Christof Koch - Is Life After Death Possible?

[@dogwithwigwamz.7320]

I remember Woodey Allen saying - to paraphrase - `I don`t want to achieve immortality through my works. I want to achieve immortality by not dying.`

[@joehatton2237]

What an insanely interesting conversation. Beautiful camera work as well

[@robotaholic]

Now this guy is all about real science. Thank you for having him on

[@hurstjames6199]

Hello how have you been doing lately?

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Is there life after birth is more like it. People have become zombielike, never thinking, emotional children, sad.

[@johnnastrom9400]

You don't respond to challenges, do you?

[@ProLaytonxPhoenix]

​@@johnnastrom9400people like him/her rarely do.

[@DeusVivus]

I don't know if quantum mechanics plays a role in consciouness or not, but interestingly there is a theorem in quantum theory that says it is not possible possible to copy an unknown quantum state. So if somehow the quantum states of the particles or our brain do impact our consciousness it will never be possible to make copies of our consciousnesses, even in principle.

[@life_of_liam]

very interesting and i have been led to feel like quantum mechanics MUST play a role in consciousness for the reason that classical or newtonian mechanics are purely deterministic, while quantum mechanics are not.. so for that reason - IF we truly have free will which i feel we must - then that would suggest at least to me that quantum mechanics must play some role no?

[@ErikJoeNoise02]

" (...) Complexity breeds Consciousness. " - Christof Koch

[@backtoemocovers]

Im reading his book “The feeling of life itself” which is amazing

[@63302426]

BiGBird Records Christof Koch, Giulio Tononi, David Chalmers, Karl Friston and Antonio Damacio are the superforce behind the science of conscience!

[@detroitculture.]

I wish this were longer. Id love to hear a really long in depth discussion!

[@djacob7]

They totally forget that it's not enough to copy every atom and subatomic particle to make a duplicate human; every particle must also have exactly the same momentum, temperature, and charge as the original.

[@ImperialGuardsman74]

Idk about that, our brain changes those too

[@brudno1333]

And where would one copy the brain to? To really duplicate an existing brain, one would have to have a completely empty brain to which the subject brain would be copied. Good luck with all that. And, don't forget to copy the brain chemistry which is considered to be an integral part of the operation of the brain.

[@bereruter0]

What the older guy is saying is exactly how I feel haha, this guy really doesn't want to lose his consciousness and he's really trying to understand exactly what it is. I'd love to have a conversation with him.

[@jedicharls]

The question is 'why?' Why would I want to do this if my conciousness wouldn't be transferred? It would be a seperate conciousness with my memories.

[@roqsteady5290]

No there would be two separate consciousnesses each of which would be just as much you as you are now, but projected into the future. Why is this so hard to understand? I noticed Kuhn struggling with it in the video, but maybe he was just playing devil's advocate as he does sometimes.

[@kenechewkuk.l8707]

I agree. Plus, eventually that computer would be ripped apart at the end of the universe with everything else, so you can't escape death with a computer.

[@cvsree]

Consciousness does not arise from brain Consciousness exists everywhere. Some physical configurations can get activated by it.

[@nahCmeR]

I feel consciousness has its own realm/space/dimension outside our 4 dimensions we live in. Our physical bodies are essentially vehicles our consciousness uses to experience the first 4 dimensions. Once it dies consciousness returns to its space and the cycle continues.

[@brudno1333]

You could not be more wrong. Sedate the brain and one loses consciousness, halt the sedation and consciousness is regained. To say that consciousness is everywhere is to say that it's nowhere.

[@nahCmeR]

@@brudno1333 Actually you're still conscious while asleep or sedated. Otherwise you wouldn't ever wake up. Try again.

[@brudno1333]

@@nahCmeR Actually, you're not conscious while asleep or sedated. If you were, the sedation was not effective. Ask a medical professional to clarify the issue for yourself.

[@metheplant9655]

@@brudno1333 What you call consciousness is wakefulness. Sedation does not change your self at all. Can’t even touch it. Consciousness is a concept way deeper than that. It is known for millennia as the grounds for experience. Your definition of consciousness is very poor and shallow.

[@Untilitpases]

Love your undertaking Closer to Truth (Mr. Robert). Wish more people would have the constitution to exhibit this degree of being human. What I presume you were striving to formulate was: Even with uploading and structural replicating, the location of your ontology remains within your biological body. Prove of that would be that whatever happens to your copy, you don't experience it *in the first person*. That's tantamount to cloning. Amortality would require replication WITH ontological transcendence and the destruction of the "host". And that leads (so far) to a dualist impasse.

[@uremove]

Great interview! I love Integrated Information Theory of consciousness that Christof Koch has been very involved in developing. I think Parfit’s “Tele-transporter problem”, which Dr Kuhn raises, ie. which of two identical selves is the ‘real me’, is only a problem if one is wedded to the idea of consciousness as “my individual immortal soul”, rather than consciousness as a universal process, occurring in all sentient beings, of which I am currently this one, discrete (temporary) embodied instantiation.

[@leomdk939]

But how is it determined which discrete instantiation you experience the universe as?

[@uremove]

@@leomdk939 Nice question! I think every instantiation believes it is THE discrete instantiation experiencing the universe, when in reality, every one is. Each one will experience the universe from a different perspective, and with a history (memory) that diverges only from the point that they entered the tele-transporter. What determines the you that is instantiated now and not the you that will be instantiated tomorrow?

[@etherealrelaxation7724]

They don't make a difference between, something we can call metaphysical identity and on the other hand - psychological identity. Twins would be psychologically the same, but metaphysically completely different entities. That means if I die - I die, my twin is not me. It looks to me that what is a necessary condition for me to be me is that I am numerically identical with myself, not only psychologically. By the way, the movie Moon can be a good illustration of this problem.

[@BasicBobby]

If time is infinite, and universes die and are reborn, then we are infinite. At some point, our consciousness will be replicated. In fact, it would be replicated an infinite amount of times. Maybe if already has been. Maybe it’s our memories that are material, and impermanent while our consciousness is enduring and transcendent.

[@JACKnJESUS]

It's almost as if you weren't listening. Time is not infinite btw... You...die with your brain...period. Not what anyone hoped for...but there it is...better to know the truth than not.

[@ZeeThird]

It's fascinating, that almost none of the interviewees understand the question about copying the consciousness. That a copy cannot be ME !

[@tjnaz]

László Horváth consciousness needs to be transferred not copied, which is possible to be achieved by the singularity in theory.

[@DavidDW]

Why isn't having the experience of being you enough to be considered you?

[@tjnaz]

David Walter that's a good question. But you see, the moment you create a copy of yourself it creates two versions of you. One is being the original you with the experience of creating a copy and the other being the copy of yourself which has all the experience you have been through up until the moment you have created a copy. So the copy is not you, it's more like a movie paused at certain point in time. Now after the creation of the copy, the copy could have its own experience(life) which could be different from the original version of yourself unless both of your consciousnesses are interconnected, in that way your copy becomes an extension of you. Two entities sharing a single consciousness.

[@ZeeThird]

@@DavidDW I don't see how that experience can be shared between individuals. If You copy me atom-by-atom, the copy will have the same memories, but will be a different person. He will be conscious. He will claim, that he is me. But there is just no way I see that this can be true.

[@ZeroOskul]

Shut up and buy the book!

[@jgeorge2465]

I don't want another me i want to be someone else.

[@williampercival7662]

You will be you into a new family and in a different country perhaps.

[@benwincelberg9684]

How is that different from someone else being themself

[@dayangmarikit6860]

Your soul is still you.

[@cafimadchennalweigloss3384]

Me to I want another person

[@neilm2794]

I would argue with the premise that just because there is one that there automatically would be a duplicate or more, but I have a relative whose first spouse passed away, then got remarried. I was asked “who will they spend eternity with”? I believe without the physical body then there can be two separate streams of consciousness - so the answer is both

[@williampercival7662]

You decide, before you were born you were living. Man immediately after death is no different to what he was 5 minutes before. The first thing he realises that in heaven everything is normal everything is natural. Man must adjust himself to his condition in which he finds himself. Man inherits according to his nature and his achievement . There is no day and no night no typical life. Everyone goes to a state of consciousness that they have created for themselves by the life they lead on Earth. We eat drink sleep travel and unite with our pets. We progress and move on to higher Spheres. W Percival from New Zealand 🇳🇿 Gardenia🌺 Band and Rarotonga Cook Islands 🇨🇰

[@beatle1956]

And you know this because....?

[@heartofthunder1440]

That I agree with, I’ve lived several times. The same person, the same wife and children, different variations but all in all basically the same. I can’t think of anything else. The more I come to realize this at times it creeps me out. Death is scary, and noticeable when you do repeats. But, if it’s your consciousness that knows better, the possibility of correcting matters is always there. In a way I personally think it’s how we evolve to be better ourselves.

[@ishikawa1338]

I’ve assumed that’s what makes sense the most also. U relive your life over and over till it’s the best version but u end up in your never ending life with all the places I’ve seen things I’ve experienced, if u didn’t see it u didn’t experience it. That’s why I should do awesome stuff and see a lot so u can have a lot to do forever in life…

[@StaticBlaster]

@@ishikawa1338 There is absolutely no evidence for reincarnation nor afterlives. All that is, is wishful thinking for people who are too afraid to simply not exist anymore.

[@snowwhitebeautyful]

​​@@StaticBlasternd how are you 100% sure that's "wishful thinking" if you haven't got any evidence either? Makes sense, really🤣

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Your body’s will dies, but your thoughts never dies, and will stay for life time’s, and farther !

[@StaticBlaster]

And your evidence for that is what?

[@trinitymatrix9719]

You are right, consciousness has nothing to do with the physical realm and matters.

[@davidgalvez8741]

I don't like how this starts off with the assumption consciousness is a result of brain activity

[@kevinmm20]

Well, that’s not a bad assumption since that’s what the evidence strongly points towards.

[@glynemartin]

@@kevinmm20 What "evidence" is this?

[@kevinmm20]

@@glynemartin Well to start, damaging certain parts of the brain prohibit conscious experience associated with that part of the brain. Conversely, stimulating certain parts of the brain can create a conscious experience associated with that part of the brain. The entire nature of consciousness is drastically altered if the brains function is changed with certain drugs.

[@glynemartin]

@@kevinmm20 _"Well to start, damaging certain parts of the brain prohibit conscious experience associated with that part of the brain."_ This tells me that you have an incomplete understanding of the fullness of consciousness. The brain seems to be the organ that SHAPES HUMAN PERCEPTION...not necessarily the organ that generates or creates consciousness. Perception is not consciousness. So messing with the brain tissue will definitely alter and damage perception...but it will not destroy consciousness... _"The entire nature of consciousness is drastically altered if the brains function is changed with certain drugs."_ Again you lapse into what i think is a flawed philosophical model. The nature of PERCEPTION is altered. You would need to explain your idea of consciousness in its fullness...which includes the SUB-conscious...a reminder that in our English Language that the prefix "sub" does not mean "devoid of".... Just sayin'...

[@kevinmm20]

@@glynemartin If experience is not consciousness, then what are you even talking about?

[@OLDSCHOOLARTROOM]

You are your memories. If you make a exact copy of your memories and ability of feeling, and can upload it in another body or robot, your memory and feelings will be continuous. So you will never end. One version of you can be shut down. But it is just like losing some old memories. But in another version of your feeling and memory will be remain as you. It would be better after creating a copy , destroy the old version. Then you will be a single individual again 😊

[@ezioberolo2936]

The term "life" after death is comedic. Need I say more?

[@ezioberolo2936]

And then it degrades as "electronic life" after death.

[@AggroChip]

You're just reducing it down to semantics. Yes, more could be said.

[@totalfreedom45]

*_1_* _...Death is nothing to us because good and evil lie in sensation, which ends with death. Thus believing death is nothing to us makes a mortal life happy by ending the yearning for immortality...If we don’t fear death, why should we fear life?...Thus dreaded death is nothing to us because when we are, death is not and when death is, we are not…._ -Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus (third paragraph) *_2 The Tetrapharmakos_* (τετραφάρμακος), *_The Four-part Remedy,_* as expressed by Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara and preserved in _Herculaneum Papyrus_ 1005, 4.9-14, is a great philosophy to live by: _Don’t fear god._ _Don’t fear death._ _The good is easy to get._ _The bad is easy to bear._ 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌

[@totalfreedom45]

@Bob Smith en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

[@schinaro]

I know you’re you and you know I’m me. But we don’t really know we are us!

[@bluejay6904]

weird man, what are you smoking?

[@VeryStupid4547]

#bravo

[@fraser_mr2009]

The problem with this is that you're not transferring ME to another part of the room, you're transferring a twin, I'm still going to die. Edit: Also the brain is not a computer.

[@soundscapeproductions9173]

Well, from the way, I understand it, is that your self, the me, the part of you that makes you will be transferred. The only thing that will die is your body.

[@fraser_mr2009]

@@soundscapeproductions9173 My consciousness will die, too.

[@soundscapeproductions9173]

@@fraser_mr2009 that is if you don’t believe we have a soul. If you believe the brain functions purely through materialistic processes then it’s impossible. In that case there Is no “ME” that exists, just chemicals firing off in deterministic fashion

[@kingwillie206]

Nobody is claiming the brain is a computer. The claim is it might be possible to upload the brain to a computer. Also, we don’t know if regrowing an exact copy of your brain from a piece of it with the exact same nueral pathways, hormones etc. would be a different person.

[@bartvenken7138]

@@kingwillie206 I think the way one phrases it is important: we won't be uploading our brain (or consciousness) to a computer, we would be copying it. There's an important difference.

[@redeemedchannel5580]

1 Corinthians 15 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [a]imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this [b]perishable must put on [c]the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

[@pasquino0733]

So ok in this bodily resurrection, I guess I won't have a a digestive system as the process of eating food from my mouth to my anus is one of decomposition ie only a fallen world equals death/decay/decomposition. So this new body won't have most of the contents of my torso. I won't also need to pee for the same reason, I'd be self sustaining and again the notion of waste is contradictory to a resurrected world without sin leading to death / waste decay - so I won't have an organ that deals with liquid waste either. Oh and I'll be sexless like the angels - "neither married nor given in marriage" so genitals gone again too. I mean, why would I have any of these things that are utterly useless within a resurrected ETERNITY. Will I have a nose? I breath out carbon dioxide as a waste product of my body, which also contradicts the no sin equals no waste/decay/death hypothesis.

[@ZeroOskul]

@Pasquino 0 Close your eyes and imagine nothing. Focus on the breath flowing in and out of you. Anything crosses your mind, disregard it. In absolute silent, empty blackness, this is the future. The present is made of the past and the future will be made of the preseng which is made of the past. But till it is made, till the present changes, there is no future. There is no past, the present is made of the past but is not the past. But we remember the past because it did happen and the present, including our menories, are the present made of the past.

[@redeemedchannel5580]

Pasquino 0 you are thinking in the flesh. If indeed you become immortal through Christ Jesus, then no you won’t need sexual organs, however as in Genesis 6 angels were indeed capable of sexual reproduction, via their own will, and having children-although this was a sin against God. Also, Christ speaks of living water from which one will never thirst again. You and I cannot possibly comprehend the vastness of God or to even imagine an existence radically different from our earthly existence. This is entirely consistent with how NDE experiencers describe heaven. But ultimately we will have to wait and see. Again I look to first Corinthians : 35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[h]

[@pasquino0733]

@@redeemedchannel5580 you made very little effort to personally grapple with the issue, or defend your case. An assertion of 'you are thinking in the flesh' says nothing descriptive beyond your tribe. Truth must be able to be described rationally on some level. So please explain to me how / why OUR BODY SEEMS TO BE UTTERLY CONTINGENT TO A WORLD OF DECAY but in your view was designed to exist as a resurrected body eternally???

[@redeemedchannel5580]

Pasquino 0 you have no clue what I’ve grappled with, nor how much time I’ve dedicated to understand spiritual issues, in as much as one can understand them. I know that they’re real and I’ve experienced irrefutable miracles through Christ. But I cannot rehash the fall for you nor the restoration of the Edenic plan on my little iPhone. This is a drawback of debating in a KZbin comment section. You may want to read Dr. Michael Heiser’s “the unseen realm”. If your life experience (and I’m not saying it is because I don’t know you) is confined to what scientists think, then spiritual matters will always be foolishness to you, but science seems to be catching up these days. We know that they’re real, but the ultimate questions are untestable. That’s just the way it is.

[@WMAlbers1]

Life after death is logically certain, we only don't know what kind of life...

[@yuriarin3237]

why is logically certain

[@Yousab_Menisy]

it's not even logically possible

[@shouqh-x4u]

@@Yousab_Menisy how is it not logically possible

[@ishikawa1338]

Becasue death means no life. The question is backwards. We know the answer that there is death after life and before we were born was death then life So maybe it goes death life death life repeat but know one knows how or what or if or why. Possible u just repeat your life over and over or u go into nothing ness forever However if u experience an ego death ull only understand what it’s like losing yourself

[@dunagarceran98]

@@Yousab_Menisy eso nadie lo sabe

[@jwbflyer]

@5:25 Robert makes an excellent point to the guest- it may be a copy, but it still isn’t me. And it is on this point that I believe the same substrate cannot produce the same conscious “me”.

[@napsec9807]

What's the point of making an exact copy of yourself? When you die, you die it doesn't matter to yourself if there is someone out there exactly like you because it's a separate entity and you ceased existing.

[@bubble_nut5000]

You can not clone consciousness. "Our" brain is a receiver in a circuit giving us the ability to interact in this plane. This man is absolutely wrong. We are eternal.

[@rosarioelenes9668]

Got scientific evidence?

[@bubble_nut5000]

@@rosarioelenes9668 do you have evidence debunking my claim?

[@bubble_nut5000]

@@rosarioelenes9668 this "scientist" had no more evidence than I can present. You believe him why? Because he is in a video?

[@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals]

Indeed😀

[@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals]

@@rosarioelenes9668 Yes But You'll Claim It To Be A Fallacy Even Though It's As Irrefutable As The Moon Landing.

[@macikj]

we never die. awarness lives forever

[@rickwyant]

Should be called No Closer to Truth

[@honeys.kapoor2838]

Death is meaniengless. After death ? We will find overselves in the whole universe as consciousness. Because, thinking is a state of consciousness. No law applies to thinking. That is why a person understands that I am experiencing myself. Thinking is a state of consciousness. No law applies to thinking. Thinking means, experiencing, work of consciousness. We are being experienced from the prespective of consciousness. All exists based on experience. Experience is not our identity. Prespective of quantum mechanics, we are a Quantum Universe which exists everywhere to which no law applies. The universe is experiencing itself. Prespective of consciousness whatever is happening is happening in nothingnes. Past present future running in nothingness. Because, no law applies to consciousness.

[@napsec9807]

I am not following you, how will we keep our counciousness after death if, as you said, thinking is a state of conciousness and if we are dead we can't think anymore?

[@RDestroyer7]

@@napsec9807 thinking and expieriencing is different

[@itneeds2bsaid528]

I'm no physicist but Quantum mechanics and string theory seem to be revealing that "entangled" particles are really just the same particle existing in two places at once. Why couldn't a whole being? It's disheartening to think all "life after death" could be is that a copy of you exists out there. But I think consciousness is tuned to your specific anatomy. If a copy of you down to the atomic level could be created you would share perception with it. Just as you can perceive your left and right hand at the same time. After this flesh runs it's course, It will be your consciousness living in iRobert 2.0, not just a recreation of your mind that goes on thinking it's you.

[@johnyoutube6746]

Afterlife is possible Coz you are energy Energy is eternal

[@nickknowles8402]

WHY CANT YOU SAY, I DONT KNOW LOL. THOUGH CHRISTOF IS MY FAV SCIENTIST

[@yasfi5196]

let say you make exact copy of you, both atomic and biology structure, exactly identical. But in the first person perspective, still, it would be TWO "person" or two different subjective experience, right?

[@daveedmusic]

So amazing to see these seemingly intelligent scientists have the dogmatic belief that physical body is fundamental and consciousness is derived from it, they have absolutely no theory absolutely no concept of showing that. Yet quantum physics has shown again and again that consciousness is fundamental, It’s just unbelievable to see pretty intelligent people religiously believing magically that the body exists first and then consciousness when It’s exactly the opposite. you’re not The avatar, you are the player of the avatar outside the game. Please please Beautiful friends it’s time to take the intelligence to the next level and let go of the dogmatic belief of physicality as fundamental, here’s some good ones for you Professor Donald Hoffman. Watch the Ted talk and the book is” the case against reality.” Another one, physicist Tom Campbell. Another one Dr. Bruce lipton, another one Dr. Fredkin.

[@ZeroOskul]

When did QM describe consciousness at all? I may have missed the worldwide tickertape parade on the day we all learned to live forever, and chose to just destroy the world and be only for ourselves. Why would curiosity and communication occur after that day?

[@lifeisshortpeace7783]

The double slit experiment scientifically prove that the consciousness can alter the result of the experiment.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@lifeisshortpeace7783 The double slit experiment scientifically proves that the color black absorbs radiation. Nothing more.

[@lifeisshortpeace7783]

@@ZeroOskul I think your never see the double slit experiment that show that particles behave like wave when unobserved. But when observed it behave like particles.up till now,scientists can't understand this.consciousness is what we are fundamentally. The solid world we see outside is an illusion.I work in a hospital and after some patients died,their spirit or consciousness still press the call bell and when we went into the room,nobody was inside.all these I experiencd it myself.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@lifeisshortpeace7783 The pupil of your eye is black. Black absorbs radiation. Seeing is first drawing radiation into the eye. Observation changes the flow of radiation as you see it. Observation is not "consciousness intuiting reality", it's just the non-color black absorbs radiation.

[@willbrink]

Anything in science is possible, the issue is whether it's probable. I'm encouraged by work done by Dr Parnia and others, but to date, how probable consciousness persists post physical death, remains unclear.

[@leomdk939]

I feel the same way about Dr Parnia's work and it is unbelievable to me that we are not conducting more studies like the AWARE project ... how is "what happens when we die" somehow not the single most important question we could answer? Where we came from is even more mysterious, but what happens when you die is more important.

[@hadisaraf1744]

Maybe the one in my dream also feels him/herself after waking up:)

[@kandansaikon3556]

Consciousness will not be understood if discussed among the materialists. Consciousness is a speritual matter. Understanding the brain is to understand the 'tool' i.e brain as a tool. Any tool has its limitations. Any tool depands on its user. It is not possible for any tool, even the most sophisticated tool, to have its own consciousness. Observing a moving car on the road, for example, we may conclude that the car is conscious. The car seem conscious in avoiding any accidents, conscious in staying on the road, conscious in observing the road signs, conscious in where its going etc. Who is making the car seems to be conscious? THE DRIVER. If the driver leaves the the car, the car may still be 'alived' but NOT CONSCIOUS. Thus when we are asleep, we are still alive but temperorily unconscious. We die in our sleep if our 'consciousness' fails to return to our body. Our consciousness is our 'soul' and is deteched from our body. When we die our body rot and return to the soil but our soul live on with a new body living in a new dimension.

[@ph9576]

Interesting convo. Interesting shirt,

[@jwbflyer]

“It requires a substrate”. This is a mistake to say, respectfully. There is no evidence that proves this statement to be true and why why have two camps- local and non-local. As a matter of fact, our observations suggest it actually does not require a substrate.

[@vtr8427]

Great to see them argue .

[@kevinmm20]

Christof and the interviewer clearly have a different concept of the self, where the interviewer has the more standard illusory view that there is this unchanging core self being carried through from moment to moment and experience to experience. Of course, Christof conception of self isn't reconcilable with the interviewers, so the interviewer is confused.

[@kenechewkuk.l8707]

He's not an idiot. If it's an illusion, prove it. It's all well and good as a theory, but since brain science is a science, I'd like for this illusion to be proven. The brain does do trickery, even to it's holder. But this is not found at all. No scientist has ever found that a few seconds ago, you are a different person, only held together from experiences. Nobody has ever found that. Even in the more computer like part of your mind, the subconscious, it doesn't produce an illusion to believe in it itself. That's simply impossible.

[@kevinmm20]

@@kenechewkuk.l8707 I wouldn't assume he's an idiot. It doesn't take an idiot to miss the distinction I was attempting to point out. The illusory self that I'm referring to is essentially the idea of a soul, where there is a separate entity riding around in our bodies and controlling the brain that we call "I". A core "you" that is always there from moment to moment. In light of this, I was saying that it appeared that Christof and the interviewer were "speaking past each other" by assuming a different concept of self. In regards to proving it, it's really just the culmination of all that has been learned within brain science (including our evolution and physics) that makes the classical concept of self as incoherent. I wouldn't claim you're a completely different person from a few seconds ago and I don't think most people in the field of neuroscience would claim that either, but given your physical state has changed, leading to different conscious states arising from moment to moment, we can't say we're the EXACT same person from moments ago. It becomes a matter of how you want to define a "person". From a practical point of view, you are essentially the same person though. The main point of contention though is with regard to a core "you" that is carried forward from moment to moment that exists in addition to each new conscious state.

[@glynemartin]

@@kevinmm20 A soul (if it existed) would need to be aware or conscious to be worth anything. If it has no awareness whatsoever..it's totally inconsequential. So Consciousness would be by necessity, a more fundamental reality than "soul". In that case...where did the "soul" get its consciousness/awareness? If the soul is immaterial and has zero dimensions...why the assumption that the "soul" resides INSIDE the physical? Why is not the reverse? why is the (finite/limited) physical not within the dimensionless non-physical? What limits (measurements) can you apply to TRUE dimensionless-ness? What if the "soul" drops or lets go of the corporeal form...and it's actually the body that is formed (from conception), grows, dies and dissolves WITHIN the dimensionless "soul"? Why do we think the "soul" goes anywhere in the first place? Maybe It's the body that comes and goes. ??? If there was such a thing as the soul...i'd rather think that it "surrounded" the physical and not within it. To fit an "immaterial soul" within a physical body, ...give it (tacitly assumed) finite dimensions and boundaries and limit it to the physical is illogical if that IDEA is really put under scrutiny...and i'd SERIOUSLY like to know where the hell this asinine idea of "fitting" the dimensionless into the (finite) physical came from anyways... This "soul within a body" model comes over to me as a kinda straw-man argument to dismiss what COULD BE a totally misunderstood phenomenon, and should be rejected by those who buy into the idea of Soul. A lot more thought would need to be put into The Imperceptible less a baseless philosophical model makes it totally ludicrous. Just sayin'...

[@kevinmm20]

@@glynemartin The idea of the soul to me is gratuitous.

[@glynemartin]

@@kevinmm20 _"The idea of the soul to me is gratuitous."_ That is NOT the point. So does its existence depend on being gratuitous to you or not? I don't think your opinion determines reality any more than mine does... If the idea has been misrepresented, it lends itself to total dismissal. I don't speak in terms of soul either...but i don't totally dismiss what MIGHT BE a misunderstood phenomenon...

[@benitojohngenitojr.5608]

The Lifes of the Spirits in Our Whole Being keeps on Living Continually Everlastingly Because It is not Part of Dust Which is the Flesh in Times of Death.

[@caricue]

What an inane dualist conversation. Too bad Decartes wasn't around to join in. You are not a separate consciousness. You are a solid living organism. It wouldn't matter how many copies you made, you would still be there in your own head.

[@brainwavemeditationmusic]

This reporter always guides the interview for he's believes not for what other have to say.

[@DonnyLeeDuke]

Trying to get this photopoem into Christof's hands, but he's not contactable by the public, or a poet either for that matter, that I can yet find anyway. The poem was partly inspired by one of his articles, "Is Consciousness Universal" Scientific American, 2014. The poem: @t

[@jerryrogers9236]

I don't care what anyone says. I can tell you that heaven is real. I've been there. And it's just like the bible tells us. So wonderful.

[@chirpywiggins5796]

I go there most weekends after a good “Sesh!” Beat that !!!

[@ishikawa1338]

@@chirpywiggins5796 sound alike ur beating it ;)

[@gireeshneroth7127]

If day after today is possible, yes life after death is just as normal.

[@leomdk939]

Fascinating, but Dr Kuhn's question is still unanswered ... his subjective experience would be ... where? In one of the copies? Both? Neither? Just because there are two more people that are just like him doesn't mean they ARE him. So ... what?

[@dynamic9016]

Very interesting video.

[@raywest3834]

Even if the 'person' can be transferred into an immortal computer structure, it's not going to happen anytime soon, so this seems to be irrelevant. Perhaps the physical brain localizes the person, but upon brain death, this essence has been saved in the 'cosmic cloud' from whence it came. Well, let's hope so anyway . . .

[@macikj]

the person, the I, lives forever. the body dies, but the awareness never dies.

[@andyjurko75]

This thought experiment suggests that ‘physical reality’ is not fundamental and that’s why you can’t make a copy of you and experience it as the same consciousness. Maybe our body is like an avatar, a projection of more fundamental reality which is consciousness. Something like that. We just don’t know of course

[@catherinemoore9534]

I like the brain described as a ' kind of wet tofu' 😄

[@stevedresser83]

i claim his shirt when he dies

[@williampercival7662]

No need the clothes in heaven are silk and much more beautiful and comfortable.

[@SN-jp6dl]

Human fantasy has no limits

[@StaticBlaster]

Agreed. Life after death is a fantastical notion for people who fear their own fate.

[@brunoheggli2888]

But would it be not like a punishment to be yourself forever?

[@susansheldon6647]

Sad that people don't realize they have a spirit that is more important than a body. How sad to want to resurface in sodtware. Can you imagine being lost in all the data? Personally I would rather live with my LORD. How very sad of a human to consider to choose to anything other than life through YESHUA I pray you look into eternal life through YESHUA

[@BradHolkesvig]

Yeshua is not the one who gives life. Yeshua was just like all us other visible servants who speak for God. God is totally invisible but it is the source of everything we created men experience.

[@michaelbrunner8891]

It is sad but it's life, unfortunately there is no evidence of a spirit within us or God. It is a faith based belief. One difference between animals and humans is animals have no knowledge of death, as intelligent Earthly beings we know there is death and our lives will end but yet we still hold on to the belief that we will somehow live on spiritually. There is not one person who can say they know without a doubt there is life after death, if someone tells me this I sympathize with there unwillingness to accept non existence. It's sad but it's life, we are only given one.

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@michaelbrunner8891 I know for a fact that the individual created consciousness called man will experience life forever. I speak for the source of Life.

[@susansheldon6647]

Oh well... I tried... Y'all think like my oldest brother... He is absolutely brilliant ... I am truely sorry...and I still will be keeping everyone in my Prayers..🙏

[@perennialpump2385]

Contemplate strongly enough the seemingly miraculous notion that you are here, then you will be closer to the truth about the possibility of something when you are not. Get a true handle on being here, the rest is gravy.

[@jeremiahshackelford9656]

I wonder if it could be analogous to cells dividing to reproduce? I don't know much about these things, but I can kind of wrap my head around that idea, that I could be one thing, and then divide into two. I've heard of precidents in nuero science that suggest that the two haves of our brain are capable of thinking and observing independently from eachother. That plus the conjoined twin story seems to suggest that it is possible to for what we consider a single consciousness to be divided into two.

[@FreeDay997]

Unfortunately, we will all have been dead for a long time before we can upload our consciousness to a computer.

[@fraser_mr2009]

But it won't be MY consciousness. I'm still going to blank out.

[@FreeDay997]

@@fraser_mr2009 Thats right, it would be an exact (robotic) clone of you.

[@fraser_mr2009]

You're creating twins. I'm still going to die.

[@roqsteady5290]

Dont know why Kuhn has such a problem understanding that a clone would just be a duplication and that neither copy would be privileged over the other in being the "real me".

[@Fatalsunday]

Ok, but what is it that makes me feel that I am me and I am here if I can be copied into a different system without being that system? Unless I awake as that system, that system is someone else. It might be the perfect twin, but it does not explain the I-feeling, even if that system has an I-feeling of themselves.

[@taja1976]

Creating an identical twin, a precise replica, is not continuation of unique consciousness.

[@bluceree7312]

If we do manage to move consciousness into a computer, whatever it is will not be a human. It will be something, but not human.

[@0The0Web0]

This remined me on the game Soma....

[@edmeyer4800]

Dr Peter David Beter talks about uploading the brain into other copy's

[@omega82718]

If two copies evolve in the same environment and then suddenly diverge, why one copie would experience different things during the divergence? (in other words, why I am me and not anyone else?) The only logical possibility is that consciousness is a persistant illusion, I don't see anything else that coud resolve the problem, and that implies there is no hard problem of consciousness.

[@sampleowner6677]

How does he explain non local consciousness?

[@ataraxia7439]

What does non-local consciousness mean?

[@sampleowner6677]

@@ataraxia7439 Non local consciousness means your brain operating independent of your brain. It's where your consciousness leaves your body and you still have sight, hearing and reasoning ability. It happens a lot during near death experiences.

[@tosvus]

@@sampleowner6677 Well, never actually proven of course. They may have had moments of some awareness (in their body), combined that with a dream of thinking they are watching it from above for instance, and it sounds very impressive but could be a perfectly feasible physical explanation.

[@sampleowner6677]

@@tosvus That could be true but there are thousands of cases where the person came back with accurate information they couldn't have known. As far as proof there is no way to prove or disprove it. But there is enough evidence that says there is more to it than hallucinations.

[@bigred8438]

This has to be one of the stupidest questions people could ask. Life in its fullest meaning for us is a materialist concept, and relates wholly to have a body on this planet. It has a soul, and the soul leaves the dead body and rejoins the collective consciousness out there in the energy of space.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Stephen Braude and Ed Feser (for different reasons) both be like, “hold my beer.”

[@MrBlues113]

I know this sounds weird but I made exactly the same argument with exactly the same examples as the professor discussing with my friends and girlfriend

[@dumpsky]

not weird. it's a popular scifi trope, especially in the 'cyberpunk' genre.

[@MrBlues113]

@@dumpsky Im gona have to play that game

[@dumpsky]

@@MrBlues113 it's in there to a certain extent. it's more prominent in the novel 'altered carbon' which is also a somewhat ok tv mini series.

[@chucklombardo8167]

Maybe the universe controls our consciousness as the universe is god and is the all powerful entity

[@withoutdad7616]

The reasoning for life after death stems from regret. If I did one thing positive that satisfied a gap in my mind and my surroundings, then death allows someone or something else to build upon that of which was left behind by me. Maybe that one thing changes the world and continues on. Maybe it is shelved. I shelved my work for years. I like to weld and use stainless steel. My better-welded tools should last a few hundred years and can be repaired. But the stainless won't last forever and will be consumed or transfered by nature. I have a tree that I spiral. The twist is a memory effect in nature. If I do not wake, the tree holds a memory of me. I do not have to be on physical earth to teach. My son can look at that tree and see a representation of his father's life and learn from that spiral. The tree will not last forever. Life and death are of the physical. If I spiral a tree, the memory is in the tree too, not just me. If I die and no one maintains my memory in that tree, there will always be a pattern that can be recognized that some outside force caused the tree to spiral. The tree holds onto my memory until its own death and decay. But imagine the tree is cut with the spiral intact and maintained as a Totem pole. The tree is dead and I am dead, but the memory still exists in the spiral pattern inside the tree. There are other aspects to this, but this is a difficult way to write considering an infinity of angles and distances to view from if my creativity is boundless. Once again, it's one perspective. This is not a cult thing. It's a starting point. I actually like the idea of multiple ways of looking at things. Its part of the program. Essentially, memory is a measurable concept. Memory is measurable in different ways and is dependant on the perspective. Different perspectives gives rise to infinite possibilities for life after death systems. It's an AI market. My other idea with the orbs was YouCoin. But I am not a fan of crypto. Its a good medium to catch greedy and dishonest people. All things tech come with unknown perspectives that alter the future and the future of tech. Imagine a stainless (probably a better material that hasn't been discovered) tablet with a copy of DNA, hair sample, and digital memories with a video describing to yourself of a past life on a planet known as Earth. Not really my cup of tea. But as long as a measurable form of information exists of one's own existance, can that person be truly dead? My answer to all questions like this is dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt and dRxyz/dt. This includes partial derivatives. Probably something I am missing too. Someone probably already has a better starting point than my perspective. I'm ok with that. The idea of a computer to me is to unlock human and various other potentials. It belongs to betterment of humanity and nature. Not everyone is going to agree. Also, ok with that. Legal framework is simple...if AI connected to people or the Internet, either keep it open source or hand over every iteration to the government in one way or another. AI should face tremendous amounts of scrutiny. Yes sir.

[@electricmanist]

The brain along with the physical body ceases to exist after bodily death. However, the self, that is the essence of the individual, continues to exist when the vehicle dies. It is that essential individual consciousness (which is but a tiny part of the universal consciousness) which continues in another form as it develops or progresses along its path towards merging with God. That may include reincarnation in this world or other types of spiritual consciousness in other forms.

[@rosarioelenes9668]

Where is the scientific evidence?

[@electricmanist]

@@rosarioelenes9668 Have you never heard (read) about Near Death Experiences ? Much to learn should you desire to.

[@StaticBlaster]

How can life after death be possible? It's like saying we were alive before we were born and that's just not true. The fact is we were "dead" before we were born, then of course we were born, and we will die that is to say we won't exist anymore. We will return to the same eternal pre-birth state. The universe's predominance is death. The only place where we know life is possible is on Earth. Furthermore, the idea that we can outlive our physical bodies is an extremely hubristic notion and it's ludicrous because consciousness and the brain are intertwined. When the brain dies, consciousness will go with it.

[@ameralbadry6825]

Very smart scientist

[@alihamud322]

Ofcourse there is life after death. Why someone will creat a creation without remification? We are a creation and we are accountable what we do.

[@m.hassan9157]

what soul means the scientist can imagine of electromagnetic wrapping that every cell is having and after death the soul leaves the body and roam about either enjoy or suffer .and in REM sleep why eye moves because the in dream the part of soul leaves the body and by Rapid Eye movement the cochlea tries to locate one of the two body and soul that leaves body during dream .

[@valueconsulting1814]

Concinous continues after death in other dimanations like we dream now

[@Mikey-rj1lr]

An interview with Tom Campbell would be awesome

[@BugRib]

Disappointing that he doesn't seem to understand the logical problem with the "uploading your mind = life after death" idea.

[@prakashvakil3322]

Aatmiya DIVINITY HARE KRSNA Life after death is possible. Death occurs of the physical, material body. The spiritual entity is eternal, everlasting, unborn, unchanging, immutable, permanent, omnipresent, omnscient, all knowing, all overseeing, all permitting, all merciful, permanent, INVISIBLE, Irreducible. Death is of material body while JIVATMA is alive always like PARAMATMA. Very respectfully Loving 💕 ING You One and All DIVINE ❤️

[@SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals]

Yes!

[@williamspohrer545]

Consciousness is not defined by argument.If your argument satisfies your concerns about consciousness fine. However, that does not give you license to declare all other arguments are meritless because they are fundamentally different from yours.

[@ZeroOskul]

But my stupid idea's mine! Are you sure it's just as invalid as anybody else's stupid ideas?(j/k)

[@saliksayyar9793]

Life after death is possible on resurrection. They talk about humans creating identical consciousness, yet they deny a Creator doing it on resurrection. Identical twins are a common occurrence. The thalamus conjoined twins merely relay sensory input to the two cortices, like Braille. Question is there differential dominance of sensory input, suppression or resolution of conflicting sensations must be a part of it. These two are confused materialists.

[@jamespoff8632]

I love these videos...even if I don't agree some!

[@myothersoul1953]

Complexity leads to consciousness? The problem with that as a scientific hypothesis is how to measure "consciousness". How could that hypothesis be falsified? Consciousness isn't a substance, it isn't a program or data, consciousness is a process.

[@ZeroOskul]

Consciousness is the capacity to choose either option a or b.

[@antonioILbig]

Massimini has developed a measure of consciousness following this theory of complexity. Cristoph koch and tononi has developed the theory called "integrated information theory" and Massimini collaborated with them!

[@myothersoul1953]

@@ZeroOskul Coins are also good for that except they choose either heads or tails.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@antonioILbig Massimini's measure is a correlate of consciousness. Consciousness is defined as the state of a patient, awake, asleep, in a coma, etc. Before he measure the brain activity he already has an assessment of consciousness (see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnaqnZSoq9J_jck). Even so it's a measure of a process which produces a electromagnetic fluctuations which can be picked up by the EEG. Tononi's integrated theory is interesting but it doesn't predict things other theories do. Also the axioms of the theory are questionable (see www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574706/).

[@mauriziosorelli9566]

What's the use of copying ourselves? Multiverse does that job for us

[@larrycarter3765]

Nope!

[@johnbrowne8744]

Very sad. "The blind leading the blind". 😥

[@yasfi5196]

I think he is trying to explain that is possible to make thing "seems" like having consciousness by imitating such a complex structure of brain. But, still, the exact copy of me is not "me".. Funny isn't it? Whatever you trying to do, it can't bring me back alive :)

[@sony5244]

What about Animals or Insects death?

[@dieuhuyen0812]

I see the point here and disagree with Kristof Koch: The mind exist, u might duplicate the mind as in a software, but u can never copy the id-number. At least not in the model of Minds of the initial Creator

[@glennholmes7247]

No death after life?

[@shadabfariduddin6784]

Which real ME whose loss robert is worried about? Is this real ME outside of saved consciousness? How? Why?

[@dapc777]

~is it more possible to know of life before life~humans are too preoccupied in what is an inevitable~but yet wish to "hopefully" see a guarantee that all is OK~sadly enough people wish to know about such things instead of knowing who they are always in the present~that way there when they do expire they had a better meaning of who they were alive than dead~ego alays wants to know what it cannot know at all~