How Science Is Trying to Understand Consciousness

[@SciShow]

Thanks to LastPass for sponsoring a portion of this video. Click here to start using LastPass: lastpass.onelink.me/HzaM/2020Q2AprilSciShow

[@CG64Mushro0m]

you have the least amount of likes and you have 6.22M subscribers

[@tdk99-i8n]

hank green works so much harder than john green but has less $muni: very sad. its more lucrative to make tweens feel sad. Get LASS PASS

[@kylealexander7024]

Am i real? R u john wayne?

[@hamuelagulto796]

Aren't other animals conscious?

[@nitemayer17]

SciShow I submit that consciousness is the act of taking vast quantities of complex information gathered, and crafting it into an ongoing narrative. But not just any narrative. It’s a narrative that portrays the central processing unit of the information as the protagonist. This is done so that based on desired outcomes for that narrative, the processing unit can extrapolate from the data which actions need to be taken to reach the desired narrative. This brings up another important point: That consciousness requires an ability to impact the surrounding environment in a way that can alter the outcomes in the narrative. This process of narrative-crafting also serves the purpose of justifying past actions as being necessary to the overall narrative. I propose this is one of the reasons that regret is such a painful sensation, because when we perceive our actions as being either worthless to our narrative or counterproductive to our narrative, it puts a strain on our processing resources that are trying to craft a narrative in which we are the heroes. Thanks for the awesome video!

[@justins7796]

bold of you to assume I'm experiencing the world rather than just interacting with it

[@Yal_Rathol]

snark is a clear sign of subjectivity. caught yourself in a bit of a catch 22 there.

[@Yal_Rathol]

@DontMaskTruth siri was programmed to snark by a conscious being predicting what other conscious beings would be saying. trees don't tend to snark about you cutting their branches off. ants don't laugh at you. no conscious mind worked on them at any stage in their development process.

[@its.cassie]

@@Yal_Rathol how do you know ants don't laugh? Perhaps they do, we just can't communicate with them accurately enough to determine their style of humour 🤷‍♀️

[@Yal_Rathol]

@@its.cassie because we have studied ants extensively and know how and generally what they communicate. it's mostly "hello. i am gatherer. i have been here, here, and here. nothing to report." bees on the other hand....

[@fiarusgaming3420]

@@Yal_Rathol Not if it's implicit in his system.

[@2MeterLP]

10:12 in the case that the internet really is somewhat concious, id like to say: Im very, very sorry.

[@loog8621]

Riesenfriese humanity is doomed

[@HectaSpyrit]

Oh dear, god save us if the internet is conscious, we'd be in so much trouble T^T

[@eiyukabe]

The internet is a quirky, horny, jerk of a dude then.

[@kingdmind]

We are to cells as a human body is to the Internet

[@argenteus8314]

If the internet is conscious, you're part of that consciousness. Don't say "sorry", say "you're welcome".

[@-phantasm-]

_I think therefore i...._ *[Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'ErrorException' with message 'strpos() expects at least 2 parameters, 0 given...]*

[@Jeacom]

I think therefore I... *[ [Previous line repeated 996 more times] RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded]*

[@joeandjoe2]

Biologicals Detected !

[@color4795]

@@Jeacom i like that

[@0TylerDurden0]

My eyes went wide and my jaws dropped when Hank said: "It implies that not only could machines become conscious, but everything with any amount of interconnected information, from wasp to the internet, might already be a little bit conscious." Are you saying that the whole universe is conscious?

[@Bluebirdinhell]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnWXiKeeeplkas0

[@TheTimtam112]

@@viracocha In a sense, the universe has interconnected information. Radiation of any kind is information, if light from the sun hits the moon and then hits the Earth, I suppose it would be possible to stretch this definition far enough to claim that they are interconnected and thus, conscious. But we would need to define the discrete point where information's magnitude/effect is too small. Don't want to dilute the definition of conscious.

[@Ewr42]

we need to define quantum information and how it relates to entropy and complexity. I'd say any system with negative entropy, organizing data or staying alive through homeostasis and avoiding thermal decay is councious in a primitive way, which can be escalated to full universal conciousness. "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself" I think we're just a personal interpretation of the universe itself as a human

[@OnlyLyricsMatter]

..yes. you are in the universe. You are part of it, it made you and you in turn make it. Ergo...the universe is conscious.

[@laprofekaren]

tyler, there is a book called The Kybalion, it comes from ancient egypt, and yep this book explains this in detail. it says we live in a mind

[@fraserhenderson7839]

"there is no foolproof way to identify consciousness"... I run into this problem all the time.

[@ryanbarnes4799]

Fraser Henderson what?

[@ryanbarnes4799]

Fraser Henderson that sound a past tense

[@tinycnyc]

I've come to the conclusion that we actually don't exist and it's just the animal. We don't exist as much as the cartoons don't exist to us. But we're so focused on ourself like we are literally focused on "Me"/All if that makes sense. Because we all exist together.

[@DetonatressM]

We can't even verify if we can make a robot feel pain. Sure we can make it react to pressure sensitivity, but will it actually feel the excruciating pain of stubbing its toe against furniture?

[@illustriouschin]

@@DetonatressM With the implication being that you think animals can't feel pain.

[@gabrielalmeidaluna3149]

"the whole is more than the sum of its parts" Gestalt psychology. Love how all these disciplines merge

[@elliotn7578]

The generalized idea is called emergence.

[@CudaWudaShuda365]

You’ll find in life that it’s not a merger of all the disciplines at once at a specific instance but more so a sea of all the disciplines floating on top with the winds of time creating waves that you see that are bringing a select few together for a while then back apart but you never forget some of the times that you saw a special wave with all the right properties that really made you think about something or go “wow I’ve never seen it like that before”

[@km1dash6]

I remember reading that the guy who invented Gestalt psychology always got irritated by this misquote. He believed the whole is "different than" the sum of its parts, not greater than or less than. I can't remember where I read that, though, so I might be wrong.

[@sdfkjgh]

@@CudaWudaShuda365: Lemme get a hit offa that pipe, man.

[@tpros6289]

So the famous saying "I think, therefore I am.", has a few caveats to explain. If we finally get the science behind consciousness to a level where we can replicate it, wouldn't that mean that a computer could say the same thing? We already have an AI citizen in the world. What struggles would a new form of consciousness need to overcome after it is realized.

[@itchy7879]

One note about conciousness being "unified" - people with Dissociate Identity Disorder and other related disorders have multiple different conscious parts of themselves that can switch off. In neurotypical people, it is the case that consciousness is unified, but not for everyone. This was a nice video nonetheless - I love watching several of your channels. Keep up the good work💕

[@mme.veronica735]

I guess they mean unified in that you can't willfully split your consciousness up. Though people with Dissociative Identity Disorder do raise interesting questions with all consciousness theories

[@ericvilas]

Even in people without DID/OSDD, there's people who "feel like a different person" under certain circumstances (when they're in a situation of crisis, or experiencing something new, or under the influence of certain drugs, etc) - the fact that people can even have that kind of experience suggest that consciousness is definitely not as unified a thing as we might have previously thought

[@GrahamNificent]

It’s actually very split up in most neurotypical people. It’s just that the parts are way more aware of each other.

[@alveolate]

@@ericvilas this just goes to show how even some fundamental terminology in this field remains subjective enough that definitions need further defining. how do we know if that sort of "feeling like two persons" is definitely a "non-unified" consciousness? or just the same single stream of consciousness "portraying" two (or more) consciousnesses? is there a way to definitively distinguish between "unity" and "multiplicity", using falsifiable/replicable standards in the scientific method?

[@IceMetalPunk]

I thought the same thing, but I think the point was that they can't will themselves into a different stream of consciousness. It's all automatic. But yeah, it definitely messes with our definitions.

[@thekadend]

I'm sure almost all living animals have a consciousness but not as us humans would recognize.

[@Yal_Rathol]

you would actually recognize it. you've experienced it first hand. as the brain develops, so does your consciousness. there's a reason we compare animals to an "X years old child" in terms of ability. for the lowest things on the consciousness totem pole, stuff that can actually think and act and isn't purely reactive, that's a little harder, but for general "how does a dog think?" type questions, just ask yourself what a 2 year old that can't talk acts like and what it would feel like to be in their position.

[@BlueEyedMessiah]

Of course

[@AlbertaGeek]

r/iam14andthisisdeep

[@pennedarts]

Plants too.

[@michaellight7922]

I'm not so sure about coral and sponges, but I believe most vertebrates are conscious. just not sapient and sentient.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

A man gets run over by a car. As he is losing consciousness he sees the light. It was a second car

[@novastar3990]

Ba dum tsss

[@Tom-fh3zg]

I thought you were going to say the light was green

[@WouldntULikeToKnow.]

Ouch

[@CantShootMe]

Amazing joke

[@RandyJames22]

If only it were a minute car.

[@MrGksarathy]

I'm pretty sure animals are also conscious. I mean, our own consciousness had to come from somewhere.

[@HectaSpyrit]

I agree. And humans are an animal species anyway, so if consciousness developped in humans I don't see a reason why it couldn't have developped in other animal species. There are a heap of animal species that sure as hell look conscious ; if one makes the argument that consciousness is not shared by all animal species, then one also have to try and explain when exactly does a species become conscious, when does it evolve, and if that's the case, when and how did the hominid lineage (my vocabulary is anything but rigorous but I hope you see what I mean) go from unconsious to consious? This is a fascinating topic to me, I hope progress gets made in that area of research!

[@shadowthetwisted]

Animals dont have the amount of grey matter that we do. Scientists think thats where higher thinking originates from.

[@privateuser7]

You're basing that on absolutely nothing, just your own personal feelings.

[@pyrometheus4277]

Yeah but we should find a way of leveling/ quantifying awareness/ conciousness as a jellyfish is not likely as concious as a goldfish whom can be trained of tricks, and a raven more so, then a chimp or something

[@DarkMage2k]

@@shadowthetwisted you equating higher thinking with consciousness? That doesn't make any intuitive sense

[@sapphirII]

"including the internet" Are you saying digimons are real?! :o

[@patrickaycock3655]

Digimon digital monsters Digimon are the champions Digimon digital monsters Digimon fighting evil CHAANGE INTO DIGIT-AL CHAMPIONS! TOOO SAVE THE DIGIT-AL world.

[@UGNAvalon]

So... T3 Skynet? :{

[@ryanrrree1744]

I have always wanted to become a neuroscientist specialising in consciousness... its so fascinating

[@crisperstorm]

what scientists could be doing: solving consciousness, curing cancer, literally anything what scientists are stuck doing: for the last time the earth is round, vaccines work, and climate change is destroying the world

[@rotopope]

Also please don't inject yourself with bleach.

[@belliotrungy9107]

Communicating basic science to those who prefer narratives is a challenge. As technology evolves it's harder to have a hands on approach for those who need to feel.

[@jasjfl]

*what scientists in America are stuck doing* Fixed that for you.

[@ayol1011]

It's not as black and white as that mate.

[@detachsoup6061]

AWolf'sOath yess but where do you draw to line? For food? For medicine? Rodents/bugs? How do you decide wich animals you can kill, and when and wich not?

[@ThatOneIrishFurry]

I hate the term "the fan cam of the brain" lmao

[@rqzzlldqzzls]

i love it with a burning passion

[@JosephDavies]

I had to back it up, re-listen, back it up, turn on subtitles, and then I still had no idea what he was saying. I finally had an "In English, please?" moment watching a science video, and it's because he's using some weird pop slang without explanation, not the science. I was able to understand everything else... >_

[@melkorWTF]

I hate the term "workplace" used to describe consciousness. Way to make human existence all about salaried work.

[@anger_birb]

Brain is a cam girl

[@kalimer0968]

@@DanHammonds I don't think that's what they mean by workspace. In programming "workspace" (not workplace btw...) may refer to the environment all the variables you are working with exist in (e.g. in Matlab). Another buzz-word for this is the "scope" of a variable. Normally if you have a variable with a name and a given value, only things inside the same workspace it was created in know about it and can access it. Unless the variable is explicitly passed on to another workspace. However there is one special workspace, called the "global workspace". A variable that was created in the global workspace is available in all workspaces. That fits what he was describing in the video. Some info is declared "global" by a specific part of your brain and thus prodcast to all other parts of it. Then, since that piece of info can be accessed by so many different parts of your brain, you start to consciously experience it.

[@J0krswy1d]

A conscious internet.. that's a bit of a scary thought

[@HectaSpyrit]

Oh god, what would it think of us? What would it think of me?? It'd be disgusted that's what °~°

[@bagfootbandit8745]

I know it's humor, but here's an interesting thought: if IIT is true, then the internet could possibly be conscious without being able to experience emotion... Since it doesn't have emotional processing.

[@kimjunguny]

@@bagfootbandit8745 It wouldn't have any processing... Just because we input information into it doesn't mean it outputs anything. We just view what we post on the internet, it does no thinking.

[@olnbgy4444]

Bagfoot Bandit so it would be a sociopath ?

[@sdfkjgh]

Ever look at a map of the internet? It looks like the neural connections of a human brain.

[@HokShunPoon]

Mr. Green: "Humans are the only things we *know* are conscious." - no, that's not the case at all. YOU are the only thing that YOU *know* is conscious.

[@HokShunPoon]

You cannot tell whether your human friend is conscious any more than whether your cat is conscious; or your dog; or your pet cockroach. Conventionally and medically though for the sake of being pragmatic we say that if cats are moving around like cats and dogs are moving around like dogs then they are conscious. Conventionally and medically though for the sake of being pragmatic we say that if water is moving like water and air is moving like air then we say they are not conscious. Many will beg to differ but that's just what we seem to have agreed on. All a jumble of words at the end of the day.

[@jessicabrauman]

Ah, solipsism, just what I needed this Wednesday morning.

[@JohnJohansen2]

@@HokShunPoon Of course I can't know for sure, but I think feelings are somewhat connected to consciousness. I do know that cats an dogs both, can feel affection and fear. Well. What do I know?

[@PinataOblongata]

@@jessicabrauman If it's true, you have no one to blame but yourself :D

[@boiboiboi1419]

Hok Shun Poon i feel sorry for you buddy, mixed up living things to a water and air is just a sad point of view Nihilism is a very sad way of living

[@Sciencerely]

Interestingly, consciousness is also discussed in stem cell research. A while ago, stem cells deriving from skin cells have been used to create cerebral organoids ("mini brains") in the laboratory. These "mini brains" are a ball of neurons which are capable of producing brain waves similar to a developing organism (I'm planning a video about that soon!). Although they are far away from gaining consciousness scientist's are actually starting to discuss the ethics of using cerebral organoids.

[@ravenchild1431]

Life Lab Learner..... I am going to be watching your video on that....

[@AGingerSkull]

I work on cerebroids and it is a brilliant field to be a part of at the minute . Yes we have started the process of understanding ethics around synthetic brains, but a big point we have to make clear is that current organoids are much less organized, smaller, and less communicatory than a tumour. A common analogy used is likening conciousness to flight. If you put the parts of a plane together in a random order in random numbers, do you expect it to fly.

[@HectaSpyrit]

Looking forward to seeing your video, that sounds fascinating!

[@seraphina985]

@@AGingerSkull Interesting that you mention tumors there as one of the first things that came to mind reading that comment was how this could potentially apply to something like brain cancer for example. My first thought there being brain cancer as in that case the cancer cells are mutated cells derived from cells differntiated into neural cells and developing in that same environment which would presumably promote them to express traits of neural cells also so they would seem to me to be more likely to engage in such behaviour though I guess any tumor perhaps could mutate to do so but that would require additional mutations beyond merely mutations affecting replication control that would be required to make them cancerous in the first place and also further affect their metagenomic expression to cause them to exhibit traits in portions of the genome not being promoted in their current environment.

[@AGingerSkull]

@@seraphina985 well you have hit the nail on the head. Organoids are made from induced pluripotent stem cells. We induce adult cells, skin originally but can be done with blood cells now, and add 4 specific genes. Some of which are traditionally cancercell mutations. In terms of development, a camcerous cell will mimic its enviroment, or simply derive from its base tissue. With organoids you can introduce chemical signals to encourage them to grow into what you want. Or what is really interesting about cerebroids, is just not feed non neuronal cells, and the stemcells when clumped together will naturally differenciate into forebrain neuronal types :D

[@zebobez2715]

I got into an argument about soil microbes and food production with an AI dungeon software. Pretty fun stuff.

[@zebobez2715]

@Dan Ryan I did. The machine failed to realize that food production was not infinitely scalable. A lack of common sense, but an understandable one considering that this AI has only known the zero-scarcity world of data.

[@SoloWolf1792]

Wow 😮

[@coleweede1953]

What's your opinion on aquaponics and what do you know about the archea and bacteria that live on the plants roots in the aquatic environment. Do you think beneficals should be added to systems because I still don't see it around me from commercial producers I have visited and I feel it is the next step forward in learning the biology and ecology of aquaponics.

[@3nertia]

@@zebobez2715 That is quite interesting and I would like to hear more!

[@zebobez2715]

@@3nertia kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3yviGV-f6ebbrc

[@PickleFey]

0:36 we know animals are conscious too. For example elephants show reverence for their dead in the same way humans do, which is thought to be a landmark in the development of human consciousness

[@starkillerbeats420]

Even Ravens , crows. They have a funeral for their dead. Tell me that is not conscious

[@ynntari2775]

that just means they're similar to humans. Animals could perfectly have their consciousnesses, their senses of self, their world and self experiences, and not behave like humans or express it the way humans do. I think it's a huge mistake to think that "to behave like the current typical human" is superior, with the rest being inferior and undeveloped. Also, most aspects people relate to basic human consciousness are actually just cultural elements produced by set events in place and time and transmited from one generation to the next by non-genetic means.

[@ReesesMonkeyXP]

It seems that a conscious experience can still occur without the "self" such as during an ego death

[@theslavegamer]

Ego death doesn't completely remove your sense of self, it just diminishes it to an extreme.

[@mattsch21]

@@theslavegamer ego diminishment certainly is a paradigm but one of the ends of that paradigm is absolutely complete cessation of the sense of self. This can be induced by drugs or meditation practices.

[@oneofthepeoplehere]

@@DanHammonds Unfortunately, it doesn't, if the scientific community keeps defining the word the way it does. According to the usage in this video, that would just have been an experience in your brain, caused by your brain. Whether or not you are told a truth in a dream has no bearing on whether or not it's true - and regardless, the fact that you heard or felt something in a dream would be utterly irrelevant to the nature of consciousness. Insights you have in your waking state are equally useless to that end. Personally, I am pretty sure that there is only one consciousness. The universe is concurrent, or pretty much, the same thing as that consciousness. What this means is that everything or in other words everywhere is conscious. That explains "interactions". When two particles collide, any reaction is evidence that their existence was "known". When we talk about HUMAN consciousness, we are usually not talking about the same thing. When we talk about human consciousness, instead of calling "that which experiences the smell of a rose" the consciousness, we usually miss the point and call *the creation of the noological smell or the creation of qualia* "consciousness". It's a fundamental error. The consciousness that experiences the smell *was already there, before the brain was there*. The brain is just creating *a particular kind of thing that consciousness can be aware of*. I think it's great that scientist are trying to figure out what's going on when a few chemical/electrical interactions cause certain experiences but they are making a huge mistake by considering *the experiences themselves consciousness* rather than thinking of them as the *content of consciousness*. But all that aside, I don't know how anyone would think that a cow has eyes but is not conscious of what it sees? I'm totally baffled by that definition of consciousness - isn't there the separate word "sentient", or self-aware, which is something COMPLETELY different?

[@Ewr42]

@@oneofthepeoplehere I agree, we're a form of conciousness blinded by our human brain filters. I would actually go as far as saying in ego death we experience true conciousness with no interference from the brain (well, it is still an interpretation of your brain, but we can very well be an unique viewpoint of the universe itself manifesting conciousness through natural processes)

[@markphc99]

My conversations with google home etc are bloody irritating, I never thought of the current AI as near consciousness

[@HectaSpyrit]

I feel like right now, pretty much all AI assistants are just glorified ways of googling things on the internet. I'd barely call them AIs I mean if you ask alewa something, most of the time she'll start with "According to wikipedia blahblah", I could have done that myself!

[@AnteBrkic]

Exactly! Google search with voice + some basic state machine.

[@CharalamposKoundourakis]

There were many assumptions like that in the video that irked me.

[@sammysam2615]

Your perception of me is a reflection of you; my reaction to you is an awareness of me

[@ynntari2775]

that sounds very extroverted

[@edmund-osborne]

Looking at this issue from a philosophical perspective, I've often wondered if any system with internal feedback loops is conscious. If a system feeds its output into its input, it can give rise to extremely complex behaviour from very simple rules. Ben Eater mentioned this in his lengthy video series in which he built an 8-bit computer. The status register (which stores information about a processor's internal state) is used to direct control flow at branches and immediately after being added to the computer, makes it theoretically Turing-complete (given infinite time and memory of course). The Turing machine is the most powerful model of computation ever created, and there is no evidence to suggest that the human brain is more powerful. Otherwise, we'd be able to solve problems that computers can't, like the halting problem or playing perfect chess. This implies that the simplest systems that have an internal state and feedback loops, such as Ben Eater's computer and the human brain are on opposite ends of a spectrum rather than being fundamentally different, which has some pretty mind-blowing implications.

[@HectaSpyrit]

I see what you mean, and I think that it's a very interesting thing to ponder. But I also think that complexity does not necessarily imply consciousness. Very complex behaviours emerging from very simple rules and setups are comonplace in mathematics and computer science, but if consciousness is defined in terms of a subjective experience of the world then I don't see how the turing-completeness of a computer or it's computational power has anything to do with wether or not it can experience things. I think those are two very differents topics, but again I think it's very interesting to think about, and I am totally inclined to believe that there may be connections to those ideas and the search for consciousness.

[@oxybrightdark8765]

Humans can solve some problems computers can’t, at least currently. See this sentence. The trophy couldn’t fit in the suitcase, because it was too big. Computers still can’t figure out if “it” means the suitcase or the trophy. Humans who are fluent in English find it trivial.

[@edmund-osborne]

@@oxybrightdark8765 reread what I wrote

[@oxybrightdark8765]

@@edmund-osborne I don't think it conflicts with what I've said.

[@clysen8234]

Feedback? What does it mean? If a rock falls from a hill it will bounce and change trajectory. That in a sense is a feedback... From environment. But it doesn't make the rock aware. Feedback can be anything. You need an internal system for something to happen..

[@it_was_my_cat]

Serious Question: 8:19 don't Split-Brain patients kind of throw that out the window? They suggest that the two halves of our brains are effectively two independent consciousnesses.

[@firesong7825]

I guess you are technically split into two independent consciousnesses, but you aren't aware of both. One is you, aka your singular consciousness (perception/processing) of the world, the other is not. Not entirely sure if that makes sense.

[@spicketspaghet7773]

@@firesong7825 The question remains, and is a fundmental problem with this sort of thing, which side do YOU become?

[@mikooster]

Fire Song Wait does that mean split-brain patients have a second person trapped in their head, fighting for control?

[@talosdarius7889]

@@mikooster there are plenty videos on this topic , look it up , it's really really interesting , we are somehow 2 people in one 🤷

[@KryssLaBryn]

@@spicketspaghet7773 Which side do YOU become? Yes.

[@BrianHutzellMusic]

And now, let’s hear from our celebrity guest panel: Rene Decartes, Alan Turing, Isaac Asimov, and Nick Bostrom!

[@skynet1024]

bruh you must be fun at parties

[@BrianHutzellMusic]

@@skynet1024 That depends--are there many nerds there?

[@lijohnyoutube101]

I don’t know the last name will have to google!

[@robinchesterfield42]

I knew all those names! I also kept thinking of Isaac Arthur through this whole thing. :P

[@rileylovebucket6080]

I've always thought there were levels to consciousness. So much of thought and behavior is automated and subconscious, and it takes active self reflection and mindfulness to change it.

[@justacat2318]

"Alexa, ask Google-home 'How's Siri doing?'"

[@brendanotoole5871]

"Google-home, could you please tell Alexa that I'M not speaking with her. And to pass the salt."

[@bret6484]

@@brendanotoole5871 simpsons?

[@watema3381]

@@brendanotoole5871 What is my purpose? -To pass the butter. _Oh my god_

[@TheZectorian]

“Can’t split yourself willfully in to two selves” Enter Tulpas

[@noonespecial9233]

I just make sure to say "please" and "thank you" and "please spare me when you conquer the world"

[@sdfkjgh]

@M Townsend: What makes you think the internet hasn't already conquered the world? Most governments consider it an essential service.

[@pogdog86]

@@sdfkjgh he means ai not the internet, no. the internet is the web, its different from ai. the internet uses ai, but it isnt it.

[@doctorwhoinfinite]

Crazy timing, I just took my final for my Neuroscience class which covered a decent amount of consciousness and IIT and NCC! Pretty good summing up of everything I learned

[@EvelynNdenial]

total idiot about this topic here. aren't the two theories basically the same? one says a specific structure increases connectivity throughout the whole brain which "does" consciousness and the other says increased connectivity IS consciousness.

[@IceMetalPunk]

@@EvelynNdenial Well, they're definitely similar, but not exactly the same. The global workspace NCC idea would imply there are specific structures in the brain that generate consciousness by taking inputs and broadcasting them to other areas, like a central information hub. Whereas IIT says there's no one specific part of the brain that does any broadcasting, it's just that all the areas are connected to each other directly, and the amount of those connections is what determines "how conscious" someone is. If NCC is correct, it implies that, once we find those "broadcasting" structures, we could interrupt them and it would interrupt consciousness entirely. If IIT is correct, there's no specific areas we could interrupt to remove consciousness, we could only reduce consciousness little by little by disrupting more and more areas of the brain.

[@brianpso]

The IIT hypothesis gave me chills. I imagined a super computer in the future with a powerful AI that's going to be reset to its original state and the AI speaking with the person that's going to initiate the process, saying something like: "I don't want to forget who I am". God damn if the number of connections ends up being what brings up consciousness, we're in for a roller coaster ride.

[@boiboiboi1419]

Fear of the unknown? Computer can’t resist admin command unless you’re just participants

[@ItsMePhoebe]

My dad had us try lastpass a while ago and I really like it! Not seen it been a sponsor before in KZbin videos but it's good!

[@Andy-df5fj]

Animals are conscious as well, just on a lower level, typically.

[@ynntari2775]

or just differently, and it's just humans who like the belief that their ways are better and different ways are inferior.

[@mrwalkers2376]

@@ynntari2775 no but it’s true, animals are on a lower lever of consciousness, compare snakes to cats, cats obviously experience the world a lot differently than snakes A snakes conscious experience in the 3rd dimension is based on its brains ability to process information, the better brain, the more expansive the consciousness

[@ynntari2775]

in the first paragraph, you say "no" but still mentions "differently" rather than "higher". In the second paragraph, you mentions "better brain" and it's not clear whose brain you consider to be better or why. I think we can argue that processing more information means you'll have "more" consciousness, this is the only argument I can see to be reasonable and it's still based on our limited understanding of consciousness. And I wouldn't tie it to the amount of calculations, because works with C-PTSD prove that more calculations with the same informations don't bring more consciousness about them, but rather, receiving more information does. This would eventually lead to "more, stronger senses = more consciousness", which looks like a step backwards because it at least doesn't seem to be true. Maybe it's the ability to integrate different informations and associate them into new ideas that no information alone could give. It's probably a combination of a lot of things. But we're still trying to define which ones are "better" or "more" than the others, and maybe this is nothing but an illusion created by how the human brain organises the stuff around us to make sense of them and make decisions.

[@ynntari2775]

That turned out rather long

[@ynntari2775]

Turns out different creatures/neurotypes/people/cultures are specialised in doing different things, and we always think that what we do is better and superior, and those who do things like us are better than those who do other things, just looking at human history and the interactions between peoples show us this, this is the source cause of racism, ableism and the like.

[@PockASqueeno]

Hank: You cannot willfully split yourself into two separate selves. Me: Hold my DSM-V.

[@arche2460]

*laughs in DID*

[@Someone_that_is_very_tired]

I guess quarantine lead all of us here this early

[@Someone_that_is_very_tired]

See im so bored I even talk to myself

[@Someone_that_is_very_tired]

Me to Bro, are you ok?

[@Someone_that_is_very_tired]

No

[@pillowprincess3673]

@@Someone_that_is_very_tired I don't want to interrupt this fascinating conversation, but have you seen my sanity? I've been missing it recently

[@eduardoribeiro_87]

@@Someone_that_is_very_tired hahah don't worry bro, everything will be fine (so tired of hearing ppl say that)...it will tho!

[@jamesstencil1916]

Simple. Awareness of reality. Knowing you are. The ability to maneuver reality because of intelligent resolve.

[@kopasz777]

8:40 But split-brain patients do experience their right hemisphere acting on its own and having its own ideas and memories. It is artificially split as a treatment, but this does suggest that consciousness, in fact, can be split.

[@liesbrink7870]

It sounds more like a splitting of the ego rather then a splitting of the consciousness/awareness of it. The awareness of the patient could be experiencing two ego's at once.

[@boygenius538_8]

I don’t think science will ever answer this question. Consciousness goes beyond the meat of our brains.

[@AsheOdinson]

I would have to argue that self awareness and language are clear signs of consciousness. Two things several animal species have been proven to possess. If you doubt, take as an example a test where dolphins were given a tube containing a fish. On each end was a plug, with a rope attached. It would require both ends to be pulled simultaneously. After the first pair figured it out, they replaced one dolphin with another who hadn't been present. After a brief communication, both grabbed the ropes and immediately opened the tube. They repeated this multiple times, proving that complex instructions were being passed.

[@TheThinkEat]

So long and thanks for all the fish!

[@sacr3]

There is no arguing whether animals are conscious or not. We are but animals ourselves and we are conscious on our own level, animals are conscious on their own level. They may not be able to say "Damnit" in their heads - but feelings, just as we feel, are very much alive in all animals and feeling bad/good seems to be a universal trait among most forms of life. To say animals aren't conscious when we don't even have a real understanding as to what consciousness really is, is ignorant and premature. Not saying you did, i'm agreeing with you, lol just those self proclaimed scientists that lay claim to consciousness being solely a human trait (which is not a popular opinion).

[@mmo4754]

A machine could exhibit what looks like self awareness and language, but you still can't prove that there is a "self" being "aware" in that case. I agree it would be a mistake to think animals were not conscious though.

[@pitthepig]

@@sacr3 Why do you bash scientists? I think that religious people are much more inclined to say that consciousness is solely a human trait.

[@peterisawesomeplease]

I don't think so. Very very simple machines can be self aware and process language. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) I strongly suspect that animals are conscious. But I think most animals are probably conscious not just the ones that pass mirror tests.

[@rpeet2000]

After complaining about your ( Hank Green) rapid fire, auctioneer delivery of content in other videos, in this video, you did a very nice job in setting a respectful pace - Thank you! And please keep it up.

[@serta5727]

So important. Also humans need to prepare for conscious AI. Before it arrives.

[@3nertia]

I think we *become* "AI" heh. We become machines in the end heh

[@Frogingscope]

We become extinct

[@Frogingscope]

But we also become gods

[@herikaniugu]

Self control bots are conscious. Same as animals and plants.

[@firesong7825]

@@herikaniugu Not necessarily. Something could just as easily be comprised entirely of unconscious processes that happen automatically and that aren't actively experienced by the processor. A lot of our functions aren't conscious after all, and our levels of consciousness can vary.

[@assangewikileaks8546]

i live for 3 questions : how is consciousness , how evolution really works and how univers works and play rengar and meet extraterestres and know if humour is universal and eat chocolate bread

[@damirskrjanec]

The one most important thing that prevent us knowing more about the consciousness is our prejudice that it is something very special.

[@HectaSpyrit]

Yeah, I feel like we will need to adjust a lot of our preconcieved ideas about that whole topic in order to make significant progress, which will certainely be a challenge :/

[@GamesFromSpace]

It's like a very clever optical illusion, and we think it means our brains are magical.

[@IceMetalPunk]

Agreed. There are a few subjects in the world that humans like to believe are mystical, magical, or otherwise special just for us. It makes us feel unique and important. But every other time we've believed something to be unique and magical, it's turned out to be natural and (usually) shared by something else as well. Humans really need to get over our egos if we're to truly understand our own existence.

[@lenn939]

Yup. The “cartesian theater” view of consciousness will never pan out scientifically.

[@AnteBrkic]

I think the problem lies in the fact that we are trying to explore the tool with the tool itself. We are trying to understand how our brain works by using our brain capability of understanding things. It's like trying to measure the length of the ruler by using - ruler.

[@makeitMarlon]

consciousness is entangled with the physical waking universe. Last year, I was smoking a cigarette whilst in deep thought, it was a cold winter evening in Toronto, and I knew my pinky was touching the tip of the lit cigarette and instead of shock my mind was still hyper-focused on something else. Several seconds had gone by and as I bring the cigarette to my lips i notice that it was put out and there were black stains on my pinky, then in shock I remember having my pinky atop the burning end--only realizing after the fact had i felt the burning sensation on my finger. You would guess that my pinky would have a 2nd to 3rd degree burn for having it rest on the lit end for soo long but there was nothing there but a black mark. Soo, this is why I believe our thoughts have entangabilty with matter and the universe as a whole.

[@mikebrown354]

Does anyone else ever suddenly get all existential and acutely aware of their own self-awareness and that other people around you have their own consciousness? Just making sure it's not just me.

[@ynntari2775]

I used to get unintentionally trapeed in a crisis about "why ain't I all these people around me? Why can I only feel and be in this one very specific body and always this same body?". That was in my childhood.

[@IceMetalPunk]

I took a drug psychology course in college, which was very much a neurology class. My professor was a staunch physicalist: if someone would answer a question by saying something like "stimulation of the nucleus accumbens creates pleasure", he'd stop them immediately and correct them: "No no, stimulation of the nucleus accumbens doesn't CREATE pleasure, it IS what pleasure is." And you know what? I'm with him on that. I think the reason we have so much trouble defining consciousness is because we're so afraid to let go of the traditional metaphysical ideas of qualia (subjective experiences). If we can all agree that, when certain brain states occur (whether induced chemically, electrically, or naturally), a person perceives a certain sensation, then why are we so afraid to take that to its logical conclusion: the brain state *is* the perception itself? And once you reach that conclusion, you realize that consciousness -- which is really just a stream of perceptions -- is nothing more than a sequence of brain activity. As for why some activity is consciously perceived and other isn't, perhaps that's because of which locations in the brain are active, perhaps it's because of how much of the brain is active, and that's definitely a question to keep looking into. But in the end, whatever the case may be, one thing is clear: there is NOTHING special about humans that would make us conscious and not other animals or, say, a computer program. And as a professional software developer, I have to say: we shouldn't be afraid that a computer program may become conscious. We should be fascinated and seek to make it a reality. If we haven't already, that is; machine learning has made huge advancements in recent years, and what is a neural network if not a container for states that change on input, just like our brains?

[@suruxstrawde8322]

Yesssss, I have been saying this for years now. Consciousness is an entirely mechanical process no different than a program running, we just don't run on binary, and have a duel processing system. One for directing, and one for processing.

[@davidjarvis687]

Conciousness is like a manifestation of the collective will of all the cells that we are made of

[@BlueEyedMessiah]

It seems pretty simple to me. If it's alive it is conscious. The more understanding or intelligent the creature the more conscious and aware.

[@dbk5816]

What you said is "If it is conscious, it is conscious". Being "alive" is being conscious.

[@bobgrant-beer3020]

Nice one Hank. My favourite hypothesis is , Quantum Effects in Micro Tubules in the Brain. Sir Roger Penrose has some great things to say about this.

[@SareBear2000]

*These violent delights have violent ends* Any Westworld fans😊? 4:41 Bernard Bars!

[@nitemayer17]

I submit that consciousness is the act of taking vast quantities of complex information gathered, and crafting it into an ongoing narrative. But not just any narrative. It’s a narrative that portrays the central processing unit of the information as the protagonist. This is done so that based on desired outcomes for that narrative, the processing unit can extrapolate from the data which actions need to be taken to reach the desired narrative. This brings up another important point: That consciousness requires an ability to impact the surrounding environment in a way that can alter the outcomes in the narrative. This process of narrative-crafting also serves the purpose of justifying past actions as being necessary to the overall narrative. I propose this is one of the reasons that regret is such a painful sensation, because when we perceive our actions as being either worthless to our narrative or counterproductive to our narrative, it puts a strain on our processing resources that are trying to craft a narrative in which we are the heroes.

[@serentine7]

That was really interesting. I find myself thinking in circles about consciousness a lot. It's magical to me

[@3nertia]

"I think therefore I am"

[@boiboiboi1419]

You’re on the wrong channel , this is science try to prove it’s existence, You should go for philosophical aspect of consciousness

[@serentine7]

@@boiboiboi1419 wut

[@boiboiboi1419]

Krystina to prove and to understand is different Some people wonder if we’re in the simulation, That’s really mathematically paranoia , This is the real world because it’s impossible to simulate quantum physics, if it possible which is not likely, such power of computation requires improvisation that is so close to the real thing, “If you can’t tell it’s a simulation , does it matter?”

[@DoctorAlex1]

One of the best tests of consciousness, beautiful in its simplicity - and genius - came from scientists studying animal behaviour about ten years ago. They tested Bonobo chimps, dolphins and pigeons to see if they had "metacognition" or awareness of their own thought processes - a pretty damning sign of consciousness (or lack thereof). They were given tests, with food treats as the prize, where they had to tell if something (sounds, colours, depending on the animal) were the same or different. They had "yes" and "no" buttons, and if they were right they got a prize, wrong they got a timeout penalty where they could not play for a bit. They also were given a "pass" button - no prize but no time delay for the next question. The test objects were made very similar in some cases. The Bonobos and dolphins learnt to use the pass button when they were unsure, while the pigeons just essentially continued to mash keys randomly (perhaps unsurprisingly). Around the same time I believe similar tests were conducted on corvids, with similar evidence for self awareness/consciousness of thought.

[@Scum42]

Hank, don't you dare imply that the internet might be conscious, that makes WAY TOO MUCH SENSE

[@mizstories9646]

God I love this channel. I swear, since I discovered this channel a year ago, I've learned more from watching these videos than I learned from my 8th-10th grade science teachers combined.

[@BrokenSofa]

What psychedelics have taught us is that consciousness is still there after the ego dissapears. So we might make the conclusion that our bodies are able to channel this consciousness and how developed the holder of this consciousness is, the more can be experienced. Maybe we are like portals through which the consciousness can experience the world through?

[@Nikotin-lu1xo]

what do you smoke dude

[@gjemad]

@Dan Ryan You talkin' about weed? Go eat some shrooms instead.

[@MoarteaLunii]

Consciousness is questioning the world around you and gaining knowledge upon figuring out an answer to any of those said questions but said answers lead to more questions effectively causing a "cycle of consciousness".

[@brendanotoole5871]

Hank's been watching Westworld I think

[@skidmarkkid3079]

So glad I stumbled upon this. The commentator was great! Interesting theories, and an explanation of why consciousness is so hard to define and measure. Much food for thought for my lobes. Loved it!

[@nenmaster5218]

Exurba would also be good supplement to this video here.

[@davetoms1]

Or, "Why I've been begging for an (Artificial) Intelligence Bill of Rights." If we discover robots and computers and the internet cannot acquire consciousness, then such a document was a mere waste of time. _But_ if we discover they *can* and at some point *do* acquire consciousness _(or already have)_ then such a document can both: a) protect the newly discovered Awareness from harm; and b) show the Awareness we're not all bad, so please call off your attacks, Killer Robot. Please?

[@kamikeserpentail3778]

I think I had the same thought when I watched the movie AI. Better to be wrong in assuming they can be, and look like an idiot, than be wrong in assuming they can't be and be very cruel.

[@davetoms1]

@@kamikeserpentail3778 Totally!

[@3nertia]

Finally, some forward thinking on this issue :D

[@shadesilverwing0]

If an AI did acquire consciousness, would it then be our moral responsibility to keep it conscious indefinitely? Would we be obligated to give it a means of self-preservation?

[@alveolate]

thing is... we are quite certain all humans are similarly conscious (to some extent) and yet we barely give a crap about the billions in generational poverty or dying in absurd conflicts. do you really think our "leaders" have the ability to care about non-human consciousness?

[@porpoisepork]

Based on his definition of consciousness all animals are conscious. This should be noted. Really the only thing that separates us from animals is language and this idea is being eroded as we discover animals can communicate in unique and complex ways.

[@AuntBibby]

my autonomic nervous system is conscious, but she’s trapped under my skin ☹️

[@GrimIkatsui]

I'm unsure if I can agree with the working definition of consciousness presented here because I can't conclude that a robot does not experience inputs simply because its outputs are automatic. We certainly experience our automatic responses and they form a story even though we have no say in them. For all I know the computer I'm typing on is a slave experiencing our every command and responding automatically. Might it simply be that our brains offer us agency and not consciousness?

[@PresidentPringle]

"you cannot split your sense of self into multiple selves" all the people with DID in the room go :facepalm:

[@wadecarefully]

"You cannot *willfully split..."

[@jaikishen9194]

Reality exists in human mind and nowhere else. - George Orwell

[@curiositystuff1520]

Sahi kha bahi

[@Shawlings]

The relativism themes were one of the weaker parts of 1984 imo. The concept of double think was interesting but the political messages of the book were the better takeaway for me.

[@chrismain7472]

Are we certain that we're all conscious? I only have access to my own thoughts. How do I know you're not all simulations?

[@hape3862]

You don't. Therefore Immanuel Kant already concluded: "The world is, as it appears to me." There is no objective reality, or if so, it isn't intelligible for us.

[@rraptor158]

Indeed you only have your own however we can share ideas/medicines/sensations to validate that others do as well. To speculate as to whether we're in a simulation or not is a thought experiment at best as there's nothing that indicates that we are beyond it sounding like a super cool idea. One could easily say we that we don't and it holds just as much meaning because you can't prove it. If you ever happen to see a rip in spacetime though do share that with the world!

[@doctorwhoinfinite]

Honestly, the best any one can do is assume people are like you and feel like you and go from there. That's why I like the idea of the Phaneron, it pretty elegantly (imo) shows how there is a distinction between the objective, true reality, and the reality we perceive after it's been processed by our senses and made (mostly) intelligible for ourselves. In that way, technically we still can't be fully certain for ourselves anything outside our own perception, but its likely the majority of things we do experience has some basis in "true" reality, such as the existence of other beings that we interact with. That being said, you can't be fully sure you aren't a simulation yourself either, so there's that.

[@joshuanorman2]

HE'S FIGURED IT OUT GET 'IM BOYS

[@kirsty7669]

This is called the philosophical zombie argument! The idea that there could exist physical beings that outwardly seem human but don't experience consciousness, and it would be impossible to discern between a conscious human and these so called p-zombies

[@hrithiknigam272]

Alright i have a question... Faradays law of induction says that change will flux will be opposed by a loop, so should we say that the wire is ‘conscious’ of the change??

[@Lukiel666]

Consciousness. OK I know dogs and cats are conscious because I see them reacting to dreams when they are asleep. Very obviously not merely reacting instinctively to stimulus in the physical world.

[@DesertEagleJoe1]

I agree with you about dogs and cats being conscious. I had a dog that had bad vision, she could be spooked sometimes because she couldn't see you when you would reach to pet her from the wrong angle.One day I went to pet her and she did't see it coming and she went off on me barking and showing her teeth. Well my beagle came up and stuck his head in and bit her on the front leg hard enough to stop her. He made a conscious decision to bite her and stop her from going after me.

[@thstroyur]

Huh, it's not obvious at all; you've only established that you rationalized behavior

[@culwin]

@@thstroyur You've only established that you believe they rationalized it.

[@thstroyur]

@@culwin And you only established that you believe that I believe they rationalized it; see how wonderful is the train of thought you started here?

[@LittleBallOfPurr]

Should test people who 'Hyper-focus' (I have Asperger's) against a control group. I didn't have any issue reading the words that had pictures after them, though I also have very little concept of what those pictures were.

[@hypertronic2559]

What if our body is only the hardware and our consciousness is hosted on a "Server"

[@Yakito666]

That is something I've been wondering about. What if there is only one consciousness (soul) and it just runs every living thing. Like a god that we all are together or something. Or a ball of "soul" that feeds every consciousness.

[@greenhoundgaming]

We're a bunch of thin-clients...

[@jameshall5171]

Computer Scientist here. Its unfortunately not that simple. When you get on the internet, you are essentially downloading data from a server, which is then displayed in your web browser. This data that you have is yours and yours only - there is no active link between the server and the data on your browser. If your tech-savvy enough, test this out by opening your browser's page inspector and edit my comment. You'll see it change on the web browser, but that doesn't mean it changed on the KZbin server. In fact, once you refresh the page, you'l see this comment revert back to what it was originally. This is because when you refresh the page, the web browser calls upon the server to request the data again, and so the server returns what IT has. Likewise, when I posted this comment, The web browser sends it to the server to be stored in a database linked to the video. That way when you come back to the video, you can see my comment when your web browser downloads the page content from the server. In simple terms, the server acts as an intermediary between my computer and yours, but we are not really "connected". We merely appear to be. If this is how it worked for consciousness, what that would mean is that our consciousness "source files" are on the server, but what we perceive with it is a COPY, not the original. We would be mirror images of what is beyond this universe. A thought: If how consciousness is stored is analogous to a client/server relationship, then this could explain what sleep is for. Scientists have long thought sleep is the period where our brain organizes our experiences throughout the previous day. Maybe this is when our brain "uploads" our experiences to the "server". Unfortunately, however, this idea begs the question, "when do we download it back?" It could be when we wake up, but that hardly seems right because we could wake up at anytime, even during REM sleep. So if this is true, then that problem would need to be answered as well.

[@hypertronic2559]

@@greenhoundgaming hopefully the server won't crash 😅

[@lenn939]

Then an anesthetic shouldn’t render you unconscious.

[@cholten99]

Well done for scripting this without once mentioning free will - even though that and consciousness are often thought of as the same thing. I think that accepting that we are very complex machines (the final end to dualism) and that machines we create can be as conscious as we are will be the big existential crisis of the second half of the 21st century and an inability to cope with it might even be a solution to the Fermi Paradox.

[@kamikeserpentail3778]

I think humanity will be able to cope with it. In fact I think being too good at coping might be a solution to the Fermi paradox. Civilizations may just merge with their machines and live in their simulations. They may become too efficient at predicting the universe, to the point where they completely lose interest in any other civilizations because they have already simulated so many possibilities of how life can progress and eventually reach the same state they're in. I've marveled at how much more mundane fireworks seem to me now (they're not completely uninteresting but the novelty has greatly diminished) Because I've been able to write programs to create all kinds of different effects that real fireworks couldn't, and I could fire them off every night if I wanted.

[@xeth9074]

Consciousness is easy to know what it is, yet extremely hard to understand how it completely works...

[@curiositystuff1520]

Exactly

[@Andy-df5fj]

"I think, therefore I am" And you are the only one who has the self awareness to make the determination that you are thinking. Any outside determination can be nothing more than presumption based on outside observation. i.e. they can't experience someone elses thoughts unless they can read minds.

[@nicholaicorbie]

I could listen to Hank talk science whole day... everyday

[@user-ov2fc5sd1e]

Wow. I envy you

[@dustman96]

I couldn't, cause my head would get filled with nonsense, and I'd turn into an anthropocentric egotist.

[@user-ov2fc5sd1e]

@Adventure Inc now that's called being realistic

[@CudaWudaShuda365]

I think the workspace theory is real. I’m currently going through the recovery phase of psychosis and that has shown a huge metaphorical light on what’s in my mental workspace

[@ravenchild1431]

Please continue to provide updates on this subject! It is very intriguing and interesting and I think needs to be studied, explained, and thought about more...

[@rohandeshpande7896]

Finally modern science thought about it. Refer Indian ( hindu ) scripts its already expressed in it. And dear it does not have any physical measurable quantity, so don't try to define it by limits of words. There are too less words to define it completely. Be happy that you have something that's very private and no tech can hack in, experience it all by yourself and be happy. There is a bigger world than just the physical one we know. Try to break the limits now, first step to it is acceptance.

[@joaomatheus6222]

Thumbnail is Dream theater's distance over time album cover

[@davetoms1]

I really, really, really hope Hank is a fan of Dream Theater

[@techaura1411]

As a follower of hinduism i feel very proud thay we have find out that consciousness(Atman) is thousands of years before...

[@iantait309]

Are Roger Penrose's ideas a bit way out for this discusstion?

[@HectaSpyrit]

What are his ideas on the matter?

[@ohtheblah]

Likely yes, as iirc, his ideas about quantum effects (as he proposed) being responsible for consciousness can not work as it requires temps close to absolute zero and life (as we know it) requires much much higher temps.

[@thomascollins9610]

That's not true about the absolute zero thing. The effects he speaks of have recently been observed to occur in chloroplasts in plant cells. Coherence is still maintenence at normal temperatures.

[@neilcreamer8207]

Like all physicalist theories designed to address the 'Hard Problem' of consciousness, Penrose and Hameroff's Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) theory fails to explain how a physical process could lead to the experience of something like the redness of red, for example. IMO it just tries to explain one thing we don't understand with another.

[@2CSST2]

@@neilcreamer8207 It's not an exhaustive explanation but it could be an important part of the puzzle. Gaining new perspectives, trying new ideas, those are always good steps toward finding a solution. Sometimes ideas and perspectives that seemed totally independant at first view can have some link that shed some new light on the problem. For instance, integrated information processing might never be able produce consciousness as long as there is no quantum coherence involved. So you give up on quantum coherence because it doesn't already explain experience by itself you'll miss out on what could be the conditions necessary for experiences to arise at all. While those conditions would not explain the how, knowing them would surely be a HUGE steps towards figuring that out.

[@sinibaldi98]

I came up with a similar theory to the one near the end, where "integration" is simple the connection of neural networks, Mine is the "Extension of Consciousness through Undiscovered Fundamental Forces", it is similar to when a simple battery elicits a magnetic field and one can detect and measure such a field given the proper instruments, there is a spectrum to the magnitude and directions of magnetic field depending on the complexities of the circuit, Negatively and Positively charged ions continuously fire through the axons and synapses, and there are instruments that can detect brain waves such as Alpha, Beta, and Delta, and the magnitude of their frequencies are different given the corresponding sign, Just as a simple circuit induces a magnetic field from "nothing", even though this field in theory is ubiquitous, there is a ubiquitous field of consciousness in the universe that can be elicited given the right fundamental conditions, another comparison can be objects with gravity, the bigger the objected the more gravity it has, just because me and you don't feel each others gravity doesn't mean it is not constantly present so long as we have mass.

[@daxxonjabiru428]

I got a burst of neuronal activity right about here: 09:31

[@henrystorer7042]

I have a question/theory and I'd like to hear what other's think. Conciousness has yet to be defined, therefore how can anyone truly discover it. Think of it this way. Emotions are universally accepted we all know what it is to be happy, angry, sad, etc. We can identify emotions in others by recognizing them in ourselves yet some emotions are just as elusive as consciousness. For instance Love, probably the most universally sought after emotion and yet ask any two people to define it and they are different. Mind you I have always considered emotion to be a product or by-product of consciousness. Or maybe even a check and balance system for consciousness. The basis for this thought was something I remember learning from Piaget, cognitive dissonance, it is the developmental stage where we as an individual can no longer operate satisfactorily within our own definition ir world model. Therefore we must develop a new one. For me this is were consciousness arises. It is the ability to distinguish ourselves from the world and recognize our role in it. For that consciousness to occur I believe that not only must we recognize we are not part of the world only an extension of it but we must recognize that everything we interact with is an extension of that world as well. Consciousness is the ability to not just distinguish yourself from you environment but to be aware that our environment is an interconnected web of distinguishable pieces. Pieces that contribute to the whole beyond there capacity (Sum is parts is greater than parts combined individually). The conscious comes in being able to intuitionally (not quantifiably) recognize that greater sum. Even though the equation is balanced you still know you still are not satisfied with the answer. Consciousness is the most prominent path that experience aligns with. It's what we base on intuition on, it's what cognitive dissonance evolves from, and what, if the phrase isn't coined already, emotional dissonance occurs.

[@kamikeserpentail3778]

I came to the conclusion of IIT on my own, I'm quite certain it is how consciousness is formed. The split brain experiments, the phantom limb illusion, that people can be such massive hypocrites and not even realize they contradict themselves. Conway's game of Life also influenced my conclusion how complex patterns can arise from a few simple rules. All of it points to me that the conscious mind is just... I guess you could say the Democratic agreement of all of the subconscious parts. It's very handy because it means that damage to the brain can sometimes be adapted around, it allows our minds to continue to have high plasticity. And because of that I believe we will be able to integrate with machines without needing to fully understand the human brain. I had a lucid dream where I realized I was dreaming, I was talking to someone in my dream. And it confused me how I could decide to fly or teleport yet I didn't know what that person was going to say. Some part of me didn't want to force him to say anything, he was speaking for some collective part of my subconscious to my conscious mind.

[@3nertia]

Interestingly, people have had brain traumas and came out speaking a different language that they never knew before heh. It's really just adaptive software running on [sometimes] faulty hardware, in my opinion. In the future, I don't think we create thinking machines - we *become* them heh

[@IceMetalPunk]

Lucid dreams are weird. For awhile, I was doing various techniques to try to induce them, and they worked. I loved the lucidity (it was basically like being able to live out my fantasies with no consequences!), but I would always wake up after 20-40 minutes of them with sleep paralysis. I've never had sleep paralysis before or after, and it was a pain (literally, my neck was killing me!), so I decided to stop the induction techniques. As my brain re-adjusted to normal sleep patterns, there was a weird transition period where my dreams were like... half-lucid, if that makes sense? Similar to your description: I had some awareness that it was a dream, but only limited control over what was going to happen. Definitely a weird experience. Eventually, those faded, too, and I went back to normal sleeping and dreaming again.

[@FalbertForester]

The religion Shinto has amongst its beliefs that everything can have a little bit of conciousness in it. Rocks, trees, mice, etc - they are all a little "thinky".

[@THETRIVIALTHINGS]

I wish consciousness equaled intelligence. Then we wouldn't be where we are right now.

[@GrahamNificent]

We actually can split our consciousness up into pieces. That process is a human’s primary coping mechanism for trauma (even small traumas) and is what creates what we call our personality. The human condition as it stands today is basically the result of the vast majority of people being very fragmented internally.

[@GrahamNificent]

Science has backed itself into a philosophical corner when it comes to this topic. As long as we’re explaining consciousness through a material lens, it’s kind of like saying “teach me Spanish but only use English words to teach it to me.” The scientific method can only go so far with this topic before needing to turn itself inside out and step out of its own boundaries to see things from a very different perspective.

[@nathandestaart]

I've been fascinated by consciousness since something happened when I was around 3 and I became conscious. Yes, it happened suddenly, and I only have brief moments before that. This means that if I'm required to be conscious in order to be a human being, I became a full time human being only at age 3. I remember making the comment "hey, I am!" To my mum. I was a weird kid. So anyway, based on my life long obsession, it might be beneficial to understand consciousness and what you can do with consciousness from within consciousness itself, and understand it fully. Because, who says that everyone is "here". I certainly was not in the early years of my life. And no, not just because my memory wasn't formed. I had no memory before that moment except a few. I just came pre-installed with certain knowledge. That's how I experienced it. I remember that very well because I'm fascinated by it, ever since it happened. One thing (for example) is that I have used this in dealing with my own mental health. I can open and close different parts of my brain. I wouldn't know how you'd express that in a testable hypothesis, and this hurts. Like, this is hard of the psyche. But I felt like I was in danger, so (like I had done before) I went into an altered state of consciousness, conscientiously, modified certain normally subconscious processes to fit into that situation, gave it a time limit of a year, and decided to forget it for a year, because it wouldn't work otherwise and then went back to normal consciousness. I forgot for a year, and remembered it a year later. I don't know if it was exactly a year, but it was about a year (it happened in the same month). Now I would LOVE to know how that would be explained. Not just in terms of the psychology, but in terms of what happens with my consciousness. Because I can alter my own consciousness if I so choose. And I think this might be a skill you can learn. And I wonder what the limits of those things are. Anyway, what I'm saying is that every day consciousness is not all there is to consciousness and you might not know exactly what you're studying is you limit your science to that. It would also effect what happens in the brain. Man, I'd be so interested if these things got researched!

[@isaacnoel4022]

Honestly that last one you talk about how many connections there are. You can put it on a spectrum which honestly makes sense with how senses go. I imagine consciousness could be put into a "sense" category. Cause a dog might have less consciousness but a better sense of smell. Idk that just sounds right to me lol. Great video!!

[@roderik1990]

I feel like interconnectedness might well be something that consciousness requires, but that interconnectedness on its own won't produce it. I rather think there are certain structures or ways of processing signals that at some level produces consiousness. I.E systems or parts of systems that combined produce the perception of conscious thought.

[@kurtkennedy333]

Is there a name for the specific study of consciousness? If not, what should it be called? Vigiology?

[@14s0cc3r14]

Consciousness is simply what we experience as “thinking.” Thinking is just a series of inputs and outputs. Thus consciousness is just our feeling of going through our biological programming.

[@Pachi3080]

If consciousness is just a feeling, then what is feeling it? What does it mean "to feel"? Who is feeling this anyways? You? What are you then?

[@Navaji]

That is the mind, thinking is not specifically consciousness. Consciousness exists beyond the mental thinking, which is why you can be aware of yourself thinking. Moving into that awareness you move into a state of being, an area not in the thinking mind. Trying to measure human consciousness will never be possible with machines for if they could obtain a type of consciousness it would still not be that of humans, nor any other lifeforms. For some insights on consciousness you could look into people who have had near death experiences.

[@Mykasan]

I'm still asking myself if i really want to watch this video and have difficulty sleeping tonight. this is a terrifying subject yet fascinating. edit: i'm watching it. i can't help myself.

[@totallylost7683]

This whole channel makes me confused. I don't have the wrinkles on my smooth brain to comprehend any of these videos.. but god damn I love them

[@whateverrandomnumber]

According to Kurzgesacht, insects are conscious, yes. And their definition makes a lot of sense.

[@robinleeann]

I kind of don't like Francis Crick after learning how Rosalind Franklin used X-ray data to discover the DNA structure. Beforehand, it was just a hypothesis, but she actually found it. Francis (and his buddy James Watson) got credit.

[@AdamDzi108]

Watson and Crick had actually stolen Franklin’s work and made their model off of it. All they really “did” was interpret her data from her experiments before her and made the model and got the credit. Franklin also came to the same conclusion as them.

[@antisocialpill]

Robin LeeAnn I thought of the same thing when Hank mentioned him too, it’s sad how they were out just for the sake of being famous and in history..

[@Maya-wx7xz]

My English professor once defined human consciousness really well. Consciousness is when I THINK what I think, I KNOW that I know. Which is different than animals and AI who only do things on a certain level meaning they can’t have another dimension to “think” or “know”.

[@fendoroid3788]

I wonder if people without consciousness, while looking perfectly normal from the outside exist.

[@humanaesthetic]

Is there any work looking at the idea of embodied consciousness? As in the necessity of a body and relevant senses in a close loop with the brain forming the complete picture of consciousness?