's the one thing that's there, right? As Dekar was really clear about this. It's the one thing I'm certain of its existence, right? Anything else, who knows? I love it. I love it. And I pretty much agree with everything that he just said. Although I wouldn't use exactly the same language. So a lot of people when they hear things like this, they'll say, oh, well, reality is constructed meaning that there's no third person world. That's not what he's saying. He's saying something I think that's quite deep and quite profound. He's saying, look, the purpose of philosophy, the purpose of thinking is to develop theories that help us best explain the phenomena that we experience. So say that again, the purpose of philosophizing, the purpose of science, the purpose of conceptualizing anything is to best explain the phenomena that we experience. The external world is a theory. Doesn't mean the external world doesn't exist. It means we have a theoretical concept in our head. This is the reason that I'm experiencing the world the way that I am, is because there's something separate from myself. This external world impinges on my senses. I bump into things and I feel things. And the reason that my experience is so varied is because this external world is so varied. There's lots of different things that are in it that sometimes I bump into. And therefore I have an experience of. Everything that I've just said is a theoretical attempt to explain my own experiences. Now, that concept of the external world is so deeply rooted in almost everybody's theories. That's okay, because I think it's accurate. But we must recognize it for what it is. It's a theory and it might be wrong. I mean, we might all be plugged into the matrix, right? If we recognize the existence of the world outside of our minds as being theoretical and attempt to explain our own experiences, then he's saying, accurately so, that theory of the external world cannot explain the experiences. That theory isn't about the first person. That theory is about the third person. It's the world that is out there is structured in such a way. So we come up with these concepts about objects and physics and chemistry and biology and astronomy, necessarily given the base concepts in physical theories. Those concepts aren't talking about consciousness. They're not talking about the first person. Now, we can talk about the brain, but the brain is not consciousness. The brain is still an external thing. The brain is still, if you identify what you're talking about when you're talking about a brain, the brain is still a theory. Now again, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying brains only exist in your mind or there is no external world. That's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to say you in your head have a conception of what you think you mean by a brain. That conception may or may not apply to the external world. I think it does.  So I have to recognize it is not necessarily something that is definitely in the world that I'm experiencing. It's something that is a conception. That conception of the brain ain't consciousness. I can try to conceive of consciousness and build some kind of structure around trying to explain consciousness, but all those things are still theories. And what he's saying is the consciousness just is. It's the underlying definite going on. All these other theories are just theories, right? I might have an incorrect theory about consciousness. I might have an incorrect theory about the brain, about the external world, about almost anything, maybe not logic, but what is definitely true is that the phenomena of the experience is going on. That first person subjective awareness is definitely there. And you can't explain it away or even really get at it by talking about concepts about the external world because it's not the external world. The only reason we can reference such a thing as the external world is because we're not there. We're stuck in the internal world. In some sense, the physicalists who try to say that consciousness isn't happening, it's similar to somebody who's developed some fantasy land, some Harry Potter world. And then they're so into it that they forget that the Harry Potter world is a construction. And then their perspective is fundamentally about what exists in the Harry Potter world, not realizing that they've created the Harry Potter world. The same is true with the concept of the external world. You create that theory and it's so overwhelmingly powerful that people get tripped up and get stuck in that theoretical construction and they don't even realize that they're the ones conceiving of the physical world in the first place. I'm a realist. I believe that there is a physical world or at least there is a world independent of what I think. I'm not a solipsist or idealist, anything like that. But what we say is physical only captures some of that world, right? And consciousness, it can't capture. I agree with you. That's a very radical claim. I mean, to me, this takes the default philosophy of scientific materialism that I think people are very comfortable with. And that kind of turns it on its head when you're saying that consciousness is something that by its nature is almost not even open to scientific investigation or it's a category mistake to view it as. That would seem to be the implication. I mean, not that we can't study consciousness. Of course we can. We can bring the subjects to the lab and do things to them and then we can, and then they will report and they're conscious experiences and as such, we can come to know lots of things about consciousness but only sort of indirectly. We can only come to know how consciousness is associated to all those different physical conditions and circumstances, right? But what consciousness is, we're not really getting 100% agree with them. And it says consciousness is prior to the scientific investigation. So in terms of coming back to the mind and artificial intelligence, what is, so I'm still looking for a more palatable alternative than the soul really. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean the soul is always seen as a thing, like this ingredient that you sort of now put into this body and you're sort of- Yeah, it's a person. It's a being that it's me. Right, life was always seen like this too, right? Life was this vital force. Exactly. You and I have it inside of us and we're in rocks down. Exactly. You know, that's all pretty silly, right? And of course we say there's no vital soul. Now of course, the eliminativists say, ah, and same for consciousness, right? The consciousness is like the vital soul. And now of course they say, no, no, no, no, no, consciousness, we do know exists, right? There is a difference between consciousness and a vital force, right? The vital force was just a mistake. There is such a thing. But consciousness is, right? Again, as David said, that we're absolutely certain of. All right, and I want to explain that because that comes up a lot. When you're talking with eliminative materialist people who think that consciousness isn't happening, will often say, oh yes, well the theory of consciousness is similar to the theory of the vital force. That you think there's this additional thing that animates matter and turns it into life. There's this life force. But that's just a mistake, that's not what's going on. In the same vein, you think that there's additional, this additional thing to your brain and namely the consciousness, but that's not going on just like the vital force wasn't going on. And he correctly points out, this is a mistake. The theory of a vital force is still an external theory. It's not explaining internal experience. It's trying to say, why are some objects, why are some clumps of matter animated? And we call them living. So a toad is not, we're not talking about the explanation for a toad's consciousness if there's any consciousness in a toad. We're talking about the actual animation movement of living things is that, oh, there's gotta be this other force. That's a reasonable theory, but we have reason to believe it's not true. That again is not consciousness. The consciousness is still prior to the theory of the life force. It's just two totally different things. So, but what then is that it's, I have some sympathy to, you know, Chalmers kind of new dualism where he says, well, it's, and which is really a kind of property dualism, right? He says, look, there's still only one kind of thing. It's still a kind of a monist position in terms of maybe substance, right? But, you know, but we have these physical properties. Again, these abstract properties of functionality composition that we can study through the normal sciences, right? So when we reveal those, you know, we can call those the physical properties, but then there's other properties to this thing, right? That makes up the universe, right? Whatever that is, right? And those would be the non-physical properties, you know, maybe what he calls the phenomenal properties, right? So consciousness would be on that side of the coin. I don't know if I'm a property dualist either because again, you know, I think there's something because if you say, you know, if you say, well, the phenomenal and the physical are both properties of the same thing, you sort of put consciousness on the same level if you want this physics. And I say consciousness in a way is more fundamental. It really is, right? Where physics to me is an abstraction, right? So I see a difference. I don't know if I want to be a property dualist either. It starts to sound like more like an idealism again, right? That all the physical comes from the consciousness, but that gets too quickly into solipses. And I don't want to be a realist. There is something that exists clearly outside of me. I love it. I just, this guy's awesome. I agree with his reasoning, but to me, the conclusion is shouting, dualism is the answer. So let me break down exactly what he just said there. He said, look. Okay, so there's this idea of property dualism that fundamentally there's one type of thing. There's one substance and that substance has physical properties and that substance has mental properties. The two properties can't be reduced to one another, but he's saying they're seen as being equally fundamental. He correctly notes, however, that's probably not true because in a very real sense, consciousness is more fundamental than our theory about the existence of the external physical world. But then he says, well, I don't like that though because that leads towards idealism. Idealism is the idea that fundamentally there is consciousness, there's mental stuff, and then out of the mental stuff we get physical stuff. And he, I think rightfully again, says, I don't like that because that leads you down the road of solipsism, which is the idea that only my mind exists, that there isn't some independent property that is the physical world, it's all mental stuff. I don't like that, I don't like that either. This is the reason why I've called myself a reluctant do-list, the theoretical power of the physical world is overwhelming. It's just not self-evident, but it's pretty damn near self-evident that there is an external physical world. That theory correlates incredibly powerfully to my own experiences. However, it certainly isn't fundamental, my consciousness is fundamental, and if it's the case that I cannot be wrong about the existence of consciousness, but I can be wrong about the existence of the physical world, that implies consciousness in a sense is more fundamental at least to us than the physical world. So if you want to grant the real existence of an external physical world, and you want to grant the real existence of consciousness, and you want to say, neither is fundamentally reducible to the other, this is the reason I'm a do-list. I cannot say that consciousness does not exist, and I really don't want to say that the physical world doesn't exist, therefore I grant them independent existences from one another in different worlds that there's two-way causality.  If I had to be a strict monist, I would be forced into the idealist position because consciousness I'm certain of the physical world I'm not. Now it might be the case that over the course of the investigation of the pursuit of truth, maybe I'll end up an idealist, it's of course possible, but I'm going to be fighting that conclusion tooth and nail because I find the theoretical explanation of my experiences, including the existence of an external physical world, completely overwhelming and explanatory. In terms of what we're certain of, consciousness is a real fundamental phenomena in the universe. We have reason to believe that in addition to the existence of that phenomena, there's also something that we've labeled as physicalness, which is, so I have the conscious experience of there being some kind of three-dimensional existence, where I have a visual feel and if I'm aware of it, I think, okay, well there seems to be this space and there's these little things that occupy that space. Now it might be the case that all of that's just made up in my mind, just complete solipsism, I don't know, maybe, but it seems reasonable to believe that in addition to my consciousness, there is some other thing out there and that there's some kind of causal interface between the two, right? So it seems to be the case that if I bump into a chair, I have the conscious awareness of it and if I want to move the chair, then it seems like that external world moves around. So there seems to be that meaningful external internal. And we talk about consciousness, right? Now we're debating consciousness, so we're clearly doing something with consciousness, it clearly has causal force, right? And that, of course, makes the idea that, oh, I can sort of talk about minds and intelligence just in computational terms, sort of now pushing consciousness on the side, it does make me nervous sometimes. I'm like, is that, can I really do this? I mean, cognitive scientists, most cognitive scientists, practice cognitive science, do the same thing.  From the computational kind of perspective and sort of disregard consciousness here. We might be making a mistake there. I don't know, so I really don't claim to have the answer about consciousness. It is a real doozy to me, a real mind-boggling. I am flabbergasted about how to even think about this. Well, good, then I feel better about it because I'm in the exact same boat. So I love this, again, I just agree with all of the guy's arguments. He's got an agnostic conclusion and I have this theoretical explanation for this seeming mutual existence of mind and matter and its dualism. I thought it was so interesting too, it just in that last thing he said, he just casually mentioned, well, of course, it seems like consciousness has causal power and such and such. Whoa, whoa, whoa, is that true? Is it true that consciousness has causal power? It seems to be the case. But if that's true, that also has massive implications because that implies that mind can move matter, right? So if it's true that your consciousness can affect this thing we call the external world and you can choose to move a chair around and that chair without your causal decision, that chair would not have moved and the actual particles that make up the chair actually moved as a function of your conscious causal decision, well guys, you got a big philosophic problem to explain and I agree with it, I believe that is true. However, it implies maybe the physical world as we conceive it is not something that's a causally closed system. It certainly gives room for free will and this is why when I talk to people about consciousness and dualism, I always say, look, the theory of the soul, that there is a person, there is such a thing as a person that's not fully reducible to physical matter. The person understood as kind of a first person entity has a very direct causal connection with my hands and my arms and my body.  I can say, well, I'm gonna get a drink of water and then my body moves around and goes ahead and gets the drink of water. It seems to be that that person directly controls parts of the physical world and this, I mean, just sounds like a soul. Now maybe when I use the term soul, it's very off-putting because of the theological connotations. I actually don't know that much about souls and maybe when I posited the existence of a soul, I'm positing more baggage than I'm aware of but the way that I describe it as something like this where it's a person with a first person perspective that is meaningfully different than other people's first person perspective, those people cannot be reduced to their brains. You won't find a person in a brain. If you know the position of every single atom in a body, you will not find a person. That person is the one that feels all the qualia, that person is the one that has all of the experiences. So for example, when I stub my toe, it's not simply the neurons firing in the brain, it's not simply the mental conscious feeling of the neurons firing. No, there's an additional part, which is the possession of that conscious experience. It's I am having the feeling of stubbing my toe. It's not the universe as some independent third person process is having the experience, right? I, it's the first person that is having the experience. That person has meaningful boundaries, meaning that person isn't everything. There's some distinction between the person and the not person. And those boundaries make up what I'm calling the soul. Where your person ends is the boundary of your soul.  I wish that weren't what I find persuasive, but that theoretical explanation for the phenomena that I'm experiencing has the most explanatory power. It explains all of the phenomena that I experience. I don't really have any difficulty explaining what I think the physical world is, what I think consciousness necessarily is. I have words to describe it, and I don't have to describe consciousness as some independent third person process that isn't attached to people. I have language to describe what seems to be the case, which is that my consciousness is my consciousness. My personal, me, Steve's consciousness. That is a long way of saying, I completely agree with almost all of Professor Brahman's arguments about the weirdness of consciousness. But in my mind, there is one screaming resolution, which is dualism. Mental phenomena exists. They cannot be reduced to physical phenomena. Physical phenomena exists. They cannot be reduced to mental phenomena. That's dualism. And I understand and appreciate his hesitancy and skepticism and discomfort as saying I'm totally baffled by it. But since I don't really care if people think I'm a crank or crazy, I can say, look, I do have a theoretical explanation for consciousness. I'm not particularly comfortable with all the implications, but at least I'm not totally baffled by it. And I have some relatively powerful theory to explain what's going on. All right, so that's my breakdown. I hope you guys enjoyed it. This topic is so awesome. Got lots more to say. If you wanna help support the show because you like this kind of breakdown, you like this kind of honest, philosophizing, head over to patreon.com slash Steve Patterson. You can patronize the show, become part of the community, contribute one or two dollars whenever a new episode is released, and help support the creation of a more rational worldview. Thanks so much, guys.


This is stock number 19 F1768. We are here at Summit Ford in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, your new and used F150 and light duty truck headquarters. Today we are checking out this super clean 2018 Ford F150 SuperCab 6.5 foot short box. This truck has the 5 liter V8 motor and from this HD video you will be able to tell that this truck is extremely clean all the way around inside and out. Magma metallic is the color. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p so if you have HD capabilities on your computer, tablet or smartphone device, turn them on right now because it is like you are right here looking at the truck with me and definitely your best way to check out the vehicle without actually seeing it in person. Goody Wrangler 275 65 R18 tires with about I'd say 80 to 90% of the tread left, lots of tread left on those tires, polished aluminum rims, no scuffs or scrapes on that rim, no dents or dings on that fender, headlight lenses are nice and clear, front pumper is in excellent condition, the grille is in really nice shape, I didn't see any major dents or dings on the hood, passenger side fender no dents or dings on that and the passenger side rim no scuffs or scrapes. As you go down this side of the truck you can see just how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror like that paint is, we take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by and just cannot make the trip down but you're still interested in purchasing the truck, you can still see the truck here, the truck and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here so you can make a smart buying decision from the comfort of your own home and that when you get here there will be absolutely no surprises. Very very clean down this side of the truck, I didn't see any dents or dings, does have factory chrome step bars, back rim is in excellent shape as well and the back tires have just as much tread as those front tires. Frame and underbody in really nice shape, very clean all the way underneath, lower rockers all look really good, we just want to make sure that you get the most accurate representation of the vehicle is possible so when you get here there's no surprises and you'll be 100% ready to go with the vehicle. Rear bumper is in nice shape, does have the backup parking sensors, full towing package which includes a receiver hitch four pin and seven pin wiring, tailgate is in really nice condition, bed a little bit of light duty usage but nothing terrible, no major dent, as a backup camera tailgate shuts nice and solidly it does have the FX4 off-road suspension package which gives you the skid blades and on this side the truck just as clean as that passenger side, does have the capless fuel fill and for full disclosure this back rim no scuffs or scrapes on that and that tire is just as much tread as the rest, down the rest of this side of the vehicle very very clean it does have the driver side door code entry we do have the code for that, has the heated mirrors built in directional signals and you also get the built-in blind spot mirrors. Inside the XLT package gives you the gray cloth interior, you do get the power driver seat, no rips or tears on that seats in really nice condition factory floor mats throughout, power pedals, auto head lamps, tilt, telescopic steering wheel, power windows power locks and power mirrors, back seats are very clean as well, no rips or tears back here it does have the latch child safety system, the fixed glass rear window with the built-in rear defrost, these seats do fold up for extra storage, back carpeting and floor mats are in excellent condition as well really like these super cabs these doors open up all the way and these back windows do power roll down, get that closed just kind of give it a pull there and it'll swing shut for you as we hop inside the truck here you can see that this one has 22,650 miles you get a digital speedometer as well as an outside temperature display and compass display you get the leather wrapped steering wheel cruise controls and information center controls on the left bluetooth and audio controls on the right now this one's going to have the 10 speed automatic transmission if you ever want to tell you just put it in the drive and it'll show you how many gears you have on the right there so this is a 10 speed automatic transmission with the optional tap shift this one comes with the sync radio you get AMF MN Sirius XM radio capabilities as well as the factory navigation system this one has the backup camera also has if we go into the controls here and check out the apps and settings you can do your mobile apps so Android Auto Apple CarPlay you also have you can actually do those preferences right there and you can change the display and all that good stuff there as well AM FM and Sirius XM radio capabilities there is a CD player Bluetooth audio controls of course and then you get two USBs down there you got a turned-out four-wheel drive and the passenger seat is very clean as well headliner is an excellent condition I didn't see any rips or tears in that and you do have map lights up there this middle seat does fold up you can see that that seat is a nice condition as well we'll take a quick look under the hood I personally like to thank you for checking out the video today hopefully from this HD video you will have been able to tell just how clean this truck is all the way around inside and out under the hood we have the 5-liter V8 motor engine maze very clean runs very smooth this truck has been fully safe to eat and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked and topped off truck has been gone through mechanically 100% and is 100% ready to go to see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 450 new and used cars trucks SUVs minivans wranglers half tons three-quarter tons one tons you name it we got to go to our website www.summitauto.com full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summit auto.com and if you'd like to check out more HD videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto remember to like subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there in fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left you linked more half-ton truck videos like this one on your right if you have not been to our website on the bottom link to this vehicle on our website click those check us out and we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2018 Ford F-150 super cab short box XLT package thanks again


The Swiss-German writer Hermann Hesse, he won the Nobel Prize in 1946. It is his very first book, and now it was published exactly 100 years ago, in 1990. Just after the end of World War I. It's about a boy growing up in a time when obeying the authority and doing what they're told to do is all that matters. So we're here at the TEDx conference here in Copenhagen, and who are you? I'm Axel Hoening. I work at the university teaching history of philosophy, history of science. I was invited to speak about forgotten knowledge of the inner voice of the diamond within. Did you start 400 years before Jesus? Yes, we started with Socrates, yes. Are we reinventing everything they already knew everything back then, or they already thought the same thoughts we have now? I think they thought some of the same thoughts, but they also have thoughts and feelings and expressions that we have forgotten. We have focused on the rational part of it, of rationality, but they have a deeper understanding of the deepness of human nature. They could express that so we can, in a way, rediscover what has been lost. And it's treasures to rediscover this, right? It's fascinating work that you do. Yes, it's precious, it's also hard work, but of course, many people today in history of philosophy, history of science, we have this area called rejected knowledge of forgotten history. Rejected? Rejected knowledge, forgotten history. Sometimes in history other people say, hey, what you talked about, that's not true, we have the truth. Listen to what we say. So, you know history is a battlefield. Does humanity sometimes self-destruct? Like, they reach an unbelievable beauty, and then somehow it goes back into, like, the Middle Ages, and it goes back into bad stuff? I'll just say, things changed all the time. And I think we're in a big change right now, because this new feeling of the globe that we're living in, the blue planet is alive, and we can feel that, identify that we are connected to it, and they knew that 2,000 years ago, 4,000 years ago. They had philosophies about the connection to the earth, to the ground. It was an underground movement in the Middle Ages, in Renaissance, up to early modern times, German romanticism. And this is a new area in academic studies, to realize that there's so many things we have forgotten. And of course you cannot go back, but the knowledge of this can help us to go forward, what we need from now on. I'm convinced of that. Would it be awesome to go back and talk with these guys from 2,000 years ago? What would you say? Or you don't have anything more to add? Who would win in the debates between you and the secretists? I think this is an ongoing dialogue. That's important. You can't say they were right, we are wrong. Or we are right or they were wrong. It's a dialogue with history. I mean history is a part of our presence now. History is not only what happened in the past. History is alive in ourselves. What has been forgotten has to be rediscovered. Because we only have been to space recently. We only know stuff like this before it was kind of mysterious. So does that make us very different? It gives us an opportunity to watch our world from another point of view. And that makes a difference. Many astronauts speak about this changing of their view of being at home in this world. That's the point of my speech. We have been looking to the sky. Imagine everything possible there. Now we can see from the space into this globe and we can see this is a magnificent hole we live in. One of my biggest passions is to see humanity go to Mars. I think we should have as a goal, we should go to Mars. I think it's important for science, but maybe it's also important for philosophy. I don't think so. Don't forget that going to Mars as scientists say today and astronauts speak about when we reach Mars and further on it will no longer be humans. We will be changed. We are humans because we are on this planet Earth. If we travel to other places it will not be humans like us. We were transformed during this journey. So we will be like Earthlings plus? We don't know. We simply don't know. But that just changes us just to go to Mars? It will change the individuals, yes. It will enlighten us in some way or is there any way to know that? I don't think so. This is a great discussion. And what's important about history is to have a better future, right? Is that what people study history? Is that a basic question? I think history is not only history. History is in a way a life in ourselves.