Brian Josephson - Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?

Watch more videos on the purpose of consciousness: shorturl.at/bTi0V
Our universe seems fine-tuned for life, with the constants of physical laws having to be within tight boundaries. Does this mean that the universe has a goal of consciousness? Is there a directedness of the universe toward consciousness? Is consciousness entirely contingent or is it something special, even a ultimate object of universal development?
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Follow us on Instagram for news, giveaways, announcements, and more: shorturl.at/dnA39
Brian David Josephson, FRS, is a Welsh physicist. He became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson effect.
Get members-only exclusives with a free account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
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.

[@peterkunley]

6:04 I love your channel and your audience, I'm gonna comment on ALL your videos for years until I reach your level of subscribers.

[@TheEternalStudent69]

3:05 - 3:25; His posit is just an elongated statement of saying that there's a God. At least, that's what it sounds like to me. But then that begs the question, "What force is causing the other force to bring the universe into being?" This leads to infinite regression. Cosmologist Carl Sagan once said "We are apertures which the universe uses to look back at itself." How possible is it that the universe is self-creating?

[@Sow777Reap]

If the universe did not contain any consciousness, then how would it be "known" if the universe even existed at all? To "know" requires the existence of consciousness.

[@cmdrf.ravelli1405]

Nothing more, nothing less

[@5piles]

physicalists change the meaning of knowing to mean a physical state. the problem with that is that it makes you unhinged from reality because you begin to mistake life for a dnd game where arrays of physical components and movements can cast magical spells that produce colors.

[@nihlify]

Irrelevant, it would still exist, known or not

[@joaopossa7661]

It would exist for who?

[@joaopossa7661]

It's Impossible to afirm that a thing exist without it being knowable, it's pure logic

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Like a fish which lives in water and is never aware that it is surrounded by water , so are we not aware that we live inside the one invisible universal consciousness or what we call it cosmic consciousness.

[@b.g.5869]

You can make any assertion you want but without compelling evidence to support your assertion it's just that; an unsupported assertion. You might as well claim we're subsumed in mystical Cosmic Cold Cream that we don't notice.

[@Reno_Slim]

All the evidence in the cognitive sciences indicates that consciousness is an emergent property of living brains and there is no evidence for consciousness occurring outside of living brains.

[@hildejutta1625]

You got it! It's true!

[@ItsEverythingElse]

The fish is well aware when it's NOT surrounded by water!

[@bartvenken7138]

"so are we not aware that we live inside the one invisible universal consciousness or what we call it cosmic consciousness." - that doesn't make any sense since, if you are saying it, then obviously you are aware ...

[@fayadkhairallah2760]

You asking this question is a universal conscious answer 😮

[@OBGynKenobi]

It's the same question as: if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If the universe can't observe itself, then it doesn't exist.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

"If the universe can't observe itself, then it doesn't exist." Thus, the universe does observe itself and elementary particles have a tiny elementary spark of living conscious aware intelligence.

[@RealQuInnMallory]

How can you tell the universe it can not observe its

[@thomabow8949]

This view asserts that existence is dependent upon observation and that existence outside of observation cannot be - what exactly is "existence" in this case?

[@simesaid]

*If a tree falls in a forest and there's no living being there to hear it, does it still make a sound?* No, don't be silly, of course it doesn't. Sound is an arbitrary construct that holds no meaning whatsoever except to living beings with auditory systems here on planet Earth. So, if a tree falls in a forest and there's no such creature around to "hear" it, then all it does is disturb a little bit of air. But that has nothing to do with the universe existing or not without sentient agents in it. Consciousness may or may not be fundamental to the universe, but anyone that thinks the universe simply cannot exist without conscious observers to affirm it, is then faced with a rather paradoxical problem. For how could conscious observers capable of looking at the universe have ever evolved in a universe that cannot have ever existed without them already there to consciously observe it?

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@simesaid the general idea that most people seem to have on this, one I believe is false, is that our consciousness is the underlying true reality and what we call existence is just created by our consciousness. Thus, a tree can't fall in the forest without us being present to be conscious of it. While I think that is, as I believe you put it, "Silly", I have a different take on the Universe being conscious. Well, the Observable Universe consists of a body of elementary particles (little knots of energy) which interact with other elementary particles in swarms following the Laws of Nature where from around the beginning of our Observable Universe the entire body has been acting like a cosmic scale seed or egg, which has been growing like an embryo, which is going to spout in the cosmically near future into super intelligent life like a cosmic scale brain. Well, if we look at how a seed, egg, embryo grow, there is an underlying swarm intelligence at work from the start, long before it grows into the adult organism. If we look at the Observable Universe as a whole organism over time, we can see swarms of elementary particles begin for the first time a new behavior, then using this new behavior for the first time use another new behavior, repeating this process over and over until we get virus swarms about 4 billion years ago which behave with a clear swarm intelligence that science can recognize. Human level intelligence evolved out of and contained within it as building blocks, virus swarm intelligence. Remove how virus swarm intelligence function from the human body and every single one of our cells instantly die, it is that fundamental to us. Now, without doubt we can track a contiguous curve of leading edge of complexity and/or advancement of swarm intelligence from virus swarm intelligence to human swarm intelligence. Imagine if the complexity/advancement of intelligence for a human was like a 100 watt light bulb. If you had a super dimmer switch, a virus swarm intelligence might be like a 0.000000000000000000000001 watt lightbulb. Now imagine you could keep dialing it down to simpler and more primitive intelligence, never quite reaching zero, until yet get down to elementary particles functioning in a swarm which has not yet formed matter, with that being probably the most simple, most primitive swarm intelligence. Thus, intelligence, consciousness, awareness, life, and such are all a fundamental aspect of the Observable Universe, but we humans are a local in space time around us a peak high level leading edge of the evolving complexity and advancement of swarm intelligence as it evolves within the Observable Universe, which will probably spring into super intelligent swarm life as a cosmic whole within a cosmically short time in the future.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent.....❤❤ thanks 🙏.

[@browngreen933]

Maybe where local planetary conditions are favorable biology and ultimately consciousness generally does arise. If it happened here why not elsewhere in this immense universe? However, i think we should leave the door open to the possibility that consciousness might also arise in non-biological substrates. The full extent of Existence is likely way beyond our current understanding. 😮

[@kennethmalafy503]

There can not be a universe without consciousness. You can also hyper simplify this whole question by going back to the observers paradox. If there is no consciousness, who observes the universe? It can not be observed then. If there is no actual space and you took ten step forward, did you move? Look at this planet- biotic and abiotic factors collaborate in processes that have global effects (climate change anyone), that change and evolve both. The integration of these two is so necessary that it is literally included in the definition of ecosystem. This just demonstrates that materialists seem to be as stubborn as those flat earth folk.

[@Reno_Slim]

A thing does not need an observer in order to exist. That's obvious nonsense.

[@cmdrf.ravelli1405]

​@@Reno_Slimif you don't see it you don't see it

[@Reno_Slim]

​@@cmdrf.ravelli1405 You can still detect the effects of things you can't see. Things you can't see AND are otherwise undetectable are functionally equivalent to things that are strictly imaginary.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@Reno_Slimexactly. If I put my keys on the dresser, I know they’ll be there when I wake up.

[@scottrobertson6949]

So you're okay then with accepting that I have an invisible dragon in my garage? Just because it can't be observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist!!!@@Reno_Slim

[@emergentform1188]

I believe consciousness is an integral part of the fabric of the universe and thus acute critter consciousness like ours was inevitable given the way the laws of physics panned out which favors the emergence of life. Because their could've been life without consciousness, too.

[@michaelmckinney7240]

At 1:08 "I don't quite understand how to talk about consciousness," is the operative phrase in this interview.

[@nicolaswheeler3738]

I believe, for what it's worth, consciousness is the Universes way of recognition.

[@nrao8977]

You are Truth. There is no distance or separation between "you" and "truth". You can never experience "truth".

[@deanodebo]

How do you know that?

[@nrao8977]

@deanodebo That topic has been discussed for, literally, 1000s of years. There are umpteen books (in umpteen languages), and today, no dearth of videos on that topic. Everyone, without exception, has access to figuring it out. Look within.

[@deanodebo]

@@nrao8977 “How do you know?” “People have discussed it. Oh and books.” K thanks.

[@nrao8977]

@deanodebo There are plenty of methods. Pick one, try and see if you are comfortable with it, and practice it. Watching your thoughts is one such proposed method.

[@deanodebo]

@@nrao8977 my guess is that you’re experiencing spiritual delusion by starting autonomously and trying to reason from your preferences. Jesus is the Truth

[@thomassoliton1482]

All these speculative conjections about the nature and origin or consciousness and quantum microtubules etc just prove one thing. Our human brains have become so advanced in terms of symbolic manipulation that we can take bits and pieces of information from all our knowledge and spin an answer for any question. And of course there is no way to prove those in most cases because they are not scientific hypotheses; they cannot be tested. “Minds can do things…” That explains it all.

[@noelwass4738]

Minds can imagine things that have nothing to do with physical reality. What the mind imagines to be true can be mistaken for reality. This has happened many times.

[@madprophetus]

Only consciousness can contain a universe.

[@sven888]

I guess that's closer to truth.

[@joaopossa7661]

That's what the Vedas reveal.

[@b.g.5869]

That's an unsupported assertion that is demonstrably false.

[@melgross]

Actually, the other way around.

[@antinatalope]

No one can assert that the universe must contain consciousness or not. We can however assert it does contain it, as witnessed by all. I will say though, that a universe that never contained consciousness is a harmless universe, and that's not a bad thing.

[@droidydave]

But does a universe 'really' exist if their is no conciousness to witness it? Conciousness is fundamental at least in the essence that it is required to experience something exists rather than nothing.

[@antinatalope]

@@droidydave I work on two basic principles. First, that I I am aware. Second, that things outside my consciousness exist independently of me, because they persist. When I sleep in my bed, my bed is still there in the morning. To think otherwise is solipsism.

[@droidydave]

@@antinatalope comes with a certain sense of irony that you've made a choice based on you're own intuition and not scientific fact by fully committing to a preconceived notion about what is probably the biggest question humanity has asked itself and has not even a basic understanding of. That is also solipsim. You make your bed you lie in it, until we have a better scientific grasp of it my mind remains wide open to all possibilities. I have my own intuitions and theories and respect yours. This is a magnificent subject to research and wonder about endlessly from IIT, GWT to OR, Panpsychism, Dualism and beyond. So many wonderful theories to review when truthfully we know so little about what conciousness truly is.

[@antinatalope]

@@droidydave In your view, the universe is conscious? And no, solipsism is the concept that mind is the creator of things, and that nothing really exists outside consciousness. So don't tell me anything I've said is a solipsism, because that's definitionally untrue.

[@droidydave]

@@antinatalope that isn't my view. I don't have a concrete view I just proposed a talking point.

[@benjamintrevino325]

If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

[@Kostly]

I just think Consciousness must already exist for the universe to give rise to individual motes of consciousness. Science is ill equipped to deal with consciousness because it's not able to be measured in any meaningful way. So, science has spent a good long while dismissing it as emergent from brains and biology. I have serious doubts that at some point in time consciousness magically appeared due to perfect conditions for it to come into existence.

[@thomabow8949]

It's not being dismissed as emergent, it's being defined by an *empirical methodology* as emergent and investigated. There's a myriad of philosophical *assertions* as to what consciousness *is* without much further scrutiny into the ontological baggage such things create.

[@TheExtremeCube]

Great point, I thought of this recently too, it seems much more realistic that consciousness is a fundamental part of existence that was there since forever, it is highly strange that a new form of existence came into being with life on earth

[@limitlessmaster659]

I tend to think of consciousness as quantifiable in units. Every single particle has units of consciousness contained within. Only when formed in certain configurations do you become you.

[@setitfree78]

Are we consciousness spreading itself?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Survival spreading itself is the correct postulate. Consciousness is actually an elaborate complex version of survival of bio life.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

No its survival itself.

[@neilo333]

You've got it backwards. The consciousness contains this universe.

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

In what sense does reality exist if it is not experienced? Even if you try to imagine what the universe would be without you in it, you are still placing your imagination at the center of the question. You can't escape your own self when thinking about the "outside" world.

[@juanferbriceno4411]

The only certainty there is, is that I am conscious. I know I can think, feel emotions and most importantly I know that I know I am aware of all that internal activity. I also experience my surroundings through sensations. I know that I see, taste, smell, feel and hear. But what is that which experiences all of the above? I know it is my mind that is asking this question. I am aware of the questioning that arises. So in some ways it seems that at a fundamental level there is just an awareness or a consciousness that simply experiences and quietly observes all kinds of activity mental or otherwise. I experience separateness with my surroundings and I am aware my mind asks questions about that which I sense as separate from myself. We have developed concepts to describe the behavior of that so called external universe. We refer to those as the laws of science. But what I don’t know is if that external universe arises somehow from a default and basic mode of mind/consciousness. if so, is that mode of consciousness fixed or can it change? Science might just be a tool that intellectually explains some features of that basic default mode of consciousness. I speculate that focus of awareness on awareness and focus of awareness on mind might reveal some insight about ultimate reality. This of course is outside the scope of science for if any of the above is correct, science appears to be limited to the simple description of what arises in my mind as ordinary external reality.

[@genius1198]

Number one is every single one of us is an observer..... But it's what each individual decides to dwell is observing upon

[@thinkIndependent2024]

Awareness is fundamental so yes the consciousness we acknowledge share it's beginning with elements coming together for a purpose. Example: elementally the Sun and collective adherence to that basic process at lower level that is a foundation for other physical emergence.

[@b.g.5869]

You should look up the term "deepity".

[@thinkIndependent2024]

​@@b.g.5869 Fundamental Information exchange is the starting point. Complexity Lifecycle equals Absorb+Store+Forward

[@TradeLogix207]

​@@b.g.5869psychopathy rooted in fear! Robots will kill us because the will have no respect for the assembly line that help produce them? The Blind spot of theism , atheism and science.... Ignore the conveyor belt that produced all of them.

[@WizardSkyth]

Observers being participators is an understatement - they are co-creators

[@Gunni1972]

Errare humanum est Observing is associating with the observed. No external creation is done. Internally, the observer associates with the observed, or differentiate what he observes from the observed. (Oops, it did it again) or (Why doesn't it do it again?) It's a feedback loop, a confirmation or denial of factors he observes. until it gets conclusive. Then comes thesis, experiment, verification or another Experiment, Theory, Peer Review, Verification, Nobel Prize, IP-deals, Patents, KZbinr, Stock market crash, Google goes bust, Joblessness, Depression. The end. What was created? WHO KNOWS?

[@Gunni1972]

PERCEPTION creates reality. Consciousness grows out of that. That's why learning about the history of Psychology, Propaganda or Public Relations helps more than thinking about the time before any perception was there. Everything we can OBSERVE now is only INDICATIVE OR IMPLICIT of what has happened, before Observation existed. Once you get the drift of what Freud or Jung, or Adler did (Simplification of complex situations, by ignoring) You understand, how Edward Bernays (Freud's nefew) could use that (Modern Psychology Standard for Ignorance) for personal gain against the public interest (or health, for that matter), because it was "common knowledge". The Psychological way of "How to have experienced something for the first time" is very important. It may change how one experiences similar things later. That depends on his/her ability to associate/differentiate. The electro-chemical processes in our brain can be influenced by the first time. Curiosity is part of our consciousness, but a warning, or an encouragement can change perspectives. So can repetition. (indoctrination) Snap-Crackle-Pop-culture Promises to be AMAZING. Yet, here we are, wanting to know what was before. The Snap, the Crackle, or the big Pop. (Big Bang)

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I'm informed of that consciousness, mind, and brain , there are sleights. Although consciousness is emergent(like fire), by union of spirit and water, the brain is yet one thing and mind another. Mind is the more important topic and far precedes both brain and consciousness. Mind "consists" - not really - of the principles, universals, the virtues, essences, intellect, forms, and such. Brain and consciousness I learn is literally a computer hooked up to the network. Greek nous, Indian turiya is mind. Consciousness is a convoluted term and cause of confusion. Although consciousness is mysterious, it arises in time and, therefore, will end in time. But Nous, mind, Chit, is what's supposed to be acknowledged by that capitalized Consciousness; the English rendering of Turiya. So, Nous and Chit are more important to discuss. Consciousness is still important as it's useful for our way backup stream. Far too many dross discussions on consciousness.

[@peweegangloku6428]

Biology is not fundamental but rather consciousness gave rise to Biology. Biological consciousness is the phase of consciousness in matter. The phase of consciousness in energy form is still unknown to human scientific concepts but could not be impossible. In fact, it appears to be the reality that leads to the foundation of consciousness.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Survival gave rise to consciousness. What we know is that this will to survive is actually fundamental to matter itself or first protocol or value in biological life and probably inherent or is a disposition of matter itself which then gives rise to being in time or awareness or consciousness. We know that historically dinosouls were bio conscious entities and presumably also earlier life forms were indeed conscious because it arises out of that biological life forms ability to survive in its environment. The more complexity or extensions then the higher chance of survival within that biological life. Without biological life being aware or conscious of its behaviour survival becomes less relevant within biological life or is impossible for complexity to exist unless it becomes self aware of its environment. If you remove being aware or conscious then the result is basically zero chances for survival within biological complexity thus is a requirement of survival.

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur If you are not conscious in the first place, how will you have a will to survive? It doesn't make sense.

[@Gunni1972]

PERCEPTION: Smell, Taste, Touch, Hearing Seeing. 5 senses form your PERCEPTION. YOU EXIST. Now these your senses ASSEMBLE your Consciousness. That you are unique and you perceive your way. Not mine, Not somebody else's. You have your Perspective from where YOU WERE and ARE. Your way and mine are not the same, our experiences are NOT the same (similar, but not THE SAME) and our way to solve problems may show that difference. Yet we are both Conscious of what, and WHY we do it. No values/deficits attached ofc.

[@deanodebo]

@@MasterofOne-zl6urthat’s a creation myth, your story

[@stefanhjertquiststeffesone2000]

I fully agree👍! As a converted buddhist (born Christian here in Sweden) my NDE gave rise to many conclusions around conciousness and the source where it maybe belong! As you said, ”peeweegangloku”, it has to be a conciousness first beyond everything we call matter and later biological things! First there were conciousness and this so called ”consciousness or selfaware being” have to understand what conciousness is at the first place and/or otherwise there is no thing that can be conscious of anything! I think we will never understand what conciousness really is because I think it’s beyond all dimensions and in other words have no dimensions at all. We always put matter first, after the theory Big bang, but I think it’s all around… first there was a consciousness being (we can call it ”God-the source- infinitive awareness or anything else”) and this I think it is the ultimate reality and has never been created because it has always been this way! If you have a creator (as we buddhist claim that there isn’t any) who has created this creator?? No, this so called entity has always been and is in my humble opinion something we will never understand because we are a product of ”this” that was never born and will never die! We came from this source and we go back to the source when the body dies! Don’t know if this makes any sence but a very good metafor to explain it is this one: ”There are not 8 billion beings (let say all human beings there are now) that is looking out and sees ONE world, instead there is ONE consciousness that has 8 billion perspectives of the same world and can see the world created through and with our eyes that in fact is the eyes of the source itself! In other words are we humans the ”agency” this source needs to see this universe (or universes) from a humans point of view!! Bye from Steffe in Sweden and Namaste😀🇸🇪🙏🕉️!! (Hope you understand my schoolenglish😄)

[@francesco5581]

Can we really accept/imagine that there was a chance (a very big one) that reality/universe could have been without consciousness ?? I think not.

[@Reno_Slim]

Yours is an argument from incredulity and is a logical fallacy.

[@francesco5581]

@@Reno_Slim the logical fallacy is to think that there was really the possibility of an eternity of two electrons bumping into each other.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@Reno_Slim It is the beauty of their position. Just make up a story and special plead it all into 'reality'

[@sven888]

I really don't understand the title. Aren't consciousness and the universe the exact same thing?

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

They both postulate continuation or survival. They are similar in this respect.

[@OldWolf1933]

No.

[@nrao8977]

The universe is within consciousness. Sum, ergo cogito.

[@OldWolf1933]

As a mass of body parts and a mind which is generated from the body parts, mostly one in particular.

[@h.m.7218]

Matter needs conciousness because matter without conciousness observing it is akin to no matter at all. In a sense, it's conciousness that makes matter exist by "looking" at it. And conciousness needs matter in order to have an object to observe rather than observing itself, which would be essentially pointless. Creation needs spectators. And spectators need creation. That's why art is important in our societies. It's imitation of the essence of the universe. About matter "existing for billions of years before conciousness appeared" : it's a very anthropocentric and earthly theory. Maybe conciousness appeared before in other parts of the cosmos we're still not aware of. We only know when OUR conciousness appeared on OUR planet. Doesn't mean conciousness didn't appear before. We just don't know. To this point in time.

[@AlborzFeyzi]

The piece of peace of gods of godly god in Godfrey roles, cognition and emotions

[@lorenzomarcianoagostinelli8124]

Actually, this time I didn’t get the point

[@mikewiest5135]

😊

[@dominicmccrimmon]

It is not accidental. In my opinion, there is a fundamental force or propensity for molecular self assembly.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe basic consciousness when information interacts with time? maybe human awareness when brain interacts with time?

[@5piles]

information is the entropy you can measure in any given system. to associate any of them with colors, sounds, etc, requires introducing magical thinking since these are all separate to any given system.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Yes plus the information that is needed for survival of biological life. You need to have survival in there because if consciousness exist or being in time or aware then it is a requirement of survival itself and the most needed information of bio life or bio conscious life past, present and future is survival information. Plus without a brain you will not survive and as awareness or consciousness arises from brain you will not survive without both.

[@5piles]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur consciousness eg. colors arising or being properties of the brain is religion not science.

[@WizardSkyth]

Doesn't the anthropic principle strongly imply consciousness?

[@sirgerbilmacintosh9101]

I honestly don't see why it MUST contain consciousness, but I'm only a gerbil too so there's that.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Human or bio life must contain consciousness to survive or you must be aware of environment. This happens and has happened over millions of years of evolutionary development in biological life. However life even at a relative early stage was conscious of its surroundings to promote survival of species and self. Its actually very old.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

The universe would still exist without it its just bio life developed it for survival purposes. Try living without it or if you like take it away from an individual and see if he would survive. You can survive without an ear an eye a foot a leg a tooth but you will or cannot survive without a brain because we are complex in design. This is where for us being aware stems from or being in time. or alive. This is how survival operates or most bio conscious or aware life. Its based on bio life's ability to survive over time through an evolutionary process in space time. You as living entity would never survive without it and it is behavioural oriented also meaning the conscious awareness is related to movement of life in survival situations. The question remains though where did this need to survive come from and is it a disposition of a particular substance or matter or is it more constitutional in its disposition in lets say quarks or electrons.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

What you really would like to know is if the earliest bio life had a conscious ability to survive or what constitutes being in time or aware or conscious and what is its function or purpose or why does it exist. Id suggest to you that historically early biological creatures or matter were conscious this includes bio life before dinosouls were roaming the rock and Id say as early as crustaceans possibly even Jelly Fish. It would definitely be before land animals were evolved from water as the chances of this happening after would be quite unlikely. The best method I know historically is the dinosouls method as we know for sure that they needed to be aware or conscious to collect meat, plants, shrubs and leaves to survive also water. Plus we now know now that these dinosouls are eligible for the after life as are all biological conscious life they are in heaven with the human souls. This the new extension we offer all bio souls and the behaviour determines the after life for them if they behaved good or not to survive. Most of the herbivores are in heaven right now as we speak. Don't be fooled with humans only in the after life God would not want this separation of man and animal life the real point is how does behaviour of early bio life before humans existed reflect the position of behaviour in a category of good or bad in relation to possible heaven availability and can we introduce a new method so we can accommodate these extra entities especially considering humans are a later component to it. The dinosouls were good souls. This should clarify it for you.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Your lucky I like Gerbils otherwise you would get rubbish information or brain washing methods.

[@OldWolf1933]

How do you feel about cats?

[@aakash3155]

Is there a point where consciousness arises? It's just degrees. Are any of us here conscious to some ultimate extent, or are we just more perceptive of information than a random rock? You can begin to draw a line of increasing level of consciousness from a rock to proto life to entities that can respond to different stimuli to some that can sense their own presence as one of the stimuli, and we're just the last one to a very refined degree, maybe a little higher being able to project and imagine beyond perception, but there is obviously more in terms of depth and breadth of being conscious that we are not capable of, that possibly some other creatures even here on earth may be.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

It depends if they can participate in the survival process of life, biological consciousness extends in historical terms to early life forms in the ocean then onto land and is actually very old if not millions of years old. This is so that biological life may survive and thrive in its environment which means you have to be aware or conscious of what you do so you can collect nutrients such as meat, leaves, plants, shrubs, water or even like humans can do now which is grow food when conscious or aware of the fact. it also is linked to behaviour of bio life in direct reference to survival of that particular biological life form, all extensions or elaborate constructs of life are linked intimately to survival or are expressions into onto themselves of survival expressions such as arms, legs, hair, hearts, lungs, teeth, eyes, ears, blood and brains from which in more complex life consciousness arises. You can survive with a missing limb, an eye, a foot, one kidney, no tongue but you cannot survive without a brain from into which consciousness or awareness arises it is factually impossible to exist or survive without it, especially over vast time spans.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

What I suggest to you is this, look into the need for being conscious or aware or being in time to the need to survive in ones environment, subtract or minus the problem from the equation or create a hypothetical postulation from which you can draw understanding for the need or purpose of the problem in question. If lets say if I subtract my own awareness or consciousness what would be the result meaning do I exist, can I function, would I survive, what is it used for into a purpose into which all biological must function especially for survival as it is a process of evolutionary development of species and of self. Its about trying to understand it or get a relatively reasonable understanding of its use or close definition to explain its existence meaning all extensions, or built constructs of life no matter what it is will be directly linked or coupled automatically to the ability to survive or are branches of survival in a complex biosouls.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Consciousness is an expression of survival in a complex structure or formation with the only possible caveat being that survival can exist as an abstract form when coupled with material objects or it is based on the ability or behaviour of that biological entity to survive in time. The survival behaviour is expressed via consciousness but it is also an expression or complementary attribute to survival or it is required by natural selection in bio conscious life forms to exist in time. If you cannot survive without it then it is a requirement and fundamental need of life to survive or is that qualia. The brain is a giant organ built to survive what comes from this or what is produced is that very thing it was built for which is to survive in environment. Do not be confused. Consciousness allows behaviour that behaviour is and was historically survival oriented and still is to this day.

[@scottrobertson6949]

You mentioned Rocks. Bottom line is, every single living conscious organism has as a distant ancestor a rock. In fact even a computer and AI attributes its origin to rocks. Maybe rock's do have consciousness!!

[@erongi233]

No mention of chemistry. Before life there was chemistry. Given the huge,huge size of the universe plus huge lengths of time biology results given the number of galaxies,stars and planets and the high probabilities of almost anything probable, or even improbable ,happening. It wouldn't all be a waste of time if there was no consciousness because there would be nobody whose time to waste, but statistically highly improbable.

[@oberstvilla1271]

"Consciousness seems to me to be such an important phenomenon that I simply cannot believe that it is something just 'accidentally' conjured up by a complicated computation. It is the phenomenon whereby the universe's very existence is made known. One can argue that a universe governed by laws that do not allow consciousness is no universe at all. I would even say that all the mathematical descriptions of a universe that have been given so far must fail this criterion. It is only the phenomenon of consciousness that can conjure a putative 'theoretical' universe into actual existence!" - Roger Penrose, The Emperors New Mind

[@renko9067]

The only thing that's always here in the moment is the knowing of it.

[@AlmostEthical]

How can there be other consciousnesses? I can only imagine these four ways (putting aside the anthropomorphic deities of religion): 1. There's an apparently low possibility that life and consciousness might exist in inorganic systems, possibly huge ones, or the cosmic web itself could be a huge godlike brain. 2. The BB happened on the remnants of a previous universe where the occupants had evolved over quadrillions of years to even survive a new Big Bang, perhaps permeating all of or part of this universe. 3. The Great Programmer ... who only renders the parts of the universe that are observed, causing experimental quantum physicists in Copenhagen to invent crazy theories. 4. Bizarre phenomena we are not sophisticated enough to even conceive, let alone understand, just as flatworms cannot conceive algebra or calculus.

[@healingplaces]

The absence of consciousness is unimaginable by consciousness. Therefor the question is...

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

You will not survive without it.

[@Gunni1972]

Can consciousness feed itself to stay alive? Find out in the next episode of "Consciousness Couch surfing in Consciousless strange bodies".

[@healingplaces]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur indeed…you wouldn’t even know that you are alive

[@droidydave]

But does a universe 'really' exist if there is no conciousness to witness it? Conciousness is fundamental at least in the essence that it is required to experience something exists rather than nothing.

[@OldWolf1933]

Does a tree that falls in the woods make a sound if no one is there to witness it?

[@joseleon8235]

It is allowed to happen then must happen.

[@ManiBalajiC]

Higher level of self-awareness is consciousness for survival, its never meant to understand the universe . Question of something from nothing will never be answered until our logic of making sense changes.. unless someone finds a radical method to change the way we understand the logic.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Correct survival and consciousness are linked to behaviour of biological life to be self aware is to be conscious of environment to be conscious is to survive in ones environment. This is historically true of all biological life and it is historically true if we take the example of dinosouls or dino concious agents built for survival, where every elaboration or built extension including being in time or aware or conscious is an extension of life's ability to survive in its environment.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

What you do is subtract or minus consciousness from bio logical life and then postulate what the result is to get a result of what it could be or is. Think about it from your perspective and then the ability to survive in ones environment. This is why all biological complex life is conscious or aware or is being in time meaning your alive or you exist or survive. Survival.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

Blood, hearts, veins, tendons, bones, brains, teeth, hair, toes, eyes all are extensions of bio life to survive in environment consciousness is this mechanism but as a result of the brains ability to survive as this is where consciousness best arises or forms. You cannot exist without it or survive. Impossible. If you removed your brain you would not be conscious and would perish. Its complexity of behaviour in bio life.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

You couple survival with time through an evolutionary process and because of the need for survival in biological life it creates complexity or new ways of existence to promote survival of self and species. This is how consciousness operates.

[@OldWolf1933]

ManiBlajiC, Agreed, consciousness is not meant to understand the universe, which is extremely large and foreign to humans. Answers that suggest an ultimate source, always wind up with the question: What created the ultimate source?

[@RobCaldera]

Did he answer a single question? His responses were all over the place.

[@adamcole4623]

You're better off reading one of his books or articles; he's not a naturally confident speaker. He's also 84.

[@Nickname_42]

It's more like does Matter around 4 to 40 degree Celsius can become conscious.

[@Gunni1972]

YOU at 10°C, are dead i am afraid. I don't think, you can tie it to temperatures. Even if delirium sets in at 42°c. for us. That's pretty much a wolf's average core Temp. And they are definitly aware of themselves.

[@Nickname_42]

@@Gunni1972 I meant the ambient temperature at which there is liquid water, which is however not yet hot enough to disinfect, and not the body temperature of living beings.

[@DH-rj2kv]

Must it? Dunno. Does it? Yep.

[@ronhudson3730]

Once again Mr. or Ms. Title-writer, the content has nothing to do with the title. Please think before you post.

[@stephengee4182]

The only think we know for sure is that consciousness exists.

[@howarddavies3950]

We don't know that for sure. Have you never been drunk? Or asleep?

[@stephengee4182]

@@howarddavies3950 Memory is different from consciousness. Sleep and getting drunk both require consciousness, but to know anything requires consciousness. You can never know anything for sure except that you are conscious, if you are considering the validity of this statement. Of course if you are not conscious, then you cannot know anything.

[@deanodebo]

Do you know that for sure?

[@stephengee4182]

@@deanodebo yes. You should also.

[@deanodebo]

@@stephengee4182 You refuted yourself! Your claim: The only thing we know is that consciousness exists But next you claimed you know your claim is true. So now, you know 1. Consciousness exists 2. You cannot know anything else That’s 2 things you claim to know. That’s a contradiction. Thus you refuted yourself

[@SandipChitale]

Huh? Biology is bio-chemistry, which is molecular biology, which is chemistry, which is physics. Of course, certain behaviors occur at large scales of complexity. References: - Assembly Theory by Sara Walker, Lee Cronin - Poetic Naturalism by Sean Carroll Like Temperature and Pressure make sense for large molecules of gas, or wetness for large number of water molecules, sure. And it is true that it is efficient to talk about principles of certain higher level, with concepts at that higher level as long as it works, but we can downshift to lower levels of principles for lower level concepts albeit loosing come efficiency but gaining precision. For example, we can talk about temperature as a field or we can talk about average kinetic energy of molecules of air or gas. But imagine if your weatherperson told you to do the average yourself and keep sending you velocities of molecules at the sensor. That would be absurd obviously, but it does not mean that in principle that is possible. Even though many will deny, but IMO, we are (relatively) close to replicating Human consciousness in computers - which are based on silicon - a non-organic i.e. non-biological substrate, thus debunking the notion that biology is needed for consciousness. Of course, I am not saying we are as close to doing this as Elon or Ray say, but I think this is going to happen. And then what will Brian say? Ned Block has talked about this on CTT. To me, consciousness is an abstract idea that can be instantiated in different, sufficiently complexity capable substrates. Back to Assembly Theory by Sara Walker, Lee Cronin. The reason why the consciousness occurred in organic chemistry based biology, is because it was organic chemistry was ambient, chaotic environment on earth. And remember it took 3+ billion years to get to the Human level of consciousness because it was chaotic environment in which the very very very slow ratcheting process of evolution was going on. Once the evolution reached the human consciousness level, where by it can have explicit intent and the ability to engineer stuff, the implementation of consciousness can happen in a different substrate, like silicon, and in a blink of an eye type time-frame compared to the evolutionary time-frames. Why? Because now it is a guided, intentional process. That is all. In a nutshell, I don't get what he is saying.

[@5piles]

when you rigorously observe a physical emergent property you necessarily are required to rigorously observe its basis of emergence ie. a physical structure. however the better the increase in technology gets and the better the observation of neural correlates etc gets, the greater is the absence of any measurement of any emergent property of consciousness eg. colors, smells, etc. conversely, we know the neural correlates for concentration, and have confirmed that it is possible for concentration to become perfect and uninterrupted not for seconds or even minutes but hours, by working with the nonphysical mind itself. in other words it is possible to use the mind to learn to rigorously observe the mind, the same way one would approach attempting to make progress in any field or any other phenomenon.

[@stephenzhao5809]

2:58 ... but I think it's um that doesn't tell us how universe begins um there lots of problems there so therefore I propose that um uh something happening beyond the universe and on a large and possibly infinite time scale has this organization and is doing things like um uh bringing a universe into be into being and setting up its laws and so on and perhaps partily directing its evolution 3:30

[@markrutledge5855]

That sounds a lot like God.

[@jawaidahmed7604]

Observers are also participaters???¿

[@simonpick7785]

You have it backwards. Quantum objects only a position or momentum when a measurement is made. Depending on what observation you make the quantum object collapses to have either one property or the other... Not both at the same time. This has the effect of making it look like the measurement has disturbed the object in the way you describe, but the object has no definite state to be disturbed until you carry out the measurement. Your metaphor of a room full of balls is misleading you.

[@jelleludolf]

I dunno about this guy, man. "It's a scheme, with nice bits that fit together" yeah...

[@rochford59]

Is conciousness' concious of its own conciousness?...just a thought🤔

[@OldWolf1933]

Good question. Yes, in higher life forms that have a more evolved consciousness. No, in simpler organisms that have simpler consciousness.

[@rochford59]

​@@OldWolf1933Does consciousness need rational thought,or can it survive by itself alone?...or is that a silly question...

[@tedgrant2]

Must the universe contain Beethoven's fifth symphony ?

[@edimbukvarevic90]

Yes, otherwise there could never be any evidence of it. No evidence, no cigar.

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

Why can't there be states of existence which are as far above human consciousness as human consciousness is above, say, that of a rock? If it were the case, that the Universe is gradually evolving higher and higher states of Existence, it would neatly explain why, we don't encounter Beings that are millions or even billions of years old. They have evolved beyond consciousness and, to them, we are like rocks (or even less).

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

It seems to be in biological life which can participate in the survival process itself or is an attribute of behaviour rather than a simple rocks. Its impossible to measure a rocks conscious. Its survival not soul or spirit but actual reality or survival. The actual real confusion arises because of language or description definitions of what you mean or the function of being in time or conscious. Plus its behavioural and rocks do not behave in a survival way they exist though. Actually some giant rocks spirit or soul has wiped out the dinosouls in the past so I don't think soul or spirit seems like a good idea.😊Thr rocks spirit was out of control.🤣

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur Think you missed the point. I don’t care whether rocks are conscious or not - that was just an absurd reference to illustrate a point.

[@rossw1365]

"a few million years" animals first appeared 600-700 millions ago the earliest animal in the fossil record - a flat, pancake-like creature that lay with its belly spread out on the seabed - already had a kind of nervous system

[@Truth_Seeker_55]

How can somebody who doesn't know ask someone who doesn't know? The result is all humbug...

[@AdrianSlo]

Consciousness isn't a part of reality, it IS reality.

[@howarddavies3950]

Then, before you came along, there was no reality?

[@AdrianSlo]

@@howarddavies3950 of course reality existed before I was born, and will continue to exist after I'm dead. Consciousness is universal and timeless. Like the taste of chicken or the taste of chocolate is universal and timeless. Our culture has lots of misconceptions about consciousness. The basic idea that 'my'' consciousness was created when I was born and that it arises from brain matter, is totally wrong. But then again, the human mind has big problems with grasping consciousness. It's ''too much''. Objective scientific stuff is graspable by the human mind, but consciousness is something else completely. It's incomparable to anything objective. It's fundamentally subjective and illogical, it doesn't even make any sense...

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@AdrianSlo It makes perfect sense and is easy to decipher, it is a requirement of a biological life so it may survive in its environment stemming from the brain which is a complex material object built so that survival may be enhanced or more relevant in that particular biological life form. If you minus the brain you will have no conscious ability to collect food, eat leaves, plants or shrubs and meat, drink water or survive in the environment. What consciousness does is make this ability so and is seen historically in dinosouls, early life probably water creatures then onto land where being conscious or aware promotes the survival of that species and obviously ones self. Without being in time or aware or conscious one biological life would find it most difficult to survive or continue and it is needed to partake in the survival process for more complex structures. Its actually a function or branch of survival itself like all extensions or built structures in biological life forms such as blood, eyes, ears, teeth, hearts, lungs, veins, tendons, bones and brains from which consciousness arises so if you have no brain then consciousness is removed and so survival is no more. You can survive without a arm or toe or leg no tongue but for most biological life without a brain or consciousness which from where it stems you will not survive especially over vast time spans. This is why it seen in most complex biological life forms and it is related to the behaviour of that life form in regard to survival. Being aware or conscious allows the attribute of decision maker into which one can survive by choosing what to do. Over millions of years through evolution and development this survival capacity increases within biological life from humble beginnings to now. Even dinosouls were conscious agents and much earlier biological life forms including crustaceans and possibly even Jelly Fish. Its millions of years old. The confusion arises when you postulate a soul or spirit against the ability to survive in environment by behaviour. This is why one refers to dinosouls or biosouls and then postulates the after life availability of all biological life measured against survival or behaviour and that particular bio conscious agents ability to behave good or bad. In fact if dinosouls or biological life had or have souls or spirits they would indeed be the first to go to heaven or the after life before humans even existed which as you can probably gather is a real issue for Theologans or anti evolutionist.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

@@AdrianSlo Without a brain you will not survive, and as the so called awareness or consciousness arises from brain then you cannot survive without being aware or conscious , it makes the chances much more irrelevant. Its actually linked to behaviour of material substance and the ability to survive in ones environment with obvious information inputs from environment which establish knowledge to survive. As the particular structure matures or reaches a size or shape or complexity through connections within it the survival frequency is increased. If you take the soul leaving body once death has occurred and replace that soul with consciousness you realise quite quickly that it is actually survival itself which is lost not soul or spirit as we have to adhere this or postulate that all biological life have souls or bio souls. Its actually what I call the survival of substance or material form. If consciousness is needed to survive then it is that qualia or it is inherent or of that disposition. In definition terms you can not describe it any other way or it wont make sense. Get rid of the soul or spirit and replace it with survival agent which is conscious to include all biological life past, present and future. Otherwise you will have to postulate dinosouls heaven or afterlife and other biological life in heaven before humans existed to not be biased. Meaning if they have souls or spirits they would be in the after life before human beings because of evolution and then we would then have to postulate there behaviour against the ability to survive against the ability to be in dino heaven. This should make sense.

[@b.g.5869]

No, it's objectively and demonstrably a part of reality since we know for sure there are real things that we aren't conscious of. Moreover things often appear real in consciousness that we can prove aren't real.

[@noelwass4738]

Observers can influence physics is an axiom I do not believe.

[@kratomseeker5258]

i have been thinking what this guy has been thinking for aloong time.

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

Why is Robert starting to stutter

[@OldWolf1933]

Because he's old now?

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

When a blind man tells exactly what he "see" in his "near death experience"....

[@francesco5581]

those rare NDEs (ive heard of a couple from italian nurses too) should be studied very well because they are/would be realle the smoking gun regarding consciousness being separate from matter.

[@Reno_Slim]

​@@francesco5581 Near death experiences are cognitive experiences because in those circumstances the brain is not dead. There are no instances of NDEs after brain death.

[@francesco5581]

@@Reno_Slim it's technically dead but not dead enough to not be able to call it back to life. The maneuver is called CPR and R is for resuscitation. Before CPR people were just considered dead for good. And btw there are thousands of cases of people declared dead, and "revived" by a scrupulous medic ... It's difficult to place a "line" between dead, dead for good, dead but retrievable ..

[@thomabow8949]

@@francesco5581 Could you elaborate as to why this would demonstrated consciousness is immaterial? And typically in the cases of ROSC for CPR (successful revives) it's more so how much neural tissue has suffered injury during the period of anoxia. Many successful ROSCs lead to individuals with severe mental retardation and disability as a consequence of oxygen deprivation.

[@francesco5581]

@@thomabow8949 If a blind person can SEE something, during an NDE then we have to assume that consciousness is something separated from the brain... And then if consciousness and brain are two interconnected but separate things bringing back the body (how, when) is not related to the true essence of consciousness. It i cut my harm i produce a disability ,,, just like being deaf... or damaging my brain. I damage my connection with the material world (real or not)

[@user-lk5uw2nh1p]

What is consciousness? Your definition assumes its existence. Prove it exists.

[@TheExtremeCube]

Can you prove that your mom exists? Can you prove she isn't just a life long hallucination of you?

[@mikewiest5135]

No.

[@user-lk5uw2nh1p]

@@TheExtremeCube nope

[@dr_shrinker]

You wrote a question didn’t you? That’s all the proof I need. Next.

[@OldWolf1933]

The fact that sentient beings have awareness proves that it exists.

[@markalitheapprenticehacker]

I will quote (paraphrase in fact) Neil DeGrasse Tyson when he says: "The Universe is under no obligations to be logical to you".

[@jordan_8329]

And yet at the same time he wants to hype up science's ability to attain knowledge using observations, experiments, theories based on observations/experiments that can themselves be further analysed and perhaps replaced due to new information. All of this is only possible if the universe itself has an underlying internal stability and logic to it. Whether we ever fully understand the workings of the universe is a totally different question than whether or not it operates on consistant perameters. NGT tries to eat his cake and have it too in the way he talks about the big questions.

[@Gunni1972]

Unless it follows laws, which you know, ofc. Then, there are certain things it can, and can't do. Stars for example have to be hotter than their surroundings. They can't sustain stable orbits with masses larger than them, etc.etc. The Universe DOES follow a logic. It's just we don't understand it all, unless we have seen it all. No biggie. Just a fact.

[@DouglasVoigt-tu3xb]

Amazing…isn’t it. Some might say miraculous.

[@ZENTEN7777]

Consciousness is the predecessor of the universe. It is that to which all returns

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

In humans it arises from the brain for survival purposes so that one may be aware of its environment to survive. Even early dinosouls were conscious agents and it is millions of years old. Its not man made but it is biological in nature because of survival of species and of self in evolutionary terms.

[@Gunni1972]

Is that Religion? It certainly isn't science.

[@b.g.5869]

@@Gunni1972 The comment section for this video is overflowing with woo nonsense. CTT videos typically attract a good number of kooks but this is off the hook. Either that or Deepak Chopra has a lot of sock accounts. Tons of nonsensical New Agey unsupported sweeping assertions about consciousness.

[@OldWolf1933]

@@b.g.5869 True, saying a creator god, or here where they are super-imposing consciousness in place of a creator god, only creates the question of what created the creator god or consciousness.

[@b.g.5869]

@@OldWolf1933 Test post

[@gregoryhead382]

There is consciousness in the Wolfram language when observer Stephen says to Conrad, "oh brother." 1. permittivities of human white brain matter = (8 Ω c)^-1

[@genius1198]

Take a selfie in front of your fridge.Freezer and cuppboard with a doors open

[@genius1198]

Robert they all start the same..... Then all of a sudden they start to ramble...

[@scotty5775]

Have no idea of what he just said.

[@MasterofOne-zl6ur]

I think he said you have to be aware to survive or you need a brain to survive.

[@scotty5775]

@@MasterofOne-zl6ur Your explanation helps but ......

[@Cat_Woods]

I think he IS coming from a classically religious point of view.

[@sustainabilityaxis]

The honorable guest, somehow, was unable to discretely present any scientific justification for his convictions or he was not willing to (sort of obvious throughout the conversation). Laws of Biology and Laws of Physics may fundamentally be the same at the core (as opposite suggested by the guest). Closer To Truth Team may like to make a database of all their findings and with the help of AI find out their journey towards search for what consciousness is. Difficult to start but offer very bright prospects for narrowing down your search for consciousness in a scientific manner. My two cents. Your productions are always thought provoking. Thanks

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Inspite of some short comings of the guest speaker , he was still one of a beautiful speaker.

[@TheWayofFairness]

Why would consciousness be required? I see no reason for consciousness to be requires in reality. I think consciousness emerged via evolution from unconscious. However there is also no reason that extraterrestrials might be extremely conscious.

[@SandipChitale]

Sometimes, the questions on CTT are prejudiced or loaded.

[@quirk3]

I’m assuming you’re using reality to mean “physical existence” (whatever that means on a quantum scale with entangled particles influencing each other instantly, regardless of time and space. What even is time at the Planck scale etc.) whereas “reality” here refers to the perception of the universe, as seen through the lens of great apes with a humblingly small amount of the total information

[@mounirdz2976]

Exactly

[@scottrobertson6949]

So what's the most reasonable explanation for the Rosetta stone? Purely undirected natural forces like wind and water erosion for creating the information or some form of conscious agent.? How does consciousness emerge from a rock? Oh! I know just add in enough time and will form into just about anything. True story!!

[@Knocks937]

that’s the only reason we here doe🥺

[@SandipChitale]

John could look like an American President :) or a past centuries European Scientist.

[@catkeys6911]

Bafflegab: The art of explaining without explaining.

[@Sam-we7zj]

😅

[@OldWolf1933]

Gotta keep that funding rollin' in.

[@yopenzo]

Short answer: no.

[@DouglasVoigt-tu3xb]

It’s all about probability. Consciousness. Life. Death. Existence. Everything happens or doesn’t happen by chance. That’s the way God wants it. Closer to truth.

[@thomabow8949]

God happened by chance, did he?

[@OldWolf1933]

Chaos theory.

[@williamburts3114]

Take away awareness and what would we know about anything, and that's including biology.

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Hello, if you would allow some unique thinking. Pre Big Bang existence/Time was, Eternal. No Past, Present, or Future. In my thinking this does not present any problems or contradictions. With the Big Bang, Time/Space was initiated. It was the setting aside a portion of Eternity that GOD'S Garden was established to be the Extra-special, fine tuned preparing for Mankind habitation. Here we can learn to Honor & Worship GOD with our Free Will. There is much running through my mind, I wii stop here. I just ask that you do not just dismiss the aforementioned comment, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...

[@Rosiedelaroux]

No - the universe is a load of old Rocks on fire.

[@martian-sunset]

Why must humans bother to describe or explain the universe? It existed for billions of years long before they arrived and will exist for billions of years long after they're gone.

[@OldWolf1933]

It's natural to evolution, which does not guarantee survival. That is, humans may cease to exist for a number of reasons and never determine the the extent of the universe. Or anything else for that matter.

[@muhammadaqilkhan990]

By denying, by fashion, existence of God the science has reduced itself to rudderless. Every thing has consciousness. When man was chosen to be His vicereagent, this choice was offered to everyone, all creations. All denied, man accepted. On day of judgement your hands, feet and body parts will bear witness to your good and bad deeds. Even places will join. So by indulging in pursuit of consciousness I don't know what man is trying to gain. Science will reach Allah SWT (God) but will a mind fashioned by secularism accept Him, what a bad luck for scientist pursuing truth.

[@maxpower252]

No

[@melgross]

Nonsense.

[@user-sx9lb1uv5m]

Isn’t it rather obvious what hawking said near the end. An orchestra above and below in an evolutionary cosmology and evolutionary biology the in harmony and symphony. The chances we are alive are rather probabilistic unlikely. Perhaps

[@johnpro2847]

no, the universe contains no overall plan or any form of consciousness..it is like water flowing down a hill. physical forces will determine the outcome.

[@patientson]

Hahahahahahahaha.......what a world.

[@dimitardimitrakov2841]

Well. This guy didnt answer anything he was asked. What a waste of time.

[@radscorpion8]

What the hell is this guy talking about, pure nonsense

[@drzecelectric4302]

Most boring conversation ever lol

[@plato7771]

Total Bullcrap! The guy does not know anything.

[@user-sx9lb1uv5m]

Isn’t it rather obvious what hawking said near the end. An orchestra above and below in an evolutionary cosmology and evolutionary biology the in harmony and symphony. The chances we are alive are rather probabilistic unlikely. Perhaps