Donald Hoffman - Quantum Physics of Consciousness

Are quantum events required for consciousness in a very special sense, far beyond the general sense that quantum events are part of all physical systems? What would it take for quantum events, on such a micro-scale, to be relevant for brain function, which operates at the much higher level of neurons and brain circuits? What would it mean?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on this topic: bit.ly/3q3VWoF
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Donald D. Hoffman is Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine and author of Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See and coauthor of Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory Of Perception.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@Jsmoove8k]

i hate the fact so many people who don’t understand it just reject it all together… the point is we are still LEARNING to figure it out, you can’t fear exploring how yourself and universe is connected.

[@quantumkath]

I have come full circle. Both quantum theory and consciousness are my favorite subjects. I have learned so much! And there is so much more... Thanks, Closer To Truth! And, Donald Hoffman!

[@mitrabuddhi]

Transcending the Hard Problem: An Integrative Paradigm for Consciousness The "hard problem" of consciousness, the question of how subjective experience arises from physical matter, persists due to an outdated paradigm. Rather than viewing consciousness as a product of matter, a new approach proposes that consciousness and matter are reciprocal and paradoxical elements, each existing in complementary "clarion levels" with unique perspectives. In this paradigm, matter occupies higher clarion levels with more differentiated information, while consciousness exists in lower clarion levels, characterized by more general, integrative qualia. The panqualia concept supports this view, suggesting that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality present at the atomic and molecular levels. Brains and complex systems filter these universal qualia into specific subjective experiences, with matter serving as the organizing structure. The hard problem arises from the assumption that matter precedes or creates the mind. Contrarily, this integrative paradigm sees consciousness and matter as co-emergent expressions from an indivisible ground. These elements engage in a reciprocal interplay between existence and nothingness. Attempts to mathematically reduce consciousness to physical parameters will inevitably face hurdles. The solution resides in recognizing consciousness and matter as equally primal and interdependent, inhabiting distinct clarion levels. This paradigm sees consciousness and matter in a reciprocal relationship, both grounded in a limitless essence. By recognizing this paradoxical symbiosis rather than attempting reduction, the hard problem of consciousness can be resolved.

[@lordemed1]

@@mitrabuddhi we await... the proof is in the pudding

[@mitrabuddhi]

@@lordemed1 I appreciate your call for evidence to rigorously validate new ideas. Empirical proof is certainly an important part of the scientific process. However, Panqualia and Paradoxema are intended as philosophical frameworks to provide novel conceptual perspectives, not strictly testable scientific theories. As such, they should be evaluated based on their coherence, implications, and ability to generate useful insights and questions - not necessarily whether definitive "proof" can be established through experiments. While evidence can inform and refine philosophical ideas, demanding empirical "proof" for frameworks of this type may miss their intended purpose: to explore possibilities and thought experiments that help expand our thinking beyond the bounds of what has already been proven. If these frameworks serve their aim of stimulating discussion, generating novel insights, and helping us reconsider familiar ideas from a different perspective, that in itself constitutes a valuable form of "pragmatic truth" - even without definitive empirical validation. I welcome any critique regarding how Panqualia and Paradoxema can be clarified, refined or useful insights they may generate. But as philosophical frameworks, I do not intend them as claims about empirical reality that require experimental "proof". Their value lies more in the implications of the ideas they explore.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is simply your soul awake, the part of you reading this.

[@Lesser302]

May I share ! the connection I believe is in a dice set One can join the dots. Drill out the vectors and find the joints that do not join yet connect If you map them with stakes or stick and rebuild the inner vectors out side the cube one will see the shapes of the old written word of yawh in old Hebrew. So someone worked that out before dice how far back dose dice go ? Once realised one can see atoms and quantum physics at the point of connection Light with in ! give it a ago 👍🏽 And pass it on one might learn to connect instead of disconnecting

[@shanezanath2092]

I read Donald Hoffman's book recently, The Case Against Reality. I have no idea if he will turn out to be correct. But his ideas are so mind bending 🤯! It's like finally coming to understand Einstein... how the hell did he think of that!?

[@thesilvervigilante]

"Consciousness does not require quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics requires consciousness."

[@bitkurd]

How could you come to this conclusion?

[@nickmet123]

So then consciousness came first!

[@techstuff3409]

There is only consciousness

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@bitkurd *"How could you come to this conclusion?"* ... Answering on behalf of thesilvervigilante, the only reason you can comprehend anything about quantum mechanics is because consciousness allows you the ability to comprehend.

[@alanschaub147]

Brilliant!

[@tonyg3091]

Trying to explain consciousness with the physical attributes of the brain is like trying to explain Valentino Rossi by explaining how his Yamaha is built and works. You will never understand who or what the driver is by dissecting his vehicle.

[@DrRandomnes]

🎯 Key Takeaways 00:15 Scientists turn to quantum physics to explain consciousness due to challenges linking consciousness to neural activity. 01:25 Researchers like Penrose and Hammeroff explore quantum coherence in microtubules, but no definitive connection between quantum properties and consciousness. 03:44 Bridging the gap from quantum to consciousness remains anopen challenge, lacking precise theories. 05:39 The scale of exploration ranges from Planck scale to neuron level, making it unclear where to find a consistent theory of consciousness. 06:07 Different approaches attempt to derive consciousness from quantum physics or vice versa. 08:10 The speaker proposes a mathematically precise theory of conscious agents, aiming to derive known physics as a special case of conscious dynamics.

[@jayk5549]

Not sure if I’m onside with his theory But I do really appreciate that he is clear it’s merely a scientific “attempt”. Others don’t seem to couch the pitch of their theories in the same way

[@TheKoloradoShow]

His theory makes sense to me. What makes you unsure.

[@jayk5549]

@@TheKoloradoShow even he is “unsure” at this stage in his work. and it’s his theory. That makes me unsure. Question is - what makes you so sure. Do You have other confirmed science on his theory that he doesn’t ?.

[@Alex-js5lg]

​​@@TheKoloradoShowI think his entire premise is flawed. How many different ways can you combine 1s and 0s to get computer to display a picture of a rose? Practically infinite. We don't have a model for what string of binary creates a picture of a rose because there isn't ONE way to do it. Each person likely has a unique wiring in theirs brain for the taste of a strawberry, the sound of a trumpet, the image of a rose, etc that's dictated by every single exposure a person has had to that stimulus. It doesn't matter which specific bits on a hard drive are 1s and which are 0s, you can store the information that represents what a rose looks like regardless of any one bit's value. I see no reason why the brain wouldn't store information in a similar way. Your brain picks a place to store the sensory inputs associated with an object the first time it's exposed to it. Each person probably stores similar information in similar ways, but when humans have up to a QUADRILLION synapses, it would be naive to not acknowledge that the physical wiring is almost certainly unique from person to person. If that is indeed the case, then there is likely no actual blanket answer to the question, "what physical process stores and retrieves the taste of a strawberry?" The answer would vary from person to person. On top of that, if you could take all the neurons associated with a specific sensation and transplant them into someone else's brain while retaining their structure, due to the incomprehensible amount of variability and complexity in how the rest of the brain is wired, that chunk could end up being used for an entirely different purpose.

[@kayakMike1000]

​@@TheKoloradoShowhe is asking goofy questions. Consciousness is an emergent properties of neurons processing information from sensory input. My cat is conscious just as much as I am. He is aware of his world, knows how to ask for treats, knows when he's sleep. He has a pile of neurons in gis head. Shouldn't it be easier to come up with a mathematical equasion for cat consciousness? Besides, consciousness experience, by definition is a _subjective_ experience. He is trying to jam subjective experience into an _objective_ framework of precise mathematical and scientific rigor. Thats a square peg in a round hole. Also, he sounds really scammy when he says, he is working with a mathematician, he ain't really doing any of tge work other than going on talk shows pontificating about how he is trying so hard to answer a hard question of consciousness.

[@septopus3516]

Unfortunately his theory has not much to do with consciousness besides the naming convention. If he named this theory single point energy, or Markov information theory, it would be the same results. I applaud Don and his team. But after diving deep in his papers and book, the conscious agent theory is an elaborate attempt at reverse engineering 'reverse-engineering'. Not much ado with consciousness. It's as precise as other attempts at classifying the phenomenon, call it decoherence, Markov blankets, information theory, or collapsing of microtubules. There is no explanation for consciousness here. But Don's humility and brilliance are to be celebrated by all scientific minded.

[@wagfinpis]

I love this stuff. I can almost understand what he is saying. It is a great sign that people are not scared to try and think from a potentially more productive angle. I keep trying to wrap my head around the difference between what Hameroff is saying and what possibilities that opens up in hypothetical discussions and ideas too.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Reality consists of matter. The earth is right in the middle when it comes down to the size of the particles of matter that exist in our universe, cells and planets. The particles become smaller and smaller when we look through a microscope and larger through a telescope. The smallest we can perceive today are quarks and neutrinos. But they decrease in size thousands of more times and likewise larger. More answers found in the wonderful practice, Falun Dafa.

[@bluceree7312]

@@jeffforsythe9514 How do you know that earth is in the middle?

[@gregrice1354]

Thank you Robert for keeping your valuable series going. I have watched since 1990s on "TV Sets". :-) Question, does the field od study of "consciousness" include definitions, shared and accepted by segments of scholars, for the terms tossed around Conscious? "Living", "aware", "semi - conscious" ? "Intelligence"? It seems the model of common architecture and operations of common desktop computers made valuable contribution for some explanatory models, which I have yet to be applied or used to communicate any validity to the claims of discovery or value of hypotheses in this over-talked, and not understood field. I understand the fear and bias some scholars, like Dennet, have had on using models of human construct and artifice, like information processing and our various forms of automation, buy it dure serms like great, clear, transparent models that open the way for measures of success along the path of study, and maybe even the first step of defining core terms to discuss. How about a summary review on the clarity and progress of core terms in the related branches of study, here Robert?

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

Sometime in the distant future, science may indeed be able to show some precise correlation between the quantum state of a particular neuron (or whatever) and that of the qualia of the smell of a rose or the taste of chocolate, however, it is highly unlikely that the same approach can provide a precise explanation of what it is that is actually conscious (self-aware) and is experiencing said qualia.

[@TerryBollinger]

7:32 DH: _“I do have a mathematically precise theory of consciousness, what I call Conscious Agents, involving things called Markovian kernels… But the real proof [is if I] can make new physical predictions that current physical theory cannot make.”_ I have tried all day to develop a helpful, constructive comment. I don’t think I can. Professor Hoffman, I agree that profound changes in physics are unavoidable for explaining not just consciousness but for the much-needed overall merger of quantum, relativistic theory, and (even more critically) the Standard Model of particle physics. The difficulty is that Markov chains are far too shallow of a concept to handle the changes needed, no matter how many polytopes you add to them. They are, and always have been, not much more than an exceedingly helpful way to deal with reasoning under conditions of uncertainty. There was a period a few years ago when it seemed like every artificial intelligence proposal we received for federal funding invoked Markov models as a sort of magic wand that would cure all woes, to the point where I grew very weary of seeing that label since it meant the developers weren’t going to address the deeper problems of fragility. Markov chains, like rule-based systems and neural networks, invariably exhibit fragility when training pushes the model too far. The entire structure becomes fragile and, often, unusable. That’s a critical issue if the Markov chains are part of the logic guiding robots. That is why I find your labeling networks of Markov models as “conscious” profoundly problematic. Markov models are, to my experience, the opposite: Clumsy, entirely classical attempts to _mimic_ the subtler forms of convergence and insight that biological systems, to this day, can do in ways we neither understand nor know how to imitate. Please don’t get me wrong: Markov chains are beneficial accounting techniques for _capturing and directing_ those subtler insights. But the very use of precisely structured polytopes and classical maths (I love the matrices and have explored some similar forms myself) _hides_ the missing pieces of subtler physics rather than explaining them. So, my comment boils down to this: You and your team are doing interesting work and have some excellent frameworks. Your uncertainty-capture networks likely have value if combined with genuinely insightful, truly new ways to restructure space and time. But on the physis side, your references could be more promising. In particular, you are wasting your and your team’s time if you keep pursuing the inherently non-testable (INT) Planck-scale nonsense. That’s just culturally endemic brittle-classical math noise from folks who chose decades ago never to bother with testable physics again. Finally, if you insist on _believing_ your hyper-classical data capture structures - and sorry, but that’s all they are - are “conscious,” your deeply laudable efforts to take qualia experimentally testable are likely to fail in a sad, stretched-out fizzle. That path is the computer science version of Clever Hans; you program your deepest desires into an Erised software mirror that does nothing more than reflect them back at you.

[@OfficialGOD]

i love Lawrence's job

[@RealDrDolittle]

Amazing video I had to share. Thank you.

[@davidotoole9328]

I always find Donald Hoffman very engaging.

[@gordonquimby8907]

Quantum Physics won't find consciousness, nor will any purely materialistic explanation. Hoffman practically admits that several times. He touched on the answer with spiking neurons (electrical spiking). That creates an electromagnetic field around the neuron which your spirit can read. But not just one neuron at a time, but all the relevant neurons (including memory) so it is like a piano playing hundreds of notes making chorus of sound. Then the spirit can control motor neurons by creating an electromagnetic field around the neuron. The synapses just have to do with the connections of the wiring, not consciousness itself. So, the answer is in simple physics known for 200 years which will get us Closer to Truth.

[@mitrabuddhi]

Please make a video about holon

[@wearefountains]

Anyone know how old this conversation is? This channel isn't exactly posting in real time, though I love it.

[@brothermine2292]

Hoffman was born on 12/29/1955. In this video he appears to be about 50 years old.

[@techstuff3409]

Search him in this channel thera are other videos of him years ago filmed in same environment

[@laoluAD]

I’d say it’s fairly recent, everything he talks about here, he also talks about in recent interviews he’s in.

[@adzzmad]

Consciousness is not in the brain. The brain is a thing that conects to the Consciousness

[@ibnahmad2317]

Quran 91:7 And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it(with conscious of awareness)

[@Dion_Mustard]

quite agree. i have had regular out of body experiences , so i know exactly what you mean with the above comment.

[@reed574]

@@Dion_Mustardme too lol

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@reed574 :)

[@bryanreed742]

And you know this how?

[@woofie8647]

I don't think we will ever describe consciousness mathematically.

[@serphystus]

That would lead to some kind of self-referencing. Quite a challenge

[@kukuhTWicaksono2014]

There are interesting analogies between quantum physics and consciousness. It is hypothesized that consciousness is generated through a process of activity that is similar to quantum events, including: The concept of particle-wave duality, which means that particles such as electrons can behave as both particles and waves. Some theories connect this idea to human consciousness, saying that consciousness may also have a similar dual nature. The concept of superposition in quantum physics refers to the ability of particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously. Some theories suggest that human consciousness may also exist in a similar state, describing the uncertainty and complexity of our thoughts and perceptions. The wave function collapse effect: In quantum physics, this refers to the change in the behavior of a particle when it is observed. In the context of consciousness, there is the idea that human observation or attention to something can influence reality itself. The entanglement phenomenon in quantum physics states that particles that have been linked together will remain connected, even if they are spatially separated. In the context of consciousness, there is speculation about the existence of similar connections between individuals or between human consciousness and the universe. These analogies are based on the observation that quantum physics is often described as a probabilistic and non-deterministic system. In other words, quantum events are not always predictable and can be influenced by the observer. This has led some scientists and philosophers to believe that consciousness may also be a probabilistic and non-deterministic system. Of course, there is no consensus on whether or not these analogies are valid. Some scientists believe that they are simply a coincidence, while others believe that they provide a glimpse into the nature of consciousness. More research is needed to determine whether or not there is a real connection between quantum physics and consciousness.

[@rik-keymusic160]

the mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced

[@Susan-ol4ys]

Really nice filming and quality

[@pixel8films]

Where can we watch all of these old, complete episodes? They sure are timeless.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Closer to Truth website?

[@Odihmantich]

I love the background

[@Mystery_G]

Still looking forward to and patiently waiting for an interview with John Vervaeke.

[@123chupachups]

Love how the guy tells him in an elegant way: ‘what the fk are you talking about?’ 😂

[@Gyandhi]

Exactly, I think attributing the emergence of consciousness from quantum mechanics is boarder line religious, to me the idea spawns from the grandiose idea that the human experience has the the unique property of freedom of choice. The universe on all well understood levels tells us that we are in a completely deterministic system ruled by calculable laws. I think this guy cannot accept that thought and instead is searching the very fringes of scientific understanding for outliers that can be shoehorned together and attributed to the outlier illusion that is conscious freedom

[@Jsmoove8k]

@@Gyandhior just maybe, they are still trying to understand why quantum mechanics can simulate nature & space so similar vs. many other methods of science. Quantum computers are 10-15 or 20 years away so everything is just a building block before they can actually experiment on these things productively.

[@ivanvnucko3056]

I heard him say that stuff about the taste of garlic and smell of strawberry maybe 20 times in different situations and I still don't understand what he means/wants from an explanation. There seems to be no objective "taste of garlic". There are objects we call garlic and there are reactive mental states individual people have when eating it, which they logically call "taste of garlic" but nowhere do I see the necessity for some objective "qualia" to exist which is somehow independent from the person experiencing it and mathematically describable. Everytime I hear him say these lines it drives me crazy. What does he want/demand? What would be a satisfactory explanation for him?! It seems to be a weird version of dualism posing the question what is qualia made of, where the simplest answer seems to be: "You Made it Up, You tell me"

[@shotgunjohnny]

If you were to design a universe how would you go about integrating consciousness (individually directed action / observation) within that universe?

[@ibnahmad2317]

Quran 91:7 And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it(with conscious of awareness)

[@shotgunjohnny]

@@ibnahmad2317 Fair enough, but I'm asking _you_, if _you_ were the designer.

[@widipermono854]

​@@ibnahmad2317can we interprete that He is the consciousness who localizing Himself as a soul? Souls actually

[@mahmoudshahmoradi5856]

But what if mathematics comes out of consciousness?

[@surendrakverma555]

Thanks Sir for searching the truth in this universe. Regards

[@r2c3]

2:56 the problem could be that we're far from being precise at these scales... guessing what's going on is not the same as knowing what's happening... simulation of events at quantum scales, without the required level of precision and computing power, just doesn't work...

[@123chupachups]

Conscious is an emerging phenomenon, like mass and the behaviour of an ants colony

[@maddyman1008]

Check out interviews with Donald and Bernardo Kastrup. Very insightful on this topic.

[@Fightforfreedom522]

Consciousness has to do with recognizing patterns.The sensations arecreated by firing up stored pattern, learned or inherited. So consciousness is a phenomenon at another level than quantumstates. It is like citylife as a phenomenon is at another level as a brick that is used to build the city. But then this is advanced science and I love it.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@jamesarnette1394]

Namaste.

[@robmanning2589]

The problem of understanding Consciousness is multi-levelled. Knowledge/Truth/Facts exist in many separated paradigms. Each paradigm is defined by its particular uniqueness around it’s definitions of context. The content of knowledge is a subjective understanding of that particular knowledge, as defined by the context the observer has access to. Humans each have a level of Consciousness, and that level defines which paradigm of context they understand. One of the biggest problems for understanding Consciousness is the fact that the context which belongs to the paradigm of science (logic & reason), is too low to understand the truth about what Consciousness really is. The context which belongs to the paradigm of science, sees the world around it as a series of causes and effects, and deduces from this that only that which can be observed, or measured, is real and knowable. The field of Quantum Mechanics, as well as Nonlinear Dynamics, and Applied Kinesiology, are a bridge between the paradigm of science, and the next higher paradigm level. Very intelligent mathematicians & physicists, such as John Von Neumann, and Henry E. Stapp, among others, have come to the conclusion that in order for quantum mechanics to make sense, Consciousness must exist outside of the observer (ie. must emanate from somewhere outside of the physical brain). This leads to the next problem, which is that such a fact would point to the existence of God. But, since the existence of God cannot be proven (ie. observed or measured), then the idea cannot exist from science’s perspective. That, in a nutshell, is the reason science cannot (will not) understand (believe) the truth about what Consciousness is. For those of us that have transcended to the next paradigm, which, as an example, Carl Jung did, the answer is self evident, and it is clear that Von Neumann was correct. A further roadblock to the acceptance of God, is the fact that much of the Truth of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has been tainted by interpretations made by the human ego. For example, the Truth of the Bible calibrates quite low in its normally accepted state. But, if you remove the Old Testament, and Book of Revelation, but keep Genesis, Psalms, and Proverbs, the level increases dramatically. These facts, as well as all Truth, can be checked (tested) using Kinesiology. The Truth about Consciousness has been documented in many spiritual documents and doctrines (eg. by The Buddha, Krishna, the Upanishads and Verdas, by Huang Po, Ramana Maharshi, and Carl Jung. The most comprehensive understanding, relayed in such a way that those in the West, and scientists can understand and appreciate, was undertaken through the works of Dr. David R. Hawkins M.D. PhD. I strongly recommend reading his work, starting with his first book Power vs. Force, and listening to his recorded lectures from 2002, 2003, and 2005. In a nutshell, God is the Infinite Field of Consciousness, not a human-like, or any other type of, being. Quantum Mechanics describes the wave function, which collapses due to intention, not simply by observing. When the wave function collapses, the Infinite Field of Consciousness makes the unmanifest, manifest. This is the act of creation itself. There is no such thing as cause and effect, only the unmanifest becoming manifest. When witnessed against the background of time, this appears as a series of effects, with the previous wave function collapse being the “cause” of the next. Another way of perceiving this is to understand that evolution is what creation looks like.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can the energy of consciousness be measured and related to quantum?

[@ChirasreeBanerjee11]

I am not overwhelmed to know that I have the answer but it took a lot of research to have the courage to even type this comment and the rest Quantum Integration will take care of. Thank you ❤

[@DrJBHead]

I know the feeling. I think the answer is in actin cytoskeleton networks. How about you?

[@eftixismeni2010]

Coming from someone who has had a near death experience, with no scientific background whatsoever, but now has an understanding of what consciousness is, the fact that you are trying to use science to understand the concept of consciousness is in and of itself defeating. Consciousness is an energy that permeates everything in existence. Consciousness just is. Science is limiting. Once you can break free from those constructs, those theories, you may be able to grasp what consciousness is. Start by meditating. This will give you a peek inside. Consciousness is in essence who we are at the primordial level. As humans we are consciousness incarnated into human physical form. Science is man made attempts to understand everything. If you want to understand consciousness, you have to go beyond scientific understanding. Otherwise, you will never understand what consciousness is. Until the day you die, and your soul leaves your body, then you will understand. Part of the problem is trying to link consciousness to brain activity or neural activity. Consciousness exists beyond physicality and in no way does it rely upon brain function or neural function to exist. However the opposite is true. Consciousness is the animator in a sense of our human being-ness. I just like in the movie Doctor Strange, where the ancient one tells Doctor Strange to forget everything he thinks he knows, he’s a man of science, a surgeon, that’s a great place to start to understand what consciousness is. Put down the pencils and calculators and dig deep within and ask those questions. Everything you need to know is within you already.

[@Bill..N]

Excellent interview.. Peer review of microtubial quantum effects as a mechanism for explaining consciousness (described by Dr. Penrose) has been harsh. Certainly not convincing. At THIS point, we do not need to precisely undrrstand how the brain decodes and processes fundamental information to confidently assert that integrated information theory holds the key to the solution of consciousness..With more research, our intellectual GAPS in this endeavor will fill in.. One opinion.

[@ben_jammin242]

2:50 given our limited range of specific olfactory neurons, could the smell of a rose (or something) be a Taylor series?

[@thesilvervigilante]

Suppose that someone built an exact duplicate of you on Mars, quark by quark - to the maximum level of resolution that quantum physics permits, which is considerably higher resolution than ordinary thermal uncertainty. Would the duplicate be really you, or just a copy?

[@pakistanzindabad9257]

Here a question arose...are we souls or physical body......

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*" Would the duplicate be really you, or just a copy?"* ... It would be a physical copy of your human body experiencing "Mars things" instead of "Earth things." Should the two ever meet, they would have totally different stories to tell. Two identical video cameras would produce the same results. One would be recording things around where it existed and the other would be recording whatever things were around it. Play them both back and they would show completely different videos.

[@officialspaceefrain]

@@pakistanzindabad9257I took existentialism when I was in college. This one fucked me up. One philosopher said we are the consequence of the relation between ourselves and the soul. We are the relationship itself. There’s no I in physical reality.

[@joedanache7970]

It would be a counterfeit.

[@brothermine2292]

It would be a copy (for the moment), assuming materialists are correct that it's a *complete* copy. Do you mean something special by "just" a copy?

[@robinburgos2745]

What about Nassiem Harriman’s recent findings?

[@niladridas3506]

Very interesting

[@experiencemystique4982]

Laywoman here, specific question, why each base you express is mesure, comptabiliser, automatiser, programmable,....experimented by yourself could not be more fulfilled ??? The concept of living à life...what's the meaning of it?

[@seivaDsugnA]

The sole is an emergent property of the shoe, and consciousness can be altered by huffing paint.

[@aletheia161]

Bird navigation and photosynthesis have both been shown to depend on quantum mechanics, so any biological process may have a qm link, including consciousness. One thing you need is what Hubert Dreyfus calls "the god's eye view" , the ability to see things in context. While many brain processes may be algorithmic and deterministic with local subjective variables, consciouness seem to be able to go beyond the algorithmic and embrace a more global perspective that gives meaning to local neural processing. Mark Wrathall, the noted Heideggerian scholar, talks about the undermining of the distinction between the subjective and the objective. He gives the idea of the brain as a radio receiver rather than a computer, a phenomenologically connected resonator rather than an isolated cartesian ghost in the machine. Not: "I think, therefore I am" but rather: "I am, therefore I think". The philosopher, Dan Dennett thinks consciouness is a useful emergence generated illusion, by as renowned polymath Iain McGilchrist explains, you have to be conscious to be illuded

[@The28thDayProductions]

Quantum physics and quantum mechanics to shed light into older sciences. This is just my metaphysics behind it but consciousness is the interface to life. Everything is connected. I have a theory called the prism theory it works on the lines of the holograph theory and I believe it explains what happened right after the big bang theory to initiate all of this, I believe instead of 5 nanoseconds behind time that we are actually 7 nanoseconds behind time and then another theory of mine I can also explain the 7 nanoseconds behind time we have and I believe this is what causes the influx and times for different calendars, current and ancient.

[@tricross6]

How are you defining consciousness? I separate awareness from consciousness, because awareness can exist when the body is unconsciousness (mind awake/body asleep is easy to induce with training and tools). Consciousness to me is the effect of the 5 senses on the brain, and the brain's reaction to it. Something that does not occur during sleep for example, when we are unconscious. Is the quantum theory you are searching for here relating the smell of a strawberry to the correlated reaction in the brain of recognizing that smell as strawberry?

[@CognitiveComputation]

I have long had an interest in new ideas exploring possible links between consciousness and QM, (not least at Rovelli’s Relational QM ties in with nicely with some interesting recent themes in embodied cog sci), however I fear Donald is attempting to slay the hydra in his attempt to get a reductionist theory of qualia, for the simple reason this overlooks the ecological and embedded aspects of consciousness and cognition. E.g., Jules Davidoff’s team’s work over the last two decades - on the Himba language and colour perception - offers powerful evidence suggesting that language and culture fundamentally shape visual perception, and it isn’t obvious to me how, without embedding these manifolds into his theory Donald, could ever arrive at the reductionist predictive theory of consciousness he seeks wherein, if a system is in this QM state X then it is experiencing qualia Y..

[@markstipulkoski1389]

Start with "three conscious agents". Where are they? Did they show up in the LHC and I missed the press release? What kind of structure do they have to make them conscious? I've never met anything other than things with complex networks of neurons to which I could attribute conciousness. A fools errand IMO.

[@RobertSmith-pw1cl]

Mathematical explination for quantum mechanics is only an approximate model of reality. As such as QM approaches infinity it begins to deviate from reality such as the singularity in a blackhole.

[@ThatisnotHair]

2:18 • 3:28 6:28 7:51

[@CYBERLink-ph8vl]

“I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.” -richard Feynman There is ghost in the machine which is the consciousness And there is ghost is the atom and particles which is the wavefunction Connecting the two is absurdity But consciousness (specifically hard problem of consciousness) and quantum mechanics (specifically wave function,entalgment) will reamin as enigma.

[@joedanache7970]

I think,therefore I am, I think. And so on.

[@CYBERLink-ph8vl]

@@joedanache7970 that Descartes thing gets me everytime 🤣

[@5piles]

gosh, guess you had better develop (or find someone who has already developed) a method of rigirously observing the object you wish to understand ie. consciousness. atm we're using our folk introspection as proof AGAINST actual consciousness ie. qualia, instead of going beyond folk instrospection.

[@palmereldritch_6669]

I remember rejecting religion and spirituality. Now I see that something new is emerging. Except that it isn't new, it's just recieving a bit of respect. Now strict materialism feels empty and wholly inadequate to explain consciousness.

[@ianbarker219]

“When the term “magic” is used next to essences of quantum mechanics……….both avenues, are always reminding all of us of our profound human capabilities...”-ib

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might consciousness be quantum without an observer? observers physically measure awareness from quantum consciousness?

[@ezreality]

Good video Thanks, Donald and Robert. Robert if you really want to find the Truth... Inquire into the Self… All that is required; is a burning desire to know the “Truth” about Oneself and life. And an enlightened mentor.

[@techstuff3409]

Would you say consciousness is fundamental?

[@susanmaddison5947]

What best motivates quantum consciousness theories is not, to try to explain qualia in general, but rather, to explain one particular qualia: : the experience of a sense of being a ‘self’; and with this, the sense of making choices as a self, i.e. having free will. Secondarily, it may wish to explain why this ‘self’ experiences its awareness of all kinds of other things as a particular external qualia, such as red or chocolate. Last and least, maybe not at all, does it care, or need to care, about explaining why a particular qualia, e.g. red, feels reddish. It is possible that explaining the latter, about particular qualia, is impossible but irrelevant to explaining the main thing, about self and free will. The reason for going to quantum is the thought that classical mechanics cannot provide space for a real self to exist, nor real free will. The big question is whether quantum can provide a way to explain this possibility, and whether such an explanation would, if verifiable, prove verified or falsified. One reason for thinking it might provide a way to make for a real self and real free will lies in the issue of self-reference. A sense of self seems to require a self-reference. Self-reference tends to violate the Theory of Types. Some self-reference seems to be inevitable anyway, but it can be a malicious violation, or viciously circular violation, of Types and of levels-of-discourse distinctions; the vicious circularities is what that Theory was intended to prevent. It might also, if reliant on creating a sense of self-reference through classical mechanics (or by way of logical entries for creating Godel-type self-referential statements), require making an infinite number of recursive loops before getting to a self-reference that is conscious of itself as a ‘self’, i.e. never actually get there. Godel created self-references of which he and we could be aware, not ones of which he thought the Godel sentences could be aware. The question, then, is whether quantum can in fact allow a self-reference that is real i.e. not delusory, honest i.e. not viciously circular, and without requiring endless infinite recursive loops; but rather, can be completed in e.g. a quick discrete quantum wave function collapse, or a set (perhaps somehow orchestrated) of a finite number of quantum collapses. And whether classical mechanics is unable to get to a similar result. This seems to be a worthwhile question.

[@emilyalicesargent6631]

I am doing an invited talk at a conference coming up where I suspect, microtubules do allow quantum coherence and work using gravitational objective reduction and Orch OR theory and that upon objective reduction through GOR an outcome is selected from the superposition and this occurs in reality and as Orch OR posits a primitive consciousness arises on collapse of the wave function it is this that selects the outcome? How then does consciousness arise, I say that between superposition of states there is entanglement, through ER=EPR conjecture between superpositions there is a wormhole, this wormhole contains a singularity which is seemingly “real” not a mathematical artefact as can have infinite Weyl Curvature as opposed to Big Bang singularity which is an artefact and can only have zero Weyl curvature. This singularity in the ER bridge is a consciousness singularity which is an awareness and contains all logical possibility and thus possible universes can be created from it and singularity consciousness in a monist view projects 2D boundaries of the wormholes and 2D boundary of universe with a conformal field theory, the 2D projects the Bulk Spacetime and gravity emerges from entanglement of degrees of freedom on boundary in CFT thus entanglement between operators there which holographically map to bulk spacetime, which holographically projects 3D universe much like ads/CFT correspondence says! Access to consciousness singularity in brain in brain through entanglement is what provides building blocks of consciousness and multiple entanglements occur in this way in brain and regions can be entangled building our complex consciousness but this even particles and anything entangled or in superposition can have conscious primitive experience upon collapse of superposition and this shows how nature of reality occurs and our consciousness and free will occurs from a fundamental consciousness

[@HighPeakVideo]

Surely a basic distinction is needed between functional awareness and phenomenal consciousness of qualia. Chalmers: "What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions". A purely functional self-aware self can be conceived of, as can a phenomenal consciousness that is not a self - so conflation must be avoided. If free will is possible through quantum, that might be applicable to a purely functional self with no phenomenal consciousness. The connection between free will and phenomenal consciousness, is that both appear to require unity across physical information, which is the main aim of quantum theorists.

[@emilyalicesargent6631]

@@HighPeakVideo because different quantum information is interpreted when we see the colour red as opposed to when we hear the sound of a bell. Qualia would come from the Consciousness Singularity, qualia are the possibilities of what we can be aware of and experience, they would all exist as logical possibilities in the Consciousness Singularity, when we have access to it through ER Bridges we interpret physical properties of the world and the Singularity gives us the experience upon collapse of a superposition and this qualia becomes physical and classical when the collapse of entanglement happens and so we will see a classical correlated brain activity pattern especially as consciousness and the entanglement that causes it is global throughout the brain and we may need to make contact with causing bodily sensations or feelings we experience in the body related to qualia and how it affects us physically in the subjective experience

[@emilyalicesargent6631]

I hope this makes some sense because I am starting with just understanding as Penrose and Hameroff do so this is just an off the cuff idea I can imagine based on my theory and i may easily change my mind on further thought but I do think this makes sense initially!

[@HighPeakVideo]

@@emilyalicesargent6631 My comment was more directed at susanmaddison5947 However my reply to you is: The problem is that at the particle level the information could at best be syntactic, whereas our consciousness is semantic. The meaning attributable to states, events and processes in the brain presumably derives from their interrelation and function. The problem for all theories of consciousness is how to move from that functional meaning to a unified experience of the meaning. Quantum states covering the particles in the syntactic functional network would not offer an interpretation of the semantic meaning. In philosophical terms this relates to Brentano's theory of irreducibility of intentionality, or Quines indeterminism of radical translation, or Dennett's notion that brains are syntactic engines that only mimic semantic engines.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is there a way to find out the quantum characteristics of objects like chocolate, roses and others, and see if they are reproduced in brain as taste of chocolate, smell of roses and the like?

[@user-th7tf2hy4s]

I think there’s a misconception about what is consciousness, that’s the problem for not taking it as something physical and fundamental instead of something conceptual or intelectual.. actually it is the same problem that happens with Time, thinking of it as something not fundamental..

[@ericornelasmath]

After watching this, I'm hungry.

[@dcartier1692]

“…why should this collapse in this microtubule be the experience of the smell of a rose - why couldn’t it be the taste of garlic…?” (2:05) Because the subjective “experience” does not exist in isolation but is mediated by our collective consensus reality which is largely culturally imposed.

[@bananacabbage7402]

Consciousness does not require quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics requires consciousness.

[@Baba-fy1jc]

That is Bullshit then the Consciousness needs ever a Foundation.

[@RobertSmith-pw1cl]

Quantum mechanics does not require consciousness to exist. From the big bang to the hyperexpansion phase there was no possibility of consciousness yet it existed.

[@jamesconner8275]

That was much above my understanding. 😮

[@keithwalmsley1830]

I think the answer to what actually constitutes consciousness is as inexplicable as, what I suspect is Robert's favorite question, of why is there anything rather than nothing (and mine as well). I love this channel and have watched it for many years now and I believe Robert is actually at least as intelligent (and probably more) as the guests he interviews, but I'm beginning to think the channel should be re-named "As Far Away As Ever from the Truth". This isn't a criticism of what is a great channel but a desperate plea for some concrete answers as to what is reality!!

[@BradHolkesvig]

I have that knowledge but since I am rejected by most people who listen to it, I keep on searching for those chosen believers that our Creator programmed to hear the words I speak to them or type so they can read them. Only a few can handle the invisible truth of how we were created. If you want to know, just ask me.

[@robertferraro236]

Sir, I would like to know. Please tell me what you know.

[@lordemed1]

@@BradHolkesvig Brad, please take your meds. ❤

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@lordemed1 I don't listen to quacks who think they are psychiatrists.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The soul, when we are awake is consciousness, you, the part that is reading this right now.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Please guys show up conscience though math model or neuroscience standard model proceeding. When you keep out this it looks like drops down Science proceedings.

[@colingoode6888]

Is consciousness projected from the 4th dimension?

[@annabielica9069]

we are multidimensional, but cannot see it yet (in 3D) and therefore cannot fully understand C

[@jamenta2]

To understand the roots of consciousness, one is better off studying consciousness. William James, Freud, Carl Jung, Frederic Myers, James Hyslop - to name a few, spent most of their lives studying consciousness. And they all did discover some important aspects of consciousness that Materialists remain blind too. Materialists are like a person who wants to understand what a "home" actually is. So they go to a physical house, study what makes it up: wood, electricity, cotton carpets, cement, structures - but none of that tells them what a "home" actually is. Because of their materialistic bias, and assumptions, materialists dismiss the subjective experiences of consciousness as simply a by-product of the brain, or a production of the brain - and therefore do not look for clues that can be found regarding consciousness within the conscious experience (reality) itself.

[@ibnahmad2317]

Quran 91:7 And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it(with conscious of awareness)

[@jamesarnette1394]

Absolutely, right on!

[@jamesarnette1394]

But not to the Muslim guy.

[@PhuketWord]

Maybe you just have to look at it the other way round, that Consciousness creates the nueral activity, instead of thinking consciousness comes about because of nuerons. . And/or it's Yin/Yang. One doesn't create the other. They are simply intrinsic to each other.

[@imstevemcqueen]

The molecules of strawberries vs chocolate create electrical signals that once sensed/registered/Measured by synapses collapse a wave function, and the matter is settled as chocolate or strawberry. Thoughts are given to us at a young age--- this is a strawberry, or this is chocolate. Bigger question to me is how memories are 'stored' like a procedure in a computer program, triggered by events (taste, touch, smell, sight, feeling). Electric Beings

[@Dion_Mustard]

that doesn't help us with the mystery of what consciousness is. you are talking about correlation here, NOT causation. consciousness is much bigger than the brain. that's all i am saying.

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

There's a compulsory aspect to life. No one is born willingly, no one chooses their inner or outer circumstances. Consciousness is foisted upon us. I may have preferred to be a tree. Given that just about everything in life is compulsory, speaking of consciousness as if it were an asset is a bit of a stretch, like a prisoner celebrating his possession of much time.

[@jonny_drury]

Lots of examples of stuff, clever guy.

[@skydude426]

Are we looking at this all wrong? We look for what physical properties cause consciousness. Maybe we should try to understand how consciousness affects the physical universe. Maybe life is the effect of consciousness in the physical universe.

[@bigpicture3]

The rabbit hole that you are going down here about "consciousness" is seemingly "that which contains understanding, trying to understand itself". When the starting point is an "assumption" that "there actually is an objective reality". (outside of our consciousness) Like Einstein mused about "that the moon would still be there whether you are looking at it or not". And that you can express all that in terms (scientific) that everyday physicists could relate to. Physicists make the "assumption" that Space-Time-Mass-Energy is the "primary" framework that contains everything, (including consciousness) and that IT ITSELF is not contained in anything "more primary". If the "primary reality" actually is: that nothing exists at all unless there is an "awareness" of some sort to observe it??? (consciousness) How would you express that in the framework of today's physics??? (because that is the only language they understand??) While ignoring every other discipline. Jung tried to explore this issue of "consciousness" as it relates to individual psychosis, and came up with the concept that there is a "conscious mind" from which "concepts" arise, including a "concept of self" or an ego. (the everyday faculty that navigates Space Time) Jung also theorized there is an "individual unconscious" and a "collective unconscious" and that is where the Real Self resides. (the consciousness of which we are normally unaware.) Different religions refer to it in different terminologies: THE I AM THAT I AM, the God within, The Self etc. etc. And this is surrounded by all sorts of minutia that obscures what that might mean. One implication of that is: "we create own reality" individually and collectively, and that there IS NO "objective reality" outside of ourselves. That the experiences that we have actually come from inside our own "unconscious". (that actually is reality) And that we could not have that KIND OF EXPERIENCE if we were consciously aware that it "is us ourselves who are creating it". The woo-woo of the currently collected body of NDEs needs to be included in this consideration, (1) that consciousness does not seem to end with the death of the body. (consciousness seems to be physically independent) (2) the kinds of reported experiences are still created by the "unconscious" and the individual does not seem to be aware that they themselves are producing the experience. The Jungian "unconscious" aspect is still there, but so it the "concept of self" as being an individuated consciousness. But the rigid concept of Space-Time is no longer present. How do you propose expressing that kind of concept in the language of Physicists??

[@SchopenhauerVsCamus]

Even if space-time is a simulation, it’s still a fundamentally flawed and faulty one given all of the suffering that all sentient beings have experienced and will continue to experience in it. As long as there is some degree of sentience, there will be some degree of suffering. The problem of suffering still applies.

[@aaronarmijo3626]

That would be like saying we can determine if subatomic particles have a brain. Humans are noting compared to the subatomic particles themselves. We can not duscover ourselves before we discover the particles that have conjured us.

[@dvdmon]

It's great that you've interviewed Hoffman, but one of the important scientists who's written a TON about consciousness, materialism vs. idealism, etc. is Berndardo Kastrup. You really need to interview him. You have so many key scientists on here expressing their views, Kastrup will add to the clarity of the position that consciousness is fundamental.

[@marcelifirlej1557]

Opposite, can conscious exit without sensors connections, like to be in the dead brain? It means can quantum consciousness exist in such conditions as already formed organised matter system? If you proof it you can proof soul existence.

[@ibnahmad2317]

Quran 91:7 And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it(with conscious of awareness)

[@SwamiSridattadevSatchitananda]

I can see that Dr Donald Hoffman is getting closer to the truth with his approach of dynamic conscious agent hypothesis.

[@pkluckyindia]

👍

[@justinslife8898]

I appreciate all views on all things 🙏🏻

[@PetraKann]

Quantum Physics is the most "worked out"? Yet there is no consensus on on the interpretation of Quantum Physics - ie Physicists havent arrived at a coherent understanding of what QM means. And you're going to apply it to consciousness?

[@atmanand5802]

🤲Dhanyavaad Ji💖May all beings be well🌟AHAM🌏BRAHMASMI🌕AUM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI🌅🕉

[@six1free]

if there is a mathematically precise theory of conciseness... then psychohistory?

[@duffymcdonald2355]

As above, so below

[@johndunn5272]

Is the brain an organ to collapse wavefunctions to produce conciousness that makes shape of reality ?

[@stephenbost5892]

Consciousness creates consciousness

[@bennyskim]

The master himself, Donald Hoffman. Nobody articulates these concepts better than him, except maybe John Searle, but he still doesn't go as deep as Hoffman. As Searle says, it is a biological phenomenon. We need a field of study that combines the study of blood, muscles, nerves, and neurons with the study of experiences, memory, and cognition, with the aim of connecting the two worlds. We should be able to answer how action potentials in sensory devices map to neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs), and should be able to say definitively what happens when you alter the chemical environment of the blood (add calcium, remove salt, etc.), and ultimately we should be able to create something like a synthetic eye that a person can still see perfectly with. Because we would know exactly what light on the retina produces which action potentials, and which paths those take in cortices depending on a number of chemical and environmental factors.

[@lordemed1]

It doesn't end with taste of chocolate as there are infinite nuances it into the specific taste qualia.

[@bennyskim]

@@lordemed1 Agreed! Although I wonder if not infinite, but perhaps several million or several billion

[@rchas1023]

I have not yet seen a clear definition of "consciousness". Can someone please clarify this point.

[@joedanache7970]

You can not answer that question with scientific methods. Thats why that age-old question has not been answered. I believe it is more of a spiritual aspect.

[@ianwaltham1854]

Consciousness is us. Its our awareness. We wouldn't exist without consciousness. Its the only thing we know for sure that exists. Its the first cause. The cause of all our actions. Consciousness is fundamental base reality, not the result of a mathematical calculation.

[@ibnahmad2317]

Quran 91:7 And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it(with conscious of awareness)

[@rchas1023]

@@joedanache7970 I wasn't asking a question. Scientific methods test theories, but until you have a clear definition of what you are theorising about, you will find it difficult to devise adequate tests.

[@rchas1023]

@@ianwaltham1854 We use the terms conscious and unconscious loosely. Are you conscious when you are asleep, when concussed, when anesthetized, when dreaming, when you cannot distinguish between your dream and reality, ...? Hence my question.

[@Ef554rgcc]

It simply feels natural that conciousness is quantum.

[@surendradeshmukh6163]

B conscious with consciousness !

[@jeremymacdonald5584]

Look at how well materialist science has done to provide us with a tenable theory of consciousness. Why wouldn't someone consider an alternative route for an explanation? Hoffman is extremely humble when dealing with this interviewer

[@marcusantebi4896]

I thought the Planck scale was 10 x-33cm, Donald says repeatedly 10 x-33m

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.

[@mahamoudfarah7771]

2:11 8

[@xersxo5460]

As an average person, I try to answer this with the most desolate outlook in the hopes of being proven wrong. But in my own findings within my personal meditations and such, I’ve noticed that it’s rather impossible to separate consciousness from physical reactions. Not to confuse consciousness with sensation, but could it be said that being “conscious” of a sensation is a product of the sensation itself. For example, if one touches something hot, it is the biological feedback and biological reaction of the related mechanisms that defines “hot” and its context. All “hot” things, are things that can potentially burn us, and all burns are physical damage that has a ‘real world’ signature or form that can be in coded for recall in a system, as it is a state of the system. And as for the sensation of emotions, are they too not physical in nature? We associate anger with heat and tension and we know that our bodies warm up tense up in ways deduced to be preparations for action. Could consciousness not be the complex interaction of various levels of input from the cacophony of nerve cell activity. An emergence from the brain - which according to known research - filters information before we are “conscious of it”. Maybe a subsystem to relate all the bodily systems and their information output from the stimuli from the outside world to a central unit as a reference. Could we be our sensations along with a common reference to sort them? And then as for memory, the mechanism of it may be unknown, but if we assume it occurs solely in the brain, then it could be said that memories are snapshots of previous bodily states that are useful for future reference if sufficiently novel, we remember what is salient and many other things that are not, and in such detail that all the senses are sometimes preserved, could memory not be a mechanism for future reference and prediction. And creativity is driven by memory from my experience. We imitate what we desire to observe again imperfectly and can thus call it our own. We express the feelings we carry through art that exemplifies the state our bodies are in or are referenced to from highly recalled memory. We do not create, we alter, and we integrate the randomness that we cannot control, and call it something new, although it is based solely on what is around. Our environment and our response, molded together into a complex unity that we call ‘ourselves’. I am definitely a reductive physicalist, but only because it provides the most sobering dose of reality that is universal enough to always be practical.

[@joelmichaelson2133]

Light is consciousness. What happens when a thing that does not experience time interacts with matter. Not to mention what happens when a thing does not experience time is observed ? Of course a thing that does not experience time can be in two places at once.

[@lostmankc]

“Once” has no meaning without the experience of time. Experience and existence have no meaning without time.

[@bennyskim]

The smell of coffee, or anxiety on Sunday night - both are light? I'm open to the idea, considering sonoluminescence is a thing.

[@niblick666]

Any human who measures light can see that it travels at a maximum speed, otherwise known as the speed of light in a vacuum. You do not appear to understand Special Relativity.

[@IVANHOECHAPUT]

I've been outside my body 3 times. One time I witnessed things that were verified as being true. Since I was conscious outside my brain, I surmised that the brain is not the instigator of consciousness, but rather a receiver of something esoteric. I touch on this in my book, "Infinity, Time, Death and Tought" where the universe includes a range of extremes that humans are confronted with, but are simply not capable of understanding with our limited thinkng states. I truly hope Donald makes a breakthrough that ties the illusive trait of being conscious in both a physical medium and the non physical as I, and many others, have experienced.

[@lockk132]

The sceptics would state you were hallucinating, how would debate that presumption?

[@GiraffeVortex]

Awareness has no cause. It is much easier to explain the universe assuming it is all consciousness rather than consciousness ever being caused by another factor