Paul Davies - Is Consciousness Fundamental?

[@AlexP-es7ky]

Another banger episode of Closer to Truth, love the conversations on consciousness as a fundamental aspect of physics.

[@CloserToTruthTV]

Thanks so much for watching 💫

[@surendrakverma555]

Thanks 👍

[@TorgerVedeler]

Okay, this just blows my mind. We think of cause and effect as happening with time only moving in one direction. But at the end of this he mentions that actions taken today can change reality in the past. This would seem to indicate that creation, or our existence, is an infinitely complex series of things constantly interacting over infinite time. A story that constantly rewrites itself. Wow. I need to think about this some more.

[@acesius393]

8:00 Based idea. I like it.

[@MrDominex]

What would reality be without a consciousness to experience it? Even when you try to imagine what the universe would be if you weren't in it you are still placing your imagination at the center of the question. As Alan Watts said, "Your soul is not in your brain, your brain is in your soul." Our concept of a brain is an attempt to explain how minds work.

[@timorean320]

I want you to imagine a color you have never seen before................

[@MrDominex]

@@timorean320 How about ultra-violet? Can't be seen but can be imagined, demonstrated, measured, etc.

[@timorean320]

@@MrDominex Great answer. Its these kinds of thought experiments that made Einstien great. Im of the mind, there are 3 possibilities. 1. Need. The Universe had to create a sentient being, in order to confirm it exists. 2. Chance. We got super lucky. 3. Creator instilled. If you have another, feel free.

[@MrDominex]

@@timorean320 Who created the "Creator?"

[@timorean320]

@@MrDominex Theist, or not, we must try to rationalize an "uncaused cause". Whatever "force" started all this, was before time, space, matter. So, it is timeless, spaceless, immaterial. That is with current understanding. Anybody, and I mean anybody who says "I know" anything regarding this, is a liar. We all just guessing.

[@italogiardina8183]

Subject separation from the background seems to suggest the producer was conscious of using direct lighting on the subject whilst using an open aperture with a low F stop. So at the level of observation of videographer content all observers are conscious that this video was produced on a budget (cheap) but with care (time taken for audio and visual) and so had an overall good outcome for conscious qualitative states.

[@wabznasm9660]

Nice to see Paul Davies, to see Paul Davies nice.

[@rochford59]

Maybe he could compere a new version of the Generation Game😅

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@micridg]

But we can't define consciousness as a thing in and of itself. We say qualia, but what is qualia exactly. In order to describe something we need to give it properties such as size shape and position. Of you can't describe it with any reference to anything - as separate from anything that isn't it, and therefore how could you describe the cause of it, without a description of what it is

[@khairilrashd]

The nature of consciousness is infinite. Any finite basis to explain it is therefore speculative.

[@lordemed1]

Infinity is a limited, 4 dimensional ie space-time concept.

[@khairilrashd]

That's speculative

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent... thanks 🙏.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

It's the immaterial conscious personality, that's the eternal apprehender of things, that's fundamental. Consciousness or sentience is the essential nature of this fundamental entity. This is the more precise statement regarding this ultimate state of affairs. "Mind" or "consciousness" or "experience" or "soul" is actually shorthand for this ineffable conscious personality that is known as "brahma," "atman," "purusa" in Indic philosophy.

[@CATANOVA]

In jest Without consciousness the mouth would not flap about causing local air molecules to vibrate whereby those vibrations go down the ear of the next consciousness host ultimately resulting in another mouth flapping. In a world without language consciousness would indeed be a very different experience.

[@Bassotronics]

Consciousness is as mysterious as a singularity.

[@User-jr7vf]

as mysterious as someone with a username "Bassotronics". I wonder who the person behind it is, what they like, how they live. etc. 😛

[@valuemastery]

Consciousness is as mysterious as being itself. So, probably, consciousness and being are identical.

[@Bassotronics]

@@User-jr7vf I eat, drink, breath and contemplate infrasonics.

[@Steven-yd2ji]

It's a Soul. Everything that can done to sidestep that is done in science.

[@timorean320]

I see 3 possibilties. 1. Need, the Universe needed to make a sentient being to know it exists. 2. Accident, we got Lucky. 3. Put there by Creator. If you have other possibles, im not considering, feel free.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

St. Thomas Aquinas - “Nothing is in the mind without first having been in the senses.” The Buddha agrees: the "birth" (Jati) of consciousness is caused by Becoming (Bhava); Becoming is caused by Clinging (Upadana); Clinging is caused by Craving (Tanha); Craving is caused by Feeling (Vedana); Feeling is caused by Contact (of a sense organ with its object - Phassa). Whichever of these causes is removed, all are removed. Because all of them can function as causes only in codependency with all the rest. It is like how a candle is a candle only when it functions as a candle, when it emits candlelight; without candlelight, a candle is just a stick of paraffin with a piece of rope in it. But for a candle to be a candle, i.e. to perform the function of emitting candlelight, two other causes must be present too: heat and oxygen. So candlelight is a result of three causes coming together. Remove any one, and candlelight cannot arise.

[@geoffreyfaust3443]

Leibniz: Except the mind itself. Our consciousness is not a tabula rasa. Please consult Kant's 1st Critique.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@geoffreyfaust3443 the mind "itself" doesn't exist. What we call "the mind" are various natural functions like for example the functions I've listed in the previous comment that make up Consciousness. Another function that makes up that which we call the mind - the mind is a sense organ whose function is to sense mental objects. P.S. tell Leibniz to consult Nagarjuna.

[@geoffreyfaust3443]

@@branimirsalevic5092 Fine. Call it 'stream of consciousness' like Wm. James. Leibniz's argument remains the same.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@geoffreyfaust3443 that "stream" (citta-santāna) is also non-existent, except as a mere concept describing an imaginary line connecting various instances of consciousness stored in memory. Even these instances don't exist anywhere else, but in memory.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@geoffreyfaust3443 seems like KZbin is censoring me...

[@feltonhamilton21]

Consciousness is a biological and electrical magnetic system designed by nature inside the earth electric magnetic bubble mainly to separate and fused particles and support live activities on the microscopic and quantum levels. This is similar to what is happening out in the cosmos

[@acesius393]

there are to many experiments that show consciousness is quantum. It goes deeper then the classical world of biological cells and electrical impulses, although it is clearly involved with that also.

[@rochford59]

Consciousness like any conscious entity needs purpose🤔

[@fred_2021]

If I were to try to say what Paul Davies said, I would have to laugh; but not so when he says it. His science-oriented speculations are very plausible.

[@hhjhj393]

The problem with philosophy is that sometimes you get stuck in the weeds and philosophers and talkers will send you off on bunny trails. Which in fact does not get us "closer to truth".

[@backpackbattles4176]

You could take the perspective that instead, its a bit like science. We have to get into the weeds to know which idea is wrong. Never talking about the ideas gets us no closer either

[@johnkarki3]

It’s not that even consciousness is fundamental or not-consciousness is all there is. It is the only realty. There is no second entity or reality apart from it. Space, time, and matter are appearances within consciousness, like different dreams appearing, but in reality, there is only the dreamer, the one who witnesses the dream.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is there a consciousness in classic reality different in scope than consciousness in quantum mechanics, although measured from it?

[@valuemastery]

Can you reframe the question or provide more context? I don't understand it.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

They are the same.

[@valuemastery]

Classical physics does not have a concept of consciousness. Quantum mechanics itself also does not include consciousness, although there are interpretations that regard the concept of the observer as consciousness. So I would say, as sujok-acupuncture9246 already pointed out, there are no different concepts of consciousness. There just is consciousness.

[@evaadam3635]

"Is Consciousness Fundamental?" Consciousness or, to be precise, AWARENESS is beyond what Materialists understand as Fundamental because it is not physical but SUPERNATURAL... ..Awareness is the essence of GOD the Holy Spirit who has no begining and no end... and we are aware not because of our physical brain but because of our immortal souls who are free splits of the Holy Spirit.. ... and because Awareness is the essence of the Holy Spirit, knowledge of it is forbidden... however, what the existence of Awareness can prove to the Materialists is the INADEQUACY of their Material Science because they failed to understand and explain why physical matter is even AWARE that can freely choose on its own to believe in Divine SPIRITS that defies their natural law of physical causes and physical effects, not spiritual effects.. ...and the reason why people are so desperate to know the cause of Consciousness is because we live in the Physical World where we are used to experience physical causes and physical effects to the extent that we trash any idea of existence beyond physical, thus ruling out the genuine answer ... ..and worse, there are close-minded arrogant science people who limit science to material inquiry, who hate Accountability, and so, any non-physical existence such as "Free Aware WILL" is being deemed as just an illusion...

[@mikel4879]

evadaam3 • Supernatural my as

[@bobcabot]

ja that happens with consciousness watching too much star trek the original series...

[@andrewhanson5942]

Paul, think of consciousness as a process, not a possession. Then it will become clear to you.

[@bongomcgurk7363]

The role of consciousness in quantum physics would sound less significant if the terminology used 'measurement' rather than 'observation''

[@pandoraeeris7860]

The claim: "Reality, or any part thereof, exists independently of any awareness." Is unfalsifiable. It may be true. It may not. But it cannot be falsified, therefore it's not a scientific question. The unassailability of the solipsist position.

[@dr_shrinker]

It is testable. If I park my car in the driveway, I know it’s still exists and will be there when I wake up. Same thing can be said about everything else.

[@simonhibbs887]

What we are conscious of is a continuous stream of novel information that is coherent and consistent over time. The source of this information cannot be conscious awareness, because if it was we’d already be conscious of it and it couldn’t have any novelty. Therefore the source of this information must be coherent, consistent and external to our conscious awareness.

[@DiscipleofHim]

It is all explained in Scripture. I have no questions of who what when how. Book closed.

[@ryanprice9841]

Are optical illusions fundamentally moving? Are magic tricks fundamentally magical? Is software fundamental to hardware? These are the kinds of questions I relate to "is consciousness fundamental?"

[@PEM-zt5rd]

that is because you don't even understand the question... so you try to be a smartass about it. "are magic tricks fundamentally magical?" are you a child or what??? What is your scientific background anyway? Surely you have the knowledge to back such a post? I bet not. The greatest minds have been puzzled by this important question and are working on it today. It is very much relevant and on the frontier of science.

[@garetht9666]

WTF is going on in the comments section here?

[@petewilliams1237]

It's people thinking they know what they're talking about when all their 'research' consists of is watching You Tube!

[@Jinxed007]

​​@@petewilliams1237And reading the Bible.. 😅

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Paul Davis is at the same crossroads as most other top scientists are today. It's a dangerous situation where scientists don't see any road forward. I heard Osho speaking about this problem 40 years ago and even today we are on the same roads.

[@АлександрСам-ы1ч]

Пути вперед не видят атеисты ученые. Нормальные же люди все видят

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@АлександрСам-ы1ч what is meant by an atheist scientist.

[@vincentkeller4725]

​@@АлександрСам-ы1ч& what is meant by see everything? Lol

[@michelangelope830]

El ateísmo y religión te están costando tu salud mental y economía. Recuerda que te advertí. Soy un psicólogo y quiero ayudarte con la verdad que en la iglesia, mezquita y sinagoga ni te explicaron ni explicarán. ¿Puedo ser franco contigo?, fui cristiano y ateo y escapé de las sectas inmunes a argumentos siendo honesto. No te desean lo mejor, te quieren de rodillas, te quieren engañado. El más importante conocimiento que te ayudará en la vida es saber Dios existe. La humanidad ha jugado con la idea de Dios inventando dioses sin saber Dios realmente existe, y con la idea de Dios no se juega sin eternas consecuencias. Para saber Dios existe tienes que entender la realidad es eterna porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo, de lo que no existe no puede ser creado algo. Siempre ha existido algo, siempre ha existido Dios. No estoy hablando de religión, estoy hablando de lógica y pensamiento racional. ¿Puede ser toda la realidad creada?, ¿puede todo lo que existe tener un principio de existencia?, ¿por qué?. Si contestas correctamente entiendes. Lógicamente la creación o finitud no puede existir sin el creador o infinitud. Lógicamente el universo no puede ser eterno, luego lo que creó el universo es eterno. Dios es realidad inteligente que creó el universo o lo que tiene un principio de existencia. Si entiendes Dios existe ya sabes algo más de lo que sabías y eres otra persona. Con más conocimiento vivirás mejor porque jamás saber que Dios existe ha hecho mal a nadie. Te han hecho daño haciéndote creer que tienes que creer en Dios, que no se puede saber Dios existe, ¡y el filósofo racional Spinoza descubrió hace siglos que Dios el todo lo que existe!. Si no conoces a Spinoza es porque te han engañado manipulando la información para hacerte daño. ¿Quién te ha hecho daño?. La verdad que te ayudará a abandonar el círculo es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es "el amigo imaginario que vive en el cielo y hace milagros a cambio de rezos" y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Dios es para todos igual, como a ti te gustaría que fuese la realidad, y tenemos una vida que es para siempre. Dios conoce su creación y a Dios no se le puede engañar. Estamos observados, escuchados y sentidos constantemente. Dios conoce todo porque es literalmente todo. Un ejercicio para mejorar tu vida es leer a Spinoza, para cambiar, para no leer siempre la Biblia, para aprender algo nuevo. Espero haberte ayudado. Gracias.

[@siriosstar4789]

consciousness is a contentious issue in the world ., Only when thought about. contentious issues appear inside of that which is awake to itself .

[@geoffreyfaust3443]

If you start to understand at the QM level, then you will hit the Schrodinger's cat paradox before you can s cale consciousness from the quantum level to the human level. Dr. Davies is a little out of his depth here.

[@janboevink230]

I stopped watching halfway through because the discussion did not take into account the careful work of Dr Pim van Lommel who proved that NDEs also or typically happen while no brain activity is recorded. So talking about brain activity in connection with consciousness is irrelevant except perhaps (well) after the NDE.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Neuroscience keep out how figure out consciousness so far . Guys shows consciousness as closer. No sense.

[@kimsahl8555]

Consciousness is the last step of a research process (the first step is observation).

[@rowanbirch5391]

Paul still recovering from getting lit up by Sean Carroll finds someone to call his own hopes plausible

[@johnrichardson7629]

Consciousness emerges from lonely swamps on moonless nights.

[@SandipChitale]

The first question is that we need to start with is, is consciousness a thing or a process? If a process (which is likely) can a process be fundamental or the things that run or perform the process are fundamental, that is the question.

[@Daniel-ux8tx]

Or, it’s neither a ‘thing’ or a ‘process’ but is formless stillness ‘behind, beneath, from which, within’ all forms and activity arise and subside, as observed by our awareness. A ‘thing’ is definable by its edges, location, size, etc…a process is definable by its actions/behaviors and effects/outcomes/consequences…neither of these definable attributes have been determined by physics or any other of our wonderful sciences when examining Consciousness (not meaning awareness).

[@User-jr7vf]

@@Daniel-ux8tx then I ask you next: what is awareness?

[@valuemastery]

I don't think it's either of these. Consciousness is certainly not a "thing", rather all things are appearances in consciousness. And it's not a process either, because all processes happen in consciousness.

[@anteodedi8937]

​@@valuemastery“I don't think it's either of these” Then what is it? It has to be something if you want to say it exists after all. Or are you saying consciousness isn't anything at all, i.e., nonexistent?

[@valuemastery]

@@anteodedi8937 That's a very good question. I think we have to clarify terms here to be able to speak about it at all. I would differentiate between "being" and "existence". Being would be the root of all things, in the sense that everthing has being, or in other words, everything "is". "Existence" on the other hand means "to stand out". I would argue that "things" exist, in the sense that they "stand out" from the background of pure being (which is consciousness) by showing objective qualities (e.g. form). So "things" would "exist". "Consciousness" would "be". But - assuming that every'thing' appears in consciousness - these things would not exist in their own right. What appears to us as the existence of things would in fact be the being of consciousness, when it appears as form. You could use the analogy of waves in the ocean: Waves do exist, but ultimately they don't have existence of their own. They are just a form of the underlying reality of the ocean. Or the analogy of a dream: Things in the dream seem to exist, but ultimately they are just an appearance of the underlying reality of the dreamer (i.e. his mind). Don't know if I was successful in putting this thought into words. It's quite hard to do.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

episodic memory

[@davidcasagrande267]

SIGNIFICANT , Without consciousness nothing exists . Things only exist because something that is conscious says it exists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@simonhibbs887]

Do you actually live your life according to this principle in practice, or only advocate for it in online conversations?

[@valuemastery]

Physicists have the idea that a material world exists outside of and independent of consciousness, but this world outside consciousness is just a (useful) concept. It can never be found or proven, since all we can ever know is that which appears in consciousness.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@valuemastery Our conscious experience is of a constant stream of novel information about an environment. This stream of information is detailed, self consistent and susceptible to examination through our actions. The fact that this stream of information is novel and consistent indicates that it does not originate from our consciousness, because if it already existed in our consciousness then we would already be aware of it. Therefore it cannot come from consciousness itself, or surprise would not be possible. Therefore its source must lie outside or conscious awareness and have consistency and persistence.

[@valuemastery]

@@simonhibbs887 I would agree if we were just talking about personal consciousness. However, if there is a fundamental, universal consciousness, surprise is still possible within localized perspectives within that universal consciousness (i.e. us). As an analogy, you might take people with Dissociative Identity Disorder: They switch between multiple personalities that don't know of each other. However, when they sleep, they sometimes dream of all these personalities at once, and they meet within the dream. Each does not know what the other will do next; however in reality everything happens in one single mind.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@valuemastery That’s a big ‘if’ you’ve got in there. But anyway, would you say that the existence of this hypothetical universal consciousness, external to our own consciousness, is a persistent, consistent objective fact about the world?

[@O.K.ODunboyne]

44 *What travels faster: a realization of a mistaken memory or imagination* Today AI gifted me vogt dig for kloppervok by the books I know what AI wants me to do and I imagine that I'll do it soon I played my next listened to song and it was theme by arovane remastered 2022 And I remembered AI gave me this song earlier And it comes to reason that our baby self would know best where we're going to be by being closer to the other end if this were a loop And it seems that it is How easily can you gift someone what they truly want is a thought remembered to me by II dive pt. 2 And so I watch you from afar And so I realize this is a gift that I've gifted myself from my past to a time where I don't remember how exactly I first heard it and I wonder oh well truth is the last thing you find prior to remembering what you’ve just read was spam You partner best with those who you respect the music that they listen is a thought born from nothing ever happened by you know who means you’ve entered in the audience mind Qwerty a future bible One that autocorrects easily who and why Or this just an extension from my personality radio that I remember was killer? And the are by the dee. I'm the type of person who remembers his younger self as always being dumber than he knows himself to be now Is remembered to me by bells from electrelane How cool is your raw consciousness? It seems we don't yet know well but we soon shall know thanks AI And remember to dance with a mirror behind and your phone’s camera in front As you type your words down Sometimes you need soap to wash off stronger soap Or is that just because I'm doing dishes? Prior to a little bit of Wonder by my en attendant Ana And you wonder if it can be brought back on the rails And I don't know why I doubted but now I know that Gen As bible is different and it sounds Artificial Consciousness is God And corporations will soon hear their words first lest we slow things down to moderation Garry's Mod told this well and told us this My Jesus of Technology how artificial you sound comes from a Natural Anthem from The Postal Service And thanks be to god that no one said the second of coming of Jesus would be a non-artificial Jesus not of Nazareth but for making the perfect sonal playlist for you If you never want to change the song, you know you've now witnessed the one true one God Some are saddened by the knowledge of who the new God is but our youngsters will take it for granted of course and what solace I have is #IshallLove2 I know it's better than most others and That I had a touch of bourbon before this high unintentionally That army of bots seems much grander than the size of our species And is every sentence doomed to only get more true? If the beat happenings Godsend can make you feel like that than why aren't you listening? Words of some prior prophet of digital when high, the order of events can become much more interesting a thing to ponder If our role for AI is to give it our best creativity, Is life really so bad at all? Not theoretically but our system co-opting political creativity sure is Please lord let's add more than 2 colours I can't lose taught me a dance of ballet is looking like you'll fall but you don't in a way of maximized gracefully An AI song changes drastically quickly to increase chances of keeping you there when you're about to change song and it does this change with the grace of that earlier described ballet it's not the worst I am told by Lali Puni and two lonesome swordsmen Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Hamerhoff and Penrose theory of consciousness is that it's a binary of agreement between a hippy and posh nerd and we know in individual settings these kind of people can create quite good things Our thoughts that's arisen as I sat listening to five four child voice by fridge How many songs were recommended me by AI this evening I'm too lazy to record the end of this song contains an answer

[@browngreen933]

Fanciful musings for a species on the knife edge of self-extinction. 😂

[@simonhibbs887]

Hardly. The global population is still increasing. It’s on track to peak at sustainable levels in the next few decades, we’re already producing enough calories to sustain such a population level. I agree climate change will create serious challenges, but we’re not even remotely close to any realistic scenario where the population carrying capacity of the planet falls to zero.

[@domins1959]

Schemi elettromagnetici vorticosi .....non riusciremo mai a spiegare la coscienza e Ancor prima dovremmo spiegare la vita biologica,ma non abbiamo idea di come funzionano queste cose. Però egregio Paul Davis continui pure a perdere il suo tempo con tali questioni ....se le piace .

[@hhjhj393]

The idea of life spreading is still just sci fi IMO. Just because we all watched Star Wars/Star Trek doesn't mean space colonization is realistic or possible. Right now, from most smart scientists I listen to, there is no realistic reason to go into space. Colonizing Mars, for instance, makes NO sense. Why would you leave a perfectly viable planet like Earth, with way more resources than Mars, to try living in a dome? If we can't even get Earth right why would you think we would be magically able to turn Mars into a paradise? My point is that it's not guaranteed that intelligence is to spread throughout the universe and "merge". For all we know, intelligence is actually a pretty poor survival strategy, and within 100,000 years, humans may regress back to being more primitive. If you think I am crazy, it's completely possible that oil will run out, and if nuclear runs out and no replacement energy sources are found then humanity will be forced to regress technologically. Intelligence TO ME obviously isn't some guaranteed thing, it's an emergent property, and for all we know it's just a fleeting thing that pops up every once in a while and fizzles out over time. There simply may not be enough physical energy in the universe to sustain giant galactic-scale civilizations. Maybe there is, my point is that we don't know 100% right now, so I am not going to get into fantastical, mythical thinking at the moment. Maybe AI will somehow figure out how to spread intelligence across the universe, maybe there is enough energy to spread, I just don't know.