Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014

[@Wasteomindy]

I absolutely love the definition of consciousness as a "way information feels when it is being processed in certain complex ways".

[@vladbcom]

+Nikolay Bobovnikov I absolutely agree with you! Наше сознание являеться всего лишь результатом воздействия скопления атомов (нашего мозга) на друг друга следуя определенным физическим законам. =)

[@gromby783]

+Nikolay Bobovnikov "[consciousness is the] way information feels when it is being processed in certain complex ways" Feeling is a property of consciousness. Here, consciousness is being defined by invoking a property of consciousness - 'feeling'. This is a circular definition. It is sort of like saying, "Feeling is the feeling that happens when information is processed in complex ways"

[@perceivingacting]

+gromby yes, it's a tautological cop out.

[@Wasteomindy]

+gromby Exactly, circular definition, that is. There is an interesting idea in the Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" - that consciousness arises where self reference phenomena takes place. Like, mirror can reflect other objects, but true magic happens when the mirror reflects itself :)

[@raueugen9047]

​@@gromby783 Yes, you're right. Maybe (I propose) feeling to be replaced with understanding.Consciense not necessary need feelings related ti sensations but feeling as intellectual intelligent processing of data, understanding who's who.

[@gersonperez3781]

He is somehow explaining how conciousness can co exist with the physical world, without it having to be a "paralel" reality... amazing and revealing!

[@isubtothebest6020]

Lol universe wouldn’t exist without consciousness

[@firstaidsack]

​@@isubtothebest6020 Lol prove that.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@isubtothebest6020 Yes, but only *for me* and that because when I am not conscious I do not exist.

[@DGPPhysics]

Still not rule it out.

[@starlight_garden]

Not coexist with. Consciousness is a natural phenomenon of the physical world. It's not separate from it.

[@spy2778]

“Consciousness is simply the way information feels as it is being processed” - Max Tegmark Wonderful

[@MagnumInnominandum]

I know, right? smh

[@4neveralias]

So what is feeling ...

[@transsexual_computer_faery]

it's simple man. check this out. consciousness is just consciousnessing itself by consciounsings. see?

[@arthropoda_iconicus]

The way information 'feels' to whom? Or to what? Doesn't this just require another layer of experience?

[@thegoblonoid]

It really doesn't explain conciousness at all. The hard problem is WHY are we feeling the subjective experience of processing information, why are we not just mindless machines doing the processing?

[@dennistucker1153]

Max, I think you are brilliant! I'm a computer programmer. I think consciousness is an algorithm that our brains use all the time. I think it is akin to the main executive loop of a computer program. This processing loop always try's to resolve 2 main questions. 1) What is going on? 2) What should I do? This process is always repeating even while we sleep.

[@itsbilly1792]

Anyway, nice try

[@dennistucker1153]

@bts and iqra fan unconscious is when we sleep or we are in a coma. I want to quantify consciousness. It is very important for a project I'm working on.

[@chriscaprice]

Your theory doesn’t explain why there’s the sense of a perceiver that perceives all these thoughts and sensations in the first place?

[@SuperMaDBrothers]

@@chriscaprice GOD i tells ya!

[@cebro648]

I think you and this speaker wants to believe that consciousness is just mere patterns because you both want to escape the inescapable.

[@primary8775]

This is the best explanation of consciousness which is nothing more than arrangement of information, particles or patterns. But we still have long way to go to actually understand the underlying principles of true consciousness and we probably never figure it out.

[@crienospmoht]

I didn't kill that man you'r honor. I just rearranged his particles in an unfortunate pattern.

[@Fake_Jesus]

Complexology Who knows? It may be as simple as a recursive program. If a portion of our brain is destroyed, we can no longer feel a sense of purpose. And our brain is a bio-electro-machine at the micro level.

[@wesman246]

eric t But seriously. He makes a great point, in that if the mind doesn't exert force on physical particles, it shouldn't be considered to be anything more than convention. *However*, there is substantiated evidence to the contrary. Princeton's Engineering and Anomalies Research Lab, or PEAR -- now-defunct after decades of research -- ultimately concluded that the mind *does* exert statistical force upon REG's (quantum-based random event generators) and, although slight, is statistically significant. (They also concluded odds against chance for this data by a factor of one to a billion.) They concluded this suggests a definitive connection between consciousness and reality not explainable by any other natural process currently understood. Look it up -- I'm not shitting you. Princeton professors here. They've even written books about it.

[@Fake_Jesus]

wesman246 One possible explanation, the mind emanates a weak electric field, able to be picked up by the quantum field, purported at any distance according to quantum entanglement. Oh yes, there are things written by top professors that most people would shrug off as science fiction.

[@Synodalian]

+Mick Mack So basically, consciousness can arise from integrated quantum fields?

[@Fake_Jesus]

Q Who knows? I doubt we'll ever know, because we are a part of the cosmic mystery, and to solve ourselves would be like trying to look at electrons with photos. It can't be done.

[@kleinbottled79]

Once in a dream; I was asking this old man "So the pattern of energy is matter?" After a pause he responded, "No, but the pattern of energy matters" Silly words.

[@onlywithbuts1781]

And funnily enough everything in the Universe is made off patterns. I totally love this! Shines more proof and that extra bit of knowledge that pushes as further and closer to being able to understand who we are and that we ain't just part of Universe, but Universe being us.

[@martin36369]

How do you know other arrangements of matter other than the brain don't have consciousness?

[@ReyhanSamitAlchemist]

Thank you ! The very basis of his demonstation is flawed.

[@franksang5014]

How do we know that fairy dust is not present in anything other than fairies? You might say "oh consciousness is not fairy dust" and yet the definition varies depending on who you ask. To say that consciousness is inherent is something that cannot be tested or falsified. Thus it cannot be the domain of science. Also by Occam's Razor adding consciousness to everything would add another layer of complexity since there would have to be something unique and unseen by science inherent in matter instead of the simple and elegant explanation that it consciousness is an emergent property of certain arrangements of matter, hence requiring nothing more than matter, that can be tested.

[@janu2997]

+Frank Sang You're running on the presupposition that the paradigm of material reductionist science is the only or at least the best way of interpreting everything. We don't even have a good definition of matter, hell everyone is still in cahoots on the definition of life.

[@franksang5014]

Well that was the presupposition in the video. He is a physicist after all and physics runs on the idea that the world is built upon matter. You speak of the definition of matter but the fact of the matter is (no pun intended) is that our whole world is built upon our most current definitions. In other words Newton created his theories and with his theories we created the steam engine and we defined much of our world and verified it through evidence. Then came along relativity and we confirmed this just as thoroughly. Quantum mechanics does not disprove relativity or Newtonian mechanics but rather provides an added layer of depth. The idea that these ideas should work in conjunction quite seamlessly is the work of many a physicist. Therein lies the most compelling reason to not consider this axiomatic stance (to the extent that the ideas upon which are world are axiomatic which i would argue are second only to the axiomatic nature of pure mathematics) as less than audacious of which would be the fact that we have no more evidence for any other alternative explanation than for the idea that our world operates through a set of physical laws and physical "stuff". The existence of nonexistence of dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, or the like is not a refutation of our current conception of the world and how it operates but rather an indication as to our incompleteness of knowledge as to how it works. What is improbable is that the discovery of the exact nature of said things will disprove Einstein or Newton or the like. Hence i would posit that while there are alternative competing ideas which should be taken seriously and studied there is no alternative with the breadth of confirmation that the materialistic interpretation has. Insofar as we must remain agnostic of all things and insofar as the fact that nothing is strictly logically refutable i would accept all alternatives as equal. However insofar as we accept that there is no alternative with as much real world evidence as the material paradigm i would not accept anything as even coming close. Again leaving open the idea that said enduring paradigm could one day be overturned but as of present is the best we have in terms of completeness and in terms of it's ability to explain all aspects of the world. The idea that a definition of matter is lacking is true in the sense that our theories are far from complete but nevertheless not true in the idea that consensus is lacking within the community of physicist or in the idea that incompleteness is tantamount to inaccuracy. Also i would point out that life is a concept more contested than matter. Of course i am using matter as something overarching of the study of our universe a physical phenomenon with the ability to be tested and tried by the scientific method. Physical also should not be confined to "matter' or classical 'forces' as they are define by Newtonian principles for the latter or pre- quantum/dark phenomenon for the former. Why? Because the objective by physicists and furthermore the overarching idea is not that these theories compete with each other or disprove each other but rather that they work in conjunction and the unification is the primary objective of their work.

[@janu2997]

I commented before watching the video, it is fascinating. But the problem is not that the world is built out of matter, the problem is the paradigm of material reductionist science wherein you reduce the thing you're studying to it's constituent parts and infer function of the whole with knowledge of the way this matter which consists the whole acts, or what attributes it has. The observation of emergent properties sort of turns this paradigm on its head where you cannot fully describe the properties of something you're studying by the behaviour of its constituent matter. Water is an easy physicist example but in my field of biology, let's just say shit's to the power of n more complicated. Especially emergent phenomena like ecosystems. I'm not even insinuating there's anything more than matter that constitutes living things/the universe, I'd go for the practical approach and say that it is only matter. But again our definition of matter may be poor and also maybe studying matter "reductionistically" can't explain complex systems with layers upon layers of hierarchical structures and complexities. Physics is relatively easy to study very exactly compared to living beings. Or at least you can agree that the predictability of a physical model is immensely better than the predictability of a biological model, especially ecological models which I'd call sort of meta biological models. It's a fascinating subject but this is already a wall of text. Peace.

[@pillettadoinswartsh4974]

Consciousness doesn't "go away" when you sleep. Deep sleep isn't the absence of consciousness, but the consciousness of absence. How else would we know what woke us up OUT of deep sleep, unless we were conscious when we were IN deep sleep? Pure consciousness is what witnesses our waking state, dream state, and deep-sleep state. It never goes away.

[@zorashoes6482]

think of it as when your computer hibernates / shuts down at night and when you restart it again and it starts processing again.

[@pedestrian_0]

@@zorashoes6482 a computer doesn't go into rem cycles and dream when it gets shut off

[@InnerLuminosity]

Dmt agrees

[@InnerLuminosity]

@@pedestrian_0 or does it...dun dun dunnnnnn

[@zlClutchy]

consciousness does go away in your brain when you sleep. You’re able to wake up if you hear a sound because of your subconscious.

[@WelcomeTheDamned]

I like this guy he has a nice pattern in him

[@SealedByTruth]

Lol 😂 This whole speech is basic alchemy.

[@keja0]

I think this pretty much explains what we call the soul: It is a projection of the information processing in our body. When we're awake it is how we perceive ourselves and our environment, it is our consciousness. When we are asleep this projection is our dreams. When we are in anesthesia or near-death experience, it is/might be projected as an out-of-body experience, floating above oneself body, etc. Now my question is: this logic pretty much gives answers for what happens after death: the processing of information still projects a self-aware experience, white light at the end of the tunnel, or whatever, you know what I mean. I think even after death as long as our molecules exist we might have some kind of experience of ourselves. And this is scary. What if this experience lasts until the last existing atom of our body?

[@cameltube-vk7el]

what if there is not a last atom but rather as I think has been submitted that there is an endless infinite amount of this or these connected atoms. . . . . . . . .or endless hmmmmmmmm, nothings . . ./;^)

[@jp-jb1bw]

Back in 1986, swami chinmayananda said' A human is matter groomed to consciousness'. I was mesmerised by this statement extrapolated from the upanishads and still am. Many thanks to Max for this enlightening talk.

[@solid_spec]

Thanks, Rob Lowe

[@omnipop4936]

A bit Greg Kinnear-ish too, imo.

[@tedl7538]

Yep, Kinnear is the comparison I've always made!

[@TheAngryCanary]

Don't be super intellectual Rob Lowe... be DirecTV Robe Lowe!

[@TheAngryCanary]

gotta little judd nelson in there too

[@23skidoo78]

particles...DID. I. STUTTER?

[@antonioramundo2177]

I’m reading his book “Life 3.0”, intriguing concepts and views over how our future might be thanks, or because of, artificial intelligence. Just amazing!

[@jsj1667]

Max Tegmark: inspiring genius! Love how he explains complex topics in such an easy and effortless manner

[@smyrnianlink]

The biggest mystery of subjective concsiousness is "Does anyone but me have it" ??

[@daultonbaird6314]

+smyrnianlink I'm absolutely certain that my consciousness is not the only one . but I can't be certain that you are conscious . So I'll just accept that you are until you prove otherwise

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+smyrnianlink YES, but you are linked to ALL things.. so as you grow your consciousness you realize that the true answer at a highest point of evolution is NO. The higher the frequency your consciousness, the more you can commune with other aspects and fractals of consciousness. But again. at the level the question was asked the answer is YES.

[@DrWhom]

I'm not sure I have it.

[@lechywecky]

Look in the mirror. What you see is an image of yourself, from a few nanoseconds ago. Now imagine a giant sci-fi mirror that is several light-years across and a few light-years away. For convenience, it's slightly curved so you can see yourself in it, except that you're looking several years into the past. Is the younger 'you' conscious? It's just a reflection, right? What if you don't recognise yourself and you think it's some other person? And what if some additional tricks or distortions, such as holograms, distract you from realising there is a mirror there at all?

[@mikicerise6250]

Occam's razor suggests that those who physically look like us and behave like us and share our evolutionary lineage likely have analogous subjective experiences. The universe is lot of trouble to go to just to get to you in particular. ;)

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

The hard problem is this, HOW does SUBJECTIVITY arise out of matter? When we study and map out the brain, or (anything for that matter) all we are really looking at is structure and the behavior of structure. But we have no idea how structure, OR the complexity of structure, OR the behavior of complex structures give rise to subjective experience. Sure we can manipulate experiences by manipulating the structure and behavior of the brain, BUT that says NOTHING about HOW subjectivity actually arises from the brain. Unless we somehow assume that all energy has some subjective component that is simply complexified by the structure of the brain.

[@AAA-rf2uf]

consciousness emerges in the brain. is similar to how waves emerge within large bodies of water. asking "how could waves come about just from physical water" may have a little bit of merit, because the wave is an abstract and emergent result of the behavior of the water and not just the water itself. but there is no reason to assume a supernatural phenomenon is happening to b produce a wave. we KNOW that it is just an emergent property of the water, as is "wetness." the brain, while tremendously more complex, also produces emergent phenomena. and e know it is emergent of the brain. in fact, we even know that if you altar the brain in particular ways that you will altar the emergent conscious experience in the brain and achieve predictable results. we have enormous evidence that consciousness emerges from the brain and if someone posits a supernatural but if Ad Hoc then it is up to them to prove that somehow consciousness is both an emergent property of the brain AND of a supernatural soul -- which makes no sense from a logical standpoint and Infosys the question of how this stopped soul controls the brain when we know for av fact the brain follows the laws of physics and anything supernatural does not necessarily. I'm not saying that you are positing this, but it is a common theme when this subject is discussed hence why I felt the need to explain why that cannot be the case.

[@tjovadevalivat]

It would probably be more correct if you say that consciousness CORRELATES with the brain. Of course it's obvious that the brain and consciousness is connected somehow. But the question is how and what it really is. Saying that it is an emergent phenomenon doesn't help much. It's impossible to imagine how consciousness would emerge from a physiological organ made of cells and electric impulses. People circle around this problem and try to explain it away. The wave-particle analogy in water is just an analogy. You have to realize that. We are bound to end up in reducing consciousness to something that it is not when we say that it emerges from the brain. Natural science tries to analyse physical phenomena and understand the mechanics. But how can you understand consciousness in physical terms. You can't. You will only get a better understanding of the CORRELATION to the brain. We ought to understand that consciousness is something fundamentally different from the brain-organ. So what's this all about? We tend to forget that we are ourselves consciousness. We are trapped in our own psyche. The problem of consciousness is the problem of our own foundation. It's highly unlikely that we will ever solve it simply because we can never step out of ourselves and take an objective standpoint. There are limits to human knowledge and consciousness seems to be that limit. Maybe we can push forward a little more, like the findings in deep-psychology show. But humans will never understand everything about their existence.

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

tjovadevalivat Yeah, that's the way I see it. I honestly don't think consciousness can EVER be an object of it's own examination, Not because of some mystical bullshit, but because of the very nature of the situation. Fire can't burn itself, a knife can't cut itself your teeth can't bite themselves, and your tongue can't taste itself. In the same way, consciousness can't examine itself.

[@tjovadevalivat]

Yes, what we can do though is examine the psyche through introspection. But we will never find out what the psyche "really" is. Just as we will never know what matter "really" is. I'm tired of these "scientific" explanations of the mind that seem to assume that the mind is yet another external object, without remembering that the one who is asking these questions is himself mind or consciousness AND that consicousness is something fundamentally different from an "object" or "pattern". For me it's more rewarding to read how these things are discussed in deep-psychology, like Jungian psychology, because they admit the subjectivity involved. Books like Erich Neumann: "The origins and history of consciousness" etc.

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

tjovadevalivat Yes, Carl Jung and Alan Watts are some of the greatest minds in my opinion when dealing with the whole topic of consciousness.

[@martin36369]

When you go to sleep consciousness doesn't "go away" this is shown by the fact that when you wake up you might remember some of your dreams & the fact that you was aware during that dream otherwise you couldn't forget a dream Also lucid dreaming shows that consciousness is maintained during dreaming. This is the classic mistake of confusing the contents of consciousness with consciousness itself! I would expect more from a genius of the level of Tegmark.

[@motherofallemails]

you have not proven consciousness does not go away when you sleep, indications are that it does. And precisely what does it mean to confuse the contents of consciousness with consciousness itself and how can you be so sure he's doing that and not you?

[@Mastermindyoung14]

"I would expect more from a genius of the level of Tegmark" I would expect no less from a KZbin comment section.

[@mrbwatson8081]

I think there is a miss understanding. In my experience Consciousness is not awareness. They are two different things. When awake I am conscious. When dreaming I am conscious only of my mind. When in deep REM sleep I am UN conscious... but in all 3 states there is one common matrix.... AWARENESS in waking I am aware, when dreaming there is also an awareness and same in my deepest sleep there is an awareness of my condition. Not a conscious awareness. But an awareness none the less.. come to think of it when would you say I became conscious..? At moment of birth.? After 6 months..? You can not say, but one thing is for sure awareness was there before consciousness.

[@mrbwatson8081]

Moreofthesamez thank you. ;)

[@JOE324WILD]

Awareness and mathematical patterns cannot be separate nor can one live without the other. If there was just mathematical patterns and no awareness, there would be no consciousness. If there was just awareness and no mathematical patterns, then there would be consciousness at all. Everything including our body limbs to mountains, walls, etc, all consist of mathematical patterns. With the internal awareness, however, these consist of: love, joy, peace, passions, etc. A flow of these two complete consciousness Having an understanding for this can bring forth an even deeper awareness to ourselves, an awareness which can complete the human, breaking every self inflicted boundary.

[@ChaseKelleh]

"Consciousness is just the way information feels when it is being processed by .. particles moving in very special patterns." The sentence I was waiting for ^

[@dr.tre90]

To me it's the sentence that terrifies me and takes all my motivation in life away... 😂

[@johnathanmartin1504]

@@dr.tre90 Why? It means you will happen again eventually, so why not try to make the world a better place and hope that others will as well?

[@dr.tre90]

@@johnathanmartin1504 How does it mean I will happen again?

[@JohnCena8351]

@@dr.tre90 For me at least, this is just such an amazing and mind blowing fact about our own existence, that I'm happy to be alive to learn about it.

[@2CSST2]

@@dr.tre90 Because physical reality never does things in ones. We used to think our planet was the only one, the other planets were thought to be strange stars. Now we know there are countless other planets. We used to think our solar system was the only one, now we know there are countless others. We used to think our galaxy was the only one, now we know there are countless others. And currently, there are very good reasons to think our universe is not the only one, but that there an infinite number of parallel universes. This implies there are infinitely others with exact copies of you that will keep happening, which means your subjective experience gets repeated countless times in countless ways throughout physical reality. This actually gives the only solidly scientifically driven idea of surviving death in some sense. Because if this is true, and there are actually good scientific reasons to think so, death is only another dreamless sleep from which we keep awakening countlessly for eternity. There is no difference between the subjective experience of you right now and of other copies of you that permeate physical reality.

[@annettekelly6446]

Intriguing talk. I think it comes back to the chicken and egg scenario. No matter how much we try to figure out consciousness, we can only do so when we're in a conscience 'awake' state - otherwise we really can't judge! Once more I find myself wishing to sit down and really discuss these things in much deeper detail. Sharing opinions expressing thoughts! All in all,a pleasant talk! Thank you!

[@dismalthoughts]

I don't see how that's a chicken and egg scenario? In Max's view, the thing that came first isn't really in debate: it's particles. Really, he would say math is fundamental; particles (seem to, though it might be "illusory" in a sense) emerge from those maths; and eventually consciousness springs forth from those particles.

[@jimnichols999]

Yes, greater detail. Maybe starting with dispensing with what it is (existing or not, ect.) and allowing for a myriad of identifiable like phenomena and look to this widened perspective to help with our penchant for a hard definition so many clamor for.

[@arlieferguson3990]

Probably the best lecture I've ever seen him give

[@PaulMarostica]

The feeling I get from this video is that soon there will be an accurate definition of consciousness, that it will indeed be substance independent, and that this definition will be used to evaluate consciousness in various things, and to create consciousnesses using various substances.

[@mrdian37]

What an elegant, well articulated, rational explanation of consciousness.

[@BahaariTV]

That was really interesting. I loved it I also learned what to answer those who ask me "Where's your dad?" I'm gonna tell them "his particles got rearranged"

[@In2MeUcU]

How about we're electrical/spiritual beings having a human experience, for without electricity you have nothing. We're all one from the same source of consciousness, which in my near death experience showed me that we are in fact only unconditional love at our BeYOUtiful core... We are love, we're created by love and always will be love, no matter what form it takes. It's the Power Of Love that binds us together!

[@soldatheero]

checkout Meher Baba you might enjoy

[@moyshekapoyre]

Google "thusness six stages of awakening"

[@david203]

As a fan of "the spiritual path", especially of the direct path of nonduality to self-realization, I found this talk to be a delightfully simple basic scientific approach to an objective understanding of consciousness, perception, and subjective experience. I would hope that discussions of consciousness from the standpoint of science could start with such rational and intelligent beginnings. I see no need for mystery, even the mysteries of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, in serving as a basis for an intellectual understanding either of our everyday experience of consciousness or of the special and valuable state of self-realization (which was not discussed here).

[@isubtothebest6020]

Nah it’s wack , Intelligence is not consciousness. AI is nothing but mathematics is it conscious? No

[@david203]

@@isubtothebest6020 I'm sorry if my comment mislead you. Mathematics is a tool of the mind to make reliable inferences about numbers. Physics is a similar tool to systematically improve our understanding about how Nature works, objectively. "Objectively" means ruling out everything subjective, whether consciousness, mind, or the senses of perception. Not one experiment in AI shows any evidence of consciousness because it is all based on objective science, not the subjective investigation of consciousness offered by the spiritual practices of nonduality and transcending. Since I teach transcending, I believe I know something about this. In summary, I agree with your comment fully.

[@itsbilly1792]

@@isubtothebest6020 nice try bud

[@isubtothebest6020]

@@itsbilly1792 nice argument , kiddo

[@jonathankoldby3559]

the modern shame on spirituality i think is that it is directed to a conscious mind. once u go deep in meditation, i myself have “expirenced”, stages of unconsciousness. at that point u simply just are. so when u experience the unconsciousness what really is it that u experience? what are the messages in these sort of subconscious stories? i always think to myself, why would “nothing” want to explode into “me” having natural conscious “unconscious” experiences. why was i made for that, what is the literal meaning, for such thing to exist. to me conscious is made to understand the inner self. as u will understand the inner self, is unarguably connected to all.

[@MichaelOConnorsunstarastrology]

Cymatics illustrates that sound produces a shape pattern that changes with frequency. Mathematics is an endeavor to measure it. From where does the sound come? And why are there many various forms of frequency? As marvelous as mathematics is, it is largely a means of measurement. The real question is: why is there consciousness, as opposed to how might we endeavor to measure it?

[@PersonalSpiritualDevelopment]

The time is coming to understand and bring all together 👏👏👏

[@maximilianokoweindl8048]

Ive watch this lecture like 5 times and im still learning. Amazing. Thanks TED.

[@OrthodoxDAO]

I've shredded my books, trashed my DVD's, erased my mp3's and only play this lecture now on phone, tablet, laptop and 65 inch TV. Never learned more.

[@rh001YT]

I think I have spotted a bit of a flaw in Tegmark's thesis. More than once he he said that the consciousness pattern "feels" like consciousness. Who is doing the feeling? So in fact the homonculus has been slipped into this thesis in a sort of muted way, but it's totally in there. Then he says at one point that consciousness should not be seen as "just a pattern" because it is the most complex pattern in the universe, as if "complex" = "good". I was under the impression that "simple" = "good". We will tackle complex stuff when we have to, when there's a carrot on a stick, but it's not as if we like doing that. As of yet we don't have much in the way of cures for cancer, because, they say, cancer is so complex. Ergo I say that "complex" is not synonymous with "good", that is, not always. Then there was the bit about freezing to death. I think we can safely assume that the entire complex pattern of the entire body is almost exactly the same after freezing to death as it was just before, and I'm not talking about body fluids, cell fluids, freezing and forming ice crystals but freezing to death that occurs before fluid crystalization. The key here is that the freezing slowed the change in the pattern. So it seems fair to say that consciousness requires some constant change in the pattern. Once we say that consciousness require some constant change then at best we might say there is a set of changing patterns that define consciousness, but how do we begin to define that set? Let's say humans were conscious 6000 years ago (just to pick a time in antiquity). But those humans had much less knowledge than we, and so consciousness might not require knowledge. I think consciousness does involve categorization and asking "what is this" and "I wonder if I can get this to do that?" but these three things I've mentioned, knowledge, categorization and wondering all require the homonculus to produce them and then relate them. It's pretty hard to get away from the homonculus when talking about consciousness, as we see here with Dr. Tegmark. And he did not recognize that consciousness requires some constant change, and so was able to sough it off as a pattern.

[@MelindaGreen]

rh001YT Consciousness does not require a constantly changing pattern and I'm sure Tagmark would say as much if asked. Some people have had their brains completely flat-lined from certain drugs or freezing and then had their consciousness spontaneously restored when the chemistry or temperature was brought back to normal.

[@rh001YT]

Melinda Green Hi! When the persons you refer to were "flatlined" they were unconscious because their mental patterns were not changing or hardly changing at all. Then as you way, their consciousness was restored. Yes, "consciousness restored" means patterns were changing again, constantly.

[@MelindaGreen]

rh001YT Yes, consciousness requires change. I was responding to the idea that we'd be dead without it. Tagmark also said that a deeply sleeping brain is constantly changing too but is not conscious, so change is necessary for consciousness but is not sufficient. His point was that both mental states are following patterns that are quite different from each other. He wants to quantify and understand them better but admits that we currently know very little about what makes a pattern conscious or not.

[@rh001YT]

Melinda Green Here you and Tagmark are quibbling over the fuzzy word " conscious". I could easy say there is awake consciousness and there is sleep consciousness. In medical terms, "fully conscious" is often defined as "aware of one's surroundings" which is still a bit vague, requiring further definition, and certainly when asleep we don't think people are aware of their surroundings, however still we don't say an sleeping person is unconscious. People have exited comas, during which the doctors said the person was not aware of their surroundings, yet the patient claimed to be totally aware but unable to communicate. And there have been other variants of "coma". It seems to me to always come down to attributes, so while Helen Keller could neither see or hear we still assume she was conscious due to other things she did. And when the decision is made to pull the plug on a patient, that typically only happens when a brain scanning machne shows no activity, so it is assumed no patterns are changing, and so the person is declared brain dead and definately not conscious. Imagine the case of a person in a coma who does have some minimal brain activity, but that's it. Necessary, yes, but sufficient? Well to determine what is sufficient one will use an attribute list, all of which will be value judgement. Heading down the path of determining what is sufficient is a bit scary to me 'cause I know that such opens Pandora's box. It is exactly that which allowed the Nazis to terminate the mentally retarded and imbeciles, and also Jews and homosexuals. So funny that a gay man, Alan Turing, broke the Nazi's communication code!

[@MelindaGreen]

It seems that you were right and I was wrong. I had believed that sleep was a type of unconsciousness but some quick searching shows I was in error. BTW, I think the opposite word you were looking for is "lucid". As for pulling the plugs, you are right that it's a very difficult choice and not one with any clear guidelines. Sometimes family members will do that even when there is evidence that that they are not entirely unconscious, because they recognize that it's extremely unlikely that the person will find any pleasure in the life that is left to them. That's a loving but terrible choice to have to make, and everyone in that situation just has to muddle through as best they can, and we shouldn't blame them whichever way they choose. It is of course a great reason for everyone to leave advanced directives so that the choices are easier on their loved ones.

[@poodtang1]

" Consciousness is a mathematical pattern " If that be the case then it can be downloaded.

[@gg_rider]

NOT A PHYSICIST. Layman understanding of science of physics. Consciousness can be downloaded? Not necessarily. Can a flowing pattern be downloaded into a fixed frozen state? Is human memory actually frozen, or is it flowing information about a story that can be retold ... activity ... in real time. More to the point about "observing" subatomic particles, mass and momentum vs position (if I have that correct) both cannot be observed precisely at the same time (using appropriate interactive physical tests). If consciousness were frozen onto an SDcard, it would no longer be conscious, it would be a snapshot in time of information, but lacking the flows and patterns of information in process. I don't know if I agree, but I get Max's story that raising information processing to a sufficiently fast and sufficiently complex pattern, and maybe a certain type of pattern, these multiplex patterns and flows in real time *are* the experience of consciousness. That would make some sense then that measurable EEG waves show different patterns in unconscious states vs conscious states. Subjectivity would then amount to a state where information processing not only simulates a conscious experience of the world and of the body, but simulates a conscious experience of not only external stimuli (including body awareness) but also a simulation that involves awareness of conscious information processing. Thinking and seeing and feeling simulating awareness (being "aware") not only of objects but simulating awareness of awareness/Thinking itself, such that the subjectiveness simulation is indistinguishable from the abstract term "reality" or "experience". Info pattern "experience" actively experiencing awareness of experience -- a very complex very fast simulation approximating real time. (Just sayin' ... we don't experience HD movies as flows of bits, we experience at a higher abstract level, story and emotion.) That said, I don't believe it's absolute nonsense or insanity (though possibly misleading or confusing to some people) to describe this phenomenon as "miraculous", as our language-based thoughts use many adjectives and adverbs to describe other qualities of physical and non-physical phenomenon, though physics itself cannot measure "miracles". Is that fair? I'm not saying "miraculous" is like describing "wetness", I'm using "miraculous" like "pleasant" or "lovely".

[@Maisel9]

That's true if you assume he meant a memory unit, but maybe it can be downloaded to a computer like a server nevertheless.

[@yyy5569]

simulation theory

[@billmeecham]

The quest of AI

[@daudsheikh5001]

but it cant

[@arcline11]

This is the second TED talk I've watched so far purporting to define consciousness; both radically different and exclusive of the other. This question is answered by highly intelligent people in very different, mutually exclusive ways, which logically leads to the conclusion not more than one of them can be right, ergo all the others are wrong. I can't define consciousness, but I'm not sure this gentleman, or anyone else can either, hard as they try, and as fervently as they believe what they say.

[@jimmurphy6095]

I looked quick at the thumbnail and saw "Columbo" giving the lecture... Gotta love Max... He's a unique guy.

[@Roachrancher]

Well done Max. It was so good to listen to, at the end I almost clapped as well in front of my screen. Big like! But why I only noticed this video 2 years later, is beyond me.

[@WilForbis]

I've always been a bit confused by the "wetness is an emergent property" example. Isn't wetness really a sensation, a byproduct of subjective experience (ironically the very thing Tegmark is attempting to explain)? It seems to me the basic facts are that you have some molecules, in this case water molecules, that are located to with degrees of proximity to each other. We sense through touch (and sight, though vision really just intimates wetness) close water molecules as ice, further apart ones as wet water, further further apart ones as gas/steam etc. Isn't the property of wetness here just a man made construct? It's almost a Zen koan: If water is in the forest and no one is around to feel it, is it really wet?

[@rh001YT]

Wil Forbis I wish to second your comment. Wetness is a human construct, though from that human construct scientists have studied wetness and attempted to give it an objective definition. However I think that objective definition has failed because not only are there natural substances that are not wetted by water, substances have been made that are completely impervious to wetting. So from the perspective of these substances water is not wet. Therefore wetness is not an emergent property, but rather, a word we use to describe how water interacts with certain substances, basically that which can wet coats the surface of that which it wets. I really question whether anything has "emergent properties" because, like in the case of H2O, it's various "states" are as you pointed out already baked into the molecule's behavior along a spectrum of heat and what we call the "states" of water is totally human-subjective. The water molecule itself is still itself whether frozen in Antartica or floating around in a steamy jungle. And that molecule in the steamy jungle may have previously been frozen in Antartica. Once we grasp that "states" are human-subjective then if we want to say that consciousness is "emergent" we should be honest enough to say that nothing has "emerged" except insofar as we subjectively say it has. And so we have to use our consciousness to say when something is conscious, and we won't all agree on that. There is no standard outside of "consciousness" that can be used to define "consciousness", except standards arbitrarily and subjectively posed by humans. So we say that a person in a coma is "unconscious" based on certain tests. However some have come out of medically declared comatose states to say that they were fairly conscious the whole time, but unable to communicate. Unfortunately for some, the plug was pulled, due to inability to communicate, or so I suppose. And how about someone who is dead, like from a heart attack, but then they are revived? How about those people who wake up in their caskets at the funeral home?

[@MelindaGreen]

rh001YT I think you've both missed Tagmark's point. You're completely right that wetness is only a mental concept constructed from the properties of water. That's exactly what Tagmark was saying, so you're in total agreement there. Finding ways of quantifying wetness lets us talk about it objectively. He says that consciousness exists yet one more level above concepts like wetness, and that he hopes to eventually find ways to quantify consciousness, but we're nowhere close to that yet.

[@rh001YT]

Melinda Green Hi thanks for the input. But I will say this about that: The way that Tagmark used the example of "wet" was overly simplified. On the one hand one might say that "wet" is a word we give to state, on the level of skin cells, where a whole bunch of adjacent cells register that they are smothered, but only in patches here and there. For when we are swimming or in a bath we do not say that we are wet. So then perhaps when the vast majority of cells are smothered, and not just patches, then the concept of wet fades from our mind, even though we are wet technically. Wet is also value-laden, for when we wash our hands we purposely wet them and it is good. But if some unwanted liquid coated our hands then such would be bad. And then we will also say "this towel is sopping wet", which technically means the fibers are not only coated with a liquid, but hold the liquid like in little chambers. Well, I am not going to continue to discuss how we use the word "wet" but it's not simple, though Tagmark's use rather requires it to be simple. And it's particularly now simple as we can't exactly define the point where "wetness" begins - at best such could only be decided by consensus. So that path Tagmark lays out will be tainted with consensus, and humans only agree with regards to what they construe about something to be good or bad, which will differ from person to person, group to group. As for objectivity, people are not objective except in some cases, as with a judge, where one is paid to be objective, but even then we don't really believe in the sincerity of that a good deal of the time. Even in the mere suggestion or attempt to quantify "consciousness" I sense a bias - I sense it leads in a certain direction that some prefer for some reason based in their own particular vanity.

[@MelindaGreen]

rh001YT The subjectivity of wetness was much of Tagmark's point. It's only an idea, not a physical thing. Let's try another example. Say a traffic jam. It's clear to anyone in a traffic jam that the situation is very different from the general traffic flow. We can call it good or bad but that's beside the point. We say "I hit a traffic jam at 5 PM today", but the jam is just a name for an idea of a state that we externalize, not a physical thing. What does it consist of? A bunch of other drivers. It would be more accurate to say "I participated in a traffic jam", or even "I was a traffic jam". It's a higher level concept from cars and drivers, and it can't exist without them. You can't even say when exactly it started or ended. Life and consciousness are much like this, just more complex.

[@rh001YT]

Melinda Green Hi! Well I would say that the jam is a physical conglomerate, and the connotation of "jam" is already bad, and no one like a traffic slowdown/stoppage, so the choice of a bad word is appropriate. And no one would say they participated in or was a traffic jam, as such is not the case, and to say so would be less, not more accurate. I don't agree that "traffic jam" is a higher level concept that "car" or "driver". I would say that it is a concept on about the same level as "car" but with the added negative meaning. It is on the level of "car" because it has parts(the cars) that fit together into a certain pattern, and then the pattern as a whole is given a name. "Concept" is a somewhat fuzzy word. In it's most concrete sense it is a grouping according to chosen similar attributes. "Vehicle" is a concept that groups many different objects according to their physical attributes. We may say that in a more abstract way, we make the group vehicle according to what they do, not what they are. But that's not really abstract, it is just a choice of a different attribute. In fuzzy use, someone might say " I have a concept, like, I'll build a website wherein people can connect with their friends and share pics and stuff. In that case, all "concept" means is that the person has yet only a fuzzy, incomplete proposal of the actual construction of what they propose and whether or not it will be popular. "Concept" is so fuzzy it is almost useless, but people use it anyway and we guess at it's meaning from context. Because it is fuzzy it is very useful for accurate communication, but can be used in somewhat deceptive ways to suggest that something is, thought it may not be.

[@bkrharold]

Perhaps matter is an emergent property of consciousness.

[@andrewyang1446]

Harold Baker wow i like ur comment sir

[@kirkdoray3393]

I have a lot of stuff, therefore I exist.

[@justinbrown191]

Harold Baker - our Consciousness does live on after shedding our " matter " or bodies in plain english bro. Just just like changing or clothes.

[@wendyknox-leet1034]

Harold Baker excellent

[@orangedac]

woah.. i've just been mind blown by that statement.

[@DrHowbeit]

I find it more mind-blowing trying to grasp consciousness as being “merely” physical, as opposed to something immaterial (whatever that would be). Off course, that’s not an argument either way concerning the nature of things.

[@rasanmar18]

Impressive. How simply he explains consciousness is sth that emerges from the particles which form our brains. I have specially liked the analogy of waves. One of the best videos I haver ever watched.

[@itsbilly1792]

One of the best videos YOU have watched, believable

[@guillermocorraleche7198]

Words explaining conciousness in a brilliant talk. You can't get any better than that.

[@Ctenomy]

A beautiful perspective on this hard to tackle consciousness question. But what does this theory leave us in regards to free will? Doesn't this mean we (i.e. conscious beings) are just a consequence of the particles' arrangement and are in fact powerless in their arrangements? If so, how can we control our actions, make our neurons fire up to make a decision, make our muscles contract? I must say that, despite Mr. Tegmark's captivating enthusiasm, this rather scares me, that we're just some sort of collateral damage of information processing with the illusion of control...

[@kristenhabeck178]

Check out Sam Harris’ take on free will

[@PoetMountain]

Splendid talk! When we can consciously process 'quantumly' we will create new machines to help us see it, along with new mathematics to help us work with the quantum energy of consciousness.

[@yahronmills7404]

Excellent presentation within a very short video. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts Max Tegmark.

[@hollytyson8312]

Currently going cold turkey from smoking and drug use, I'm so glad I saw this video. My withdrawals are literally the way the pattern has emerged and my experience is nothing more than the processing of the information as a result of this pattern.

[@Rainer67059]

There's a different aspect of consciousness. If a world exists but there are no conscious life forms in it who perceive the existence of the world, does the world really exist? If a part of our world is never explored by beings, does it exist, is it defined? Some physical properties only exist when we measure them, according to Heisenberg. Consider the Schroedinger cat. The universe only exists as much as conscious life forms exist who perceive it. Consciousness does not only exist in the physical realm, the physical world exists within consciousness. It's a dual relation.

[@cancoteli9669]

+Rainer67059 --> " Mind is necessary for reality to undergo it`s ``FORM``ality of existing "

[@Rainer67059]

nickolasgaspar I based my statement on the observation of the Mandela Effect, not on dogma.

[@Rainer67059]

nickolasgaspar The Mandela Effect is something most people on earth experience. It is observable. To observe something and draw conclusions from it, develop theories to explain it is science. Here mandelaeffect.com/many-interacting-worlds-miw is an article that links usual science with the Mandela Effect.

[@Rainer67059]

nickolasgaspar Lol, you delevered a reply without a meaningful sentence.

[@Rainer67059]

nickolasgaspar The "lady" gave the effect a name after discovering it together with others. It is your decision to not take her seriously. By doing so you follow no scientific principle. In that specific blog entry she reports about a work of a scientist who took some ghosts who are normally the realm of the paranormal that's scoffed by serious people into the realm of science, or to be more precise, into the realm of what Max Tegmark talks about.

[@alexpeek8760]

atoms interacting with each other lead to emergent properties on a much higher macro level. the whole process makes sense and we understand it. Same goes for phase transitions between solids, liquids and gases. the emergence in this case makes sense. the emergence between consciousness and atoms doesn't make sense. it's magical and impossible. Max suggests that mathematics and information processing fix this issue, but I disagree. if he attempted to show an example of the pattern of consciousness, i doubt I would be convinced.

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

One day I was pondering consciousness and mechanism, and though I've always believed mechanism can't produce consciousness, it really nailed it when I realized any electronic or computing system is nothing more than blinkenlights, perhaps very complex blinkenlights but still, no matter what elaborate recursive algorithms or feedback loops upon feedback loops you have, just complex blinkenlights. Blinking lights may be fun to watch, entertaining, educational, you're looking at blinkenlights right now, but... just blinkenlights. Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of electro-bio-chemical activity. We must continue to explore with more imagination, and wider not deeper

[@colinnivisi-q5n]

"the emergence of consciousness and atoms does not make sense" Can you explain this more?

[@naimulhaq9626]

Consciousness, awareness, intelligence, intuition etc., are the result of self-organizing property of matter. Therefore has mathematical structure.

[@billyshare7396]

+Naimul Haq Consciousness is a geometric configuration of atoms that has emergent properties.

[@hongry-life]

+Naimul Haq I think laws of nature to be able to create 3D substances and their borders and appearances are mathematical. I think all that exists in (our) nature is subject to those laws.

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+Billy Share NO, consciousness precedes the atoms.

[@naimulhaq9626]

thatsINpossible Any proof?

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+Naimul_Haq Physical reality is a PRODUCT of conscious intention employing atom-like "thingees" to constitute & represent that physical product. However, conscious intention and desire affect physical reality all the time.. including the selection from quantum probabilities that produce the experience we have as an actualized reality every second of the day. Human consciousness is CREATIONAL as it is original divine energy. The need for PROOF is simply a facet of the predominant belief system as we exit an age of darkness into one of much more light and knowing. The PROOF is always determined by your own beliefs. Telekinesis is just one example of consciousness affecting atoms.. although.. as I said.. it happens all the time. I, myself, can influence the environment is simply with thought/intention. Earth is a Virtual Reality world. Your soul is an aspect of God animating a physical vessel. When your physical vessel expires.. your awareness continues on independent of your brain. The brain is simply a mechanism allowing spirit a certain kind of experience consistent with the original intentions for this VR world. PEACE ;)

[@MyRockshox]

To find a unified theory, rather calling them computronium and perceptronium, Michau Kakou says that consciousness is the number of interactions/feedback loops that exist between the subject and the object. We as human beings after looking through our senses also have an interation with our thoughts and emotions based on that image, uncontrolled due to our experiences in the past. And that makes all the difference. The calculations are enormous and we are still to find patterns.

[@SamadhiSeeker22]

I really like several of his points- such as substrate independence. But, implicit in this discussion is the idea that consciousness is a product of information procesing in the brain. Instead, it may be that that information processing does nor generate consciousness at all, but simply produces experiences that play on the screen of an underlying, and independently existent, consciousness.

[@fumikobirks1409]

The problem with the hypothesis that consciousness is 'independent' is that you can't locate it anywhere. The beauty of Tegmark's account is that the substrate of consciousness is the brain - composed of trillions of patterns of cells.

[@Lucidthinking]

Max have a very beautiful way of thinking, but it is based on a certain misconception, and it is *emergent property*. The belief the a certain combination of attributes can create new properties that weren't there before is wrong. The "wetness" (or better say liquidity, because wetness is a conscious experience and not a property of matter) of water can be perfectly explained by the particles and forces composing it. It is the same particles and forces as in gas and solid but in different properties. So nothing new emerges in liquid. It is only the range where either the attracting or the repulsing forces have no absolute domination. This is valid for all the, so called, examples of "emergent phenomena". If single particles are not conscious, then no combination of them can create a new property that was not there before. I.E., conscious experience. This is also why it is wrong to claim that the brain is conscious. It is merely a computer. It is more probable that consciousness interprets (experiences) the data processed by the brain, and not generated by it. I explain it in detail in a video I have created on my channel called *what is consciousness*

[@Lucidthinking]

+12345shushi I "hate" philosophers too. (Not really hate them but I find myself intolerant for some basic misunderstandings many philosophers hold) I believe philosophy can get much more results if it adopts the scientific method. I don't mean they should examine the mind externally. I mean that like science cannot be based only on theories and it must gather new data using observations and experiments, also the research of the mind cannot be based on mere thinking. We must gather new experiential data using self-experiments and introspection. Let me give you an example. You can philosophize for thousand years if humans have free will. Instead, do an experiment. Try not using a common word for three weeks (Like the word "I" or "yes"). You will immediately get new data, that will undoubtedly show you, that you do not control shit of the words escaping your mouth. I know, I did this experiment. All of the insights I present in the videos on my channel are based on such experiments.

[@kucasmukas7942]

+Lucid thinking The way matter is arranged creates different properties. Electrical conductivity, liquidity, hardness, opaqueness etc. Whether saying these properties exist, but aren't manifested is pure semantics. They aren't there in certain configuration and are there in the other is all that matters. Yes, they can be explained, but I don't see how that makes a difference. There was a time we didn't know how electricity was conducted, but it didn't make electrical conduits not work. Reality is objective. We can't explain how the brain works, but it works and all we know about it suggests it's behind consciousness.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hi +Kucas Mukas, I agree with you in general. At the moment, nothing in our knowledge of physics can explain the existence of the phenomenon of conscious experience. It's not just a matter of studying the brain better. The known laws of physics explain forces, movement, and positioning in space. Therefore, it can explain information processing, that is the manipulation of certain materials or energetical structures into others. But the creation of experience cannot be explained by those. At least not at the moment. Perhaps in the future, we would find new laws of physics or new explanations that will solve the mystery. I insist the way I represent the concept of emergent phenomena, because many do not really understand it, and use it as a magical solution to explain consciousness. For example, "life" is represented as an emergent phenomenon of biological organic structures. But do we really know what life is? If life is just the functions produced by these organic structures, we can say that robots and computers are alive too. Yet we do not say so. Why? since we feel there is a difference. (Though we are unable to identify or define this difference clearly). So it is false to claim that life, as we feel they are, is an emergent property of organic structures. Only the functions we share with computers are emergent from the organic structure. (Like thinking, feeding, breeding, sensing etc). But the thing which makes life, if there is such, cannot be claimed to be an emergent property of the organic structure. It may be, and may not be, and therefore, we cannot escape to the emergent phenomenon explanation. Imagine you give a radio receiver to Issac Newton. He might argue that the music is an emergent phenomenon of the radio's components, unaware of the critical role the radio signal from the station plays.

[@kucasmukas7942]

Lucid thinking I agree with you that we can't explain consciousness. I don't think people can even agree what it is, but I don't agree with you that we can't understand it with better understanding of the brain. It may be so or it may not, but that remains to be seen. So far nothing suggests that consciousness exists outside of it. Life doesn't seem to be an objective phenomena, so it's really not that surprising that the definition varies. Bio-chemical reactions produced by an organism would be. If you define life like that then machines aren't alive, if you define it some other way they might be. depending on the definition. Still those particular biological reactions are emergent phenomena of that particular organism. You can throw every single atom that constitute that organism in a jar and it will not reproduce them. It's nothing magical though, it's simply because they are an emergent phenomena of that particular arrangement of atoms (in conjunction with it's surroundings). You say it can't be so, but it's so common that it's undeniable. Almost everything can be arranged in a different manner to produce different chemical properties. Even atoms of one kind can be arranged so that they exhibit completely different properties. Instead give an Ipod to Isaac Newton and he'd be correct. There is a critical difference, though. Sir Isaac could capture those radio signal with another device and reproduce the music in another device. So far it hasn't been done with the brain and there is nothing that suggests the brain works that way. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[@Lucidthinking]

+12345shushi I'm with you all the way except the part dealing with naturalism vs creationism. I'm interested in the truth. I don't seek to impose my beliefs on the truth. I do not accept nor reject "Intelligent Design" kind of thinking, or naturalist kind of thinking. If any of them can provide certain evidence, I weight it and try to discern how much certainty do I have for it to be true. They can be both true in some way. There are more than "two baselines that guide reality". Consciousness could be a fundamental element of the universe, like space and the fundamental forces. This conclusion is suggested by the *delayed quantum eraser* experiment. You do not have to jump to far conclusions of the existence of a creator, to test the possibility that consciousness is not a product of matter, but on the contrary, one of the fundamental elements constructing it.

[@robby102938]

"Consciousness is simply the way information feels" For something to feel anything there needs be the thing that has the ability to feel in the first place. otherwise it would just be information organised in some way which still is just information.

[@RasielSuarez]

While I agree with his basic position; that is, that inanimate particles can produce emergent characteristics to include consciousness, this only explains the 'how'. I'm much more interested in the 'what'. With waves and states of matter we have predictability and can quantify: so much of this at such and such condition produces that effect. We can't, as yet at least, make a recipe for consciousness. We have already proven that intelligence is not a prerequisite for consciousness and the other way around so when we finally achieve AI that passes (or even far exceeds) the Turing test we still won't necessarily be able to say we've created consciousness. At best, therefore, to say that consciousness is simply a particular arrangement of particles is unproven and, worse, it fails to say anything about the nature of consciousness. Can it, like a wave, be transferred? Can it be controlled, stored, copied? And the biggest question of all: why is consciousness local, forever confined to each individual during his or her lifetime?

[@raspberrybriars]

+Rasiel Suarez Really appreciate the questions you've raised. It will be interesting to see what more we discover.

[@mrbwatson8081]

Rasiel Suarez would love to get your thoughts on my thoughts... i see things like this.... the universe exists only IN consciousness. The universe appears ONLY in your consciousness to you, and for me the same. The universe exists only in consciousness. With my senses which are all outward bound, I take in different information and like a super computer my brain puts all this information together and my universe appears from WITHIN me... you do the same and generate your own universe. So does an ant with its antenna and its eyes and smell the ant creates his universe... so the universe appears or exists only IN consciousness... consciousness contains the universe not the other way round. That’s why you will never find it measure it transmit it what ever.. it’s like water in a fish tank.. the tank is consciousness, and the water inside is the universe... the glass tank is outside of the water as it contains the water, it can not be found IN the water itself ... Does that make sense..? Or do I smoke to much?

[@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

How do you explain the double slit experiment and the observer effect? Is it possible that materialism and idealism are both correct in order to even explain 'real'?

[@Theoramma]

My definition of the universe: The beautifully manifested expression of wonderful patterns.

[@antibunnism3546]

then theoretically it would be possible for us to rearrange the dead bodies' molecules and bring them alive again, but if that was done to me then would I still be me (my consciousness) or a supposedly a "clone" of me that has exactly the same thoughts and memories, but not original consciousness that I had before death?

[@frogger832]

That is what I am perplexed about. Even more mysterious than consciousness is the fact that our current perspective is coupled with this "instance" of consciousness. If I somehow duplicated your "pattern of consciousness" elsewhere, I doubt that you will suddenly be aware of two different places at once.

[@antibunnism3546]

interesting.. I'm thinking that a consciousness is just a byproduct of particle combination as Dr.Tegmark said and maybe we think we are conscious but in reality consciousness doesn't exist(???) maybe we just move mechanically following the law of nature like any other matters in the world..

[@stevegorczyca8597]

That's really more of a problem with how you categorize consciousness with periods of interruption. You could ask the same question regarding sleep. How do you know that you aren't simply a "clone" of you with the same thought pattern and memories, but not the same actual consciousness every time you wake up from a nap?

[@frogger832]

AntiBunnism I think however if there is one thing we can prove to be certain in this world, it is that we exist in some form. I mean if consciousness doesn't really exist, how can an unconscious entity be convinced that it is conscious?

[@smokeweedaily]

I think what this boils down to is the question if whether or not souls/ghosts/spirits actually exist. I suppose if no souls exist, then you could possibly be a clone of a person who was once dead if you're killed then brought back to life by rearranging the brain's molecules. But then again, that would invalidate all these ghost videos you see on youtube!

[@stanislavdidenko8436]

the main question is still not addressed here: why am I conscious inside of my brain? why not inside of the brain of another person? Why at this time?

[@nickmerritt3726]

The key to your question is the "I". You are your brain, you are not conscious inside of it. The characteristics of of experience and what you perceive as "you" are direct results of the physical characteristics of your brain. I think that is what the speaker is getting at.

[@stanislavdidenko8436]

Nick Merritt I would agree with you if I were you, But no, I am imprisoned in my body, in my brain and it is a greatest mystery for me - why it is so, why all this experience and perceiveness take place in this (mine) particular brain? why not inside of another person? Do you want to say that you and me are the same, and we are just isolated to see it clear?

[@reincarnate100]

Stanislav, I think the idea of "you,", "I", or "mine" and the idea of indentifying "oneself" to a particular conscious experience (as opposed to a "different" one) is potentially fallacious. Instead, I would say we are just separate/non-local lifeforms that each have a brain, and it is each brain that happens to attribute/identify itself to its own experiences/memories. It's the continuity of our memories/experiences that give the illusion that "we" can "identify" ourseleves as being who we are. To understand what I'm getting at, imagine the following: Imagine while you're asleep we could erase all information from your brain and put "upload" my brain's information there instead. If this happened, your brain's only choice would be to analyse that information and perceive that it is in fact me. From the brain's perspective, it would think it is me and think it has ALWAYS been me. It would think that it is the "real" me and not even know there's another one. There would be an identification process based solely off of your brain's new data. Your brain would analyse your the past memories/experiences and think "oh yes, a few days ago I went for a run." "I remember that time I went to school and X happened on the playground", etc. Your brain would have ALL of the memories/experiences that I had, so they would be continuous/coherent in the sense that your brain would have no choice but to attribute/identify itself with being the person who actually did all of the things it recalls (even though it was me). Yes, the new "you" would realise you have the wrong body, but the new you would still think that you are this "new person" (and in fact that it has been this person since birth), instead it would just think that something very very very weird had happened. People often say "our body is made up of completely different atoms than it was 6 months ago, therefore we aren't the same person anymore". And I would say this is true. I could be a different person to who I was yesterday (or 6 months ago), but the fact my memories/experiences are continuous and precede/consist of everything that I was before now leaves me with no choice, the inevitable choice, of perceiving/concluding that it's still me. "I know for sure that it's me because I remember thinking/doing this X days ago - it was what I thought and remember thinking, therefore this is me and you can't say otherwise", but of course your brain would think that if all it has to go by is your past memories/experiences!

[@stanislavdidenko8436]

***** Thank you for a detailed opinion. Would be interesting to have once such an experiments. Then it can really shed some light onto my still opened question. I know that by now neurobiologists were able to transform a small part of a rat memory into the brain of the another rat, and by experiments they showed that recipient rat got a new to it knowledge on how to accomplish some tasks. However it is quite far from the day when humans will be able to make exactly what you suggest in your thought experiment. I doubt about it cause, I think there is some hidden to science by now mechanism of neuron network work, which seem to me to be kind of analogy of a reconstruction ray in holography. When even without any knowledge or experience, a living creature opens its eye for the very first time in its life, it already has some perception of itself as a unity, which not even "I" yet, but already something solid what makes existence of this creature and all its life experience unique and isolated. And even what I am more doubtful about your suggestion of the network transplantation, is that probably our physical brain cells network might not be that flexible to withstand this kind of an ultimate, erase-copy-past operation. I think it is could not be possible physically, cause it is too complex, and even the micro scale differences in the shapes of the brains of two persons could not let it to copy the whole memory/network without damaging some crucial knots in the memory's network hierarchy. Though I believe that, onto the chip we could once copy the whole brain map.

[@mikicerise6250]

If you were conscious inside my brain instead of yours it wouldn't be very helpful to your body. ;) Why is one atom over here and another over there? Discreteness. Why are things discrete? Why isn't everything just the same, singular point? Ultimately this leads to the age-old existential question: "Why does anything exist at all?" That's a hard problem, perhaps even harder than the problem of consciousness. ;)

[@garyrector7394]

My consciousness does not go away when I sleep.

[@tedl7538]

+Gary Rector If you're not dreaming, it does, and I'd argue that dream states are not conscious in the waking sense either.

[@billyshare7396]

+Ted Levy Maybe your still conscious but there is no memory of it.

[@tedl7538]

That sounds a bit paradoxical (at least my conscious mind thinks so).....

[@hongry-life]

+Gary Rector How can you be sure of that?

[@lxMaDnEsSxl]

You are less conscious and aware than your wakeful state.... He means that it's altered to a lower state.

[@kirstenbrunsgaardclausen480]

(14:30) "The difference between a dead bug and a living bug ...is simply the pattern into which the particles are arranged "… What does truely that mean?? WHY does these particle patterns above and beyond suddenly stop to work??? And why does a dead body (full of particles) not "feel" anymore....???

[@luciazivcakova205]

If a wave has emergent properties, can it not be said that the universe itself which boils down to a wave has emergent properties. One which equal consciousness?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Isn't a 'wave' an emergent property? Can a property have properties? When the wind blows spume from a wave crest is the spume a property of the wind, the wave, the water or some combination? (I don't know. I'm not sure about the existential status of properties).

[@jp-jb1bw]

The Rigveda- creation hymn

[@tripbunny]

I love how the mathematics of his consciousness forces him to style his hair and dress in such a fashion to obtain a feeling of acceptance and rewards from his peers to motivate him through a sense of feeling.

[@berniv7375]

Well. I do not agree. The gentleman wears his jacket unbuttoned which can be seen as a sign of rebelliousness, dominance, or aggression. The mathematics of consciousness is an interesting theory. Would such a theory imply that we have no spirituality?🌱

[@cvan7681]

So he's used an aspect of his consciousness to describe consciousness. Can consciousness describe itself? Can you bite your own teeth? How many different versions of Consciousness are there?

[@JohnCahillChapel]

What is observing the feelings that the patterns are feeling?

[@MrMrprofessor12345]

The pattern is observing itself, creating a feedback loop, a "strange loop" to use Hofstadter's terminology. In the act of successful self-observation, the system creates a model of itself (being aware of what you are, recognition of body as your own on a deeper level that environmental inputs) and reaches another level of consciousness. As far as we know we share this with any animal that can recognize it sees it's own body in a mirror. Humans in this frame of logic, are simply applying even more power to this self-modelling level. If you're considering some being outside of the patterns, that's irrelevant to the question of consciousness, but *very* relevant to metaphysical ideas of our place in the universe, even if it's only ever to be debated.

[@digitalsalsas]

can i get a witness

[@yogisteven8149]

I like Max. As far as a materialist can go, he is the one of the best out there.

[@Ayoubsss]

I love how everybody is ignoring the fact that we do not fully understand the biochemistry of life, nor the origin of it. Biochemistry -> Neurons -> Consciousness I think we should focus more on tracing the origin of life to find these kind of answers.

[@wadi244]

Consciousness is just the way information feels . But to feel don't one need to be conscious ? Isn't that a circular argument ?

[@emperidousouleu6366]

Hicham, Exactly. Lots of semantic confusion, category errors and poorly thought analogies in this talk, i'm really not impressed with Tegmark on this. He's one of those people who tries to convince himself that _everything_ is really well understood or just about to be, when the issues are so complicated that we actually barely know how to talk about them. Look for my other comment under the video.

[@cosmicwarriorx1]

"consciousness is the way information processing feels like....."; what the heck feel is at first place???

[@rovrola]

+mrigendra kumar prajapati That's the challenge he offers; for one to account for unique objective features of the "feel like" category of patterns. In absence of adequate theorems you already have more than enough equipment to know its subjective features, and that's not something anyone else could tell you.

[@cosmicwarriorx1]

Ignoblape Looks like it is going to be egg and chicken like case, and that is puzzling for me. We are conscious that's why we feel or we feel information processing that's why we are conscious. I don't know! ... it is just puzzling!!..??

[@rovrola]

Definitely sounds like the ultimate chicken and egg! (Funny I made a comment earlier on the same video alluding to chickens laying potatoes! lol) I find chicken and egg problems to be indicative of inherent trouble with assigning predicates consistently and the notion of "essence". It would seem in the context of the presentation "feel like" and "consciousness" are taken to be synonymous identities. What does it feel like to be unconscious?

[@cosmicwarriorx1]

Varied attempts over the centuries are made by greater the greatest minds from almost all the fields of knowledge trying to answer/understand this.... every time we are so close yet so far and the only thing I can say about the questions like, "What does it feel like to be unconscious?" that they are going to pose more hard times as we move further on the quest to get the ultimate answer.... :P

[@danielwoodwardcomposer2040]

I understand this post because I am conscious. How do I understand consciousness because of this post? To understand consciousness would be a result of consciousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!

[@emymy9656]

+Daniel Woodward hahahaha geil

[@danielwoodwardcomposer2040]

We have all spent our entire lives devoted to consciousness.

[@Notthought]

Time to get free of the matrix of consciousness and time and be the open shared/sharing no-thing.

[@drdanielitoto]

physicists and astrophysicists CAN MEASURE MATERIAL , BUT THEY CAN NOT MEASURE CONCIOUESNES OR TOUGHTS OR FELLING AND EMOTION. THATS WHY,THIS VIDEO IS NO RELEVANT

[@aizenDyaus]

This man is so intelligent. His books are up to the level.

[@navidkhaheshi]

In my opinion, he could've summarized it in one obvious sentence: we're conscious because the patterns of our molecules are different than of a carrot. Who didn't know that? Besides, math is the language we use to explain phenomena with including patterns (There's no non-mathematical pattern). So, consciousness can be described mathematically and it's nothing new either. I watched it to see if there are some findings of the mathematical model of consciousness. I think I had high expectations.

[@tricap96]

What evidence is there to say that “inanimate” objects aren’t conscious?

[@saltyceleryking9523]

well there's no information processing. The parties move or vibrate randomly but there's no net movement and thus no information only discourse.

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

I know someone who claims to remember a past life as a rock.

[@saltyceleryking9523]

@@DrunkenUFOPilot Well they're probably joking. I hope for their sake that they are.

[@darrylschultz6479]

Probably the fact that there's no evidence that they are.

[@ericmichel3857]

So basically he is suggesting that consciousness is the result of purely physical properties of an objective material universe. We observe some properties of conscious beings and assume they are required for consciousness. He then suggests consciousness is "how information feels when being processed in certain complex ways" and "we of course don't know what sufficient conditions are required for a physical system to be conscious" How is this any different than just saying "we are just a pack of neurons" so when structures reach a certain level of complexity consciousness spontaneously emerges like a rabbit out of a hat, just like a magic trick? I find it odd that materialist scorn ideas of non localized consciousness as some sort of woo woo philosophy, but then see the idea of spontaneous consciousness as perfectly reasonable, when both hypothesis are equally bizarre and lack any direct evidence. I see no new evidence or argument in this presentation, what was the point?

[@diablo5597]

+Eric Michel "So basically he is suggesting that consciousness is the result of purely physical properties of an objective material universe." ...No he is saying, it is the result of purely mathematical properties in an objectively mathematical universe. The only thing that exists is math itself. Consciousness is the emergent phenomenon created from mathematical structures that exist by logical necessity.

[@ericmichel3857]

+JJ Marion Okay but from my perspective math is simply a language or a tool that describes physical properties, it is an abstract concept, not some tangible thing unto itself. It really doesn't seem all that different from any other language if you really think about it. I can use English to describe all sorts of apparent and even abstract properties, and based on those descriptions I can even make very accurate predictions. In fact with common language you can also describe and even create emotion, which is not something I have ever seen done with math. Consciousness is all about experience, which is only indirectly related to physical properties, which is why we describe someone who acts shallow or superficial as "materialistic". There is no doubt that math is a very useful tool, but in some regards it is also very limited, especially in reference to the human experience. Yes many things can be described in mathematical terms, but many other languages are also useful for describing physical properties. I still don't see how we make the leap to language=consciousness, unless I am missing something? Is there a formula that creates experience and emotion? Our computers can perform every known type of mathematical equation, have they exhibited any form of consciousness? Perhaps I just don't understand, but what evidence brings him to this conclusion?

[@diablo5597]

+Eric Michel, The problem is that math is not the same as language. If I tell two people to think of a cup, they will certainly think of cups with different properties. the size, shape, color, and other properties will be different. "Cup" is a vague concept. But if I were to describe the shape of the cup using math to a mathematician, he could graph it out. This kind of math is still not sufficient to describe the cup though. It only describes it macroscopically. To describe the cup exactly, I would need to describe the cup particle for particle, know its universal address (including where and when the cup is) and also know the laws of physics that are governing these particles. The cup is a mathematical substructure in the universe. The entire universe is the whole mathematical structure. But what are particles? "What properties does an electron actually have? It has the properties -1, ½, and 1. These are properties that we physicists have made up geeky names for, like electric charge and spin and lepton number. But they’re just numbers! They’re just mathematical properties! So all these building blocks of nature, these particles, actually have no properties at all, except for mathematical properties. So in that sense, they are purely mathematical objects. Classic materialism is dead: “stuff” isn’t the end of the story. And the same deal with the fabric of what’s around us, space itself. It has the property three, the number of dimensions. That’s a number. That’s a mathematical property. All this space and the stuff in space is purely mathematical with only mathematical properties." -Tegmark Full interview below... Check out his book. You can get it on amazon. motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-mathematical-reality-of-reality-an-interview-with-cosmologist-max-tegmark

[@ericmichel3857]

+JJ Marion Thanks for the feedback, but if you really consider how we think, it is not in words or numbers, we think in experiences (sight, sound, feel, taste, and above all emotion). This is why we all must be taught languages so that we can associate an experience with a word, a sentence, a number, or an equation. Why do you suppose so many in the states still have a difficult time with using the metric system? It is because they have not taught themselves to associate the meaning of those numbers to their experience. For example I can say it is 70 degrees F outside and most people in the states would immediately understand what that implies, but if i said it is 21 degrees C outside it would not help those who do not regularly use the metric system and have no referenced experience for what that mathematical scale represents in experiential terms. So they would have to convert to a known reference, or I could avoid number references altogether and just said average room temperature. Regarding the cup analogy, I could for example say medium McDonald's coffee cup, or even better send an image of a specific cup. If we were truly to describe the cup mathematically down to its ultimate structure, well first it would be highly impracticable to do so, and secondly you can't because as you pointed out regarding the nature of quantum particles, that once you get down to the quantum level our math begins to fall apart at a certain point. This is why I think math is just like language because it allows us to take very complex and even abstract concepts and express them in a simplified, efficient, and reductive method. But if math were the fundamental nature of reality, wouldn't we think and feel in mathematical terms? So yes you can reduce many aspects of reality to there mathematical properties, but you could also do that using descriptive language if you really wanted to do so, but of course math is far more efficient in many cases. Which is why it is such a useful tool, but eventually those numbers and equations must translate to an actual experience, otherwise they are meaningless. This is why we are constantly trying to use simplified analogies of our worldly experience to relate complex and even abstract concepts. The difference between the average individual and a mathematician/scientist is that they have trained themselves to relate some experience to numbers and equations. So they can see deep meaning in numbers and equations where most people see chicken scratch. But ultimately it is no different than when someone who only knows English looks at Chinese writing. I like Max and this is an interesting concept, but I think there are to many gaping holes in this hypothesis. Like how we get from the physical properties that math can describe to consciousness. I have yet to see where an equation can induce true self awareness or emotion. It is entirely possible that all physical existence is some sort of illusion, but I cannot see how consciousness could be an illusion, because how can you have an illusion without a conscious observer? So based on this simple logic it would seem that in some sense consciousness transcends the illusion of this physical universe, and so must be a fundamental aspect of reality. I am reminded of the question "Did god create man, or did man create god" and so in this case we ask "did math create man, or did man create math?" Personally I think the latter in both cases.  So based on what I can see, I am not inclined to buy and read this book. However, if you have read it and think there is information in it that might change my perspective, please let me know, and if you would please try to summarize what I am missing. Thanks again, and happy New Year!

[@diablo5597]

+Eric Michel Even if we call math a language, it is still a special kind of language. Math is pure logic. Math exists necessarily. Cups for example don't have to exist. We could imagine a universe with no cups. But we can not imagine a universe where the concept of math doesn't exist. Even if nothing existed, one plus one would still equal two. It is a concept and concepts are more fundamental than matter. "But if math were the fundamental nature of reality, wouldn't we think and feel in mathematical terms?" --Our brains are constantly performing advanced calculations subconsciously all day. When we are thrown a ball, we are able to catch it only because our brains did the math and figured out how. This process is automatic and without it, you would completely lose your intuitive ability to catch or walk or process any information at all. Even worms do calculus to find food. www.livescience.com/5022-worms-calculus-find-food.html "I like Max and this is an interesting concept, but I think there are to many gaping holes in this hypothesis. Like how we get from the physical properties that math can describe to consciousness. I have yet to see where an equation can induce true self awareness or emotion." I'm more of a concept guy than a scientist so I don't know the right terminology to use here, but try to think of equations and mathematical structures separately. Length times width is an equation that tells us the area of a rectangle. If someone were to throw a brick, we would need a lot more equations and data to describe the trajectory of the brick and predict where it will roll. If we had a full understanding of math and physics, unlimited computing power, and had all of the data needed to plug into the formulas, would describe the motion of the brick molecule for molecule, second by second. We could do the same for the entire universe since the big bang. The brick is a mathematical substructure, the universe is the mathematical structure. This structure, like equations, exists necessarily. No single equation can induce consciousness. But a mathematical structure can. Not all will contain life, but ours does. Because our mathematical structure had the correct laws of physics and the correct initial conditions it created life which eventually evolved into us. Consciousness is simply the result mathematical necessity. It is an emergent phenomenon. And asking this why that is, is like asking why the laws of physics are the way they are. Because they have to be. Different laws of physics with different initial conditions yield different universes. It is no wonder why we find ourselves in the only universe that could create us. I don't know if I explained well, but it is a very very hard concept to grasp. I doubt most people who say they understand it actually do even though they think they do. It is similar to the free will argument. Some people are not even able to grasp the concept that choice may be (almost certainly is) an illusion. The illusion of the universe is a much stronger one though. I used to wonder if the universe came from literally nothing or if it always existed. Both seemed impossible to me. Then one day I had an epiphany and realized the question was flawed. It was the third option. Matter and energy can't come from literally nothing and everything has to have a beginning. That is everything except a mathematical structure. Mathematical structures are concepts. Now the big bang make sense. It is just the mathematical structure when the time value equals 0 (or maybe an value after). "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

[@Mohamed5ch]

This is marvelously beautiful

[@TheComedyGeek]

I've come to the conclusion that the problem with explaining consciousness is that consciousness does not want to be explained. What I mean by that is that our minds inherently reject any sort of finite understanding of their own conscious state in favour of their own sense of infinite possibilities. That's why we keep coming close to defining consciousness then shying away and saying "No, that can't be it. There must be something else. " That's why I applaud Max calling attention to that troublesome word "just". Are we "just" an arrangement of elementary particles? Our pride and sense of self rejects this idea. We needs to replace "just" with "also". We are not JUST an arrangement of atoms. But we ARE an arrangement of atoms. And even if it turns out that we can find no extra ingredient that makes consciousness special. that still doesn't mean we are JUST atoms. We are still all the amazing things that we thought of ourselves before. The amazing thing is that all it takes is, as Max says, a certain kind of PATTERN of electrons, quarks, and so on to create all those wonderful things. If we are anything at all, we are patterns. Our entire being is just a specific program running on the incredible organic computers we call out brains, like an app running on your phone. We are, of course, astronomically more complex than, say,. Candy Crush. But we are code nevertheless.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I append the following to your contribution... I think my self (who is conscious) is not the program/process per se, but that my self is some of the data the program/process is manipulating. I understand the data to be what thoughts are 'about'. That is to say, I see the data as the neural-discharge-frequency-encoded-analogies that we commonly refer to as thoughts and the program/process merely the means by which the thoughts intermodulate each other via the synapses. The key word in that is 'analogies '. For me, the word 'self' refers to the thought which is my self (existing as an abstract entity maintained by my material substrate body). My being conscious is the modulation of my self by other thoughts. (and these modulations can result in my arm raising (knowing, as I do, how neurons control muscle fibers)). These sentences are my thoughts frozen on your screen and when you read them you reanimate them and they become part of you. Of course the nature of a thought depends a lot on its context so it would be hard to assert that my thought and your copy are the same one. Its the context of shared language that make them pretty close. Have you now got the feeling that our grasp on the meaning of the word 'conscious' is very likely a minimally distorted reflection of the actuality?

[@mykrahmaan3408]

6.37: Tononi's definition he mentions here of CONSCIOUSNESS is circular: "how much different parts of a system KNOW about each other". For KNOWING itself implies consciousness as it is NOT a particle interactively defined term. For example, if KNOWING has already been defined as "when a photon in any atom touches one of its own proton, then the proton initiates release of neutrinos to protons in certain number of other atoms, which causes in the entity the perception of KNOWING". Then using that word to define consciouness as a still higher combination would have been NONCIRCULAR. As at present such an (already verified as true) definition of KNOWING doesn't exist, his definition is circular.

[@Daddyfatclaps]

youtube comment section...also know as armchair philosopher league.

[@perceivingacting]

+Mike Lord Some professionals too. Are you??

[@perceivingacting]

+Mike Lord Some professionals too. Are you??

[@Daddyfatclaps]

I'm a professional...sound engineer. High fives for real careers.

[@perceivingacting]

+Mike Lord Oh my!

[@josephkingsley8708]

KZbin and Facebook have exponentially increased the number of subject-matter experts in the world. We don't need to invest more in education in the U.S., just ensure everyone knows how to post comments semi-anonymously from an early age.

[@Neuronerd314]

Who says those other things aren't conscious? Can you be 100% certain?

[@jorgegomez524]

I just asked my chair, she said she hasnt.

[@Neuronerd314]

@@jorgegomez524 good point let me see if I can get a coherent response from the grass outside or the tree in my yard. Surely all conscious things speak English.

[@blakeavila4409]

Yes. You can't have both. Either consciousness is a soul or an arrangement of particles. If a plant doesn't have a brain capable of thought, then it must have a soul to be conscious. If plants need a soul to be conscious, then so do human beings. If human beings have a soul, there's an afterlife, if there's an afterlife, there's a purpose and a design for life. If there's a purpose and a design for life, there's a God who gave us the purpose when He designed His creation. If God gave us a purpose, then we cannot rightfully make our own purpose, which offends people. And we can't have that.

[@maddybrown9595]

Like music, consciousness comes together. Not the parts that count here, but the whole. Not the individual notes in music either, there is nothing new there, they are all the same notes. What counts is the way the notes are arranged.

[@billwesley]

Very well put and not noted often enough by other people. Emotionally relevant musical progressions act a lot like subatomic particle interactions and chemical element reactions which are also very music like, all notate their respective progressions in TIME. Since subatomic interactions support the chemical reactions that run our brain, which very much resonates to the emotion in music, we should be noticing the connections instead of ignoring them, physics and emotion are connected through music, as civilizations well before Pythagoras noticed.

[@andrew1winner]

We are made of the same thing music and art are made of, pattern. That is truly beautiful

[@21EC]

A simple proof that it is not only the pattern that matters for the existance of consciousness : *a 1:1 simulation of a human brain won't truly emerge a true consciousness* - it would just make a really convincing show of having a consciousness so it means there is actually something beyond just that (which is the soul I believe and I'm not even a religious person).

[@Langkowski]

How many water molecules are required to create liquid. Obviously a single molecule can not be liquid.

[@iud9476]

Exact number is when it meets the definition of a liquid or it is the lowest number of molecules that is able to change from liquid phase to solid. it could be in the region of 20, 50, who knows.

[@iud9476]

***** Last sentence is entirely false

[@Juanbanogues]

I think you are making the wrong question. You are referring to the abstraction of the concept of liquid comparing it to the theory behind this lecture? I would say that to say if something is liquid you need to know what is a liquid first, then know that that concept only applies into the macro not the micro. Light can't light itself, nor other particles, it just bounces in that realm. We macro, don't see the bouncing, just the properties we perceive with our senses.

[@commaback8861]

Terence McKenna about modern science: ''Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.''

[@ian485]

The way informations feels... Feels to what?

[@MagnumInnominandum]

" to a conscious system.." No doubt, lol. But then explain logic, without resort to it as well as "consciousness".

[@ian485]

@@MagnumInnominandum But that is the problem, isn't it? I don't intend to cast doubt on the valuable insights of this talk. Yet, the conclusion, at least as presented, is lacking in clarity. But that in itself is quite telling of the fundamental nature of the problem, which the speaker addresses. It's the "cracking" of these seemingly self-evident phenomena and the development of an ability to explain them in terms which are not self-referential and circular that has advanced our understanding of the world. Just like the notion of mass in physics.

[@martin36369]

14:53 Q "What breaths fire into an information processing system & makes it conscious?", A "Nothing: What matters is simply the structure of the information processing" Then it's not nothing it is the structure of the information processing & not "simply"

[@ailatejrithvik1564]

This man is pure genius

[@quidam3810]

This is a great demonstration of wishful thinking. Mathematics have no creative power (unless someone may demonstrate that ?) but this is assumed here, apparently. They are descriptive, for all I know. Along the lines of the presentation we are told that life is a mere reorganization of elements - it may be so, but I have colleagues who specialize in studying the origin of life and apparently they are not aware that this has been demonstrated in any way. If our speaker has the answer it would be really nice of him to let them know. The idea that "information feels" anything is just laughable : what does that even mean ??? Invoking an emergence phenomena is nice, but then you have to explain it from the bottom up - we have a whole discipline called statistical physics that does just that. It's not just "a bunch of molecules have diffusivity property". For all I know, we don't have the start of a theory to explain a jump from information to consciousness, so invoking emergence is pure faith. Finally, it would be a good idea to study a little philosophy and wonder if physics only know what matter is made of... because it doesn't, and cannot, at the most elementary level : it can only know quantitative properties, not qualitative one (see Aristotle and the concept of matter and form). But it sure does sound fancy.

[@mouwersor]

What evidence is there for dualism or whatever you're proposing?

[@nolanr1400]

Most physicists especially quantum physicists think that universal consciousness preexists everything including matter. So it might well be just a mathematical structure

[@quidam3810]

@@mouwersor Where did I propose anything ? I just pointed a bunch of assumptions implicitly made by the speaker... You're more than welcome to respond to my points, if you'd like...

[@quidam3810]

@@nolanr1400 I don't think that what you say is true, but then maybe do you have poll data that show what you say. Anyway, my point about the causal ineffectiveness of maths remains : where do you see them having any causal power so that they might .. induce ? ... consciousness... the least scientific phenomenon on the planet : how can you even test objectively for subjective experience ?

[@jimmyv4749]

i wonder what this guy would say if he took a thumprint of lsd and smoked dmt on the peak

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+jimmy v Super, super valid point! If he did, he would immediately FEEL FOOLISH about his "pattern" beliefs.

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+Pablo_Duran Hmm.. I scored in the 99th percentile on my SAT math. So how do you reconcile that with your ignorant opinion?? You can't. I accept your apology. PEACE ;)

[@thatsinpossible4967]

***** Okay, without referencing ANY external material.. here is my question for you? If you were talking to someone right now with an I.Q. of over 200.. would you be able to recognize it? You have the floor., and my attention. I look forward to your response! PEACE ;)

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+Pablo_Duran While there are infinite answers to every question.. here are a couple: ;) You cannot know what you do not know. You may be able to identify many things you do not know.. but that still leaves potentially millions or trillions of things you do not know you do not know. A person's current world_view/understanding always has SUB-CONSCIOUS assumptions that they are not even aware of. It is when these assumptions are CHANGED.. that one then becomes more aware of possibilities they never knew even existed. However, changing these are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for the problem is that these sub-conscious assumptions are BEYOND one's awareness. They are , in essence, the outer_boundaries of ones awareness and one, by definition, cannot be aware of that outside of their awareness. [ "It is not a window until a second is found." --tINp ©2015] Additionally, these sub-conscious assumptions play a critical role in determining one's CORE consciousness frequency. And why does THIS matter? Because thoughts don't originate inside the brain, rather you are essentially a consciousness having a certain ability to RECEIVE thoughts at a certain frequency from the ethers/universal_mind... based upon your consciousness level. (higher the frequency.. the more evolved - or in alignment with deeper laws/"God_Light" - are the thoughts that are returned) Your brain has no thoughts. (BTW) It retrieves them. This is why there is a LONG HISTORY of "geniuses" getting the same ideas or innovations at the same time.. they both reached a frequency where they were able to retrieve the concepts from the universal_mind at roughly the same time. (Also, there are higher-level entities actually responsible for managing thoughts.. and sometimes.. thoughts are even planted into the local_mind of Earth.. so humans of sufficient consciousness can retrieve them.) ------------ Anywho.. you may well be able to identify someone "slightly smarter" than you.. as they are still operating within the same general consciousness realm/continuum as you.. just a little higher up in it. (like your 140+I.Q. acquaintances you referenced) However, at a certain point.. in order to have a much higher I.Q. one must graduate from a certain frequency of consciousness and go into whole other realms of awareness.. which the mainstream intelligentsia will not really have a means of appreciating for they don't have the frequency of consciousness yet to be able to grab from the ethers thoughts that can make sense of (or appreciate) what they are being exposed to. In sum, one can only appreciate or value those attributes/understandings that are both WITHIN RANGE of one's current abilities and also on a similar CONTINUUM of conscious experience, so a 200 I.Q. would probably be extremely difficult for you to identify. The person would just be presenting a lot of "curious" stuff that seems far-fetched or maybe even loony. ;) ----------- my G+ profile has abundant personal info and views (at levels beyond mainstream science) However, since mainstream science is Materialist.. Scientists always want "proof".. However, ironically, the nature and understanding of what PROOF is changes dramatically at higher levels of understanding. It is sort of a catch-22. PEACE ;)

[@thatsinpossible4967]

+Pablo_Duran My history is in my Google+ profile (About section). While at the top H.S. in the US.. I developed ADD.. which I had for 27 years. -under-performing.. until I cured it. Thereafter, my consciousness rose to "the next level". By the way.. do you see how in my last response how I wrote a whole lot of stuff.. touched lightly on multiple subjects from somewhat novel angles.. yet you just brushed over it. That's what happens when stuff doesn't resonate (yet). It is just sort of ignored. That is the nature of consciousness differentials. This is not to say you won't emerge & develop someday into a true genius. Frankly, one of the reasons I am here.. is for the younger generation age 0 -> 30. In some cases, you just need to be challenged to question mainstream thought. PEACE ;)

[@sagemode1088]

If this guy is so sure that consciousness is simply a pattern, then why can he not bring back a dead body, who has lost its consciousness?

[@MelindaGreen]

Mauri Flores Money is also a pattern of digital bits in bank computers, so why can't you create as much money in your account as you like? The answer is that technically you can but it's very difficult.

[@sagemode1088]

Melinda Green consciousness and money in a bank account are two entirely different things. You've provided a terrible analogy. The very life force that powers the body is both conscious and consciousness; impossible to replicate in a deceased body.

[@MelindaGreen]

Mauri Flores My point is that just because something is easy to understand doesn't mean that it's easy to manipulate. Let's try another analogy: We understand everything about cars. If a car crashes and burns, why can't we easily fix it? Also, note that we often can bring people back to consciousness from states that we had previously called "dead", and we'll be able to do that in more and more situations in the future. We can't fix everything, but in principle, the possibility is there.

[@sagemode1088]

Melinda Green "in the future" thats a post dated philosophical scam. Scientists presently know all the chemicals that compose a human body and they also know the amounts yet they cannot create a person from it. Your entire premise rests on the assumption that consciousness is indeed a pattern. How then do you explain out of body experiences? Especially those that have been medically recorded? Dead is dead. Losing consciousness temporarily is in itself something different, because death is irreversable.

[@MelindaGreen]

Mauri Flores Death is only irreversible if you define it that way, but clearly people are brought back all the time from states that only a short while ago were considered to be very dead, so why do you think that will be any different in future? Out of body experiences can be induced in the lab, so they're nothing magical. Look it up.

[@bobaldo2339]

Good talk! He did however neglect to add the capacity to feel to his list of essentials for consciousness to arise. "How information processing feels" implies feeling. So now we have "feeling" to define, and I expect it will have to be defined as an emergent property of information processing.

[@bokchoiman]

As much as this is an argument to ground the philosophical idea of conciousness in the logical realm, I think it's also a testament to the resilience of physicists in the face of popular culture that's trying to subvert the physics world into meta-physicality and borderline religion. However, alongside our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality are a number of philosophical rules that dictate our human experience, without which we would not have arrived at this point in history. That is to say that both objective reality and subjective reality are important in defining consciousness.

[@Greasyspleen]

By watching and understanding and discussing this video, we demonstrate that humans have an emergent property that is even higher than computation and consciousness. We have "meta-consciousness". The ability to think about consciousness. But by pointing this out, I am demonstrating an even higher level, "meta-meta-consciousness". But I could go on like this forever, which demonstrates a flaw in the logic. I think we put consciousness on too much of a pedestal. Consciousness is merely the ability to monitor, control and remember your own thoughts. If you think of it that way, then it's not "emergent", it's just one of many functions that a brain or machine can perform. Either by purpose or by evolution.

[@-Zevin-]

Perfectly put, i hope more people come to think of it this way. Robot civil rights is gonna be a fight, i say that jokingly but... someday....

[@smokeweedaily]

Zevin X lol, I hope that PEOPLE will THINK this way... SOMEDAY!!! lol, I like the way you put that.

[@thesir27]

There's no such thing as levels of "meta-consciousness", consciousness IS the concept of meta. Once something is self-aware, then it's also aware that it's self-aware and so on.

[@Greasyspleen]

thesir27 that was exactly my point.

[@Notthought]

That which is the support and substance of all reality can be called meta but you can only know it by being it. The infinite regress stops there. When now you be it you realize you are nothing and you are aware that you are everything. I am not fully established in this but the awareness reveals itself and the illusion that I am becomes apparent until I slip back into thought and belief that there is an I am that is observing once again. But my teachers (and the teachings) who are more or fully established as this absolute independent awareness are available to you too. It's the study of nonduality. There is even a course in it at the University of Virginia. Franklin Merrell Wolff calls it Consciousness Without an Object and is expert in his use of language in his books. Rupert Spira who has many videos available is a fave of mine and of course Nisargadatta who never charged for his teaching. Neither did Ramana Maharshi. All of the ability to observe and what can be observed comes out of and takes place within this openness which is the nothing. It's what patterns appear in.

[@jenchapman7110]

"Consciousness is how information feels"...to whom?

[@everg108]

Who is the "I"?

[@garylehr9706]

@@everg108 A most excellent question

[@Amarnath-hc9ub]

In our vedas , conscious ness is nothing but the soul of an individual without which our mind, five senses , capacity to judge , our breathing process and other functions of our body will not work. It is the life source. This soul is called as Zeevathma. This is the individual conscious ness. Almighty God is Universal Consciousness. This is the only one which exists.and the entire galaxies, all life forms manifested from this single universal consciousness. Death and birth are for the bodies only and the souls ever exist. Lord Shiva 's dance has been said as cosmic dance. These vedic truths have been clearly mentioned in the four Vedas, dating back to thousands of years, which coincides the scientific research today.

[@kaiklarr3256]

Good catch....this guy has no clue what consciousness is...

[@ProudAmerican111]

....to math

[@ylette]

So, according to this logic, The Chinese Room would have a consciousness of its own. Or rather, the pattern of the information processed in it would.

[@billyoumans1784]

Consciousness is not the sense of self. It is the awareness in which the sense of self appears.

[@clearwavepro100]

Thank you Max Tegmark, you are being very transparent, earnest and helpful by being inspired. I hope you are correct and find success in your searches.

[@martin36369]

Maybe the "Soul" is like a quantum wave Function which in a way is outside the law of Physics but when it collapses it comes within the domain of physics although not a single collapse which is unpredictable but only after a large number of collapses have happened

[@felipeblin8616]

Las phrase: information feels. Well, again biting our own tail! What's it like to feel? Hard to grasp consciousness from concepts.

[@jackcalverley2042]

Max Tegmark needs to attend Philosophy of Mind 101. Phrases like "I think consciousness is the way information feels" are circular, and actually "beg the question" (a phrase which he misuses). He is presenting his own, unscientific and philosophically naive ideas, as he might over a pint in the pub. It seems TED talks are diminished by everyone and his/her pet theory leaping onto the TED bandwagon.

[@DrHowbeit]

"Phrases like 'I think consciousness is the way information feels' are circular" Perhaps this is obvious, but could you elaborate somewhat how that is circular?

[@deladonics]

He starts off by saying that we now know that matter creates our consciousness. We know this because if consciousness was something outside of the material world, we would see it affecting the material world, and we don't. But then, he goes on to talk about what we do see, which is patterns of particles that create the illusion of consciousness. These aren't just any patterns, though. They're the most unique and wonderfully sophisticated particle patterns in all of the universe. Except for the part where he explicitly says that there is no consciousness outside of the material world, it seems like he's making a pretty decent argument that there is based on his own criteria for how we could detect it.

[@cuc9605]

Max asks to study the pattern that conscious (our own) is in, in order to understand what the (emergent) properties of it are. The problem I have with this approach is the fact that we can't define consciousness in terms of its substrate (as Max argued), so how do we know that any emergent pattern is indicative of consciousness or of anything else? I don't see how we can study consciousness, even if we assume it is an emergent property of its substrate. -- Any thoughts?

[@harrygallagher4125]

Good point and yes. I thought much the same. Please see my recent comment just after yours.. Thank you.

[@cuc9605]

Could you give me a more accurate location of your comment? "just after mine" would be here . . . The other comments are older than a year (at least in my browser).