Henry Stapp - What Things are Conscious?

Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Consciousness is the great mystery of inner awareness. Where does it exist? Humans, obviously. Animals? Which animals? Chimps, elephants, dolphins, dogs? Termites, snails, amoeba, bacteria? What about non-biological intelligences like supercomputers of the future? The question probes the deep nature of consciousness.
For member-only exclusives, register for a free account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Henry Stapp is an American physicist, known for his work in quantum mechanics.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every week: shorturl.at/hwGP3
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.

[@freddyeleazar]

The video presents Henry Stapp’s intriguing hypothesis that quantum collapse could underpin the emergence of consciousness, even suggesting that processes like photosynthesis might involve a form of consciousness in plants. However, considering processes such as human visual perception, where consciousness arises after a series of neural events culminating in the visual cortex, it becomes clear that consciousness requires more than just quantum collapse. This reasoning underscores the necessity for additional structures and processes, like a complex nervous system, for the emergence of conscious experience.

[@degigi2003]

A simple robot programmed to do a quantum measurement will also report that it collapses the wave function. Does this mean the robot is conscious?

[@markwitt9299]

If it becomes conscious and can decide on its own then it will be conscious but as right now it is a repeat function that has no consciousness of its own.

[@Constantinesis]

@@markwitt9299 But what happens when I flip a coin? Could you say that the coin decides on its own which face it will land on? I think consciousness is not really about decision taking. In fact there are many arguments against free will.

[@markwitt9299]

@@Constantinesis You flipped the coin gravity decides that it comes down. It is not conscious in it's decision.

[@Constantinesis]

@@markwitt9299 When you take a decision, isn't it determined by billions of other factors inside and outside you?

[@Constantinesis]

@@markwitt9299 You choose soup vs hamburger to eat. Maybe memory, knowledge, hunger or your friends decide for you.

[@Agamon]

Thanks for the excellent videos 😊

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent.... thanks 🙏

[@0The0Web0]

It's already difficult to describe what we really mean by consciousness on the level of human beings. What would that even be on the level of photosynthesis? Sounds very fluffy to me...

[@catherinemoore9534]

Logical and fascinating 👌

[@ghaderpashayee8334]

Why you never interviewed with "Rupert Spira" I can imagine how amazing would be the conversation between Robert and Rupert!!!

[@simonhibbs887]

He could ask Spira why he misleads people about what an EEG reading actually means, and why he routinely misses out vital context that shows what he claims the research means isn't actually what it means at all.

[@anteodedi8937]

On the contrary, I hope Robert stays away from such frauds.

[@ghaderpashayee8334]

@@anteodedi8937 interesting to know your opinion that by listening to Rupert's speech you would think it's a fraud!

[@waldwassermann]

Truth is One. - Rig Veda

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

Okay so everything is made from the quantum so when light hits us our macro form collapses in relation to the quantum that has been shared. Like a quantum particles can entangle and then share, our eyes entangle with the light and the difference is shared. Not just light though because the electrons are shared in macro objects as well so as more complexity is involved the collapse can be different similar to different elements having different reactions. Consciousness is reflection on the shared information and organizing the differences so we guide them instead like predicting the day and following a plan, reality collapses into the potentials predicted but it’s not perfect because there are differences unaccounted for so the day doesn’t collapse only one way. It’s shared and that’s why we can share the consciousness by sharing understanding and basically causing a collapse into reflection and expansion of the minds differences. Once there’s enough differences understood then the energy can be shared to predict through the differences that the mind grows into.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

more and more measurements of light (photon) from electromagnetic waves / field may lead to more complex consciousness / awareness? how complex is the physical brain measurement(s) of light / photons from electromagnetic waves / field?

[@Robinson8491]

According to the Heisenberg picture of QM, time evolution is in the operators (the collapse part). According to Henri Bergson time is equal to consciousness, or vice versa, at least they are codependant. So the operators of the Schrodinger equation are related to consciousness imo, if you want to relate QM to conciousness, considering the Heisenberg picture is metaphysically correct imo

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness / awareness in present has association with quantum electromagnetic field / light?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

in quantum wave function is potential energy and kinetic energy?

[@mikewiest5135]

Yes

[@alantan6786]

Am I getting this right but is he arguing that consciousness/wave collapse is distinctively a biological process? Something like an AI is not capable of collapsing a wave but a plant is somehow ‘conscious’ because it can collapse a wave via photosynthesis?

[@RolandPihlakas]

In present day computers the AI is digital. There indeed is no collapse or quantum uncertainty involved in these computations. This is very much by design and essential for the operation of digital computers.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

physical brain processing of light / electromagnetic field has awareness / consciousness, with light experiencing no time as present?

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

8:15 In fact, the observer's self-esteem in QM is underestimated to the level of the infamous ostrich. 0.The observer is always involved in an unavoidable measurement process. 1.It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat). 2.A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion). 3.It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0*. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. ** 4.Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one. 5.Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function and the multi-world interpretation of Everett. 6.That is, the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device; a change in the physical state of the observer; and, finally, a change in the intellectual state of the observer. P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argument? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters… --------------------- *) - By the way, a "smile" without a cat can be detected according to Einstein's equations. Raising one of the indices, substituting I=k and summing, we find: R=-(8πG/c^4)T, where T=T(n) is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (~ "gravitational memory."). **) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

measurement of light (photon) from electromagnetic (quantum) wave in physical brain might bring about consciousness?

[@SabiazothPsyche]

Mostly, almost all animating creatures are conscious (e.g., insects, animals of all sorts, and the corollary human species). "Conscious" is mostly instinctive (i.e., that includes thoughts, cerebral retention and intelligence: However, with psychic augmentation, the instinctive "conscious" is then enhanced into "consciousness" (e.g., instinctive conscious that's enhanced with psychic awareness). Something that only happens to the species of the corollary human species (i.e., "thought phylum of humans, in contrast to animal thought-phylum).

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could there be an acceleration that collapses quantum wave function? resulting in consciousness?

[@r2c3]

4:32 how did such complexity arise without any collapse from the constituent parts 🤔

[@simonhibbs887]

That's a good catch. I think what he says there doesn't work, it requires putting an arbitrary boundary around a given quantum system (the brain in this case) and saying that the collapse of that system has particular consequences. The heart of the measurement problem in QM is precisely that we have no way to draw such a boundary, that's why we can't precisely define a measurement. It requires arbitrarily drawing a boundary between the system being measured and the apparatus making the measurement, and there's no non-arbitrary way in the theory to do that. So he's just missing the point of the problem.

[@r2c3]

@@simonhibbs887 the measurement in itself is a complex process that has to be assigned to each interaction in that level... how do you get such complexity from elementary units is the question 🤔

[@franksalo3466]

Now change the words or description from collapse of the wave function to becoming aware of. Kind of works 🤷‍♂️

[@sonarbangla8711]

Neither realizes that collapse implies cosmic consciousness, thus divine design collapsing the quantum fields to produce particles, which in turn creates life and consciousness.

[@michaelmacisaac7742]

Would the collapse of a wave function itself require a second order initiation or wave function….. resulting in decoherence? Turtles all the way down?

[@craigswanson8026]

“The collapse happens” in our unconsciousness. Determined by instinct or learning.

[@anarchords1905]

Maybe a scientist here can tell me if my understanding of wave function collapse in experiments is correct, or have I gotten it wrong? The collapse has nothing to do with human consciousness, but rather it's interaction with the measuring equipment, all of which necessarily involve bouncing some sort of particle off it, thereby providing the physical interaction required to cause collapse. If we could make the measurement directly with our eyes, a process which does NOT involve a physical interaction, the collapse wouldn't happen. Since the measuring equipment can and does cause the collapse whether anyone's watching or not, I don't understand what method they're using to distinguish where the consciousness part of it has an effect, since there's no difference in the outcomes. I'm genuinely curious to know what I've gotten wrong, here. I really feel I must be missing something, because surely this Henry Stapp person hasn't missed this hole in the whole 'quantum consciousness' story/bollocks, have they? All replies welcome. Even the dick ones. Thank you.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Every activity has to be backed by activity in consciousness. Wave function included. And remember Henry strapp is stil not complete in his theory.

[@anarchords1905]

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 "Every activity has to be backed by activity in consciousness." is a huge claim which need's some serious justification, there. This idea would suggest that the first ten billion years of naturalistic processes forming the universe we know, didn't happen because there was no 'consciousness' to experience it. Furthermore, what are you defining as 'consciousness'? This is a very nebulous term, which is far too broad for this conversation. I honestly can't see how you can justify that statement. Tell me what it is I'm missing here, please, because I'm a bit confused (for a change😏).

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@anarchords1905 you are not confused. You have brought out one of the hardest fact concerning consciousness by your thought provoking question. Definitely this is not a small subject that can be easily completed. But it's a great interesting subject.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@anarchords1905 Have you watched houses collapse without any human intervention over a period of time. What was that activity that happened to that house. It happened over a period of time. The activity never stops. Some takes billions of years and some like a house may take a century. It's only the time frame differs , but the behind the scene activity is continuous. That's the outer expression.

[@anarchords1905]

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 I'm sorry, I missed these replies. I wasn't ignoring them. If you're still here, I don't get your equivalence, here. The collapse of buildings, wearing down of rocks, restructuring of said rocks, gravity, heat transfer, etc, etc, are all physical processes (along with the necessary, accompanying wave collapse and other quantum weirdness, that we're on about) which are explainable by physical laws that have applied since long before anything conscious. Where is there room for a consciousness in the first umpteen years of the universe, working all by itself? None of this is coherent to me. It all sounds a bit like the 'soul' idea and the 'outside of our reality, ultimate being' story, to me. Can I assume here, you're a believer that consciousness isn't just an emergent property of brain function?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

conscious thought in future, conscious awareness of feeling and emotion in present, conscious memory of past?

[@healingplaces]

Fantastic thought. Once you get life, collapses are occurring. Comforting somehow.

[@CoopAssembly]

I'd be willing to bet that we haven't isolated the stuff of consciousness until we have removed all thoughts and feelings.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Everyone tries to establish a direct connection between consciousness and the collapse of the wave function. If I want to see what's in a dark room, I turn on the light. If bugs start scurrying away, it's not because my consciousness has entered the room; it's because I turned on the light. Likewise, consciousness is not collapsing any wave functions. It's the interference from whatever we are using to generate and observe the phenomenon.

[@FanaPLor]

Agreed, but what are we using that's interfering an causing us to generate and observe phenomenon? well I wouldn't agree with you if you said the brain...

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Yeah. That's what one my favorite teachers states. All is consubstantial. Light, sound, waves, all perturbation modalities or interference of the Aether. Aether. The true energy is rest. Any dissipation is the releasing of energy. Still i ask why has there been a disturbance. I know of a few theories. It involves God. God is in himself, from himself, by himself; the negation of all opposites, is true expanse; negating of all disturbancesis true fulfillment. The key terms are consubstantial and emanation. Asking why may be the wrong direction. Realizing that your essence and true nature is that, the why question now becomes less important and unity or theurgy becomes a realization. Figuring out the questions of mind isn't the true goal but renouncing mind.

[@FanaPLor]

@@S3RAVA3LM The why question is important. GOD is jus one possibility out of an infinite number of possibilities you do know that don't you.

[@anarchords1905]

@@FanaPLor The interference is caused by the physical interaction with the measuring equipment, which has to basically bounce another particle off it in order to do the measurement. It's the only way we can do the measurement at these small scales. This happens whether there's a consciousness there to watch the results or not.

[@anarchords1905]

@@S3RAVA3LM Is that you, Deepak? Hmmm? Hmmm?

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

Motile organisms are conscious. That is to say, it's just intrinsically "like something" to BE a motile organism.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

conscious experience of causation?

[@ABDULBASIT-fm7jc]

Solomon is the conscious breaker of animals.😅😂😂😂😂

[@nyworker]

No problem with consciousness effecting quantum measurement. But quantum is the basis for the physical. So no problem saying consciousness effects the physical. Including other minds.

[@lenspencer1765]

Havent they proven plants communicate with each other everything is conscious

[@dennistucker1153]

I would say that all things that are actively alive are conscious.

[@simonhibbs887]

Since some living things are quite simple, that implies consciousness is a fairly simple process. What specific activity of living things do you think leads to consciousness? Do you think that activity can only cause consciousness in living things and not machines performing the same activity?

[@RolandPihlakas]

​​@@simonhibbs887If by machines you mean computers, then in present day computers the processes are digital. There indeed is no collapse or quantum uncertainty involved in these computations. This is very much by design and essential for the operation of digital computers.

[@simonhibbs887]

@NotSoGullible That depends on one’s philosophical commitments. If we view humans, and perhaps other biological entities as physical systems, then the consequence is that consciousness is a behaviour physical systems can have. If so, then maybe non biological, or artificial biological systems might be able to have it. To believe otherwise I think means believing that there is some additional property or behaviour that humans, or organisms have, that other things cannot have. Then the question is what that is and how we reason about it. That's what I'm asking about.

[@simonhibbs887]

@NotSoGullible So you think life is more than chemical reactions and physical processes. What is that additional factor?

[@simonhibbs887]

@NotSoGullible It depends what you mean by react. A reaction is a decisions and computers make decisions. AlphaZero reacts to its opponents moves in Chess or Go. A self driving car reacts to changing road and traffic situations. Trading systems react to changes in the markets.

[@brothermine2292]

Surely Occam would laugh at the "consciousness causes collapse" postulate.

[@drhfuhruhurr4253]

Are fish fingers and tuna sandwiches concious? Hmmm, very interesting 🤔

[@mcmg-museudacriacao.melind405]

the Unified Theory would put an end to all discussions and all money allocated to these researches and videos! Who would be interested in this? This theory already exists since 2001 and is copyrighted, it is called: The fundamental pattern of the intelligent psyche. Melinda Garcia .

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". [1D string theory haha] There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.

[@dr_shrinker]

Only brains are conscious.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Interpolation - to insert something, of a different nature, into something else. When you look through a microscope and see bacteria that is observation. Bacteria are "revealed" to the conscious observer. When you look through a scanning tunneling microscope and you see individual "atoms" is that an observation or a "measurement"? When you look through a telescope do you "measure" the planets or observe them? When you step on a scale and measure your weight are you making an observation? No. An observation reveals things as they are. In and of themselves. When you step on a scale you "interpolate" weight: you insert the measurement called pounds or kilograms into your body. Your body is much more than "weight", or it may have nothing to do with weight. Which is it? What does an interpolation of weight do to you? Ostensibly nothing, but if you react to weight then that is an interference. If you lose or gain weight due to the measurement. What is the refined distinction between measurement and observation? Does it not have to do with whether or not your device (mechanism) is making an interpolation or not? Thermometers, scales, voltmeters, clocks, rulers are measuring devices. Are spectrometers, telescopes, microscopes, cloud chambers in colliders measuring devices? Where no interpolation occurs the device gives observations: telescopes, cloud chambers, spectrometers, etcetera. Where the interpolation is a device that merely gives interpolation the device gives the observer the choice of reacting or not reacting: scales, rulers, clocks, etcetera. Where the interpolation interferes with what is being observed the device is quantum mechanical: voltmeter? Where the interpolation is made on the observer (interferes with the observer) that is called the supernatural or Natural or science fiction: time travel, worm holes, shrinking, flying, superpowers, poltergeists, miracles. Cancer? Bigotry? Politics? Society?

[@fluffysheap]

I don't think he understands quantum mechanics. No one really understands the collapse of wavefunctions. No one has been able to prove that consciousness is not involved somehow, but few scientists today actually think it is. For one, the universe existed for billions of years before any life existed. Wavefunctions were obviously still collapsing back then. He talks about the "complexity" of the collapse of the wavefunction but that is meaningless. They collapse whenever they are "measured," whatever measurement is. Photosynthesis is a totally different thing. It's less about the measurement problem, but rather about how chlorophyll captures energy from photons with the right wavelength. This is still quantum mechanics but a different part of it. It's certainly not surprising that this is how it works, when you are working with individual molecules extracting energy from single photons via electrons moving between energy levels, this process works according to quantum rules. It's closely related to the photoelectric effect for which Einstein won his Nobel prize. In the end this isn't quite straight quantum woo but it's not very good science.

[@qigong1001]

“Complicated” compared to what. This is o subjective, that it’s impossible to draw a firm conclusion on anything in the universe or the universe itself. You can almost make anything sound conscious. Jibberish.

[@Etheralstew]

Only things that have any sort of cognition capability (ie brain/nervous system/memory processing/etc.), obviously. Even trees are not conscious as much as their chemical reactions might mistakenly make you believe, and most definitely the universe is not conscious. You'd have to prove it otherwise to make any sense of it actually being so.

[@jvdp9660]

What is this based on except your gut feeling?

[@degigi2003]

Can we make a robot which has cognition then, and consider it conscious?

[@RolandPihlakas]

​@@degigi2003 If by a robot you mean a digital computer, then perhaps not. In present day computers the AI is digital. There is no collapse or quantum uncertainty involved in these computations. This is very much by design and essential for the operation of digital computers.

[@luckyluckydog123]

Henry Stapp is 96 years old... is this really the guy? has he found the elixir of youth?

[@mikewiest5135]

Holy crap you’re right 😮

[@daniyalkhalid4133]

Who is this Stapp guy and why is he making things up? 🤔

[@shephusted2714]

i have no free will so i am not conscious or very self aware #newman

[@patientson]

Any attempt to take any form of shortcut that dont involve the root, you will pay dearly

[@ferdinandalexander8053]

Humans beings are not conscious. Only Consciousness is conscious. Not one “thing” whether called a body, a pizza or a car, is conscious.

[@drhfuhruhurr4253]

Maybe we kinda borrow consciousness!

[@ferdinandalexander8053]

@@drhfuhruhurr4253 Consciousness is all there is, inclusive of all there is. Apparent humans confuse senses with consciousness. You seem to be aware of a lot of bodies have you ever been aware of another consciousness. What exists outside of Consciousness? The moment you seem to mention some “thing” clearly it’s not outside of Consciousness.

[@glennmiller7840]

@ferdinandalexander8053 I get what you are saying, that consciousness, qualia, whatever, are not physical in nature. I think that humans however are one of the substrates of consciousness, whilst a pizza is only a substrate for consciousness in the sense that nothing is localisable and so we are continuous with the quantum fields such that the pizza in question is part of you and vice versa...

[@ferdinandalexander8053]

@@glennmiller7840 Consciousness is not the word consciousness, thus thoughts about consciousness are relegated to the conceptual and not the actual. What Is, is conscious, so often It is called consciousness. Only Now Is, and what appears as the so-called human picture and that is testified to by an appearance in the picture would have no basis in Reality, as it all appears to take place in “time” that is never present. It seems sensible that is one is going to write or speak of What Is, (Consciousness), one must start with What Is, as It is already present fact. Indeed, the word is means present, existing, having being. It’s simply not possible to start with what is-not as is-not means non-existent, not present.

[@evaadam3635]

"What Things are Conscious?" This is an erroneous question because Consciousness is NOT a material thing, not part of the physical world.. This obsession to push Consciousness under the umbrella of physical laws or physical effects, as defined through the lenses of our LIMITED physical senses, exposes deep hatred of the idea of the possibility of the existence of a loving God despite the fact that the truth about our origin is still unknown to hastily rule out spiritual existence as if they know.... ... Materialists even called religion as destructive when it was religion that has promoted love and peace that created civilizations. There is no ancient civilization that has no God or Gods, fyi... ..they ignore the truth that mankind had no God at the start where barbarism, cannibalism, slavery, or man's inhumanity to man had no boundaries, when only the strong and the fittest can survive (the laws of the jungle) and were only minimized when men started to believe in God... ...and the reason why Consciousness was targeted to be nothing but just an illusion is because it has undeniable supernatural qualities such as the free will to believe and the power to be aware that physical matter does not have as slaves of physical laws. These supernatural qualities is more than enough good reason NOT TO RULE OUT the possibility of the existence SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN... ...and, of course, there are imperfections in understanding the unknown Creator, but these imperfections are negligible COMPARED to a world without faith in God that could spell DOOMSDAY with evil greedy Godless people running around... ...now, hypocritically, Material Science has ruled out the possibility of Supernatural Existence just for lack of proof, yet they are now entertaining Quantum Physics which is a product of "Uncertainty Principle" - another word for "We really DO NOT KNOW" that renders quantum physics as the PHYSICS OF I DO NOT KNOWS... ..yet these Materialists are not even embarrassed for being hypocrites. They are willing to stoop too low just to maintain their addiction to gov. grants and subsidies coming from people's taxes, ruining the future of generations in the process with their fake sciences... They screamed on top of their lungs that "they can be MORAL without GOD !" but when life turns sour, pockets turn empty, or temper snaps, the true ugly color emerges.... sigh..

[@UnclearChangineer]

Wanted to listen more to Mr.Stapp, not the interviewer who is always too eager to get ahead of Mr.Stapp. He is trying to explain a complex subject. He had think a lot before and during explaining this complex matter. Pls do not interrupt him at wrong timing so he can collect his thoughts in a more presentable and convincing way using plain language.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

I prefer to listening to Robert....

[@duytdl]

He didn't seem confident in his own ideas.

[@cougar2013]

He doesn’t want to be presumptuous

[@pauldmann1166]

There’s a lot of lip smacking in this video… 👃

[@colinashby3775]

Irritating interrupting interviewer.

[@GrandpaJeffrey]

Painful. To. Watch. Sorry. Especially when guesses are so far from established fact.

[@mikel4879]

Plain BS. The so-called "Quantum mechanics" is an excellent BS. Etc.

[@ai10oz]

Demotivated.

[@j.a.velarde5901]

I have been subbed to this channel for months, and after all that time: I can safely say that absolutely NONE of these videos and discussions have ever, at all, shed light, wisdom or understanding on the topics at hand. Instead of talking about consciousness in dogs or cats, trees or rocks, your guests approach the question with a distinct LACK OF CLARITY and absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- No real life correlation, completely abstract and removed, and no insight for your viewers. - Unsubbed and done.

[@brothermine2292]

I think the problem is Kuhn nearly always fails to ask his guests "WHY do you believe what you believe?" Observations and reasoning are more useful & interesting than unsupported conclusions.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Yup. I been viewing CTT content and religiously for 5 years now and it's all bullshit. And there's people here buying it thinking they're the elite intellectuals of the 21st century or something. "Everybody is influenced and everybody is influential" - this implies the revolving door or stupid.

[@mikewiest5135]

Try the Chalmers one