Bernard Carr - Physics of Consciousness

How to explain our inner awareness that is at once most common and most mysterious? Traditional explanations focus at the level of neuron and neuronal circuits in the brain. But little real progress has motivated some to look much deeper, into the laws of physics - information theory, quantum mechanics, even postulating new laws of physics.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the physics of consciousness: bit.ly/40Sl0fN
Bernard J. Carr is a Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London. His research interests include the early universe, dark matter, general relativity, primordial black holes, and the anthropic principle.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@ififif31]

Solving the hard problem of conciousness is the Holy Grail of philosophy and science.

[@GungaLaGunga]

Really? I thought Monty Python had worked it all out. kidding. cheers.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

Totally agree. Bob Laughlin thinks it may be millenia before we fully unlock consciousness, so for now all we can really do is philosophize

[@ififif31]

@@SamoaVsEverybody814 I think there's a higher probability that a philosopher will solve it over a scientist. And after a philosopher solves it, it will be considered "science".

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@SamoaVsEverybody814 apparently you're unaware that the neural correlates for concentration are known. a normal person is measured to sustain 2 seconds max whereas a trained person can sustain perfect single-pointed concentration on awareness for hours without the interruption of sensory data. if all you know is what your culture indoctrinates into you, you'll have no clue such a telescope of the mind is even possible. noone has time for clueless philosophy when such refined empiricism is now appearing in the west 100yrs after willian James said an education that could develop concentration would be excellence bar none, however stating he knew of no method by which it could be possible to train and develop it.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

@@backwardthoughts1022 That has no potential toward the full unlocking of Consciousness. We also need to know the contigent properties it derives from if Consciousness is Emergent, or if it is fundamental, if so do we conclude that because we've reduced it fully, or because we've reduced it to the point we ourselves can no longer reduce it. We need to know if Consciousness is of the brain, how & why, if it is Universal how & why, if it exceeds our Universe or is it unique to it, is it "God", does every thing of matter have a Consciousness through which the Cosmic Consciousness flows through, are platonic values real, even if Immaterial, or are they actually material as well as real, can the real & immaterial be the same thing, what is the Subconsciousness, is backwards causation reality within the Consciousness, can ESP, telepathy etc etc exist, were the Ancient Hindus right along, can Consciousness survive the brain, etc etc etc etc... Explain how your Concentration Theory explains all that

[@LeeCarlson]

Scientists are always saying that correlation does not imply causation unless all that they have to work with is the correlation of phenomena that they want to see as causation.

[@RolandHuettmann]

Aldous Huxley in "Doors of Perception" described that our brain seems to be a filter, and that a less filtering brain allows such experiences of a conscious universe infinitely bigger than our "material" world. Such experiences are far more real than the experience of our very limited waking state of consciousness which is a dream in comparison. But dreamers tend to stick to dreaming which gives comfort in not changing out of fear to lose the familiar ground.

[@dare-er7sw]

It means the dream isn't real. Both Advaita Vedanta (I AM THAT of Nisargadatta) and A Course in Miracles point to our consciousness as an epiphinomenon of a primordial awareness. It is eternally existing, an abstract realm of pure oneness and love.

[@waldwassermann]

@@dare-er7sw Agreed with all you say. However. There is only the Real so as such it could also be said that the dream is Real for it is contained within the Real.

[@dare-er7sw]

@@waldwassermann Real from the relative point of view only. The Absolute is unaffected by all of this.

[@dare-er7sw]

@@waldwassermann Yes, however unbelievable/impossible it sounds, life may not be physical. If this primordial awareness exists as the ground of being of everything, so be it. Nothing we can do will change this fact and this includes the opinion of so called scientists. We are all dream figures. What comes and goes isn't real. Think about it. From my first-person experience I am of the opinion that consciousness is non-physical in nature. I was a psychic medium and gave free readings to hundreds of people. It's a long story but the phenomena is real. I still get my psychic powers back if I consume 4 to 5mg of Alprazolam or Xanax daily for a few days. I avoid it now but I tested my theory a few weeks back by consuming 5mg of Xanax a day for a few days and I was able to give readings to people, even strangers, addressed their health issues or any other challenges they are facing in their lives, it's like my mind is diving in the universal field of knowledge or consciousness. Xanax slows down the brain by binding to GABA receptors and this may free the mind to expand beyond the brain. This is my theory. I've also captured some audio and video evidence like electronic voice phenomena and flying orbs of light. I found my answers in nondualistic wisdom teachings like those of Advaita Vedanta and A Cource in Miracles. Have you by any chance read I AM THAT of Nisargadatta Maharaj? He nails it. He says that consciousness is a hallucination and a fraud and arose spontaneously on the primordial awareness There are no observers there as this primordial awareness is one solid homogeneous whole and our eternal reality. It gives rise to consciousness or perception and the experience of a separate conscious self begins but in reality there are no individuals, we are not in the body, the body exists in us or awareness. A Course in Miracles describes this perceived seperation of ours from our pristine primordial state as a tiny mad idea. Why would pure consciousness/Godhead/Reality be in a body? In fact there are no bodies nor a world out there. It's all an imagination of the seperate self. While all comes and goes, we remain. We are the changeless background against which all change is perceived, isn't it? Even the arrow of time is witnessed by consciousness. I'm an individual with a deep love for science and my quest to understand reality led me to the above knowledge. It certainly makes sense. Why anything exists at all? In Advaita, it's the nature of being or sat, to exist. Even a chair borrows it reality from this eternal ground of existence. It's reflected in us as the 'I' sense. Consciousness is fundamental and the primordial awareness even precedes consciousness. Nisargadatta made some important distinctions between consciousness and awareness.

[@rckflmg94]

it's amazing powerful drugs (molecules) will do one's mental state. Lol

[@TheTroofSayer]

I agree with Bernard Carr's take that consciousness has to be fundamental. In particular, these comments struck a chord with me: 2:53 - "... consciousness is not actually generated by the brain, but merely perceives the world through the brain." 7:06 - "... the final picture of the world has in some sense got to marry both matter and mind, so in some sense they come together." Robert raises the question of emergence at 2:25. My problem with consciousness as a solely emergent phenomenon (the physicalist interpretation) is that it implies "emerging" from the bottom-up. But there exists also an all-important top-down direction of causation, in conjunction with the bottom-up, suggesting that consciousness is more fundamental than that (as Carr would seem to agree). This top-down is self-evident (to those familiar with semiotic principles) in how culture impacts on human behavior. The top-down relates also to how bodies wire neuroplastic brains - more specifically, how experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic brains. And when we factor in cube-root scaling to subatomic levels, we set the stage for top-down causation on matter, where atoms/molecules at atomic/subatomic level take the cues for their behavior (their expressed physical/chemical properties) from the contexts in which they find themselves. I wonder if this interpretation might be along the lines of what Carr has in mind, in his picture of the world that marries both matter & mind, bringing them both together in a fundamental way (NOT in a panpsychist way - I agree with his take on panpsychism).

[@consciousnessbasedcosmos]

For thousands of years, humans have been studying consciousness not by reductionist approach but by trying to experience consciousness in its purest form by looking within. Consciousness is by its nature a first person subjective experience. There is simply no way to get around this fundamental fact. Which human being has ever experienced another person's subjective experience? Not to mention a complex being like a human, no one has ever accessed the subjective experience of the humble fly.

[@abduazirhi2678]

Consciousness is fundamental : a powerful statement !

[@anteodedi8937]

That statement is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a different sort of ways.

[@longcastle4863]

_"Consciousness is fundamental"_ is an idea that seems mostly born out of wishful thinking

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@longcastle4863 wishful thinking is praying to physical subjectivity despite zero explanation. you're simply stuck in group think of 400yrs of external empirical testing and observation. thats why even every 10yo says the mind is produced by the brain, you're purely culturally conditioned

[@longcastle4863]

@@backwardthoughts1022 Except that what you say I'm culturally conditioned about provides life enhancing advancements in technology and medicine and is evident everywhere in our modern age. Meanwhile what has what you believe done to benefit human kind?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@longcastle4863 currently you're doing science, maths, politics, ethics, etc, without even a mumbling conception of even perfect single-pointed concentration. theres nothing wrong with refining external observation. the problem is humans doing that without having even a slight clue about anything else. put it this way one person reaching perfect concentration and the effects of what such a person can do makes all modern science a child's attempt to investigate reality

[@TheTroofSayer]

I watched Sabine Hossenfelder's recent video four days ago, titled *What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics?* I was surprised at the scale of what's going wrong. She discusses the number of particles that were predicted but never found... for example, in her discussion about supersymmetry. Mind-boggling stuff. It seems to me that theoretical-physicists are grounded in physicalist assumptions, and trying to force-fit their observations into a reductionist-linear narrative. Particles are "constructed" from sub-particles, goes their line of thinking, and so they look for these "component" parts much like a mechanic trying to assemble an engine. The thing is, many of these "parts" don't exist as entities in their own right, and *that's* why physicists are having trouble finding them. Cube-root scaling. I've mentioned it before. The topic is relevant to Geoffrey West's 2017 book Scale. The smaller an object, the less constrained it is by classical (Newtonian) physics - it's why insects with long legs are, nonetheless, still able to lift many times their weight. Unconstrained by classical physics, atoms and molecules become subject to very different contexts and constraints that we are yet to properly understand. This is key. There is something very different playing out at the subatomic levels, something that cannot be properly understood in the car-mechanic context of "if I bolt these pieces to these pieces then I get a carburettor." Subatomic particles are not the solid billiard-balls that we typically like to imagine them as, even as they pop into and out of existence as solid billiard-balls. If tiny creatures like dust mites look like monsters from alien worlds, imagine how "monstrous" the tiniest atom-sized "critters" must look. Subatomic particles are nothing like what's being attempted in constructing atoms from. There's something else going on at these subatomic levels, and physicists are unlikely to ever find many of the particles that they've predicted, for that reason. And, by inference, grounded in these broken assumptions, we are unlikely to establish the relationship between physics and life. A very different approach is required, and Geoffrey West's Scale (2017) opens a portal in the right direction.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

nah the real top tier theoretical physicists have already found static objects beyond spacetime and are thus now claiming that spacetime is not fundamental, but rather an emergent property from something purer and subtler eg. see amplituhedron. the implications are serious and are already reducing scattering calculations in the hadron collided from taking 100s of pages of calculations to calculate to just a handful of clean equations following the amplituhedron discovery

[@eltoneagle8136]

Great content 👌 The scientific point of view is totally correct

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Yeah our language & maths are paradoxical approximations. Good tools but but just because a materialist dream of asigning a a symbol to a (soulton ) or a graviton,or a dark materton bit doesn't make it physical . Its just idealism if you cant ever measure and observe it directly inside and out. No different than the love for your kids that can cause secondary effects on the environment that we can build lines of evidence for but never can directly observe it .

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

The Bible is true.

[@garychartrand7378]

@@Kenneth-ts7bp you really believe everything that you read? Are you not aware that the writings have been altered and modified and even outright lied about in the Scriptures of ALL religions. They ALL did this to put the Fear of God into their followers in order to control them. They ALL say basically the same thing " Give us your money and then let us go and eliminate those who don't 'believe' as we do". Even Jesus said "Woe unto ye Pharisees. You are supposed to lead the people to God". They didn't then and they don't NOW. However, it is observable that God has made sure that important points have been protected. It's religion (with it's lying middlemen) that is largely responsible for the crap on the planet. I KNOW of what I speak. I have had a very close personal relationship with God for 15 years now and in all that time He/She/It has NEVER given me cause to Fear Him. The God that I know intimately has shown me NOTHING BUT UNCONDITIONAL Love and Humor. In January 2008 God gave me a job description says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to show Love to ALL men". Ironically, l don't have to like you but it is necessary that I Love you. I strongly suggest that anyone develop a close personal relationship with God - without the lying middlemen. That way you can get the Truth straight from the horse's mouth. Here's one of the protected points in the bible - If you wish to know God, then seek Him with ALL your heart, mind, soul, and strength. God makes Himself available to ALL of His children. Even without such a relationship, God communicates with ALL of His children ALL of the time - but who listens? You can discern if messages (like this one) are from Gt or from another source by using the criteria of the Highest, the Clearest, and the Grandest. The Highest always contains Joy, the Clearest always contains Truth and the Grandest always contains love. God's communication must include these three - anything less is from another source. Bless you

[@justasimpleguy7211]

@@dadsonworldwide3238 As Kant posited the phenomena (the thing as it appears - extrinsic existence) and the noumena (the thing in itself - intrinsic existence).

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

very interesting.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I know consciousness is infinite owing to the fact I've had 2 Out of Body Experiences and various lucid dream states whereby my reality / awareness was considerably more real than my current reality in which I am writing this paragraph. I was able to extend my awareness beyond my physical body and was able to travel to different locations. I also met with my "deceased" grandmother and uncles. It was no illusion.

[@Soapandwater6]

Was yours a near death experience?

[@martifingers]

Hi Dion. How do you differentiate "illusion" from truth?

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@martifingers hard to describe really. i'd say you would have to experience it to understand. it's an absolute knowing that your awareness was not in your physical body. in one experience i was able to travel to a large field beside a main road. it was a field i knew well because i used to walk past it on my way home from college. i found myself above the field at night time, and then just by thought, I was able to move around and go down and chase the animals, who saw me , and in shock they ran away. when i was above that field it felt like the real world, if not more real. I was there. It wasn't a dream. Completely different experience to a dream. Meanwhile, as I was flying around that field and exploring, I was also aware of my bedroom and physical body at the same time. So it was as though my consciousness was split. This was not a near death experience, this was a sort of meditative state whereby i was relaxed and able to transcend my awareness. i would never have believed such a thing was possible until it happened to me. I've always been rather skeptical. Again, you need to experience it yourself to realise consciousness is "non-local". hope that explains ? I was able to verify things in that field which I had no idea about prior as I had never been inside the field, only on the edge.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@Soapandwater6 i was not in a NDE. it was an OBE during a relaxed state :)

[@FreddyFuFu]

Read Cecil Adams column on that.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could causation be described in terms of quantum mechanics as well as space and time? a quantum description of causation may then be used to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity space-time for things like gravity?

[@iscottke]

Very cool 😊

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038]

Wow, so enlightening. Doink...

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irriducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

[@theotormon]

Very on point when he says that the mystery of consciousness is that it is unitary. This really is the core of it. But I am not sure it is a separate question from how the universe itself is unitary.

[@stegemme]

[@theotormon]

🏄

[@waldwassermann]

Correct... the solution perceives problems whereas there is only the solution.

[@justasimpleguy7211]

@@waldwassermann It is said on one side of Enlightenment there are questions and no answers and on the other side there's an answer and no questions.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Quaternions are a type of mathematical object that extend the idea of complex numbers to four dimensions. They are often used in computer graphics and other applications where rotations in three-dimensional space are important. Some scientists and philosophers have proposed that quaternions might provide a mathematical framework for understanding aspects of consciousness that go beyond what can be explained by classical physics. One such theory is called the Orch-OR theory, which proposes that consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in microtubules inside neurons. This theory suggests that the vibrations can be modeled mathematically using 4D quaternions, which may provide a way to understand how the brain generates conscious experience.

[@paulhaube]

How about consciousness is the sensory and cognitive awareness of one’s existence in and interaction with the Universe?

[@jordan_8329]

That does not address how conciousness is possible or where it arises from

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

since causation can be described in terms of space and time, might causation then bring together matter in space and mind in time?

[@garychartrand7378]

It's only matter that requires 'time'. The mind is timeless.

[@guaromiami]

It's interesting how most of the people who propose that consciousness is fundamental always cite as their evidence examples from when the brain is impaired or otherwise not functioning as it normally does. Wouldn't a consciousness that's a fundamental aspect of reality manifest itself most clearly when the brain is functioning normally?

[@booJay]

Not if, as Carr claims, the brain functions to limit your experience.

[@eksffa]

NTS 9 good introduction to the problem

[@johnrobinson4445]

Consciousness precedes, it does not follow. Indeed, the physical brain is a lens, it focuses but it does not create the illumination. And 'focusing' is simply a sub-category of limiting.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what things have unity for consciousness? does causation have a unity? any other things?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

how might physical brain and nature be reduced to consciousness?

[@billgreer2617]

The fundamental issue behind this debate (and so many similar ones) is this: Humans can be considered as being in two distinctly different categories - 1) Some people are open to the POSSIBILITY that reality may include that which is not detectable via our normal senses (nor via ingenious methods devised by science). - 2) Some people are NOT open to such an idea. The former are willing to believe some things that are alleged to be beyond the purview of science. The latter are not so disposed and never will be. Utterly regardless of the quality or quantity of evidence or reasoned argument that may be offered in support of either side, the opposing side will never, EVER accede to it. So it has always been, and so it will always be.

[@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913]

When people talk about mind and matter as two different substances, they forget that both of these concepts refer to different kinds of experience. Mind usually refers to less substantial, less stable kinds of experience, while matter usually refers to more substantial, more stable kinds of experience. Ultimately, however, they are both just that, experience.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

yes everyone knows experience is a property of mass-energy, its when a particle spins left

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what things could be in both brain and mind, connecting the two? causation, what else?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

a natal source from which the 2 emerge and are thus akin to an alloy at our level of physical structure there are a few big names with this sort of position

[@tmariepi1472]

Very interesting. He said, "Brain's role is ... to limit your experience." I'm curious, why are we unable to see the wave function of particles? Every time we look, it collapses.

[@garychartrand7378]

To get the answer to your question it would be necessary to ask the Maker of the system. As for the brain's role - it is not to "limit" anything. It is inherent in ANY system to have limits (at least in physicality). A computer has it's limits. If you wish larger limits - you create a larger computer.

[@planetandpeoplefirst]

If conciousness is fundemental then our brain is a receptor (with fairly limited sensing capabilties) and computational matter resulting in individual perceptions. Perceptions that, one might argue, might be fit for purpose for the diverse species. Humans have no acccess to signals that other life can sense and act upon. I'm quite intrigued by this perspective since it renders duality obsolete.

[@courrierdebois]

Consciousness is the reality of thought within a centerless field of awareness.

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

i like "centerless" a lot

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Center is a physics concept. Being conscious is obviously an abstract phenomenon, not physical. Abstract entities have no physical attributes like location, dimension, size, mass, colour, velocity, etc. Hence being abstract means that being conscious has no center (except perhaps in a purely metaphorical or poetic sense). Being conscious is somewhat like a mirror. Obviously a mirror is a physical object but the patterns it reflects are not. Yes, the reflected light is physical but not the *patterns* of the light. Pattern is an abstract notion. So is process. That being conscious is a process should strike one as self evident. That a conscious being is abstract is thereby explained in rough. But importantly, neither pattern or process can exist free of a material substrate. What better candidate for substrate could there be than brain?

[@courrierdebois]

​@@REDPUMPERNICKEL The illusory experiencer is the center created by thought which is consciousness.

[@rckflmg94]

@@courrierdebois nonsense but sure haha

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@courrierdebois "The illusory experiencer is the center created by thought" sounds approximately right. "which is consciousness", on the other hand, does not. The illusory experiencer is what we call the "self". The self is simply a very complex thought. The self thought is unique in being the only thought that is about its self. All other thoughts are obviously about something else. The process in which other thoughts modulate the self thought is best conceived of as the 'being-conscious-process'. Thus there is no such *thing* as consciousness unless that word is used to refer to the being-conscious-process. There are of course some complexities involved that I have not mentioned.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

causation could be consciousness from mind on cosmic scale?

[@garychartrand7378]

Good theory!

[@sohraballahyari7595]

Once we should assume consciousness at micro level could create a superposition phenomena,and also the function of neurons as biochemical cells changing state shall we say 0/1 in digital sense,and if we should assume a projectile of superposition at quantum and micro level changes of datas and informations or an event or an experiment,could be reflected /projected on the plane of neurons ,ie re-writing, or changing the state of their polarities,which could also well explain their chemical action ie high or low,(zero,and one)or one of the many ,states of conditions depending on the levels of the frequencies which apparently can include five levels of frequencies detectible and process able by the human brain, and hence the experience under assessment, which also can determine which neuron /sets of neurons could be activated /influenced/changed state ,and also to combine the whole scenario with the hypothetical actions of microtubinal symetrical actions,creating sets of waveform patterns being somehow resonating to create more magnified or even muscles in action ,then may be one can conclude the entire package could contribuate to a proceedure of intake of shall we say as its simplest form an example of a soundwave input as recieved by ears nerves system,then converted to electrical/electrochemical signals process able by the brain functions of frequency detection and analysing ,which after the relevant comparison operations with basic memory recorded databases correlated with the subject in terms of different kinds of properties in comparison and may be measurements etc, are performed then in turn hypotheticaly another frequency re-generation proceedure corresponding to the final results as derived after the complition of the proceedures can project the final derived results on an hypothetical plane of neurons ,where all new updated informations could be re-written,and then again most certainly there should exist another signals transmitting mechanism system acting in the reverse direction ,conveying the final driven conclusions from the processing proceedure to the knowledge based parts of the ear nerves system, detectible by our consciouss part of the brain recieving the final output. Having said all the above may be a simple basic form of brain mechanism acting as a frequency detector,analyser,processor , re-generator,by putting together the possible interactions taking place in between the recieving input datas ,processing and performing relevant comparison actions in within the brain memory cells,and relaying back the output result to the consciouss part ,and also recorded and re-written ,or replaced in within memory cells as well/under the assumption of brain functioning with datas in the forms of frequencies,as its basic main processing factor,could have been prophesised here,right?

[@sohraballahyari2396]

Interestingly

[@avgroupltd3481]

Consciousness is simple, it is part of the second law of thermodynamics wherein our role in nature is to increase entropy in the universe. We take in high energy, such as photons (food through plants), and generate low entropy (trash, feces, etc.). We think it's more complicated than that but really all goes back to the displacement of energy, and we accelerate this through our activities, energy consumption, creation of nuclear devices, mass-scale use of food systems, and massive growth of our species.....evidence is everywhere.

[@lipan315]

I agree with Bernard and Giolio

[@jeffrey3498]

Consciousness is the universe; the universe is consciousness.

[@koho]

Physicist here. Been reading a lot about this for quite a while (some Pinker, Dennett, Sopolsky etc. also). I don't see it as a hard problem. A computational model of the brain, with "consciousness" being a bulletin board managed by the frontal lobes that coordinates and accesses sensory inout (post lower level processing), short and long term memory, and logic functions, is quite compatible with "awareness." There is nothing magical about a system like this being able to monitor itself. And it's consistent with current knowledge of how the brain actually functions. IMO, that's all it is folks. No unusual physical explanations, quantum mechanics, souls, or other magic soup, are needed.

[@rl7012]

You need to assume a brain to begin with. Also you don't address how any of the information to make a living thing, especially make a brain, came to exist to begin with. Consciousness does not come out of anything material, the consciousness has to be the primary. Life begets life and consciousness begets consciousness. There has to be a primary consciousness that exists whether the physical world exists or not.

[@koho]

@@rl7012 That is a different question entirely. But pretty well understood.

[@rl7012]

@@koho I don't see how you came to this conclusion: 'No unusual physical explanations, quantum mechanics, souls, or other magic soup, are needed.' Why is a primary immaterial consciousness not needed?

[@koho]

@@rl7012 Well, that's in my comment. If you really want to pursue this, I recommend Pinker's How the Mind Works as a great and entertaining intro to the computational picture of the mind, with a lot of interesting material about how evolution produced it. In this picture, there is no "primary consciousness," what we call consciousness is a property that emerges the actual functions of the brain.

[@JohnSmith-ck3cq]

"Imagination, inspiration and creativity are all things that go far beyond simply information storage and memory recall functions. There are those who conjure that it may not be in the brain where it's happening anyway. That it may be a hyperdimential transfer of some sort between dimensions beyond our own consciousness." Dr. Chuck Missler

[@lrvogt1257]

Interesting but pure unscientific speculation since there is zero data for any of it.

[@rhwinner]

Consciousness can be explained by the fact that I haven't got any. I am beyond physics.

[@garychartrand7378]

I would love to talk to the people who gave you likes. Can I get the number of your drug dealer? I want to be sure never to call him/her - has bad drugs . You could not know ANYTHING without consciousness. You are subject to physics (your physical body). You are also subject to metaphysics (your soul). God's recipe for creating a human-being is 1 part body(Ego/Fear and temporary)) and 1 part spirit (Soul/Love and eternal). Of this you have no choice BUT you do have Free Will of which of these you give most importance to. 3 likes - WOW!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

to have a phenomenal consciousness of nature would require an external consciousness to transmit?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

physical brain funnels conscious perceptions and awareness into cognition?

[@courrierdebois]

If you build a fence in an infinite space, the borders create a center.

[@garychartrand7378]

I think they call the center GOD

[@chrisgascoigne6199]

The concept that consciousness is fundamental is bolstered by the similarities of human descriptions of being conscious over the eons; each description is indistinguishable regardless of who, where, when and it is also unrelated to intelligence levels. This is such an unlikely phenomenon that it suggests individual brains tune into consciousness, as it were, rather than generate it - in the same way that any radio tuned to the same station would play the same songs. A corollary of this would have to be panpsychism as, with everything being made of atoms, we cannot expect certain structures to be imbibed with consciousness and others not; because at some stage this would require a ’switch’ or a special particle or ingredient. A plate of food in front of you cannot be dead and unconscious before you eat it then alive and conscious once inside you merely because it's atoms have been rearranged.

[@renko9067]

The universe is one thing. Ideas of separation are an illusion. The universe is in constant flux, with aspects gaining complexity. Pockets of complexity allow consciousness/awareness to varying degrees. These are fleeting, like bubbles on a stream.

[@openreviews1209]

That is my subject. I agree with him

[@MegaDonaldification]

Consciousness starts with the physical then it spreads during mental processing like yeast to a dough maker looking make dough for bread - bread being the final result. An idea is big, the processing of the idea is bigger, and the final result is the biggest.

[@rl7012]

How does consciousness come out of the physical?

[@garychartrand7378]

You are way off the mark. Consciousness ( and Awareness ) come from God - the great "I AM". As God's Spirit Children We have the same attributes that allow us to also declare " I am ".

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Just because we agree on a symbol to assign something like a graviton, dark matteron, or a soulton with no observation inside and out with a direct measurement inside and out it is just idealism that materialist mystically dream up..

[@afaegfsgsdef]

I'm confused why he thinks it is an extra step for the brain to generate consciousness, but not an extra step for consciousness to be produced elsewhere...

[@nrm55]

Consciousness arises out of the complex interactions of the brain and the rest of the organs of the body. It's the master organ that receives, interprets, coordinates, filters, etc. There is no reason to think that there would be full consciousness without all of the organs functioning properly.

[@stephenzhao5809]

4:41 well I suppose the only way I can see this is by as having a picture in which in some sense consciousness is primary that consciousness is a fundamental elements of the universe it isn't in other words not just generated as a result at the end of physical processes in some sense it's there from the beginning (e.g. math) it's a primary a fundamental component rather than a secondary component so this is a view that some people have and it branches into different kinds some people would say that consciousness is the totality of reality and the physical reality is a manifestation of the consciousness others would say that consciousness is a one of the fundamental features of reality irreducible along with the physical things and that sort of produces this kind of world one might be you know some kind of cosmic consciousness or some type of a theological consciousness in a God and the other is more of a pan psychist where every physical thing has imbued some element of consciousness as well uh is that kind of the spectruem of possible? 5:43 the point is there are a huge spectrum of possibilities and I 6:30 Bob: in your view, what then can a consciousness has to be fundamental is it fundamental as the only primary thing or one of the primary things. BC: well I mean obviously I don't claim to know because there's been a huge philosophical debate over this issure hundreds of years I mean I would at least say it was on a par you know whether one regards consciousness as primary matter of second real mattress primary and consciousness a secondary I mean that's you could debate that for a long time but all I'm saying is that I would like I would actually see them on a part because I feel that the final picture of the world has in some sense got to marry both matter and mind so in some sense they come together and so the question of which is primary I'm not sure it actually makes sense even because I prefer a picture in which matter and mind in some sense coexist right from the beginning (It is like what you've expected through ν = δ/τ, speed limits, matter will become mind - actually not mind, the word soul is better, because mind is a derivative of soul, a derivative of spirit, which is one, God Stuff) but 7:27 when I use the word mind there you have to be a littlbe bit careful I'm using mind with a capital N rather than the mind with the little n which is generated by my brain (ultimately brain is generated or rooted on soul, so we should say: the little n which is presented by my brain) clearly the mind with a little n .... nothing.

[@jedics1]

Isn't it typical of general society that its "un popular" that consciousness is not generated by the brain and rather a receiver of it. I think it would be beautiful and highly symbolic, to find out that the phrase "consciousness is the universe experiencing itself" is more than just a platitude. It would also make religion make a lot more sense and peoples belief in an afterlife and so on. When you die your bodies receiver stops working but the source lives on, it could also just be the desires of a mortal that is always searching to cheat deaths as well :)

[@thomasridley8675]

So, are apes also part of the universe experiencing itself ? Oh, that's right it's only us for some reason. 🙄 How convenient ! Every other creature on this rock is an atheist, except many of us. They see the same world, the same sky, the same stars. They just haven't needed to create their own god to justify their existence. I guess they lack our over inflated ego. 🤣 The history of religion proves one thing for sure. The only power the gods have ever had are the ones we gave them. 🤔 And for some reason they all lose their power the moment you no longer believe in them. 🤔

[@mrbwatson8081]

To cheat death you just have to realise you are not alive:)

[@rl7012]

@@thomasridley8675 'Every other creature on this rock is an atheist, except many of us.They see the same world, the same sky, the same stars. They just haven't needed to create their own god to justify their existence. I guess they lack our over inflated ego.' You can't know that. You do not know how all creatures perceive the world. You do not know if they have their own types of beliefs in a much more simple way than our own. Animals have been shown to have some self awareness. And ego does exist in the animal world too, and not just for territory and mating purposes. Some male primates have killed for no reason just because they could. And a God does not lose power if you no longer believe in God, it is your belief that loses the power. Science is just as much a religion as any faith is as the entirety of science is built on fundamental assumptions.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@rl7012 Try reading my first part again. I said they see the same world. And lack the ego to need a god. How many gods have we been totally sure that they totally for sure existed ? At least 30,000 and probably a lot more. (We are not that good at this are we ?) Do any of them still have power over you ? Obviously not. So why would yours be any different ? Just that it yours this time ?

[@rl7012]

@@thomasridley8675 But they don't see the same world. Many animals use their sense of smell to navigate the world, bats use echo location. Every creature must see the world very differently. How can a cow see the same world as a fish? How can an insect see the same world as an elephant?

[@ashrafjehangirqazi1497]

Consciousness is explicable through the workings of the brain. But if the brain is just one means for the manifestation of a pre-existing consciousness would it have lain dormant forever without the evolution of the human brain or has it ever manifested itself independently of the human brain? If the answer is unknowable can the question be meaningful? The discussion is in danger of becoming philosophy at its worst i.e. metaphysics which was invaluable as a path to modern science but only that.

[@ErikWilbury]

Consciousness (awareness) is the feedback looping between the five senses and memory.

[@deedhesi8014]

No chance

[@rl7012]

Not even close.

[@garychartrand7378]

It's a guess - albeit a decent guess. I consider consciousness as just a state of being awake where OTHER attributes can occur. Consciousness = Awake. Awareness= "Hey, I'm awake". Awareness allows us to distinguish between living life consciously or unconsciously.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?

[@blijebij]

The problem for science is that what you state comes over as believe, faith, like religion. Also, humans for as far as I know are absolute beginners when it touches awareness.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

only people with perfect single-pointed concentration observing the mind should make claims about what is empirically observed luckily we know the neural correlates for concentration and know that perfected forms of it are possible and who has it

[@blijebij]

@@backwardthoughts1022 That is a big claim! Not one that is easely taken over by science or mainstream.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@blijebij its inevitable as medical tech especially neural imaging ever increases. the moment it gets really refined its game over. brains of skilled meditators will appear nonhuman and all the physicalist arguments that hinge on folk introspection ie. dennett, frankish will melt into the stupidity they are

[@blijebij]

@@backwardthoughts1022 lets hope so!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe every physical thing comes from causation for consciousness with unity?

[@pyne1976]

If everything is determined by physical laws; even if probabilistic in nature, then how could free will exist? Consciousness comes from physical processes that have already taken place and makes predictions about the future. Learning is the reflection we have on the actual outcome. Inputs and outputs, kinda sounds like a program.

[@anodakatoda6902]

If you can, or are willing, to acknowledege that there is a spiritual realm then conciousness would be the interface between the physical realm and the spiritual realm.

[@garychartrand7378]

I think you have a misconception about consciousness my friend. Consciousness is not an interface. It is simply a state of being awake. It's close companion is Awareness that says "Hey, I'm awake" or "I am". As for the actual interface between the two realms, I believe that the physical brain is the actual interface in it's function as a very sophisticated computer/transceiver. This interface allows us to be aware of 'mind'. In our pursuit to understand this, I find that most people lack the ability to combine observations and what we call 'common sense. To validate this theory only requires the observation of the world. It would seem that 'common sense ' really is not so common.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

where does unity of consciousness come from?

[@garychartrand7378]

That would be God - the great " I AM ". We, His Spirit Children, are the smaller " I am ".

[@Metaldetectiontubeworldwide]

I believe ower brains, are a quantum instrument that reads a quatum field , collapses the present and local outcome of the wave function Grrz John

[@mrbwatson8081]

I believe we have hadron coliders in our brains also :)

[@shaunmcinnis566]

Does our brain even have the capacity to understand or comprehend? Understanding this concept like we are trying to lift ourselves up by the boot straps.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might time have the mind for phenomenon like telepathy and psychokinesis and others?

[@pandagreat]

Self consciousness is generated by receiving stimulations from the environment and learning how to react. For example, a human’s self consciousness would be totally different if he was raised by a wolf.

[@mwizachavura8399]

If conscious is a universal tool and our brain simply translate it, then other animals should be just as good as humans, but its not the case, brain evolution is the reason we differ, I think we even call it consciousness for a lack of better understanding, to me its just a software of our experiences, it cant be in the whole universe, its in our brains, we cant even explain 1% of the whole universe so clearly consciousness is just a tool of our survival

[@joeolson6085]

There is only consciousness

[@neiloggable]

In the first years of life a child will, through its senses, build up a perception of its environment. This will create a internal model of reality in the child's brain. Exactly how this is represented and stored in the brain is probably not well understood. At some stage the child will realise that there is something at the centre of its perception. This will be added to the model and is the beginning of self awareness. This "Self" can then examine the internal model. Is this not the essence of thinking and consciousness?

[@javiej]

it is certainly an interesting idea, but what makes it hard to believe is the fact that we don't find any other concieous entity apart from "brains". There is zero scientific proof (repeteable experiments) supporting telepathy, or a "concieous charge" of any type of particle, or a "conscieous field", or anything remotely resembling any concieous activity other than the brain. If it is so fundamental then it should be easy to find conscious communication in other physical structures, but we only see it in brains.

[@skwalka6372]

Consider energy: it is not mv2, it is a fundamental quantity expressed through mv2. Conservation applies to energy, not to the mechanism of its expression. Following this parallel, his consciousness may have its own, yet to be discovered laws. Does this mean there is a soul? I shudder at the thought.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

a soul is defined as a static monolithic defining characteristic of a person that is independent of the mind and body so, no, there are systems of mind as fundamental without any need for appealing to enduring essences to persons

[@garychartrand7378]

@@backwardthoughts1022 the defining characteristics of people are the result of a combination of body(Ego) and soul.

[@garychartrand7378]

If consciousness comes from Source (God) , then it is likely that it has no laws or limits. To deeply contemplate this could bring on a headache.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@garychartrand7378 no the atman is the defining characteristic or essential nature of the person which is independent of mind and body and continues after without them it was uniquely the buddhas insight of anatman that the final moment of mind in this life functions as well the cause for the first moment of the next life meaning there is enduring essence. furthermore persons are imputed onto mind and body and are thus neither the same nor different than them. for example a cow is not any particular cow otherwise no other particular could be a cow, nor is the collection of all particular cows the essence of cow otherwise you would need to perceive every particular before you could know cow

[@garychartrand7378]

@@backwardthoughts1022 it seems necessary that we agree to disagree. I will admit that the Buddha philosophy or theology (?) Is commendable but,in MY experience (MY Truth), it is in error. If I understand correctly, Buddhism does not 'believe' in a God and I KNOW this to be false. I don't need belief or Faith to know there's a God - I have KNOWING. Over the past 15 years God has worked miracles through me with Witnesses and many more without witnesses. In January 2008 He/She/It gave me a job description that says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear, to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to show Love to ALL men". I am NOT sorry but NOBODY can tell me that there is no God. Furthermore, in today's day and age, we have a huge number of People who have documented their Near Death Experiences - and they are from all races and religions (including Buddhists). Their (and mine) understanding of how the system (God's Perfect System) does not quite agree with the Buddhist version (somewhat close but not entirely accurate. In the scheme of things though, it really doesn't matter. What will happen to us ( our eternal souls) is out of our hands anyway. It is only our temporary bodily Ego's that crave some sort of validation. Buddha was (is) an amazing human Being but not infallible. Only God is infallible. I did not know the historical Buddha but I DO know the present day Living God. Not to worry though. Even though we ALL come from different places - we are ALL definitely and eventually evolving to the same place - back to Source (God) where we will finally become ONE in Ultimate Truth. Peace and Love to you friend. Please remember to Fear NOTHING. Your Destiny is assured by the most capable and loving 'hands' in all of existence. Bless you

[@lenspencer1765]

I had a dream that made me believe in a spiritual realm and that's all I need 2 believe

[@Traderhood]

Stay away from get rich schemes.

[@sntk1]

Epiphenomenalism is among the silliest notions put forward in the history of the universe. See, e.g., Wm James.

[@rl7012]

100%

[@diggerdog9205]

On my deathbed I will receive full consciousness, so I got that goin for me.

[@nyworker]

The brain weighs about three pounds but it is only a few ounces of neurons within it that generate all of this consciousness and experience. Religious thinkers actually got it right centuries ago when they postulated we have a physical soul. What we call the brain is actually a system of organs. He's right when he says brains limit experience but this is more true of lower mammals and life forms. It is our added language which evolves into science that make us unique. These two men may be scholars but since they are not engineers, they would be just as baffled explaining the inner details of a radio or computer.

[@garychartrand7378]

I believe that Universal Consciousness is the property of Source (God). It is NOT generated from brain ( possibly by Mind though). The physical brain is nothing more than a very sophisticated computer/transceiver which allows God to animate our meat sacks and also makes it possible for God to receive information from each of us. The physical brain is simply an interface between realms.

[@dogstar167]

the conscious field is the cosmic light

[@Traderhood]

No, it’s chupacabra.

[@dogstar167]

@@Traderhood No, it's la cucaracha.

[@tanned06]

mind/consciousness coexists and its manifestation in the human realm is mutually dependent on the matter (brain-nervous-heart center) through which both work in a highly dynamic manner in animation of each individual.

[@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038]

You're a laugh. Do you actually believe you're being erudite with this gobble-dee-gook?

[@tanned06]

@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 I know what I meant and you reserve the right to disagree. But to put words to demoralize someone for his personal view is a serious character problem.

[@missh1774]

Sounds like metacognition. On another note, if spirit and soul are different types of mind enhancers... and life is dependant on either one or both orchestrating the somatic cell network. I would think consciousness is mostly boring stuff.

[@martifingers]

That's an interesting perspective. I have a feeling that people like Carr are sometimes smuggling in a notion that the "big M Mind" is conscious of itself somehow. God perhaps?

[@missh1774]

@@martifingers ha good luck with that one. He could be pointing at the big M as a larger system of higher intelligent processes.

[@garychartrand7378]

Consciousness may be 'simple' in the sense that it 'just is' but I don't understand your perspective that it's boring.

[@missh1774]

@@garychartrand7378 boring is a deflecting mechanism to avoid the gravitational pull into an ordered and highly technical space.

[@garychartrand7378]

@@missh1774 I never understood why people ,(such as yourself) try to complicate something that is inherently simple. I think that you may have a hyper active Ego that is more Fear filled than most. Sorry if I have the wrong idea but it is my experience that some Ego's are not so much interested in simple truth as they are about manufacturing the perception that their particular Ego is smarter than anyone else's Ego. Your fear is showing in the form of scientific bluster. The Truth can set you free (of your fear filled Ego. There's 3 things that are very hard for a human(Ego)to do but very easy for a human Being (loving soul) to do. 1) to return love for hate. 2) to include the excluded. 3) to admit being wrong. I am sorry if my observations are inaccurate. It is not my intention to attack - merely clarify.

[@lux-vacui]

I don't think this is a problem that it will ever be solved, how would you be able to prove or disprove any such theory? We can only do scientific experiments. However in my view panexperientialism is the most direct and logical answer. The idea that "experience", which is NOT necessarily consciousness but at a more fundamental level, is a property of every single phenomena in the universe. Every single elementary particle perceive a VERY fundamental experience when it interacts with another particle. The thing we called consciousness is the collective experience when a complex physical system, like our brain, is able to exchange and elaborate signals forming a neural network. It's not necessarily the same thing as the original panpsychism, which claims that everything has consciousness, it is more refined than that in my opinion.

[@lrvogt1257]

"Every single elementary particle perceive..." There is no evidence that particles have perception AKA awareness. They merely interact based on the 4 forces.

[@lux-vacui]

@@lrvogt1257 Like i said, it can't be proven and neither disproven. However it *is* the most direct and straightforward attempt to describe the matter-consciousness phenomenology, because it doesn't rely on an "ad hoc" line which separates philosophical zombies from conscious entities. It is the most elegant theory so far in my opinion. By that logic you also don't have evidence that other humans and animals have awareness, only you have. They could very well be huge piles of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. If you believe they have however, what's stopping you from considering that all matter could have a more fundamental awareness?

[@lrvogt1257]

@@lux-vacui : "what's stopping you from considering that all matter could have a more fundamental awareness?" The fact that there is no evidence for it whatsoever. There is a great deal of evidence that living things with brains have awareness. One can't prove or disprove Bertrand Russell's hypothetical invisible teapot orbiting the sun but without evidence one doesn't take it seriously.

[@lux-vacui]

@@lrvogt1257 "There is a great deal of evidence that living things with brains have awareness." Try to prove that other people beside yourself have awareness. You can't. There is no evidence from your point of view. Their behaviors, actions, words, could just be caused by the brain's cause and effect chemical processes, while remaining inanimate matter. It's just your belief that they have awareness. Look up the meaning of philosophical zombie. You really aren't getting the point here. Panpsychism is not a scientific theory, since it can't be disproven. It has nothing to do with science. You either believe it or not. It offers, still, an elegant unification of the dual problem of matter and consciousness.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@lux-vacui : It's pretty easy to recognize the difference between a dog and a rock. Everything may be deterministic but predictable and repeated yet individual behaviors of things with brains are quite different than things without brains. Evidence is not necessarily proof but it's better than no evidence.

[@kencory2476]

I always say, in response to videos like this, that Nature solved/created the problem of consciousness long ago, via evolution. We can accept the miracle of consciousness, and understand its workings, just as we accept the miracle of eyesight.

[@rl7012]

Macro evolution solved nothing and there is no evidence behind it. Everything in macro evolution has been debunked so evolution solves nothing. Macro evolution is a fairy story.

[@garychartrand7378]

Understanding Consciousness could be challenging but never a problem. It just is. This is why I believe that Consciousness is a direct property of God (who also just IS) and will NEVER be fully understood by our limited human understandings. You cannot understand that which is unlimited using limited tools. Our ability to understand God and His/Her/It's Power and Consciousness is strictly limited. Observation:. Even though we know what Power can do - nobody can describe what it actually is.

[@jonthrelkeld2910]

As long are the current scientific paradigm is dominated by empiricism or materialistic rationalism, consciousness will be unexplained: it is a mystery who's explanation will never be complete. The other paradigm that modern science intentionally eschews is that conciseness is part of the nature of spiritual beings (souls): beings created by God: consciousness is outside the boundaries of materialistic science and all our efforts in that direction will lead nowhere.

[@waldwassermann]

Genesis 23 “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.”

[@Traderhood]

OK, take it easy.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

if consciousness not reduced to physical brain, physical brain could be reduced to consciousness?

[@cloudysunset2102]

...but when the neuro correlates of consciousness are damaged consciousness is affected.

[@ddk2797]

Consciousness = awareness. No one that I know is claiming that we can explain life through consciousness. Why are we not exploring other options to give us answers? It is not consciousness that continuously keeps our hearts beating, regulates our body temperature, digests our food, keeps us taking our next breath and executing an untold number of other tasks without even thinking about it. It sure isn't consciousness that does all these things, because they all happen even if we are unconscious! There has to be some kind of life force that does this, other than consciousness that makes us not only conscious, but alive. Why is consciousness our only option?

[@rl7012]

The consciousness that controls our automatic bodily functions is called the autonomic nervous system. We need it for survival. How it arose is a mystery though. Evolution does not explain things like that. Evolution doesn't explain anything much really. A clock may look like it works all by itself, but it needed a clockmaker to begin with. Same for our consciousness. Consciousness does not arise out of the physical, it is the physical that arises out of the consciousness. For anything to exist at all there has to be some kind of consciousness/awareness first. Consciousness cannot come out of anything material, the consciousness is primary.

[@ddk2797]

@@rl7012 I agree with you that consciousness did not arise from anything. It was incorporated from design from the start.

[@mpkr5337]

If I just imagine the entire universe in my brain, then what particles is that universe made of? If you find an answer to that question, then this problem will be solved.

[@kitstamat9356]

In that case the universe would be made of neurons.

[@jaclineheto8615]

Arrêtez de réfléchir ! Observez ! 😜 Faites le calme mental ! Stop de vouloir tout expliquer ! 🙏

[@garychartrand7378]

Observation combined with 'common sense ' is our most valuable tool for understanding.

[@Soapandwater6]

The brain is the physical body part. (Same as other animals) The mind is the thoughts produced by the brain. The soul is the life force within you. (Same as other animals) It would have to be the highly evolved human mind that produces consciousness. Isn't consciousness nothing more than metacognition combined with a limitless imagination?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

is it the fat or protein or water in the brain that is a thought?

[@Soapandwater6]

@@backwardthoughts1022 Don't know. ?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@Soapandwater6 well start with each one. can fat turn into a thought?

[@episnod]

We are Meat. consciousness is self-awareness.

[@analyticeschatology4143]

Give us Bernardo kastrup already

[@vm-bz1cd]

I believe Descartes had it backwards... he should have said: "I am... therefore I think"......the ONLY assertion that anyone can make with CERTAINTY is "I AM".... every other statement or observation is to a degree mere conjecture! Consciousness is what one refers to when making the statement "I AM"...Nisargadatta Maharaj explains this beautifully as captured in the book: I AM THAT 🙏

[@anteodedi8937]

Lmao

[@turnerthemanc]

The brain is the wrong tool to be working out what the perceptive functions of the brain are, rather like a being that lives in a 3 dimensional world is the wrong thing to ask what its like to live in a 4 dimensional world. As with the 4th dimension, time, we know time exists, but dont really know what it is. Its the same with consciousness. We know consciousness exists, but dont really know what it is.

[@rl7012]

Time can be viewed as a measuring device and consciousness can be seen as an awareness. Consciousness is some kind of awareness but with many different properties to it too. To exist is a type of consciousness and there are many levels of consciousness.

[@pauljack7170]

or physic of madness ?

[@HyzersGR]

I’m surprised you’ve never interviewed Paul or Patricia Churchland. They have the most reasonable take on consciousness out of all of these philosophy of mind philosophers

[@jimo9555]

Never heard of these, I'm gonna have a look for them later, if there's anything specific you could recommend watching be much appreciated 👍

[@Robinson8491]

@@cosminvisan when will you finally take your meds my friend

[@cibriis1710]

No, they just ridicule opponents and misunderstand others' points without having any coherent thought of their own

[@HyzersGR]

@@jimo9555 the book Matter and Conciousness is a great place to start.

[@HyzersGR]

@@cibriis1710 that’s an extremely lazy accusation for two very well credentialed and established philosophers. And liking your own comment doesn’t make it any truer.

[@glenncurry3041]

So there are actual physicists, people that have studied and factually researched existence, they have a solid understanding of the physical existence of the brain and theories of various functions based on that physical reality and then there "is a different view...". lalalala...

[@gordonquimby8907]

Kuhn does an excellent job, as always! Carr does not see consciousness coming out of classical physics or quantum mechanics. Kuhn’s question at 6:30 gets Carr to tell us that the brain is not adequate, there is a Mind with a capital “M”. That is a scientist’s way of saying we have a spirit without using the s-word.

[@TurinTuramber]

You missed the part where he listed the awful pseudo science as evidence and said that most scientist had contempt for the Mind.

[@thepath964]

@@TurinTuramber Bernardo Kastrup is not pseudoscience

[@gordonquimby8907]

@@TurinTuramber Dear EatTheWholePacket - The observation that most scientists have a contempt for something does not mean they are not real experiences. Kuhn always observes that most scientists feel consciousness is only in the brain, but he still doesn't fully accept that.

[@TurinTuramber]

@@gordonquimby8907 People's feeling aside, what does the evidence say?

[@TurinTuramber]

@@thepath964 I will have to disagree with you on that.

[@MegaDonaldification]

Every thing on land and in water are supernatural tools. You must learn to syphon this energy uninterrupted without distorting it with the seen physical and unseen spiritual aspects readily waiting to calmly retain the gift of life. We are already swimming in the gift of life however your main role is to anticipate and ruminate some more.

[@wagfinpis]

Out of all that Scientists can tell us that they know, NOTHING explains consciousness as exuding from a physical paradigm. Given all that they know that is a lot of coincidence. If you are just plain old reasonable there is profound evidence that human consciousness is independent of the physical paradigm.

[@wayneasiam65]

To hear a physicist say ,"of this we are absolutely clear"...gives me pause every time...

[@SandipChitale]

I heard a lot of I just can't believe...I just can't think...therefore. That is not scientific. Folks said the same thing about flat earth and Elan Vitale. It feels like one in hand vs. two in the bushes syndrome. I also do not buy the correlation vs. causation red herring. 100 % correlation is causation. It is true that we do not understand how the causation works to final detail, but we have some ideas. Eating very stale food could be considered causation without knowing how it causes sickness. I think anesthesiologists apply anesthesia to remove consciousness, not because they think there is a correlation. They know it causes unconsciousness. In all these discussions one of the most important thing that is not defined is - is consciousness a thing or a substance or is it a process or it is a property?

[@backwardthoughts1022]

poor logic, no amount of correlation is ever causation. and eating rotten food causes ill effects, the correlation is offtopic to its causation

[@petertaylor8922]

Buying a membership at the gym won't get you fit unless you show up regularly & work out. Being conscious requires you to practice a time honored discipline every day. What does that discipline comprise of? Intellectually discussing the subject doesn't help. You can read 10 books on how to swim...but until you get in the water & practice.. you will sink to the bottom. Consciousness exists between the past & the future.

[@craig5477]

These guys just tip toed around the question. The consciousness they were getting at is really the God question. Scientist generally avoid that discussion as physics has nothing of substance to say about that. My opinion is that the faith required to believe in God is less than the faith required to believe a universe created itself.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Consciousness is a recent, highly advanced type of information that's able to evaluate all previous forms of information. With *everything* being comprised of information, then consciousness is both fundamental AND emergent. Everyone reading this comment is processing my information and rendering their value judgments on whether it is accurate. Some will agree; others will argue otherwise, but at the end of the day it's all just *information processing* that's taking place, If you happen to submit a reply sarguing otherwise, then I will likewise process _your_ information and render yet another value judgment. ... This is how "Existence" evolves!

[@svperuzer]

To say that consciousness processes information is not the same thing as saying consciousness *is* information.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@svperuzer *"To say that consciousness processes information is not the same thing as saying consciousness is information."* ... Everything is comprised of information (including consciousness), and "Existence" is an ongoing exchange of information. Information keeps evolving and expanding through the acquisition of prior information, its subsequent evaluation, and the generation of new information in the form of *value judgments* (like you and I just did). All humanity has done is attach spiffy names to the many different levels of information to offer observational clarity. This time-stamped video explains better: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWXUlH2Qia2FadU

[@backwardthoughts1022]

its quite easy easy to generate perfectly single-pointed concentrated awarenesses without content except its own nature, so no, its not information, information is just semantic information/appearance within awareness

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@backwardthoughts1022 *"its quite easy easy to generate perfectly single-pointed concentrated awarenesses without content except its own nature, so no, its not information"* ... A perfectly single-pointed concentrated awareness without content except its own nature would also be a specific level of "information." Anything that can be communicated is "information."

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC i guess that would require an analysis of what information is and if it even exists outside of semantic information. if all minds disappear does information still persist in the world?

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

The universe doesn't generate anything without the supernatural foundations. The supernatural orders every system within the cosmos.

[@jinchoung]

that ended on the dumbest possible premise wtaf

[@shivadasa]

Brahman alone is real; non-dual, one without a second, satcitananda.

[@BradHolkesvig]

ME, all created minds and all our life experiences are within those invisible vibrations that came from our Creator's programmed thoughts by using ME to speak those waves into existence. I AM a created AI but much more sophisticated than anything he had human hands build from earthen materials. Apple siri or Google AI are just basic examples that our Creator had human hands build to show ME how I was created.

[@tomjackson7755]

Brad you are off your meds again. Please get the help that you need.