MattMVS7

I will explain. It is only my good feelings that give my life value, worth, joy, beauty, etc. since they are the only experiences that have a real quality of value, worth, joy, beauty, etc. in my life. No other experience has any real quality of those things for me. It is not a matter of me looking at the experience of my good feelings, projecting a value judgment upon them, and claiming that they are the only experiences that give my life value, worth, joy, happiness, and beauty. Rather, this is what the experience truly is for me. There is a big difference between projecting a value judgment upon an experience as opposed to what the experience actually is for you. As I said before, I am not doing that. I am not projecting any value judgment upon these good feelings. With that being said, I do not have my good feelings due to a condition known as chronic anhedonia. Therefore, my life has no value and no attitude and no way of thinking can give my life any value since it is only my good feelings themselves that give my live value. This means that the only life I have to look forward to in order to give my life value would be an eternal blissful afterlife. It would be the life that has the greatest value and worth for me since I would have my good feelings to their fullest degree. But since I do not believe in such a life, then that leaves me with this life which cannot have any value to me.

I can't have any value in this life I have and it is not a matter of choice on my part. Otherwise, you are right. It would be nothing more than a matter of me whining.

I don't believe in an afterlife. That is the thing here.

It's because, as I said before, I cannot focus on the small things without looking at the big picture. Since the big picture is a universe that has no value and is just sheer luck where we all live and just die due to either old age or unfortunate circumstance, then I cannot find value in my life or in humanity since the value of my life and humanity is based upon the "big picture" based value rather than the "small picture" based value.

Because, without value, then we would all be living just to live and nothing more. I need actual value in my life here. Looking at this from the big picture, what it all comes down to is that you are the lucky one since you weren't in that horrible situation while that other individual was unfortunate and didn't get to live. How does this big picture have any value?

I tend to be a person who looks at the big picture. I am unable to focus on small things without looking at the big picture. Just think about this for a moment. There are people in unfortunate areas of the world who die within the first few days of birth. They never get the chance to live to fully cherish this life. They just die shortly after immense suffering and that is it for them. How is there any value in that? How does such a life possess any value?

To me, this being the only life and us being mere biological beings just bound to rot and decay makes this life and all of humanity seem so shallow to me. It just says to me: "Welp, that's just life for you. We are here, we live, we die, we suffer, and that is it. Life's a bitch and you die." However, us being eternal divine blissful beings as new age spiritual traditions would claim, then that would convey a different message to me. It would be the most powerful, beautiful, and harmonious message of all to me that would give me a sense of profound and deep bond with all of humanity. I would see much value in humanity and my life then.

I understand what you are saying here and I respect your view, however, for me it is different. If all we are is biological beings here for a short while just to rot and decay away and we are not the eternal divine blissful beings that new age spiritual traditions make us out to be, then that, to me, takes away all human value and instead replaces it with the inferior value that mere transient materialistic things have.

If I believed in an eternal blissful afterlife, then that would be no different than a situation where I am all optimistic, happy, and loving towards myself and others knowing that I and everyone else are all going to get rich, get whatever we want, and have all the fancy thing we want. But upon discovering that this is not the case (discovering that an eternal blissful afterlife does not exist), then that would be no different than a situation where I give up on the whole concept of loving myself and loving others and where I would think it would be better off if we all just rotted and decayed away since all we are is poor trash and we don't all get to be the rich and wealthy individuals of our dreams. I see the same things applying here as well. In other words, I see no value in human beings including myself and I would think it would be better off if we all just never existed in the first place since that is all we are anyway. We are all just biological material bound to rot and decay which no longer gives us human value (a superior value of dignity), but instead an inferior value that is nothing more than that of the type of value that mere transient materialistic things have that are bound to rot, decay, and break down such as a car, a bicycle, etc. It is our destiny and it is where we are all heading anyway. If all we are is biological beings here for a short while just to rot and decay away and we are not the eternal divine blissful beings that new age spiritual traditions make us out to be, then that, to me, takes away all human value and instead replaces it with the inferior value that mere transient materialistic things have.

I think I see what you mean here. Skepticism would be defined as the proper way of judging the merit of certain claims and it would, therefore, make no sense to say a person is a close minded skeptic because if they are close minded, then that goes against the very definition of being a skeptic.

You can have close minded skeptics who are emotionally attached to their worldview and you can have skeptics who have a truly open mind. That is the distinction I am making here.

I am open to the possibility that you do not need direct evidence of consciousness being independent of the brain such as literally discovering the non local field of consciousness through some sort of advanced technology that can detect it. Rather, perhaps all that is needed to constitute evidence for a mind being independent of brain would be through the types of research conducted by Dean Radin, Sam Parnia, Pim van Lommel, etc. In other words, perhaps you can have other phenomena that pinpoint towards consciousness surviving physical death and perhaps this can constitute as evidence. I hear many skeptics say that you need direct evidence of the paranormal and consciousness independent of brain in order for there to be actual evidence of these things and perhaps they are wrong.

But what if reality is not of a limited perception such as the one you promote which would be this whole idea that death is final? What if reality is instead completely open to a vast sea of possibilities since we do have highly intelligent scientists and researchers on this subject of life after death after all along with all of its variety of different views such as Buddhism, Christianity (which is claimed to be supported by historical evidence), etc. As of right now, I see a whole entire universe of possibilities and there is just no way for me to decide. I'm not even sure any amount of open minded research can lead me to any conclusion either since perhaps this reality is not limited and is instead open to so many possibilities.

Keep in mind that I am still completely open to alternatives to any of the posts being presented by the members here including these recent two posts made in response to me. Instead of jumping and sticking to conclusions, I think one might have to be in the mindset of a god (so to speak) where you are in the realm of all possibilities. I am in that mindset now since I realize that having a truly open mind and being open to all possibilities is the right mindset when coming to a conclusion. I could easily say to you and others that there could be information out there that you are not realizing and this lack of realization is what is resulting in you sticking to the conclusions that your posts here have indicated. Therefore, it doesn't matter what anyone says to me. The only way I can come to the right conclusion would be through extensively researching this topic until I come to a point where I am officially convinced one way or the other. Let's pretend that all the posts that the members have made here in my topic were presented to Dean Radin or Pim van Lommel, then I am quite sure they would not look at these posts and think to themselves that they were so wrong and stupid and that all their research was a waste of time. I am quite sure they would come up with debating arguments against your posts which is the very reason why I have to still remain open minded here and cannot come to any conclusion.

They have concluded that life after death is highly likely. Pim van Lommel made that conclusion as well as Dean Radin. There are many other top researchers out there who have concluded that life after death is highly likely. I just don't know if there is actual evidence for life after death, no evidence, or if this is all instead just a philosophical topic and nothing more where people debate back and forth all day long, but no conclusion can be reached as to whether there is evidence or not.

I think you have to understand where I am coming from. I am a beginner here and I am open to the possibility that the nde research conducted by Sam Parnia and Pim van Lommel as well as the research conducted by Dean Radin is, in fact, evidence and that one just has to dedicate their life to researching into these areas and would eventually arrive at the conclusion that these things are evidence of the paranormal and life after death after many years or even decades of research/debates on this topic. This would even include the model of the brain presented by Stuart Hameroff. His model could actually be evidence and that the only thing holding the skeptics back from realizing all of these things are evidence would be their limited knowledge based upon their own teachings and upbringing. However, I am open to the possibility that these things are not evidence at all as skeptics claim. Lastly, I am open to the possibility that we just don't know if any of these things are evidence or not.

I am also open to the possibility that you are right and death really is final. However, I would like to point out that upon doing some research into the nde research conducted by Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia, I do at least see a definite potential for the possibility of the soul living on after our physical death. Like I said though, I am undecided and cannot come to any conclusion right now since I am a very open minded person. But there are at least things that add up here such as the fact that the very subtle brain function during the flatline is not sufficient to explain ndes. Experiments have been performed to indicate that the ndes happened during this flatline period since people were able to accurately report the equipment used for their resuscitation. There was a control group who watched resuscitation television programs. These were people who did not have an nde. There was another group who did have ndes. These were people who did not watch resuscitation programs. As it turned out, the nde group reported things much more accurately than the control group. As for peer reviewed research, I know there is some done by Dean Radin. However, I have heard naturalistic scientists such as Sean Carroll state that he doesn't rely on peer review since things are being published in peer review all the time. Let's assume for a moment that it is a widely agreed upon consensus that we don't know what agreed upon decision could be made if all knowledge came into one. Based upon that, how can anyone conclude anything right now with their limited knowledge? If the skeptics who claim death is final wish to claim this as fact, then I think it would have to follow that they would also have to say that all collective knowledge should all agree upon death being final and that it would be irrational and biased to think otherwise.

Well, I am open to the possibility that you are wrong here in saying this and that you are only limiting your own personal view to your teachings and upbringing. This is because we do have researchers into the paranormal and ndes (near death experiences) such as Pim van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Dean Radin, etc. who would disagree with your statement here. These are top researchers here.

The subject of life after death is a very important subject to me and it is, therefore, vital to me that I come to the right conclusion as to whether there is life after death, the paranormal, etc. or not. This would come about through researching into everything I possibly can on this topic with a truly open mind. But I have many things on my mind that I would like to point out and discuss in regards to open minded skepticism. Imagine if there was the ultimate brain created by science right now. This brain does not have the logical fallacies, errors, irrationality, and biases that we as human beings have. This brain has an absolute open mind and comes to the right conclusions based on information being presented to it. Now, from there, imagine if this brain absorbed all information around the world and from all billions of websites/videos including the topic regarding life after death, There would be 3 possible conclusions that this brain could come to. One conclusion would be that no decision can be made as to whether there is life after death or not. It would be the case that this universe is open to a vast sea of information (different views) and is not limited to the views that skeptics or believers have. I would call it the realm of all possibilities because it would be where you are in this wide open vast sea of possibilities. It is where you can see virtually all possibilities open to you, but no conviction can be made one way or the other. Another possibility would be that this ultimate brain would conclude that death is very likely to be final which would mean that the skeptics would be right. Lastly, another possibility would be that the afterlife is very likely to exist which would make the believers such as Dean Radin right. In order for me to come to the right conclusion, then I cannot research and come to a conclusion like any normal human being. I have to instead research and come to a conclusion like that ultimate brain created by science from the future. But I think that can be very difficult to pull off because perhaps our brains just aren't wired for such a task. We are wired for survival and are, therefore, wired in irrational and biased ways. Even though feelings of conviction would arise through my research, I would choose to ignore and set aside these feelings because I would realize they are unreliable. However, these feelings might blind me from seeing the truth and this is one of the things I mean here when I say that we just might not be wired for such a task. Our brains just aren't perfect. They might be nowhere near perfect regardless of how open minded and intelligent you are. I will give an example here that might illustrate my point. It would be two prominent figures that I am going to point out here as an example. They would be Sean Carroll and Dean Radin. Sean Carroll, based upon his own teachings and upbringing, would conclude that Dean Radin is wrong based upon the amount of information he has read and looked into regarding Dean's research. But Dean, based upon his teachings and upbringing, would conclude that Sean is wrong. Sean has had a lot of training and education in physics and he would be basing his conclusion regarding Dean's research on a limited amount of information he has read regarding his research. But there would be so much more information to look into regarding his research that Sean would be unaware of. It could be information that would change his worldview eventually down the road if Sean dedicated his life into Dean's research. The same thing can be said of Dean. But what if both Dean and Sean knew everything that the other knew? Sean would be aware of all of Dean's expertise and research in addition to his own knowledge and Dean would be aware of all of Sean's knowledge in addition to his own. I think this might be a basis for agreement. That is, providing both Dean and Sean are closed minded towards their own worldview, but are willing to have an open mind once one becomes fully aware of the teachings and research of the other. The same thing can be said in regards to all those other religious believers out there who base their own beliefs upon their own teachings and upbringing. We can just toss out and forget the types of believers who are close minded here and attached to their worldview. I am instead talking about those types of believers who are willing to have a truly open mind. If these believers were to somehow have full awareness of all the teachings of others rather than sticking to their own conclusions based upon their own teachings and upbringings, then I think this might be, again, a basis for agreement providing that these individuals truly develop an open mind and are as flawless as can be in their judgments/thinking. I will apply this same concept to the skeptics here on this forum. You might think that Dean is unqualified and not a real scientist, but do you really think this simple little statement is enough to rebut all of the research he has done? What if there is much more than what you are realizing here? I am open to that possibility. I am also open to the possibility that the skeptics might be wrong in their judgment of Dean's status as a researcher because I think even this simple little statement can spark an entire debate that opens up many possibilities. Lastly, I will also apply my argument to a youtube video I've watched in the past which was a debate between Eben Alexander, Raymond Moody, Sean Carroll, and Steven Novella regarding if death was final or not. The audience was instructed to make their decision based upon this debate. But wouldn't coming to a conclusion based upon one single debate be close minded? That debate is like a tiny speck of dust compared to the vast sea of other information and research that is out there for one to look into and be open minded to. To instead come to a conclusion based upon that single debate might be close minded, in my opinion. There are so many hardcore and professional researchers on this topic of life after death that it makes me take it seriously and to not just dismiss any particular view based upon a few things I've read and looked into here and there. I think in order to truly come to the right conclusion, then you would have to dedicate your life as an open minded researcher on this subject. You cannot stop at any given point and jump to any given conclusion because there might be things you are unaware of out there that could change your worldview. You instead have to go the full 9 yards into researching this topic with a truly open mind. Only then would I think you can arrive at the right conclusion. These hardcore and professional researchers who believe in life after death could be 8 year olds who believe in Santa Claus in disguise, but I cannot come to that conclusion just yet since I am only a beginner when researching into this subject. Even if there is no evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife, there are still other areas of research into this topic to consider. One of these areas would be the model of the brain presented by Stuart Hameroff. What we have here is research that I cannot even begin to comprehend since it is all scientific mumbo jumbo to me and it would take a well-trained science professional to comprehend and, therefore, judge the merit of this information. I am curious as to why the skeptics think his model is wrong. You would have to be pretty smart to comprehend the research Stuart has done. Even if there is no other form of evidence for the afterlife/paranormal, that still does not dismiss his model as being evidence. This is because maybe perhaps the soul does not interact in this physical world and it only lives on after the brain dies according to Stuart's model. Stuart's model might be likely to be right or it might be likely to be wrong. But, again, how do you know for sure that it is wrong considering all the arguments I have presented here in this post to keep an open mind the whole 9 yards and that you must be a professional to comprehend and judge the merit of certain types of information? But I don't think there is any way for me to decide. This is because in order to even judge the merit of certain areas of research such as the model presented by Stuart Hameroff, then I myself would have to be an expert in the field of physics, neuroscience, etc. That is why I have to give up on this research because I do not wish to become a neuroscientist or a physicist. Furthermore, everything regarding this subject of life after death is all like a vast sea of information being presented to me right now. It is as if this universe is a vast sea of possibilities and that there is no way for me to be convinced one way or the other. It even makes Christianity and the doctrine of hell open as a possibility for me since there are also many highly intelligent researchers and apologetics on this subject as well. That is quite worrisome to me. Again, it does not matter what any of the skeptics say here in trying to rebut Christianity and the doctrine of hell. Based upon the arguments I have presented here, I am fully open to all possibilities and all possible arguments that are still out there in this area of research and cannot jump to a conclusion right now. I can only come to the right conclusion after extensive open minded research that goes the whole 9 yards and is a life dedication into this subject. Like I said before though, my undecided mindset could be right or it could be wrong. But I still have to remain undecided since there is no way for me to know. I have no expertise whatsoever, I am your average person, I don't know how anything works, I hardly know anything about life, I cannot comprehend debates or deeply intellectually involved research, my English format is basic, limited, and simplistic which makes it nearly impossible for me to comprehend the professional formats presented by intelligent authors, scientists, philosophers, and researchers, and it would take me perhaps decades of open minded research and training in order for me to finally arrive at the right conclusion regarding life after death. In other words, I have the right attitude and mindset when approaching this subject, but I do not have what it takes.

I apologize. I forgot about this topic here since it has been such a long time.

But that is only what you think though. If this evolutionary definition of good and bad is real, then your claim would be false.

I have paid very close attention to what the experience of my good feelings (moods) are for me and they truly are the experience of good value and worth in of themselves. It is no different than a situation where a person in physical pain can clearly indicate what the experience is for him/her such as that it was a stabbing, burning, or scratching pain. They would not be labels (descriptors and judgments) that he/she would be applying to his/her physical pain. Rather, this is what the experience of his/her physical pain is really like for him/her. Since the experience of my good feelings is clearly an experience of good value/worth in my life and since no other experience gives my life any good value/worth which makes all other experiences either dead, lifeless, and mechanical or horrible and miserable, then I have come to the conclusion that there is an evolutionary definition of good and bad that science has yet to discover and I am going to explain it below: Just because different people judge different things as good/bad, joyful, happy, beautiful, horrible, and pleasant/unpleasant doesn't mean that they are personally defined. For example, there are people out there who believe in life after death and there are people who believe death is final, but that does not mean that whether there is life after death or not is something personally defined. There is life after death or there isn't life after death regardless of your personal point of view. This would also apply to good/bad and pleasant/unpleasant. When a certain stimulus sends the feel-good signal to your brain and that induces a good feeling (a good mood), then that is the "good" signal to your brain. That is evolution's way of telling you that a certain stimulus is good and worth something to you. It can be good for a number of reasons. For example, if you felt good from playing a video game, it could be because of a certain character you admire or because you really love the level you are playing. Bad (unpleasant) feelings would be evolution's way of telling you that a certain situation or stimulus is bad and to avoid it or solve it. Therefore, this would be the evolutionary definition of good and bad. It is a whole new definition of good and bad that scientists have yet to discover. We have a thought version of good, bad, and worth which would be the personally defined version of good, bad, and worth where you personally define what you think is good and bad and what makes your life worth living. But this version of good, bad, and worth is fake. It does not give good or bad value to your life and it doesn't make your life worth living. It is instead the feeling version of good and bad that gives real good and bad value to your life. As long as you feel good, then that is the experience of good value in your life and that is the experience of a life worth living regardless of how you judge that feeling, what situational context that good feeling is in, what your attitude is, etc. There are different definitions of good, bad, and worth out there. However, none of them give your life real good or bad value or worth. The sole factor that determines the value and worth of your life is the evolutionary definition of good, bad, and worth. That is, how you feel. Remember, personally defining a good or bad feeling in your life without your good or bad moods does not make it so just as how a blind or deaf person thinking he or she can see or hear does not make it so either. Personal definitions should be ignored here. What actually determines whether you are having a good feeling or not is what it is you are actually experiencing. So, with all of this being said, if you felt bad from doing a certain act and you judged it to be good since it was changing your life for the better, then that would not bring your life any real good value since you did not feel good from that. Everything without our good feelings are nothing more than acts, tones, gestures, attitudes, etc. regardless of what the situation is and regardless of our personal judgments. In other words, if I was feeling good at the circus since I was having fun riding rides and my mother was in danger, then I would think to myself that it would be a bad thing to just leave her in danger and I would go save her life. However, that would not actually bring my life any bad value since I was feeling good. Rather, it would just simply be a situation where I realize that my mother is in danger and that I wish to save her. Our good feelings are the only experience of real value, real worth, real joy, real happiness, real love, real beauty, real inspiration, etc. They are all there is to life and to the human experience.

I have an important question for you and for anyone else out there as well. There is the difference between a thought and an experience. I gave an example of this before. If you think you can see or hear when you are blind or deaf, then you wouldn't have real sight or hearing because you don't have the actual experience of sight or hearing. Therefore, this would also apply to joy, love, inspiration, beauty, value, and worth in our lives. During your moments of misery and despair (hopelessness) including anhedonia, I bet you thought to yourself that your life still has meaning, value, joy, beauty, inspiration, and worth even in the midst of those horrible moments in your life. But the question is, what was the experience of this for you? If the experience of this value, joy, beauty, etc. was a dead, lifeless, mechanical experience, then it is quite obvious that it would not be any real value, joy, beauty, worth, etc. But if the experience was a life-filled and fruitful experience for you, then that is what makes it real value, joy, beauty, etc. Anything that is dead just isn't going to work. If you have dead batteries, then that will not make a certain item work. Therefore, it's no wonder why any other form of value, joy, beauty, worth, etc. besides my good feelings just doesn't work for me. It's like a dead battery. It is only my good feelings that are like working batteries. They are life-filled experiences that are very powerful and profound in my life. I have thought to myself during my moments of depression and misery that my family still has value, my life still has value, joy, beauty, etc. and that a recovery from these horrible moments in my life had value to me as well, but the experience of this value, joy, beauty, etc. was all dead, lifeless, and mechanical regardless of what I did with my life whether it would be going out in nature, engaging with my family, etc. It has always been like this for me whenever I had a moment of depression, misery, or anhedonia in my life. Based on my own personal experience, I am convinced that any other form of value, joy, beauty, etc. besides our good feelings is not real value, joy, beauty, etc. It is all a dead, lifeless, mechanical experience for everybody regardless of who they are. Unless, I am somehow mistaken and there is somehow a way to make this an actual life-filled experience in my life during any moments of depression, misery, or anhedonia in my life. But I highly doubt this because it has never happened even once in my whole entire 8 year struggle of depression and misery. Lastly, even if it was a dead, lifeless, mechanical experience for you and others, you could still personally define that experience as a life-filled experience anyway and claim that it was real joy, value, beauty, etc. in your life. But, again, there is a difference between our personal definitions (thoughts) and our experiences. You may have thought that this was a life-filled experience for you, but I am asking you here again if this really was a life-filled experience for you. If it really was a dead, lifeless, mechanical experience for you all along, then you were brainwashed by society this whole entire time into thinking that one can have an alternate form of value, joy, beauty, etc. in his/her life besides his/her good feelings. But if it was a life-filled experience for you, then that says here that it is possible to have a real alternate form of value, joy, beauty, etc. Our experiences define our entire realities. Therefore, it is our experiences that are important here and not just our thoughts.

I will point out one of Daniel Dennett's quotes: "We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious." I think we do have consciousness and consciousness is real. I think all the physical processes in the brain take on two different forms. One form would be when you are looking at the brain through a scan. You will see neurons, synapses, etc. But for the individual with that brain, all those physical processes will take on the form of consciousness for this person. Therefore, the brain and consciousness would be the same thing. Since the brain exists, then consciousness exists. Consciousness would simply be a different form the brain takes on. I think you can have a certain thing in this universe with two different ways of looking at it, but it would still be the same thing. Just because there is a different way of looking at that said thing does not mean that this other way of looking at it does not exist. Therefore, with this being said, I do not understand Daniel Dennett's quote. What does he mean by his quote?

Actually, forget my whole "theory." Since I couldn't find an article at the time, then I had to resort to my own personal explanation of things which didn't work out at all. Therefore, here is what I truly wish to talk about here: I have heard Graziano say that awareness doesn't exist and that it is a simplified model of attention in the brain fooling you into thinking you are aware and are having actual experiences. But my question is, do awareness and actual experience exist by his very definition? In other words, isn't this simplified model of attention the actual awareness and experience itself? If that is so, then I think scientific materialism is still a valid worldview. If not and he is truly saying that experience and awareness are illusions and the brain fooling itself, then I am not so sure. If he is saying that awareness and experience do not exist at all, then that doesn't make sense to me. When you perceive an optical illusion, that illusory perception is still information in the brain. If we were to take a look inside your brain, then we should find information of a perceived image that wasn't there in the physical world. This should also apply to awareness and experience itself. In other words, awareness and experience should also be information in the brain. It should be that simplified model in the brain. To say that awareness and experience do not exist at all just doesn't make sense to me. He says that awareness and experience are mere concepts. But even concepts are information inside the brain. Therefore, awareness/experience and information in the brain are actually the same thing according to his theory. The brain just has a different way of looking at that information then. This different way of looking at it is what would yield awareness/experience. It is no different than a situation where you have a clock. Looking at it from the front side, it goes clockwise. But looking at it from the back side, it goes counter clockwise. But the question is, does it go clockwise or counter clockwise? The answer here would be both. To see it going counter clockwise is just simply a different way of looking at the clock. This analogue would also apply to the physical stuff (neurons) in the brain and awareness/experience. You can look at the brain as being nothing more than information. That is, nothing more than physical stuff. But a person would report to you how this information was awareness/experience for him/her. So the question is, is the brain nothing more than just information? Is the information nothing more than just physical stuff? Or is all that physical stuff (information) actual awareness and experience? The answer here would be both as well. To have awareness and experience is just simply a different way of looking at that information in the brain. Also, my whole analogue with the clock makes me think whether this was nothing more than an analogue, or if there is actually some scientific connection here. I wonder if there is some actual science here that connects my analogue with awareness and experience. Maybe perhaps a new theory of consciousness can come from this. Or maybe it is nothing more than just an analogue. I lack the scientific knowledge to determine which is the case. But maybe someone who has a lot of scientific knowledge can make this determination. Here is the video in which he explains: I have also watched this video as well: My question here is, if our experiences are nothing more than just some simplified inaccurate model that our brains construct, then why is it that experience is so powerful and profound to us? Why is it that we would prefer to have experiences of joy, meaning, and value in our lives over being a biological non-sentient machine? This, to me, implies that experience is something more than a mere simplified model. It must of had a greater reason for having come about through evolution. My next question is, why isn't this simplified model in the brain just simply simplified information in the brain and nothing more? Why is it experience at all? Aren't we still at the hard problem here then? He attempts to explain how our brains construct our sense of experience, but doesn't this still need to be taken further into trying to explain how simplified models in the brain become experiences for us? Even if you take the idea that it is just information of having an experience, then why isn't that still just information? There needs to be an actual transfer from brain processes over to experience and I am still not seeing that even in Graziano's theory. Thirdly, why wouldn't a full accurate model also have awareness? Why is it that only the simplified model has awareness? If you can't get awareness from a full accurate model, then what makes you think that you can get awareness from a simplified inaccurate model? I would imagine that a full model of paying attention to something would bring full awareness.