Roger Penrose - What is Consciousness?

Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world's deepest questions without the need for paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Watch more videos the mystery of consciousness: bit.ly/44DYPLU
Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled philosophers. To begin, we must define and describe consciousness. What to include in a complete definition and description of consciousness?
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
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.

[@grahamtrave1709]

One of the most knowledgeable people on this earth saying we don’t know very much . How refreshing is that

[@deeznutz69mang]

The smartest people assume they know nothing. It seems to be the difference between real intellegence, and just having a persona that feigns intellegence.

[@samgamgee7384]

That's the state of the art then.

[@peterneumeyer9232]

And this wonderful person is so humble

[@clayhamilton3551]

The more you know, the more you realize how much we don’t know.

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

These book smart nerds haven't had dried magic mushrooms or Ayahuasca yet. No wonder they're clueless

[@JOHNBOYC2]

You can almost see the decades of contemplation in his expressions. What a fascinating mind to have in our time.

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

He could've saved himself decades of research with 1 session of Ayahuasca or dried magic mushrooms

[@JOHNBOYC2]

@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027 happy medium in there somewhere I dare say!

[@chriscantor6329]

Note how often this ultimate expert admitted gaps in his/our knowledge. Preparedness of eg doctors to admit what they don't know, I at times find more reassuring than statements from those who claim their expertise makes their knowledge unquestionable.

[@realist4859]

What do you mean Almost!!

[@colinjohnrudd]

Roger Penrose..... a true visionary because he recognises the mystery!

[@BlessedMarkOnAir]

I am so grateful that people like Sir Roger Penrose exist. For a long time I thought that there was hardly anyone who doubted the theory that our consciousness is a computer process in our brain. Sir Roger Penrose's statements are all the better to hear.

[@davidr1431]

It is still a process in the brain even if not a computer process.

[@JixisToi]

Som Speculations on mind works for me ❤

[@bhadraparekh]

I believe what he means by "understanding" here is what I call it as "knowing". I picked up this perspective from Rupert Spira. "Knowing" or "understanding" is not a function of the mind but an inherent quality (ingredient) of consciousness itself. This is the nature of consciousness. This perspective leads to the understanding that the essence of every object, thought, or sensation is consciousness, dissolving the usual subject-object dichotomy and leading to a non-dual understanding of reality.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Well it cannot be inherent in consciousness itself, because consciousness itself does not exist - it is "itself" an emerging phenomenon caused by the merging of a sense organ with its object. Consciousness does not exist at all until a functioning sense organ and its object come together. This is why consciousness itself is empty of own existence, and of any own properties: its arising is caused by asense organ and a sense object, and its properties are mere imputations from our side.

[@bakkels]

Do you mean he's pointing out there's a difference between 'knowing' and 'understanding'? Because that's my take. There is 'knowing' something. Which means you oberved or memorized a certain fact, emotion or whatever. Than there's 'understanding', which to me is something entirely different but very difficult ot put into words. Maybe 'inherent' is the best word for it indeed? An 'inherent knowledge' to me encapsulates both the knowledge _and_ understanding of a certain subject.

[@Psycandy]

yes but you're only as conscious a you need to be. Do dogs have a consciousness? How about horses? Do mice? What about insects, do they have a consciousness? they sure don't know or understand as much as we do! how about fish, do they have a consciousness? Okay how about a plant? Does it need a central nervous system for consciousness? Okay, what about fungi? Microscopic animals, bacterium, viruses...* It has nothing to do with understanding or knowing*, it has to do with survival and processing unpredictable and variable environments, it is required for the organism to survive and it is highly variable.

[@dracowyerc.v.2391]

🎉

[@bhadraparekh]

​@@bakkels I think there's an interesting overlap between what we're both saying. Roger Penrose wasn't directly addressing the difference between "knowing" and "understanding" in his discussion. His discussion was about how this one element of consciousness (“understanding”) is so strange and unexplainable which is why it’s non computational. Then he later gives out his explanation or argument for that. My intention was to connect his idea of "understanding" to what I call it as “knowing”. So when I say “knowing” it’s same as “understanding” of Penrose. What you called as "knowing" that which involves the initial cognition or perception is what I call as “perception”. And Yes, Penrose is pointing to that same feeling of “understanding” that you described which is this unexplainable or difficult to put it in words. To clarify, when Penrose talks about understanding, he’s suggesting that it’s a process that cannot be fully captured by computational methods-it requires consciousness or awareness. So, “UNDERSTANDING”, in this sense, is inherently tied to consciousness. For example, if someone is talking to you and you are not paying “attention” to what they are saying, even though you will hear the words being spoken you will not “understand” what’s being said. So here consciousness becomes essential ingredient. One cannot truly understand something without being aware of it. You have to bring this torch like attention to the object you want to bring into focus. I call this "attention" as stretching of awareness/consciousness (When I say consciousness or awareness they mean the same). So after the initial cognition the words are just information but the processing of it is what turns it into “understanding”. Now, in my view, all there is to “understanding” is nothing but Consciousness. In fact, if we look deeper all there is to perception, sensation, emotions is consciousness. Not to shamelessly plug, but if you're interested and want to explore more I discuss these ideas in my blog: www.bhadraparekh.com/blogs/consciousness-and-its-nature

[@david.thomas.108]

Excellent interview. I love hearing Sir Roger Penrose’s thought process on consciousness. Fascinating stuff.

[@blijebij]

Same! A very inspiring, excellent and loved scientist. I wish he was 40 years younger so we still would have him around for a long time :)

[@aditya.sedhai]

Bang average if you ask a new age scientist

[@robdev89]

What a gem of a human being Roger Penrose. ❤

[@donnievance1942]

Penrose is the one person who could get me to watch this lamo channel.

[@IA100KPDT]

so what is consciousness?

[@michael.forkert]

@@IA100KPDTThey pretend to know what consciousness is, to convince the public that they are a kind of superior thinking human beings. That’s it. Just in time: AND they make a comfortable living out of it.

[@IA100KPDT]

@@michael.forkert Precisely, the guy said nothing about consciousness and yet so many are praising him like he gave some solid insight and revelation. talk about bootlicking.😆

[@jamievarni1530]

And when you talk with him privately, you get the same person. That’s rare.

[@diegochavez8752]

It's amazing that we know more about galaxies and stars than we do about ourselves. Consciousness is still a big mystery in science and philosophy.

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

I absolutely love and appreciate Sir Roger Penrose and although i have no knowledge of mathematics and know very little of quantum physics, i have still gained knowledge from his teaching and others, however i feel blessed and equal with my owm knowledge when in it comes to consciousness as no body can explain it only but live it and experience it✨💙🙏

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@maxhagenauer24]

The entire concept of being sentient and being aware and making decisions of our own, its absolutely mind blowing. Why me and not someone else in this body? How do I make decisions? How do I trust myself with my decision making in the future? Even the next breathe I take. It seems to make no sense how deterministic laws being applied to matter (biology and chemistry) can do this but at the end of the day, we don't know yet what this is and hkw it works on a deep enough level to anwser those questions. We just really desire anwsers about what "we" even is. Maybe one day.

[@markb3786]

Your questions are much smarter than most of the answers on here.

[@maxhagenauer24]

@markb3786 I am glad to hear someone tell me that. Why do you think that though? Is it because I'm not making any claims and I'm just saying we don't know yet?

[@DaP84]

Why not someone else? Cause you are your composition. No external element. Your choises are probably fully deterministic, even though it doesn't seem so.

[@ripukshaymalhotra245]

The psychological person or the mental structure responsible for assuming/ believing that it exists and making decisions or having volition has been termed illusory . While the existence of thought/ sensations has been validated, but the thought taking form of the person and believing itself to be an individual is called illusory. You make take the aforementioned as a possibility or theory and observe. Or you already know all this and I am being presumptuous. 😊

[@DaP84]

@@maxhagenauer24 if that is true, then yeah. But the blaming would also be a deterministic response.

[@patrioticalliancefanbase]

I was looking for an answer on consciousness, and I didn't find it in the video , I find it in your comment, and it makes so much sense, knowing, knowing , knowing that something outside of us exist, is there, believing that it's there because no one need to convince us , I just know it's there, thank you , Al those explanations by the experts are just unnecessarily complicated, your explanation is simple , yet profound.

[@patientson]

Sir Roger Penrose, it is "logical." You have always been right.

[@Nikhilgupta-qj8ce]

#acharyaprashantvedant(English)

[@youtubeusername1489]

What I like about his videos is that he doesn't straight out say "this would prove everything about consciousness. so we have to pursue it". He only says it might be able to explain certain aspect of what we define as consciousness, and that idea is worth pursuing. That makes him much more credible than other scientists who try to jump to other fields and try to innovate new(controversial) idea.

[@ianbrown4242]

An incredible mind, and eloquent communicator.

[@transcender5974]

The most mature and complete explanation of the nature of consciousness comes from the Vedic Tradition, which says that consciousness is preexisting as an eternal, unmanifest, absolute field beyond time, space, causation...all relative existence. All that exits, the Vedas proclaim, is vibrating consciousness knowing itself in an infinite number of perspectives, manifesting those perspectives as per it's self-referral dynamics. The human brain doesn't produce consciousness..it, like everything else in creation reflects consciousness to the degree that it's structure will allow. More evolved nervous systems will reflect more consciousness with the associated laws of nature for that level of consciousness. The nervous system that is more evolved will have at it's disposal more laws of nature and awareness of laws of nature. A radio doesn't produce the electromagnetic waves it turns into sound..it is a receptor and reflector of some mode of vibration of the electromagnetic field. This can be compared to the how different nervous systems reflect different modes of vibration of the field of consciousness.

[@Caitanyadasa108]

Right; if modernity wants to understand what consciousness is why not look into the writings left by those who specialized in it and developed an entire vocabulary for discussing its nature? I suspect modern science doesn't want to admit that there are some things that it can never know by objective methods while failing to realize it is consciousness employing the methods in the first place.

[@jonnydangerous2497]

You clearly have no conscious. @markh7484

[@AnalysisLegend]

Are you 👻.🤔jonnydangerous2497

[@jonnydangerous2497]

@@AnalysisLegend Yes I am.

[@SreeKrishnaGhosh]

Talk no more. Yagyavalka rightly stated if you utter a single word about paramatman u r no more in this state of life and dimension. Just stay stateless, zero. ❤❤❤❤❤

[@markkennedy9767]

It's crazy how there are so many intersecting concepts here like quality/qualia (Pirsig), computation and its reducibility (Wolfram), measurement problem in QM (Penrose), discreteness vs continuity (the history of the foundations of calculus) that always keep cropping up essentially saying this doesn't fit. There's a throughline in all this stuff that only a few people like Penrose have the courage to say this is off, something's missing.

[@bozdowleder2303]

He is clearly wrong about THAT though. It has become a standard procedure to point out just where Lucas-Penrose goes awry in most textbooks which deal with Godel

[@AnalysisLegend]

Are you scientist .Are you God saying what is right or what is wrong.😂😂​@@bozdowleder2303

[@khuzytheartistsyd]

Yes, you are very, very correct, and it goes much, much deeper than you think, Wittgenstein spent his whole career arguing for this in a totally different way, and it completely changes the nature of the way we debate religion, spirituality and the universe, people haven't yet realised how enigmatic and serious what he is saying here is. I am trying to figure out this puzzle of consciousness myself, it's what all the science is trying to solve whether they know it or not, and not a single person has a clue right now, Penrose might literally be the smartest person in the world in terms of this.

[@scottturner1504]

It's satisfying to know that even the process of understanding in the human mind is a fundamental property of the quantum world

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Nonsense!

[@carlryan3936]

Consciousness is in everything and we are an antenna that taps into it oaccasionally.

[@nc8507]

Nothing about Mr. Penrose suggests he's 92 years old. If i didn't know any better I'd easily believe he's 20 years younger.

[@likable72]

I’m not a physicist but Penrose is a gem to humanity. He makes mathematics interesting!

[@stevedabish9107]

What a great pleasure listening to great interviews through this wonderful channel

[@backwardthoughts1022]

they were good like 15yrs ago now they just support kohns coke bill.

[@BugRib]

@backwardthoughts1022 - What? 🤔

[@gunterra1]

The answer is amazingly simple. Consciousness is awareness, more specifically self-awareness. The recognition that I am aware of being aware, that I am a living being, I have a mind, and I have a body. That's how consciousness manifests itself in us humans. So, it is You, who has a mind, and a body. In other words, three parts. That's about all one can say about consciousness. Yes, there are states of consciousness, etc. But that is another subject. When you are alive, you have it when you are dead, you don't have it any longer. There is even a fair amount of evidence for what happens to a conscious being at death. Here is what happens: death of the body, partial death of the mind, and forgetfulness on the part of the being, spirit, or self (who is not a thing or physical object).

[@jmanj3917]

6:13 I've always enjoyed learning from Dr. Penrose...and my dogs are loving the birds...lol Go Bluejays!

[@fuffoon]

I was watching this channel yesterday. Same subject but other scientists. I was thinking I would like to hear Penrose on this show. And voila, the dude is here. He talks about stuff that is more of human interest than just another object we will never get close to.

[@nuqwestr]

Great to revisit this talk, always stimulates, but still no understanding.

[@stellarwind1946]

Consciousness is like a massive object that’s gravity pulls people in from all branches of science to attempt an explanation at.

[@DeewarPutr]

that's because consciousness IS the underlying basis for "understanding" to explain anything which includes the role of belief in a set of axioms that enables building an argument for the explanation itself (i.e no branch of science can do what they do without the ultimate reality of consciousness)

[@bozdowleder2303]

​@@DeewarPutrSurprisingly the reason is actually the opposite. Cognition isn't really mysterious and we have managed to build machines that can cognize aspects of their environment. Any electronic sensor is a good example. Consciousness is something quite different and we don't even understand its purpose, let alone how to create a working model of it

[@DeewarPutr]

@@bozdowleder2303 alright just ask yourself how you “truly” know that to be the case (or any other whatsoever case you’re trying to present)

[@bozdowleder2303]

@@DeewarPutr There is no case. You're simply mixing up cognition and information processing and consciousness. Any ordinary electronic sensor has cognition. Consciousness, or the quality of experiencing something(rather than merely taking in information), is something we cannot even detect from the outside in others. We assume that all humans are conscious because why would we be anything special. And we may extend it to mammals and birds. But we have no evidence for it. It doesn't have any discernible function

[@DeewarPutr]

@@bozdowleder2303 the electronic sensors were built with so called human intelligence with similar principles humans employed already to do some “sensing” in the world for thousands of years.. same line of thought computers can do what human calculators used to already do but better.. so all you need to do is just turn the argument upside down and see that computation or sensing could be aspects of any advanced consciousness but the “awareness” an electric charge has for an electric (or any other) field for all of infinity in space is literally baked into it

[@abduazirhi2678]

Sir Roger Penrose is an amazing scientist to listen to. So knowledgeable.....Consciousness is not computational as it's not an physical entity !!

[@jackherer4865]

consciousness is it's content. for human beings, hope , desperation, fear and other innumerable forms of conditionings

[@greatunz67]

I really wish they had a closed captioning type of thing you could turn on that simplifies and dumbs down what they are discussing for us average joes who aren't rocket scientists.

[@domini1331]

Anxiety may be the real indicator of consciousness. Our anxiety starts when we develop consciousness and it disappears whenever we lose consciousness.

[@BugRib]

But _all_ of our experiences (e.g. anxiety, happiness, pain, pleasure, taste of chocolate, etc.) begin when we become conscious and end whenever we lose consciousness.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

since you cannot rigorously observe consciousness, what is the point of commenting on it using your folk level of introspection when there are persons who can talk on the matter around

[@Stifford123]

How do you know it disappears? Just means you can't monitor it cause your unconscious...

[@domini1331]

@@Stifford123 Anxiety can be read on the face by others.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@domini1331 behaviour and neural correlates are behaviour and neural correlates, not consciousness.

[@pamelastorer8570]

I believe that consciousness is that part of the Energy which forms us, is us, which is aware of itself. It is a characteristic of that Energy. From that, it becomes aware of other and then informs the self conscious Energy.

[@danmcbmusic]

I believe that history will show Roger to be one of the great thinkers of our time.

[@miasmic100]

What an intellect, you dive into deep learning listening to him

[@williamburts5495]

What Am I? Answer: " I Am " that which allows me to know that " I Am " therefore I Am a unit of self-awareness because to be aware is to be " self-aware " therefore self-awareness is consciousness.

[@jacqueslucas8616]

Consciousness is not a computational process….Love it! So simple yet nails it.

[@BugRib]

I think the fact that the contents of conscious experience are comprised of un-quantifiable, pure qualities that can't be computed or described by mathematics, not even in principle, also proves that consciousness is not computational.

[@nuqwestr]

The annealing of noise at our scale allows us to communicate, understand and accomplish tasks, we don't need to get it 100% correct, our aspiration toward 100% is enough.

[@stevenfranks3131]

"Our understanding enables us to go beyond any rules of proof that you trust...."

[@rchas1023]

I keep looking at these videos in the hope of getting a rational explanation. Alas, the words slip through my mind like water through a sieve. More and more, I think the question is itself a red herring.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

is red outside the skull or inside the skull or both or neither.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Being conscious is the process in which the outside gets inside where it persists in the form of representations (also called thoughts). Consider the representation of one's own body to be the self. Since it is the self that is conscious, as in I am conscious, one can easily imagine that the representations are modulating the self-thought and what's going on there is the core of what being conscious means.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@backwardthoughts1022 Being conscious is the process in which the outside gets inside where it persists in the form of representations (also called thoughts). Consider the representation of one's own body to be the self. Since it is the self that is conscious, as in I am conscious, one can easily imagine that the representations are modulating the self-thought and what's going on there is the core of what being conscious means. Thus red is a representation, a particular modulation process of the self and process, being an abstract notion and representation being context dependent combine allowing us to say 'red' has no location. Approximately and in need of exploration.

[@einwd]

we are the explanation.we have created the world. now our only task is to look back at ourselves.deep in ourselves.

[@yurkdawg]

That's why the show is called "*closer* to truth" - it focuses on questions that we cannot (and may never be able to) fully answer. However that does not mean that we should not try. Nor does it mean that we cannot make any progress, I.e. to get "closer"...

[@Healing2Harmony]

Consciousness, energy these are the most fascinating topics to so many of us. I have a theory that the Krebs Cycle has some very interesting mystery to release of energy and so release and a change in location of energy and so consciousness. In this cycle the way the cell responds is to actually harness and transfer the energy from 1 location to another. Would love to see a scientist take a look at this process closer.

[@will27ns]

I admire Roger for at least trying to answer the question.

[@gr33nDestiny]

One of the best interviews Einstein said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge' which is very concise. I feel like I could add to it by saying that there are 2 sets, the reality set for our universe and our consciousness's ability to understand or make use of the imaginary set. Where does this imaginary set come form and why does it exist in our brains and nowhere else. The imaginary set also seems much larger, so if its infinite it should be a bigger infinity than the reality set. It doesn't seem logical its there for nothing or just as a model for predictions. I believe its a way this universe is representing those sets but I don't know if its a requirement or just because its possible, therefor it exists. Seems like a long time before humans will actually figure out if true conscious AI is possible.

[@Bob123Max]

There we have brilliant insight. "Consciousness is more than computation". I have read arguments that the honey bee exhibits consciousness. Not so, what the bee does is pure computation - incredibly good computation with the bare minimum of neurons - but the bee does not know what it is doing. However, where an invertebrate possibly shows emotion - I have witnessed a spider being pursued by a wasp - to me the spider looked terrified in its desperation to escape. If the spider was experiencing fear, does that count beyond computation? Mammals clearly exhibit a variety of complex emotions - you only have to live with a dog to see this. Are these emotions beyond computation - I believe so.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

This is really "What consciousness is not". Consciousness is the phenomena of subjective experience which includes thinking. And nobody has a clue how cells create a subject and it's experiences which are both totally invisible to an external observer.

[@Caitanyadasa108]

The assumption that the subject is created by cells could be just that. Is it possible that consciousness is different from matter altogether and that its true nature can never be known by the objective methodology of the scientific method?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@Caitanyadasa108 It may involve some unknown aspect of matter and energy but it arises due to the activity of cells. You end that activity and there is no consciousness.

[@Caitanyadasa108]

@@jackarmstrong5645 So in your opinion it isn't possible that consciousness is different from matter?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@Caitanyadasa108 I don't think it is matter. But it could be some unknown effect that arises from the interaction of matter and energy.

[@zemocon2868]

​@@jackarmstrong5645Actually, there can be consciousness even if you shut off brain completely. There can be consciousness even if the person is under anesthesia. Ask NDErs...

[@sunyata4974]

Understanding is a gleam of consciousness, which is the absolute truth. It is beyond the realm of science, which is a relative truth.

[@DarkGhoul312]

If you understand the terms and meaning of Buddhism and the ideas of science then there is new way of understanding consciousness because it seems to me to be reflective and evolutionary. Especially if you watch them in correlation of one another.

[@StartupOfficial-q9n]

The answer was provided in Bhagvad Gita as "Absolute Truth". The knowledge was shared approx. 5,000 years ago. In Rig-Veda (10,000 years old approx.) it was mentioned as "Nirgun tattva". Additionally, scripture book of Mandukya Upanishad also mentioned it as "Turiya", "which was translated in English as Conciousness".

[@BrianCuthbertson]

How does that explain anything?

[@heathergrahame9647]

Consciousness is an embrace of what is. It is an openness to what is. It is acceptance of what is. The pupil of an eye is a good analogy for consciousness. It is an opening, gap, or space which allows light (“what is”) into the brain. A narrow consciousness allows only a small amount in, whereas a wide, open consciousness allows a lot more in. When a person is highly conscious, they are not limiting what they are letting in. The are fully open to receiving what is. Again, to speak metaphorically, a highly conscious person is someone who has their arms wide open. And it’s no coincidence that there are many images of Christ, for example, with his arms open. The most poignant of these is his arms wide open whilst hanging on a cross and suffering. That is the challenge. We tend to want consciousness so as to be able to understand why suffering exists or why there is a problem somewhere. We think if we have the understanding, then we can arrange circumstances so that the suffering or problem ceases. But true consciousness embraces suffering. It embraces everything. It embraces what is. It accepts all without limitation or conditions. It is only when we are willing to accept all of what is, are we then able to understand it. As Penrose says, consciousness is not computational. To become conscious, we need to allow ourselves to be impressed upon or to receive thought or receive understanding. We need to be open and receive the light that passes through the pupil. That light is the light of consciousness. Continuing with this analogy, it could be said that consciousness or light exists outside of the brain or outside of the self (actually, it is around the self and embraces the self) and our brain or self is affected by the light or consciousness it receives from the outside. An open mind is impacted by the consciousness it lets in, and the person’s own thoughts align themselves to (or become similar to) the consciousness which has been received. As the thoughts within the self become more and more similar to the consciousness which has been received, the person experiences a greater level of understanding within themselves. Our soul is that which is conscious, and our soul is of God and of all consciousness. It is the soul which enlightens the mind of the self. Contrary to what many people believe, the brain does not engender greater consciousness. In fact, the brain acts as a limitation or barrier to consciousness. It is a blindfold over the pupil which lets in the light of consciousness. The brain is capable of repeated thinking or thoughts along the same lines. When we have very fixed and rigid beliefs or expectations, for example, we are incapable of accepting and seeing something which is contrary to those beliefs and expectations. The brain is computational, and its penchant for continually computing along particular lines actually hinders consciousness. A closed mind or fixed mind cannot see beyond what it already knows. It cannot let in the light of consciousness of the soul. For a person to become more conscious, they must meditate, sleep, or in some way release themselves from their usual thinking processes (for example, some drugs can do it too). I know it sounds back-to-front, but, when you’re asleep, you are more conscious than when you are awake. When you’re awake, your thoughts and beliefs blindfold you and limit what you’re capable of accepting and seeing. As humans, we go through a repeating cycle or rhythm of awake (blindfolded/unconscious), sleep (conscious), awake (blindfolded/unconscious), sleep (conscious). The main purpose of this rhythm or cycle of unconsciousness and consciousness is that such a rhythm leads to an expansion of consciousness. If we were always fully conscious or existed only as a conscious soul, then there would be no need or desire to know more or become conscious of more. However, by having a human form and experiencing ignorance/blindfoldedness/unconsciousness whilst being awake, then out of that is born a desire to know more. That desire to know more ultimately leads to an expansion of consciousness. Human beings are, therefore, at the "leading edge" or "outer edge" of consciousness, where new consciousness is emerging.

[@sorellman]

He is absolutely right, not that he needed my confirmation. The proof comes many times in the way we understand things, and our understanding of things is neither computable, nor something that we could always provide empiric evidence in support of.

[@sorellman]

@@markh7484 You are asking me to provide evidence for what I said, as Penrose did, could not be provided evidence for, as in "non-computable"? On that note, don't you think you should be the one to provide evidence for your claim that how we end up understanding things is computable. Show us the records. I will not hold my breath.

[@royjones3432]

cannot argue both that consciousness is implicit in matter and that matter is mindless. to do this they would have to show how consciousness arises out of the unconscious matter

[@blange1808]

In the discussions about consciousness I often miss a clear distinction between consciousness as such and the content of it.

[@ripukshaymalhotra245]

Both are same. Content is consciousness. If not yet, you may please read, the discussion between scientist, D. Boham and J. Krishnamurthi .

[@backwardthoughts1022]

​@@ripukshaymalhotra245not quite, awarenesses can observe its own nature rigorously with the development of perfectly single-pointed concentration, at which poijt all external and internal stimulus and objects are by definition emptied out of the mind.

[@blijebij]

@@backwardthoughts1022 I think a better language for emptied is integrated. Awareness is a less complex state of consciousness compared to waking, and it does that by the quality of a higher degree of integrated state. An integrated state is the relation with unity, oneness. A higher degree of Oneness is full and empty at the same time, wich totally fits the discription of an integrated state. From my experience, (I can keep my awareness through all sleep stages even deep sleep and to the nde, i prooved this to myself by an eeg machine, monitoring my meditation and sleep proces) Awareness from my own exprerience, so from practice not from books or others, is an integrated state relation and the foundation of consciousness. It also showed me that consciousness and awareness are holistically in relation. That means that when we are awake we are also a bit a sleep and when we are a sleep we are also a bit awake.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@blijebij eeg is useless, we have the neural correlates for almost all mental functions including attention and concentration. we know that the avg person is capable of 2sec max concentration and we know genuine practitioners can sustain concentration uninterrupted by any external stimulus or internal object for not seconds but multiple hours. work is begining to be done on ppl who maintain perfect concentration throughout the entire sleep period, but currently more neuroscientist attention is being done on meditators in concentration post clinical death one such large study called 'the tukdam project'. eeg is useless meaningless decades old science, we now operate on directly monitoring the neural correlates themselves.

[@ripukshaymalhotra245]

@@backwardthoughts1022 This is age old trick of the mind to keep itself busy/ going by promising a reward of emptiness in the end.

[@osks]

“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…

[@stighenningjohansen]

Its the most complex fundamental problem we face, especially given the second law of thermodynamics.

[@muggzzzzz]

I think consciousness has quantum nature. Some of our brain atoms has entangled with some other atoms in the universe, and as long as atoms of our brain cells have entangled 'partners' somewhere in the universe, our consiciousness will keep being live. Taking into account that all atoms of the universe cannot be destroyed at once, our consciousness is indestructible.

[@Art-is-craft]

It does not need quantum entanglement. The brain has 200 billion cells and about 100 billion neuron’s. That could create combinations of order of magnitude 1*10^200. Which could be interacting with millions of banks of information.

[@callumclarke1733]

As a theist I Believe mind Consciousness is More fundamental than matter it's a immterial Conceptual by Nature.

[@physicscogitor6192]

The most intelligent man alive. His philosophical depth combined with mathematically "technical" skills are just above anybody else alive at this moment. He is the closest to Albert Einstein in our times.

[@tonynaccarato4751]

Roger is the man.

[@youfilin]

Sir Roger Penrose is one of the best in the field of study. But the question should sound like "in your opinion, what is consciousness".

[@hansbleuer3346]

There are holes in our words. But, how to describe them? With a new form of logic or math? And, how to we measure them? A quantum theory of language? Sensetime?

[@LivingNow678]

supernatural is supernatural Amen

[@terrycallow2979]

I love this CTT.

[@trsshowstopper9518]

As long as you don't define the term consciousness you will never know what it is.

[@AnalysisLegend]

I love him❤

[@mpaczkow]

The fruit fly brain was recently completely mapped and found to have about 3000 neurons. Several researchers have studied whether the fruit fly demonstrates consciousness as defined by self-awareness and problem solving and concluded that fruit fly shows consciousness. It would seem that the definition of consciousness should be species dependent. The philosophical question seems to start from an abstract position that is lost in the world of reality and therefore difficult to comprehend.

[@gillcelt]

Mathematics on consciousness, is a sentence explaining the space between each word.

[@picksalot1]

When you understand something, the mind is in the form of the object of knowledge. The more accurate the mental form, the greater the potential for correct knowledge and its understanding.

[@mikefoster5277]

But what if all understanding is self-contained? In and of the mind itself? In other words, that consciousness is fundamental and universal - appearing on different 'levels' (within itself) - including the level of the separate, individual, personal mind? In that case, what would 'correct knowledge', or even an 'object of knowledge', really mean?

[@picksalot1]

@@mikefoster5277 I think we have pretty good evidence that Mind is located in the locality of the Brain/Body of the individual, as the accounts for different people knowing different things. I agree with Consciousness being fundamental and universal. We experience and know the world through our identity with a specific individual body, mind, and its senses. An "object of knowledge" can be an external object known through the senses, which mediate the information we receive about the object. There are also thoughts, which are internal objects of knowledge, like the though of an Elephant. Usually, that thought produces an image of an Elephant in the Mind. If the image is of Cat instead, then that would not be "correct knowledge."

[@pikiwiki]

our understanding enables us to go beyond any rules of proof that you trust

[@degigi2003]

When you say "understanding", what do you mean?

[@pikiwiki]

@@degigi2003 Understanding might be the wrong word. Experience might be better, as in a state of "being" which exists outside of the concept of "rules" which attempt to qualify the act of "being." The idea of consciousness existing outside of formal description, similar in theory to Godel's theorem and Penrose' proposition about the mind being non computational

[@claudetteguimond8035]

I like the name of this channel.

[@Blindbrick2]

Consciousness is a prediction algorithm, constantly trying to calculate what wil happen next.

[@harezothman31]

A computer does the same thing, is a computer conscious? Are there levels to consciousness? How does material and physical objects get consiousness? Where it the point where this happens? So many questions but no answers.

[@u.s.navy_pete4111]

And since the future depends on the decisions you make now, hat prediction algorithm needs to incorporate a self-image into those calculations. Et voilà! Consciousness arises, because the prediction algorithm demands introspection to accurately predict the future. Maybe in animals where their own decisions don't influence the outcome of the future (or to a negligible extent), the prediction algorithm doesn't produce the illusion of consciousness. And what if that prediction algorithm gets so complex (through evolution by natural selection) that it not only demands introspection, but also to consider the introspective decisions of other animals? Et voilà! A theory of mind arises. What do you think?

[@hihello-sx1sx]

Penrose states that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is an indication that our consciousness is not computational. But I don’t see how Gödel’s theorem necessarily excludes computational processes being involved. Gödel’s theorem just shows that we are able to identify truths that apply within formal systems but which are not derivable by the rules of those systems. Machine learning algorithms also do this all the time - Natural Language Processing is probably the most well known example, which is able to compile facts about language syntax and semantics without using any rules about language whatsoever. There’s nothing inherently non-computational about this sort of process.

[@__dRC]

NLP was modelled based on how toddlers learn. But there is so much more to a toddler than learning.

[@hihello-sx1sx]

@@__dRC I don’t disagree. I just don’t think Penrose’s argument sufficiently demonstrates this difference.

[@Oxydron]

To get TRULLY random numbers in computers to train ML algorithms (training algorithms are stochastic), it depends on sensors which capture noise from the Universe. This value captured is non-computational and from the Universe (Universe generates random noise). For me, Penrose is right, and our brains are quantum computers which for sure interact with the quantum states of everything around us. When we know the Theory of Everything explaing all physics, then we can START understanding Consciousness from an analytical/cientific point of view. If you want to understand Consciousness empirically, you just need to learn meditation and self-enquiry.

[@MrGarnache]

I agree ...... His main point was " I don't know " @@hihello-sx1sx

[@thecorruptversion]

I'm pretty sure that if Roger fucking Penrose says it's not computational, it's not computational. There's always a genius in the comments that knows more than the expert. The nerve of criticizing this man's lifework in a youtube comment.

[@surendrakverma555]

Thanks Sir for the excellent explanation

[@osks]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers

[@NeilMalthus]

LMAO "Theologians have talked out their arses for centuries, mass-propagating the religion capitalists shamelessly use to oppress the poor and the ignorant."

[@im2old4this2]

and if something is not a computational process, that implies what about it?

[@JoaoCosta-pn9im]

Understanding, as he says, is not a computational process. Good! This settles the question about the oxymoron called AI. He avoided though the topic of “phenomenology”, but there is where the understanding is.

[@glennhall8665]

Am I right in thinking that the cells of the human body are constantly being replaced by new ones (over many years) - but our consciousness (self-awareness) stays the same.. because it’s not a physical thing; So we are still the same person because somehow our personality (whatever that is) remains the same. Maybe that invisible ‘personality’ remains alive after death..(?)

[@jameswright...]

Our cells change yes but not all at once 😂

[@LeoneSolurson]

Is not for the grasping mind to know. Silence is not information and cannot be computed. Consciousness is More than known.

[@LivingNow678]

Supernatural exists 😮😊

[@LeoneSolurson]

@@LivingNow678 YOU exist

[@LivingNow678]

@@LeoneSolurson (right now) you too

[@LivingNow678]

@@LeoneSolurson At least what I love of Life is that: 'we know' that Life is a Mystery

[@LeoneSolurson]

@@LivingNow678 indeed!!

[@PencilsAndLight]

Interesting man!

[@peweegangloku6428]

I agree. And I should add that all physical structures are computational but not so with consciousness because it is non-physical. Or as the Bible seems to indicate, it is insanely rare and so fundamental that the only source and origin is the Ultimate Reality, God. "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light." - Ps. 36:9.

[@AnalysisLegend]

👍

[@ReginaJune]

3:54 I thought our atoms/dna had some kind of genetic memory - so conciousness is seemingly some form of recycling, like reincarnation for you to evolve to higher spiritual planes and each lifetime gives you a chance to build on your life lessons to perfect yourself spiritually so you can connect with source more fully.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

there is a big difference between chemical carryover and an emergent property of memory contained anywhere in any physical structure.

[@AnalysisLegend]

​@backwardtMay be yes or may be no.Who knows man.houghts1022

[@ReginaJune]

@backwardthoughts1022 wheel of samsara, karma/dharma, enlightenment/nirvana ... obviously idk, just trying to figure it out.

[@lcsl5605]

To a certain extent, if your experience is collected through people’s memories. You might end up shaping behaviour and future decisions. Maybe you’ll simply be a small ripple.

[@Conciente777]

Consciousness is all that is ,🌠

[@100woodywu]

Consciousness is a mystery so I am pleased that scientists like Roger Penrose don’t right off the great mystery that in itself is part of the information or quantum wave function that the universe is, which begs the question is consciousness fundamental to the universe as physicist Paul Davies said in his book ‘ The Demon In The Machine’ ? I think very likely so.

[@LivingNow678]

Ramana Maharishi had his Way to explain what co(n)-science is 😮🤔😲🙂

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Consciousness is a fundamental property of matter/energy. It is the ability of a thing to apprehend itself, to.experience it's own existence. Nothing can be conscious unless the most fundamental constituents of what we're made of are also conscious.

[@donnievance1942]

Greetings, fellow panpsychist. I fear we're a rare breed. Most people project onto us the idea that we are claiming that particles have intellection, or emotional responses, or a concern for their personal fates, etc. I try to explain that we are simply non-dualists. We don't think that physicality and consciousness are two separate things or that consciousness must only arise at some particular level of complexity. I also think that trying to erect the concept of "emergence" as an explanation for consciousness is one more reflexive unconscious attempt to put the ghost back into the machine. That smells like a new variety of spiritualism or vitalism. Emergence is a description of system behavior, not some new kind of evanescent phenomenon. A system behavior is extrinsic and cannot be equated to the experience of being that system. I say that if one wonders about the content of the consciousness of an elementary or molecular particle, that it is simply whatever information is entangled in that particle. That is as far as we can go, even in speculation. We can speak speculatively about the content of consciousness, but not about what it is fundamentally. Consciousness is the whole reality of an entity, and it cannot be separated from the whole and reified as a concept. Doing that puts us back into the realm of dualism-- the idea that there is a physical entity and then some spooky other thing, something like a "soul" that an entity might or might not possess, depending on whether we were to recognize the entity as conscious or not. I'm not trying to project onto you what I've been expressing here. I'm just laying out what I think, and I'm interested to hear to what extent you agree with my expression. People can only think about consciousness in terms of the content of their own consciousness, so they project and think that when someone says that consciousness goes all the way down to the elementary level, they think we are saying that particles have a consciousness with particular similarities to their own. Of course, they rightly don't buy that, and that is not what I mean. There is a remaining problem of why we don't experience our own consciousness as simply an aggregate of the consciousness of a bazillion particles. I don't claim to have that all worked out, but I think that our particular human consciousness is dominated by our status as homeostatic system phenomena. As biological entities, we have the system characteristic of being programmed to preserve ourselves as entities at this level of system organization. This entails first a self-identification AS beings at this system level, along with the impulses and motives to recognize ourselves as independent and whole at this level and to act to maintain and preserve ourselves at this level. A rock is an aggregate of conscious particles, but neither it, nor its parts, have any homeostatic impulses or tropisms to uniquely identify or preserve themselves as a system. It isn't saying to itself, "I, this rock, am who I am, and recognize myself as such." Much less, "I, this rock, want to live and continue as myself." But its consciousness entails all the information contained in its parts and in their force connections to each other. I agree with you that this state is an "experience," but there is no reason to read anything further into it. At this level it must be recognized that, per Bell's Theorem, there is no intrinsic separation of any field from another and no time constrained limitation on communication, or constraints on causal connection, between any regions of the total field. So, I derive from this the idea that consciousness is both elementary and universally unified. Our animal consciousness of ourselves as being separate from that field is an artifact of our homeostatic and self-preserving system character as biological phenomena. We're a particular local vortex in that field that has created an illusion of our separateness in consequence of our particular system character. Once again, I want to reject certain projections about what I'm saying about this unified field. I'm not claiming that a unified field must have a consciousness of itself AS AN ENTITY (although I wouldn't categorically reject that either) and certainly not that the conscious total field has a centralized intelligence that thinks of itself as a conscious being separate from its constituent parts, the way people conceive of their minds as conscious entities separate from their bodies. I definitely repudiate the idea that we should identify the concept I'm talking about as a God. I think the whole God concept is vehemently pernicious, but that's a different discussion. I think of myself as a philosophical Taoist, if that adds any useful nuance to what I've been saying. "The way that can be followed Is not the way. The name that can be named Is not the true name. The nameless is the root of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the myriad creatures. These two are the same, But diverge in name as they emerge. Being the same, they are called mysteries. Mystery upon mystery-- Behind every gate lies silence." The first verses of the Tao Te Ching minus one (according to me).

[@LivingNow678]

Natural Supernatural Duality vs non-duality Neutral exists but it is a Mysterious space 😮😊

[@PaulCaracristi]

I'm not surprised that a physicist would say that they don't know very much about consciousness. The simple reason is that physics is a reductionist endeavour therefore all the connection between all the little bits are missing from the model and cannot answer that particular question. PC

[@ZENTEN7777]

Is awareness a result of consciousness or is awareness makes us realize that we are conscious? But then again we have to be conscious of the fact that we are aware before we make the obvious declaration that we are.

[@tubalcain1039]

Can dreams be considered to be "consciousness"? At times they can seem quite real. How can you mathematically put a frame around the "consciousness" concept?

[@blijebij]

Consciousness is something very unique and fascinating.

[@AMorgan57]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig. The quality of experience.

[@NeilMalthus]

#ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth - a road trip novel I wrote during lockdown, 2019 Naturally, I borrowed part of the title from Pirsig. :)

[@LivingNow678]

​@@NeilMalthus Probably the scientists of Creative Society are not so Zen, but they are looking for save Life on Earth too 😮😯😊

[@NeilMalthus]

@@LivingNow678 Zen Buddhism is garbage (like all religion). But then neither Pirsig's book nor mine have anything to do with promoting Buddhism or any religion for that matter. I'm 100% antitheist. :)

[@LivingNow678]

@@NeilMalthus Fashion (moda) is often garbage the genuine Zen is an existential state that only few persons can live. I don't know what it takes to a person to get to the Original Zen State; maybe many Lives, maybe a particular discipline, maybe .... I'm practicing Yoga (almost the whole day prana through the nose and asanas in the morning) since 35 years (I am 66), still Life and its applications to me are a Mystery. I don't know if I am an atheist or a 'believer', but what I love to say is that: I live in the INFINITO

[@LivingNow678]

@@NeilMalthus INFINITO is the only Entity that can be understood as enterely without limits and capable of including in It Existential State every possible entity (being), that is: all the existential states. Since, two or more infinito would limit each other, can only exist One. It must therefore be recognised as the only Unlimited Supreme Entity that with Its own intrinsic independence: creates, generates, pervades, emanates, transforms and includes each and all entities existing in It. Whatever element is taken into consideration, it cannot limit INFINITO, which has neither beginning nor end is everywhere expanded, from this {hence} having always existed, subsisting in the absence of a first cause, will always exist. It is not relatable to anything other than ItSelf, which sanctions It's Unconditional Existence. INFINITO has not contraries, adjacent, correlatives, correspondents, opposites, terms of paragon and comparison. Only and exclusively INFINITO can be INFINITO and therefore express ItSelf, exist and behave as INFINITO. In realizing all It's own transformations, by Paradox, by including them all already, It does not change, It is therefore simultaneously in moviment and motionless. Also, although not identifiable by form and substance, It includes in ItSelf all possible forms and substances. Including the All {the Whole}, It includes in ItSelf the whatever "what is", which being generated and emanated in ItSelf, is Its part (macro, micro, human or otherwise), which by simple logic, can never manifest, reproduce, match, live or totally replicate the Existential State of INFINITO ItSelf. Therefore there can be no human, artificial, alien, spiritual, divine or other existential state capable of being able to fully determine, formulate and reveal It for: size, mass, density, aspect, space, vibration, demonstrability, image or whatever. INFINITO, beyond the Principles that found the Criterion, cannot be considered or exchanged for this, for that or for anything else.

[@kimsahl8555]

Consciousness is the terminus of the observation.

[@juanrodriguezsalazar]

consciousness is a spirit that has a language in evolution to each human being, and then each person needs learn to understand the difference between good and bad (i.e. moral) Moreover, each one need to learn self-knowledge to generate an identity and role in the world.

[@clintonjones955]

Talk is Cheap Silence is Golden The Dream World is the Key ...Paradox We start with perception >>> Awareness >>>Cognition >>>The Ambient (container) like an onion that vibrates in tune with the Universe #OMANIPADMI00M

[@tedgrant2]

A single human cell is obviously not conscious. Yet that's how we all start out in life ! So obviously, consciousness grows.

[@ShonMardani]

Consciousness is a Farsi word "کنجکاویست knonch-kavist" which means "Curiosity".

[@michaelbartlett6864]

Free Will is absolutely fundamental in our consciousness and in the universe. We use it in every choice we make. Quantum probabilities in your brain make determinism impossible. Free will decisions that you make, are made in an infinite number of ways, but they all come down to just two things, logic and emotion, with an infinite number of ways that they are weighted and combined to reach a decision. Think of emotion as being more of an animalistic drive for what you want, and logic as being what you determine to be the best choice for you, either morally or physically. There are an infinite number of combinations that will lead you to a decision. The idea that you could predict that or that it could be predetermined is ridiculous! Some will be beneficial for you and some will not. If you tend to give in to emotion, it makes you much more likely to develop addictions to what gives you pleasure or makes you feel good. On the other hand, always following logic makes you more methodical and less animalistic. Both are needed in infinitely varying degrees to make you wholly human, but the more you understand them, the easier it is to recognize attempts at manipulation, and avoid having your consent modified and manufactured by it, in different forms of advertising and persuasion thrust upon you by others and by media, either social or mainstream. Here is your free will - You can choose to think about something other than what you are currently thinking about at any time. You can change the subject to anything you want, not just follow some mind/body machine program. You can actively suppress thoughts and memories at will and choose to follow a different mental path whenever you want, to as far to any end as you want and make it your new free will reality.

[@LivingNow678]

Now here, living Now !!! but the 'now' is always already gone 🤔😊 so, what it means to be conscious of the Now ? I'm 66 and moment by moment I'm going to become more old. And more I see, more I see Life as a Mystery 😮

[@michaelbartlett6864]

@@LivingNow678 Consider the concept of time. The past, the present and the future do not all exist together and there is no retro-causality! The past is recorded and the present is evolving into both the recorded past and an unwritten future - atto-second by atto-second! Newton's cosmic clock continues to tick! The thing we call the present does not exist, it is merely an imaginary line used to delineate the past from the future like surfing a wave crest passing through your reality from the past to the future. The present isn't even a plank-length of time! Einstein was, and is wrong, and he knew it! Space is a thing and Time is a thing, but Space-Time is NOT a thing. Dark energy and matter are NOT things. Infinity is NOT a thing and Zero is NOT a thing! Free will and consciousness are things, and they are fundamental! Gravity is also fundamental and is NOT what is referred to as the weak force. Gravity is the Ether of the universe and it is the wellspring of all other forces! Without gravity NOTHING else would even exist. Watch this 17 minute video from Dialect, "Why the theory of relativity doesn't add up" (In Einstein's own words) - It's on KZbin

[@LivingNow678]

@@michaelbartlett6864 Thanks for your suggestion

[@martam.n184]

​@@michaelbartlett6864link please

[@swordblaster2596]

Quantum probabilities - if at play at all in free will - add nothing. It's still a physical system and inherently deterministic. Deterministic at a level that is possibly beyond complete prediction, but so what? Free will doesn't exist.

[@0Ave0]

Is consciousness what we know to be the mental images resulting from the 5 senses (and the knowledge acquired thereafter)?

[@esorse]

If the representations of a number by two people are sufficient to corroborate it, then you could argue that it is an undecideable Kantian synthetic apriori proposition with analytic subject, the number and synthetic predicate, is unique, implying that no axiom originated statement about the number can be evaluated as either true, or false.

[@voidstarq]

It's a very interesting hypothesis, and is be very interested to know whether it's true, but I still don't think I heard anything that makes it sound like anything more than an assertion of belief.

[@liviobontempi8539]

Her Majesty and Sacred Empress the Consciusness of Being

[@snebold]

The explanation of consciousness that rings most true for me is that it’s an illusion that arises out of a feedback loop of our nervous system and constant monitoring of our bodily functions. We call this monitoring “unconscious” but it’s probably where our awareness comes from. Our brains aren’t really separate from the rest of our bodies. We just like to think of things that way because it makes it easier to understand systems if we break them down and label the parts. We are most conscious when we are awake and actively observing our surroundings.

[@thecorruptversion]

Oh wow, we got a nobel winner here with that shower thought.

[@r2c3]

5:56 an abstraction layer is somehow complementing the physical one or vice-versa 🤔

[@razony]

I'm not a Mathematician. Of course there's a discrepancy in our computations in trying to figure out human consciousness. Maybe we're asking the wrong questions? Who are we as a human entity to have consciousness. Does consciousness have a mathematical equation, and if not, why? To many variables?

[@harezothman31]

I agree, if consciousness is an equation, then it is purely physical. My problem is the feeling and awareness we seem to have, how some combinations of atoms create this "Feeling"? You can explain to me how neurons and neurotransmitters travel and communicate, but you can never tell me how the feeling is produced.

[@razony]

@harezothman31 Our spirit knows. That's probably the missing equation because it was never meant to be found. Maybe why time doesn't exist in near death experiences. Maybe why space aliens can go great distances, they can bypass the equation of relativity.

[@harezothman31]

@@razony Maybe, there are so many things we don't understand, life is truly strange.

[@razony]

@@harezothman31 Yup.

[@quantumcat7673]

Perhaps that "something" besides the physical brain, that makes consciousness is information that might have a physical manifestation that our brain can tap into. The importance of information is observable in quantum experiments.

[@siriosstar4789]

consciousness cannot be learned or understood but it can be transmitted from here to here . From the age of 10 this has been my unchanging unmanifest experience .what HAS changed is the words that i use when i try but fail to create an intellectual understanding .