Henry Stapp - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?

[@Promatheos]

Consciousness doesn’t do the thinking or ask the psychological questions. That’s called the mind. Consciousness is that which watches the mind. It’s a subtle but extremely important distinction that is so rarely made in these discussions. Over and over I see these interviews treat the mind as the same thing as consciousness but it’s not.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Mind can think, but it's the consciousness which processes it.

[@anteodedi8937]

That's a distinction without a difference. Consciousness and mind refer to one and the same thing. States of consciousness = mental states.

[@Promatheos]

@anteodedi8937 I’d like to try to convince you otherwise if you will bear with me. So when you have a mental experience, it can come as a feeling like an emotion or a sensation, or maybe in your mind you can imagine a red apple and it has a pseudo-visual quality. These are an ever changing and evolving stream of mental objects which appear to you, the subject. Just like objects in the waking world, you have objects in dreams, objects in imagination etc. these are objects because you identify as seeing them, hearing them, touching them and they are not identical to you. The mind is the entire collection of all mental objects. They are not the same thing as the Subject. You, the awareness, witness, observer, you are the subjective to which all mental objects appear. They come and they go. Mental states and mental objects change but you as the subject do not change. The subject simply watches the flow of experience arise and fall away while itself remaining constant. This is why the subject can say I am the same person I was when I was 8 years old and when I was 38 years old. It’s a different body and a different mind but it’s the same subject that witnessed it all. So no, the mind is not the same thing as the subject.

[@mystic1der2000]

@@anteodedi8937if you DEFINE them to be the same thing then obviously yeah

[@tomazflegar]

​@@anteodedi8937 No, mental states are not conscious, just reflection of consciousness. Consciousness is aware of mental states and not the other way around.

[@henrikoelschlaegel1780]

Outside of human conceptual frameworks, complexity, simplicity, and emergence do not have intrinsic power or explanatory value. They are descriptive tools rather than fundamental attributes of the universe. In a naturalistic universe where everything interacts with everything else continuously, the concepts of complexity, simplicity, emergence are completly meaningless and therefore connot be used to try to explain conciousness. One could postulate of course that there is an undiscovered law of nature that one or some specific spacetime material configuration creates somethink outside of the naturalistic universe in a plane of subjectivity, but that would be no better then saying it is magic.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"One could postulate of course that there is an undiscovered law of nature... ...no better then saying it is magic". Indeed, seems to me, 'magic' is something like a synonym for ignorance and that inside "of human conceptual frameworks" is the place to look for what it is that makes a self whose sole function is being conscious.

[@habibrahman5491]

Mind is the content of consciousness, it originate from and dissolves in Consciousness. You can have an empty mind but still have alert consciousness as pure awareness.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

If one's self is not conscious of something, anything, then one's self is not conscious. If one's self is not conscious then one's self is non existent.

[@yahdahjames6462]

Neither classical mechanics nor quantum physics have or will ever create or experience an original thought. A conscious mind is the only thing that has that power or ability. Both would necessarily be required to already possess the 'information' prerequisite to assembly of the original thought. But, if the required information is pre-existent then the thought cannot be 'original'.

[@carlodebattaglia6517]

The core issue is always the same: it's epistemological. Consciousness resists reduction because the idea of "reducing everything to simple components" is itself a concept created, understood, and debated by a complex conscious mind. If we claim, "my assertion that everything is reducible to matter is a physical event, and this statement corresponds with the reality, of facrs" then, in theory, we should also be able to fully describe everything in that quote-down to its essence-using only reduced matter, math, and quantum behavior. But can we? Not really

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

There are physical existents and there are arrangements of them called patterns. The existential status of physical existents and patterns is very different. First, a pattern is not a physical existent, it is an arrangement. Our selfs who are conscious of thoughts have an existential status far more akin to pattern than to physical existent. This may be why being conscious and thoughts seem immaterial to us. The conscious entity, 'self' may be an abstract entity. (Sorry if that hits you like a hammer). Suppose every contour of the 'self', every abstract aspect of it, is totally and perfectly isomorphic with processes going on in the neural substrate. The 'self' and the body are one existent with two aspects, representation and physicality and the representation supervenes on the physicality. Thus the thought you create to move your hand toward the pipe is both the neural activity and the 'meaning' of that activity. Processes have evolved to adjust neural activity to encode meaningful representations. Consider the discharge-timing-pattern of a single neuron. That a neuron sports 20,000 synapses on average makes it easy to understand how fine the control over the timing of its discharge, billionths of a second. Look how the timing-encoded-representation may be extremely subtly altered, smaller than billionths of a second changes in the discharge timing normal and the range of alteration is huge, from one to several billion nanoseconds. One can clearly see that what makes a timing-encoded-representation is distributed over a set of up to 20,000 other timing-encoded-representations. The synapses that interconnect the brain's 85,000,000,000 or so timing-encoded-representations perform all of the logic in the human thinking process. So there you have it, umpteen billion representations interacting though a logic network. One of those representations is the one that is 'the self'. All this gives a clue as to how it is one's self is conscious. Saying 'only the physical exists' may be true but the capabilities of the physical are more than what most think.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL The physical; elements and forces have been given inordinate powers by atheists even more than Pagans gave them. Without a template they randomly created a fine tuned universe and our galaxy in the Goldilocks zone in relation to the sun. Pagans worshiped nature while also believing in a great spirit or father god. Materialists see nature as miraculous yet it is material and without any level of consciousness or intelligence in their view until the human appeared and somehow it endowed the human and other entities with consciousness; mind; through randomness all the while reaching non-existing prototypes. Miraculous indeed.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

We are in a material age and materialists are represented in the sciences and in academia. They rule; their perspective prevails in science. Anyone who sees otherwise has to keep a low profile to keep their job or get tenure as a professor. It would not do to see three dimensions: Consciousness; Mind; Elements, rather than one dimension: Elements alone. To come out as having that perspective could end an academic career, so people have to hide it.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@ALavin-en1kr At least the scientists and academics are not tossing those who disagree into fires as the immaterialists have been doing ever since evolution made the human species conscious.

[@vitus.verdegast]

When people ask if consciousness is purely physical what they really mean is "is your mind a ghost that occupies your body, and can it leave your body?" The answer is no, your spirit or soul or mind is the action of your body in the same way the speed of a car is the action of the engine, wheels, drive shaft etc. -- it can't be separated from the physical machinery any more than your mind can exist separate from your brain. But this is only a description of the process, your mind isn't in your brain, your brain is in your mind, along with everything else you think is happening. "Physical" is just a way of describing what is happening in terms of the interactions of forces, but what is happening isn't physical in and of itself-- it is consciousness, the most fundamental way of describing reality, so fundamental that it cannot define itself because consciousness only has itself with which to define things, it has no edges and no outside, only an inside

[@Talkingtohorses]

You sound like you’ve listened to lots of Bernardo Castrup. Like some form of meta-solipsism. Not that I really disagree with that. It’s the mental that creates the physical….maybe, probably….

[@vitus.verdegast]

@@Talkingtohorses I listen to Alan Watts a lot. Physical-ness is a concept, a way to describe our experience, to predict events, a story we tell ourselves in order to explain the present moment in terms of time, space and other measurements that give reality a sense of consistency and to make existence seem like an adventure where the stakes are high and our choices have dire consequences.

[@dougsmith6793]

There is no example of consciousness without an associated physical / material structure ... not just a structure, but a very specific type of structure ... a nervous system.

[@mystic1der2000]

Ah but does that indicate that we have any examples of non-nervous systems being non-conscious? No, because how would we know if a rock has phenomenality or not?

[@dougsmith6793]

@@mystic1der2000 Do rocks need to be conscious to do what they do? Do they need to postulate, consider, and intend? Or are they already "smart" enough to be what they are, and do what they do? Even if they could intend, what is their means of locomotion that would enable them to avoid danger to their structural integrity? One can imagine all the rock "consciousness" that he wants ... but humans anthropomorphize all sorts of things. It's going to take more than imagination to make the case for that.

[@ceschudeck]

@@mystic1der2000 i see your futile try at a philosophical argument, and i raise you with science : which is knowledge or what we know about the world. You are just presenting ignorance about something as knowledge

[@francesco5581]

if consciousness is primordial to matter then the physical structure is just a way to expression just like a very specific structure, legs, are used by our brain to roam around... if instead matter is primordial to consciousness then you are probably right (even if there are models who can untie the two like ORCH-OR)

[@skhi7658]

Your statement hits the nail on the head. A nervous system translates physical events into perceptual phenomena. We know that these phenomena (colors, sounds, aromas, sensations , mental content etc.) do not cause anything causally and automatically. Rather, they are stimuli that can only provoke and motivate reactions and behavior. There is a world of difference between a determined effect without alternatives and stimulated behavior through perceptual phenomena .In this way, a freedom comes into biological systems that is missing outside of biology. This Degrees of freedom were created by physics itself and are fully realized physically. There is therefore no reason to construct a dualism of mind and matter. These are numerically and therefore ontologically identical .This means, however, that perception cannot be a coincidence, but must always be, at least as a potential, a latency of matter or physics.However, it is not so far-fetched that every interaction as mutual registration already represents a rudimentary form of perception.

[@edwardlawrence5666]

The physical world consists of particles, atoms, the classical bits of “ materialism,” and energy, the 4 fundamental forces. Feelings are the result of energy acting on the material bits. We will always need words to describe feelings and words which describe things. It is the yin/yang of life and you need it all.

[@JudgeRightly]

The existence of things that are not physical (such as logic) disproves the notion (which also isn't physical) that only the physical exists. If the claim is that all cars are red, then it only takes the existence of one blue car to disprove the claim.

[@HyzersGR]

How exactly is logic not physical?

[@tedgrant2]

Are the rules of football entirely physical ?

[@x2mars]

Wait, he’s saying there is no “reality” without consciousness?

[@infinitygame18]

Conciousness in not in body but what so ever you know about conciousness is through mind only and your interaction point about conciousness is your own mind, and mind has to follow some rules to exist in the world of consciousness, and the fundamental rule is that mind can not know more about conciousness beyond its own knowledge, but when some one learn meditation, how to dive beyond mind than all knowledge is connected, and conciousness is not physical, consciousness can do anything but it need some source device called body with mind in it to perform and activity, even all paranormality stuff without body and mind there is no other way to understand conciousness

[@Frank-si2jd]

Very interesting theoretical view on the function between the brain and consciousness! This view to my idea has a very high probability (keeping it quantum mechanical) reaching on how we receive reality. If - and this I would love to hear from someone - the brain is quantum mechanical, it makes a lot of sense this process (which is needed in quantum mechanics) experienced by an experimenter as this is practically the only logical “thing” that’s left, but fundamental!

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

Feeling movement is independent of celebral moves. They just are part of the same process searching for the way to lead to the final of searching.

[@kerryburns-k8i]

So consciousness rises from the brain like a genie from a bottle ------- PHOOEY ! Consciousness is fundamental, and facilitates the transformation of energy into matter.

[@chester-chickfunt900]

The human brain has enough biochemical power to create human-level consciousness, which projects human-level mind. The real question is what is the greater, supra-human Mind? Are there levels of Mind? Is the Mind fundamental, like the predecessors of the Higgs Boson? Is there a Universal Mind that humans can tap into, with enough practice? There is clearly information in the components that precede the Higgs Boson. Can the same be said for Mind?

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

Feeling is of different order and it comes before the celebral process. It has to do with the consciounousness.

[@jago76]

If you imagine a cat and then a dog, is there a measurable physical difference in the materialistic brain function? If not, it seems that we may have both a materialistic and non-physical aspect to our being.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what are ion channels with uncertainty? do ion channels have anything to do with microtubules having quantum uncertainty?

[@Jonnyboy158]

The first problem is the idea of cause and effect. David Hume takes the materialist view to its fully logical conclusion. First, all knowledge comes from experience and observation. Second, you can never directly experience cause and effect. The idea of billiards illustrates this point perfectly. All you ever observe is correlation. There is no contradiction in saying that one day you hit one billiard ball with another and instead of a transfer of momentum the next event will be a clown falling on your head. The idea that one event “causes” another is a mental construction. All the observer is seeing is a correlation in which every sample thus far two events correlate with each other. There is no way to prove that one day or in another corner of the galaxy the movement of one billiard ball has nothing at all to do with the movement of another. The idea of entanglement of fundamental quantum particles illustrates this in a more concrete way. There is no causal connection in which two electrons spin align with each other in regardless of their location in space. This opens the possibility that there can be entanglement in time also. Since all of the material world is made up of these fundamental particles, it is reasonable to think that quantum properties are the underlying reality, while the classic “materialist” view is an illusion based on a primitive perspective. I think serious and sober physicists have known this for years at this point. It is naive to think otherwise. These neuroscientists have the flimsiest of correlations. This man is giving them way too much credit. Using a materialist starting point will lead you straight to the realization that they can’t possibly make any definitive case about the origins of consciousness. They don’t know.

[@PaulHoward108]

The universe is a hierarchy ideas, and the foundation of each idea is a person. There are no physical objects (nouns), only physical properties (adjectives) and their changes (verbs). Objects are abstract concepts perceived in the mind rather than the five senses. RLK believes everything is physical because physics is an illusion. There are no physical laws. Every event is a choice, made by a person, which makes physics inherently indeterministic. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems imply a theory that uses mathematics can't be true, regardless of its possible usefulness.

[@Dr.Z.Moravcik-inventor-of-AGI]

If you do not define/ask what 'exists' is first, I do not trust your videos.

[@francesco5581]

there are many videos in this channel about what exists and whats not...

[@konstantinos777]

If you are not conscious of the quantum action, then whose consciousness is it? If it's yours, then that is not applicable. Except if you say consciousness but you mean the subconscious, which is not subject to time. But why call the subconscious consciousness?

[@dag410]

Quantum mechanics suggests that the act of observation plays a role in determining the state of a quantum system, as seen in interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation. This has led to debates about whether consciousness itself might play a role in the collapse of the quantum wave function. The Orch-OR theory proposed by Hameroff and Penrose suggests that quantum processes, specifically in microtubules within neurons, could contribute to the generation of consciousness. However, if we assume that quantum fluctuations within microtubules alone do not account for the emergence of consciousness, we might hypothesize that consciousness does not arise from purely physical processes governed by classical mechanics. If consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical processes, this could imply that consciousness is non-material and potentially exists outside the confines of our physical universe as described by classical physics. Following this line of thought, one could draw an analogy where microtubules act like antennas that are sensitive to some form of consciousness that exists beyond the physical realm, similar to how Wi-Fi antennas receive signals from a network. The brain, in this view, might be seen as an interface or computational system that processes these signals. This perspective integrates Hameroff and Penrose’s quantum consciousness hypothesis with Donald Hoffman’s theory, which posits that our perception of reality is more like an interface or user interface (UI) rather than a direct representation of an objective reality. Such a view aligns with certain philosophical and spiritual traditions, such as those in Hinduism, which propose that consciousness is a fundamental, non-material reality that underlies and transcends the physical universe... Cool concept. Good video.

[@estellescholtz5619]

Integrates the hypotheses of Penrose - Hameroff, Donald Hoffman as well as that of Robert Kastrup. ❤

[@guidance_seeker_55]

Consciousness results from the unification of the soul and the body...

[@maxpower252]

Yes.

[@asyetundetermined]

Yes, clearly.

[@rossw1365]

he's so confused microtubules are not the only place where particles pass through narrow channels eg, there are thin wires in electronic circuits but a computer doesn't need consiousness to work

[@aladdin8623]

Where did he claim that?

[@dan.timonea596]

I have arrived at precisely the opposite conclusion. Consciousness is causally relevant, the physical realm is causally closed, hence consciousness is part of the physical realm.

[@monporoshneog4725]

You got it all wrong brother. You should visit India, there are many Ancient techniques for example 'Kundalini awakening' revealed in Hindu Scriptures which will show you very clearly that only Consciousness is Fundamental which is experiencing this physical world through a physical body. Today's Science has not advanced to that level to understand these Truths. I myself have gone through this Spiritual experienced where my Consciousness separated from my body and my senses were all heightened , and I can very clearly see that this whole material creation is just an illusion like a dream the Consciousness is watching and experiencing.So I request you don't make any conclusions too early about what is true. Always keep yourself Open minded to explore more in life. This is the only way to reach reality.

[@dan.timonea596]

@@monporoshneog4725 I agree with you, I will keep my mind open to new ideas and new ways of interpreting things. I don't even know enough about science to justify arriving at the truth science seeks to establish.

[@jaycharlton2085]

Yay! Progress. Consciousness is purely quantum.

[@angel4everable]

Robert Stapp is making the Ghost in the Machine ontological argument: 'I can't explain X right now, so some higher power must exist to make it function. ' Why not move on from consciousness to ESP, ghosts, and God using the same spurious logic?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

To the contrary, one might think their sense perception organs are criterion and if they cannot detect something subtle or concealed, therefore it automatically doesn't exist and is deemed nonsense - this is fallacy. For the Divine is concealed. And reverence unto the Divine is by not imposing upon it - it's not that some higher power must exist, it's the reverential acknowlement, and humbly so, in apprehending this higher power. As man always likes to get his hands first into the cookie jar, or be first to put his flag onto the moon, this mind set does not deserve mystagogy and prevents it. The wiseman taught that the mind of man must first be overcome and overcoming the mind is very difficult.

[@metheplant9655]

You really think we have the physical apparatus to figure it ALL out? Spolier alert: we will never do. Ever.

[@erickhaynie3708]

I don’t think he’s gap filling. He’s pointing out that the laws of quantum physics require a data input (ie, a decision from the experimenter) to achieve any result. The brain is quantum mechanical, and the brain produces results. Therefore, there must be an external data input into the brain - ie, consciousness - in order for the brain to cause results. That could be analogized to a designer initiating the big bang and all material existence, but the Dr. Is not going there. Instead, he is relying on the proven nature of a quantum mechanical model to prove the necessity of a conscious actor.

[@angel4everable]

@@metheplant9655 We are in agreement there. My objection is the reference to a non-physical device to do all the explaining a la Descartes.

[@angel4everable]

@@erickhaynie3708 That "the brain is quantum mechanical, and the brain produces results" remains to be proven. That is the Roger Penrose theory of consciousness, which Dr. Stapp is taking for gospel. It is akin to"the universe requires a conscious agent" to function at all.

[@MilushevGeorgi]

To be or not to be is in super position

[@realitycheck1231]

Non-physical, correct information exists prior to consciousness. Consciousness is incorrect information. Consciousness requires a body for its development of physical awareness. The non-physical correct information exists prior to the incorrect physical consciousness. So, even if consciousness is entirely physical it doesn't mean that the non-physical doesn't exist. It only means that we don't have access to it because of incorrect information.

[@erickhaynie3708]

Dr. Stapp is in his 90’s. What youth and intelligence he emits!

[@kallianpublico7517]

Is the problem existence? Has the whole quandary of consciosness rested on the univocality of existence? Is existence multivocal? The body has multiple "systems" that all work separately but in a holistic totality. The central nervous system, the respiratory system, the circulatory system, the lymphatic system, the gastrointestinal system, etcetera. What binds them is...dna? Mind? Soul? Brain? Is the binding of all these systems controlled by a quantum shunt? A quantum shunt that shows up in the mind as meaning, in the brain as ., in the body as ., in dna as...

[@nsbd90now]

'Tis a mysterious mystery! I like thinking the brain is a filter for conscious awareness.

[@callmeishmael3031]

Huh? I can’t follow his argument. The self is a construct of the brain using unknown quantities and locations of the firings in the brain which acts as the executive function which derives feelings from all the input from which it can cause some of the actions that the body moves forward with. The brain constructs a very very complex map of the environment from the massive amount of information coming into, and from, the brain which it constructs for the self’s executive functioning. The map and the self are so symbiotically conjoined that this very small part of the information among the firing neurons which constitutes the self/environment map symbiosis makes the illusion we call consciousness in the vulgar sense, but consciousness is actually all the information firing around in the brain.

[@guidance_seeker_55]

The soul carries consciousness..

[@scientistcraft]

😮 before to ask what is consciousness ? we have to ask what is the physical object?

[@mr.paranoid3091]

I googled Stapp to see his credentials since I was unfamiliar with him. One thing that immediately stood out was his year of birth. According to his wiki entry, he was born in 1928. That must be an error, right? If it's real then hat's off to him, he is by far the liveliest 96 year old person I've ever seen. He looks at least 20 years younger.

[@degigi2003]

The clip is from an episode from 2011, so he must have been around 82 years old. Still pretty young looking though.

[@anirudhadhote]

❤ Very good 👍🏼

[@yahdahjames6462]

Consciousness is just a product of information specific to and processed by one particular set of glands, the penial, the thalamus, and the hypothalamus embodied and then stored in the healthy white matter of the brain. 'Information' exists whether anything materialistic exists or not. For instance: Pi is simply information. When the first circular object appeared as a singularity point in the universe . . . Pi was already there just waiting to deliver the circumference of that round mass singularity object . . . unless, of course, one believes that the original singularity point was shaped like a triangle, rectangle, hexagon, or whatever. LOL! ( I tend to believe it was a minute sphere round in form and fully measurable, in which case. Pi was patiently waiting and ready to yield the circumference of that first tiny 'atomic global sphere'.) Information HAD to exist before any mass made from matter could possibly exist. Information has mass and is nothing more than the 'fifth state' of matter. Therefore, everything is made from information . . . including consciousness. E=MC2 is information that existed long before Einstein revealed it. He didn't create it. He simply uncovered it. It was always there . . . waiting! This is true with all mathematical equations, especially cosmological constants. The value of '2' existed long before the first human held up two fingers. Spoken words existed long before they were ever written down or recorded. They were a complete form of information consisting of mass. Information is energy and cannot be destroyed. Hawking proved as much! Information can never be constrained by time or space. The universe consists of a trillion times many trillions of bits of information . . . including information ad infinitum that hasn't been revealed yet into the future. Every element, chemical, and biological function that exists in the universe including our DNA and RNA, is but a by-product of information that existed first and foremost. That information is transmitted and shared by the universe to any life form equipped with the proper 'glands' to receive and transmit it . . . . such as human beings. (That does not mean we actually understand it.) Our individual consciousness simply processes the specific information it receives and assigns value and purpose to its function. It's not that complicated . . . . unless you THINK it is!

[@alexale5488]

How did you not get a Nobel ? With internet, suddenly everyone has become an expert....

[@PMKehoe]

NO! :))

[@grinkot]

This conversation makes no sense without a definition of "material". The questions imply a tautology: "material" is what's accountable--for from the classical point of view.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent.....❤ thanks 🙏.

[@ZedOhZed]

I don't think his argument stands up to scrutiny when taking a Bohmian Mechanics approach. I would like to live in one of those "Many Worlds" I keep hearing about in which Niels Bohr winning a popularity contest 100 years ago doesn't dominate our way of thinking about fundamental physics in the modern era.

[@dr_shrinker]

1:17 nonsense. Feelings are physical, that’s why Prozac alters feelings via physical processes. This guy didn’t think it through

[@Hans-mg5nf]

i don't like the idea of two seperate worlds, one is fysical and one is a 'non fysical ', whereby the latter is doomed to be the spiritual/psychological /idea empty space where everyting can happen and brings something to the fysical world. I like also the idea of choser/cause/questioner, something new can be manifestated. Why can the brain/mind not be multi functional being determinated and creator without a seperation into material world and 'mind ' world?!

[@Arunava_Gupta]

Why Materialism is False -------- Because an EXAMINATION of the structure and function of neurons *do not* and *cannot* give us an EXPLANATION for a conscious self.

[@simonhibbs887]

That's a claim, not a reason. Why can't they?

[@timwoodruff7984]

Could somebody please explain to me why all these smart people seem to think you need an observer for quantum mechanics to function? Where is the observer on the The Dark Side of the Moon? Where has the observer been for 14 billion years in distant galaxies? Who is the observer at the bottom of the sea? A fish? Of course quantum mechanics functions without an observer! How else could the universe have evolved before there was life??

[@piotrkraczkowski6729]

Consciousness and free will seems to be divine. No one knows why anything exists at all, what was before the time we can say anything about at all. The fact that after the period when only plasma existed, the laws of physics appeared, which led to our world, speaks for the existence of God or a Being capable of imposing the laws of physics. There is also a written record of those who saw Jesus. ______ Since no one knows, all that remains is faith: some believe that God exists, and others believe that God does not exist (atheists). You can also say: I don't know.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Our Eternal Over-Consciousness is pictured in the Rainbow, Colors is the Under-Consciousness = Day- Consciousness and Night-Consciousness. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory. Day-Consciousness Never sleep, it just goes in Circuits, We are Gravity-Beings, at Night We move our Day-Consciousness to the Night-Bodies, Deep-Sleep, one by one, via our Coupling- Body, REM. Consciousness is 100% Electric. Day-Consciousness is Motion, so, Consciousness is Eternal, the Thinking/Thoughts is Temporary. Rainbow show the set of Eternal Basic-Ablities, our Consciousness would Not work without. They show a Life-side and a Stuff-side, but in addition is a range of Creator-Principles. The Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip make Feeling into Sensing, all experiences is Feeling-Experience first hand. Gravity/Heat and Feeling/Freeze is the Stuff-bearing Basic Abilities, Instinct keep them in balanced tension. It is a extensive study to ahcive the full detailed picture, the many different analysis, and details. But We can also recognize the same Eternal Abilities in 'This Device', Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic/Order, (*), Harddisc, *Intuition need much more text to explain. So, in basic, our Eternal Consciousness is very simple, but some degree of experience is needed to fully understand.

[@HyzersGR]

Quantum systems are still entirely physical.

[@francesco5581]

since they dont match the prerequisites to define them "local" in our universe, i would refrain to say something like that

[@erickhaynie3708]

The system may be, but the output of the system requires an input grounded in discretion. That discretion exists independent of the system and therefore emanates from something extra-material.

[@HyzersGR]

@@erickhaynie3708 since when have outputs been excluded from definitions of systems?

[@thejimmymeister]

​@@HyzersGR The person you replied to didn't claim that outputs are excluded from the system.

[@alexandersalamander]

That makes the concept of ‘physical’ so diffuse that it is hard to even operate with

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

is a cell (processor) it quantum computing

[@ms14electronic]

I think there are different dimensions of study. In recent year we have just focused on material and it is good study. May there are other studies of other realities which are not material in nature. But one argue that we relationship between the 2 then wee need time to study other realties like counsioness,soul,dream,etc. But how we can do that if we are only focusing on material things and our education sys and universities revols around only material realties.

[@simonhibbs887]

Nobody's stopping anybody.

[@RediffLallantop]

Thanks to our ancient Hindu scholars...the debate of what is consciousness has always been there in our ancient texts and Consciousness has been the central topic in Hinduism...westerners mocked Hindus for talking about Consciousness saying everything is materialistic for so many centuries and now they are finally coming to the very same debate what 1000 years old Hindu scholars were having. 😅😂

[@mystic1der2000]

Precisely. That’s why as an American I decided to go to MIU and study Vedic Science.

[@asyetundetermined]

I think the debate, such as it can be called, is largely kept alive by religiously motivated actors hoping to sneak an ethereal realm into a world that seemingly contradicts all of their deeply held beliefs.

[@monporoshneog4725]

​@@asyetundeterminedYou got it all wrong brother. You should visit India, there are many Ancient techniques for example 'Kundalini awakening' revealed in Hindu Scriptures which will show you very clearly that only Consciousness is Fundamental which is experiencing this physical world through a physical body. Today's Science has not advanced to that level to understand these Truths. I myself have gone through this Spiritual experienced where my Consciousness separated from my body and my senses were all heightened , and I can very clearly see that this whole material creation is just an illusion like a dream the Consciousness is watching and experiencing.So I request you don't make any conclusions too early about what is true. Always keep yourself Open minded to explore more in life. This is the only way to reach reality.

[@mystic1der2000]

@@asyetundetermined How similar that is to the materialists trying to sneak in a "material" realm, when in reality everything anyone has ever experienced has taken place within consciousness, indeed is nothing more than the activity of consciousness. Though it makes sense why they would resist that worldview, seeing as it contradicts their deeply held "scientific" beliefs.

[@asyetundetermined]

@@mystic1der2000 sure, I guess, but I’m willing to bet you’ll still be drinking water and eating food to satisfy your biological demands. In this sense, it’s a distinction without a difference. Materialism/Idealism, who cares. You’re still setting your alarm to get up for work tomorrow.

[@TheBrickcitydoc]

My amateur theory: consciousness is emergence phenomena. Perhaps like any genere of music is a collection of diferentes sounds merging to create a song. Consciousness would be the song. Our mind the instruments.

[@0xJo_x]

很美哈哈哈

[@stoneysdead689]

This, imo, is a ridiculous argument- some things simply can't be extrapolated in such a general way without turning into utter nonsense. It is true that the mind can play a casual role in the physical world- but it is not true that consciousness plays a causal role. But o.k.- let's skip that part- even if we decide to call the mind, consciousness- it can play a causal role, but it is not necessary and doesn't always play a causal role. Therefore, it has no place in physics which is not about how we interact with the physical world but about the physical world in general, how it acts and reacts with itself when we're nowhere in the picture. The universe is after all- what is now- 14 billion years old they've settled on? Life- as far as we know- has only existed for maybe 3-4 billion years- give or take. And a huge, huge, huge part of the scientific enterprise is to understand what happened during all that time when life was nowhere to be found. So, I do not think consciousness- at least as we define it right now- has a damned thing to do with it nor any place in our equations- and I'm really tired of listening to ppl like this man do mental gymnastics trying to find some way to cram it in there.

[@oskarngo9138]

Yes Conscious is entirely physical...

[@monporoshneog4725]

You got it all wrong brother. You should visit India, there are many Ancient techniques for example 'Kundalini awakening' revealed in Hindu Scriptures which will show you very clearly that only Consciousness is Fundamental which is experiencing this physical world through a physical body. Today's Science has not advanced to that level to understand these Truths. I myself have gone through this Spiritual experienced where my Consciousness separated from my body and my senses were all heightened , and I can very clearly see that this whole material creation is just an illusion like a dream the Consciousness is watching and experiencing.So I request you don't make any conclusions too early about what is true. Always keep yourself Open minded to explore more in life. This is the only way to reach reality.

[@oskarngo9138]

@@monporoshneog4725 Provide evidence what you are saying is True and not your mind just playing tricks by: telling me something “Objectively”: Profitable (like a stock); or Novel (like a new equation) or New Science (like a new discovery)... ...if your consciousness is truly part of the universe then you have seen everything and telling me a “Unknown” is easy...! ...otherwise what is the point...?

[@caractacus22]

Please read “behave” by Robert sapolsky

[@caricue]

What's the point? In Sapolsky's view, you are just a meat machine and even if you agree with what he says, you have no power to change your own mind.

[@Jalcolm1]

It is gobbledygook. He claims that classical mechanics is merely things bumping into things. That’s silly. Life can be and is explained completely by chemistry (and the underlying physics). They used to think aliveness wasn’t chemical. They were wrong. Then , because ion channels are tight he invokes quantum effects to run the brain. That is absurd. You don’t need quantum mechanics and uncertainty in biology. Awareness, which is shared widely in biology, is part of purposefulness which is entirely explained by brain function. There is no non-physical “psychology “ in creation. This is a guy yelling that the mobius strip has 2 sides. Yes they do, but they are continuous.

[@mikel4879]

Henry's comment is a display of desperate and useless 'QM potentiality' materialized like usual into full BS.

[@SandipChitale]

AI Scientist

[@degigi2003]

Quantum mechanics also determine the behavior of a stop light and describe potentialities. But we don't think of them as conscious when they decide to go red or green. So there is nothing in quantum mechanics that prohibits processes to be deterministic at the macro level, including to control the thought process.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

All our early childhood memories "gone", and we start realising that we are "a part of these universe livelihood" after loosing that childhood memories(there's no such thing as pondering@thinking deeply in a kids mind)

[@faulypi]

Consciousness is entirely physical as it does not exist without a brain. There is no reason to postulate a mystical phenomenon of consciousness because we don’t understand how the brain functions.

[@monporoshneog4725]

You got it all wrong brother. You should visit India, there are many Ancient techniques for example 'Kundalini awakening' revealed in Hindu Scriptures which will show you very clearly that only Consciousness is Fundamental which is experiencing this physical world through a physical body. Today's Science has not advanced to that level to understand these Truths. I myself have gone through this Spiritual experienced where my Consciousness separated from my body and my senses were all heightened , and I can very clearly see that this whole material creation is just an illusion like a dream the Consciousness is watching and experiencing.So I request you don't make any conclusions too early about what is true. Always keep yourself Open minded to explore more in life. This is the only way to reach reality.

[@PrzestronnyMistrz-ly8rp]

"we don’t understand how the brain functions" is all you should have said

[@pedrozaragoza2253]

This is as idiotic as when they didn’t believe in germs because they couldn’t see them.

[@smillstill]

Uncertainty from quantum mechanics does not increase with more events. Name me one macroscopic system with more measurement uncertainty than a quantum system. The guy completely screws up the science. Also, by the time you even get to the smallest of molecules, quantum effects become negligible.

[@bruceylwang]

Humans seem to like to create some strange words (ideas) to confuse their minds.

[@michelangelope830]

Do you have innocent and vulnerable children? The most important is to protect yourself. To protect yourself you have to teach your children God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. God exists because from nothing can not be created something. The universe is a design, life is a design. We are literally God’s Creation. God decided to create the universe after existing forever. Why? Why would you create life after existing forever? We only have one life and it is forever. When we die reality continues transforming. When we die God continues through our children and the story continues. The most important is to take care of planet Earth because it is our only house. Human life depends on the habitability of planet Earth. The most important is to preserve life. What is the optimum number of people to live the best life posible on planet Earth? Humans are victim of self. Why to live badly when we can live great? Without atheism and religion life is easier. The truth that saves literally your life and makes you happy is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Spinoza was right and nobody listened. I need my loving poem to be read where my truth is needed. Thank you.

[@tomjackson7755]

You said that you were going to quit doing this and get the help that you need.

[@dondattaford5593]

Robert thinking is not a physical process

[@josephhruby3225]

Put this one on my list of WOW conversations that you have shared. Bravo . . . Thank you

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

Neuralink should put this debate about consciousness to rest. There’s nothing magical about our consciousness. It’s a physiological process of the brain.

[@alexale5488]

Even Elon Musk belives in the possibility that consciousness could be immaterial, yet you claim to have resolved this mystery :)))))

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

@@alexale5488 sure. It’s was to understand. 😜 I’m not sure what is meant by “immaterial”… Is running a computer program considered “material”? Software is not hardware (computer in turned off state), it doesn’t exist on its own but, is produced and ran by the hardware. To me, that’s kind of analogous to the brain producing and running the mind (consciousness). This makes sense to me and is how I understand and view consciousness today.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

If consciousness is entirely physical, then I defy the physicists to locate and measure the Cartesian "I Am-ness." Or, in other words, locate and describe the ontological features of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts.

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

@@TheUltimateSeeds no dreaming or thinking if the brain doesn’t function (dead).

[@marktomasetti8642]

reticular activating system + default mode network. QED

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

​@@edwardprokopchuk3264 Well, I suggest that the body and brain are simply the physiological means by which the dreamer and thinker are awakened into existence, and that death is simply the process by which the dreamer and thinker are delivered (birthed) into their true eternal form, thus leaving the body and brain behind like a higher form of a placental-like afterbirth.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

@@marktomasetti8642 Huh? Care to elaborate on that?

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

@@TheUltimateSeeds there are a lot of interesting ideas out there. With the idea you present, we’d have to explain how the thinking process continues on without a brain… It’s very easy to cease the conscious process by simply sedating a person (brain). Maybe it’d help to look at what being “unconscious” means and that might help us to more clearly identify and understand what being conscious means.

[@saturdaysequalsyouth]

Everything is physical. Get over it.

[@igcll]

oversimplified much?

[@saturdaysequalsyouth]

@@igcll My patience ran out

[@igcll]

@@saturdaysequalsyouth seems so

[@alexale5488]

Another pseudo-intellecutal-rodditor.

[@caricue]

I think the important question is WHO is conscious? You are a solid physical creature, so all there is to be this experiential self is the living tissue of the organism, and without a self to think and feel, what good would consciousness be? This is also why AGI is not real and never will be in a dead computer.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

free will (infinitesimal?) and consciousness (infinite?) may or may not have a material existence? property dualism? substance dualism?

[@edwardtutman196]

I agree with this guest 100%. PS. Neuroscientists know some classic physics but are not taught Quantum to entertain such ideas. Robert Kuhn educated himself over 17 years on CtT, but still failed to move out of his linear thinking. This is why he is going in circles and getting nowhere.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

free will asks questions of quantum probability? conscious awareness / experience of subjective causation?

[@playpaltalk]

Love and Hate are very real and you can see it and feel it if your eyes and ears are open.

[@catherinemira75]

Brilliant. 👌

[@ryanprice9841]

Awareness is as magical as you make it out to be. Sensing the world around us is cool, but not mystical. Having an internal sense of things is also the same. We just want to special, so we pretend awareness is a soul and then pretend our souls are so special. We confused ourselves

[@docjaramillo]

Wait, does the person who writes these titles think there is something that isn’t physical in the universe? Do they believe in Santa Claus too? Can’t take this channel seriously anymore, unfollow

[@alexale5488]

And here, dear strangers, we have a classic example of a pseudo-intellecutal-redditor who thinks he's superior by beliving in materialism and possibly being an atheist.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Neuroscience keep out how figure out consciousness so far. This guys shows consciousness has propose. How he figure It out ? Why he doesnt show is It with neuroscience proceendings ? This guys are completely show false knowledge about consciousnes . Bernard shaw said. Beware of false knowledge It is more dangerous than ignorance.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

He has no knowledge of how biology and feelings influence each other.

[@karagi101]

Philosophy has nothing to say about this topic. Only science can find the truth.

[@tunahelpa5433]

I mean, what is it like to be a physical entity? You know what I mean? There's still that unanswered question of how and why

[@zerototalenergy150]

I like Michio Kaku's opinion on consciousness....

[@S3RAVA3LM]

"The physical is all that exists" That is synonymous to saying only one mode exists. Physical is a mode, and a principle circumscribed to phenomena. But where is the evidence and demonstrations that physicality is all that exists?, as if it were the ultimate principle, as the materialists believe?The 4 chief elements reveal mode(s), and the higher up, all the more subtle, powerful, pure and simple are they. For physicality to be a mode, requires first, being and thus becoming, i.e. having come into time and space i.e. existence, and contact, for two things must be in the same place at the same time, therefore something must contain these two things, which in principle is one and simple, thus harmony is had and harmony is an ultimate principle...if harmony were not, the two things may not even relate in one place, or have that commonality, in 'sameness' or likeness of the other, and instead usurp the other, or usurp the very cause of the hypraxis itself, which cannot because of harmony, and harmony is one.

[@HyzersGR]

Sounds like some new age mumbo-jumbo

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@HyzersGRrefute me. Dialectic was an ancient methodology. However, your kin considers it word salad. Basically, they're indirectly admitting to not know how to inquiry but they're good at juggling around well established facts, in pretentious fashion - called sophist.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@S3RAVA3LM Let me fix that for you. Dialectic was an ancient methodology. However, the modern world considers it word salad. Basically, I'm indirectly admitting to not know how to inquiry but I'm good at juggling around nonsense and meaningless terms, in a pretentious fashion called sophist.

[@robertm3561]

Of course it’s magical! Same with bears 🐻

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

🙄

[@simonhibbs887]

Om uncertainty at the bottom level meaning brains are quantum systems, that's not necessarily true. Computers take advantage of quantum behaviours at the lowest level in transistors, in fact transistors are only possible due to quantum mechanics. Nevertheless the behaviour of transistors at the macroscopic level is not probabilities in any meaningful sense, they are functionally deterministic. So systems can have low level probabilities quantum behaviour, but effectively deterministic behaviour at the macro level. The brain is almost certainly like this. Quantum effects at the low level don't seem to lead to observably quantum mechanical behaviour at the inter-neuronal level. He's a physicists, how can he not know this stuff? It's kind of embarrassing to have to point this out for a trained professional scientist. I don't usually post multiple comments, but my other comment was on a different specific point.

[@simonhibbs887]

>"You don't see anything that resembles a feeling". We seen physical systems that sense their environment, that process representations of sense data, and representations of things in their environment. Feelings are representations of the state of our environment, or our own state. It's just factually untrue that there is nothing that resembles feelings in physicalism. You could reasonably think that qualia are more than just representations in some special way, but nevertheless they clearly are representations. Classical mechanics, and even quantum mechanics are not the only possible descriptions of the world and it's processes, we also have information science, the physics of computation, channel theory, etc. Theories of computation are just as physical as any other theories, they're just evaluating the world from a different perspective. There's nothing about quantum mechanics that invalidates anything in neuroscience, neurology or information science. He's not really engaging with the actual physicalist arguments.

[@deanodebo]

Are you assuming that a system that senses also has feelings of experience?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodebo No. However systems that have feelings and experiences have senses, those feelings and experiences are representations of those sense reports. If you only look at classical mechanics none of this talk of sensing, representation, and meaningful action makes sense, and yet we do make sense of them in entirely physicalist terms. Therefore physicalism is more than just classical mechanics. So his claim is just wrong. We can still talk about qualia and how they may or may not work under physicalism. There's still a debate to be had for sure, but his reasons for being skeptical of physicalism, as he presented them, fail.

[@deanodebo]

@@simonhibbs887 we’ve talked about this before. You have to assume physicalism in the first place - so it’s absolutely dubitable. Even physicists don’t really know what it is to be physical. But your epistemology doesn’t allow for certainty of anything in the external world, so yes it’s dubitable.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodebo Physicalism is an interpretation of the properties and causal processes of phenomena we observe in the world. It is entirely based on observations, not assumptions. If we’d looked and found a luminiferous ether, crystal spheres between the planets, and choires of heavenly angels on Mars, that’s what would be in the science books. We observe these causal relations in the world, according to these principles and form a view on how these relate to each other. Yes I think there are many things we can’t be certain about, but I don’t think the answer to that is just to believe stuff anyway. The skeptical world view demands high standards of evidence. I think that’s a strength.

[@deanodebo]

@@simonhibbs887 you’re assuming your senses perceive things accurate and you’re assuming there is a world to perceive and you’re assuming the mental models of the world your brain creates are accurately portraying what is Those are assumptions, are they not? Or do you have a pathway that bypasses perception and brain interpretation of input?