Is Consciousness Fundamental? Conference Talk, September 2023

This is the video of a talk I gave on September 8, 2023 in NY at a conference organized by Philip Goff and Andrei Buckareff on the topic of treating consciousness as fundamental. It was a fascinating and exciting gathering, and I was honored to present alongside such brilliant scientists and philosophers-Physicist Lee Smolin was among them, along with a fun public debate the first evening between Philip Goff and Sean Carroll.
Link to conference schedule:
sites.google.com/view/panpsyc...

[@niravpunjabi2842]

What a brilliant and elegant woman Mrs. Harris is❤

[@danzwku]

Looking forward to the documentary Annaka!

[@old-dave]

This is fascinating. Philip Pullman's fictional concept of "dust" as an elementary particle of consciousness resonated deeply years before I read your book. Intuitively, for now, this feels like fertile ground for study. Quantum physics' inculcation of observation determining reality maybe is another element of this fundament. Looking forward to your continuing work, thank you!

[@rooruffneck]

Great talk. It'll be fun hearing Annika and Bernardo Kastrup have a longer form conversation.

[@n0_n0]

So glad to see this and excited to listen!!

[@SvjetaakJEDNA]

What a beautiful career focus. Will give this a listen soon. Keep it up Annaka.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

I had no idea you had a KZbin channel! This is fantastic. Would you consider speaking with Bernardo Kastrup? I'd love to hear that conversation.

[@naturalisted1714]

Interesting stuff. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

Thank you for all that you do, Annaka, and for not being afraid of asking the hard questions and exploring the phenomenon of consciousness.

[@hyperelliptik]

This was incredibly interesting to listen to

[@ali-mz1p]

We need more content from you

[@anonxnor]

Great talk! Super interesting! I need to get into this field

[@L.L.L.I.T]

Trying to wrap my head around it all. Before this, watched the video from three years ago on Impact Theory with Tom Bile. Eager to pick up your work and start diving in!!

[@andreasgkanatsios7446]

Nice food for thought 👏

[@786DaveD]

Super interesting talk. Really liked the way you started with the lay of the land in scientific approach to consciousness studies and then went on to elaborate. Although Panpsychism may seem to have elements of New Age thoughts, and pseudoscientific, I would urge you to read up on "Advaita Vedanta" - an very ancient Indian philosophy. It has lot of parallels w/ the ideas you spoke about such as Space & Time being illusion, a fundamental reality pervading the universe (Consciousness/ Brahman). Maybe it will help add some interesting ancillary angle to your upcoming documentary. Best wishes. - Aranya

[@GSDKXV]

Just fascinating. Can’t wait for the documentary

[@eliaspratt8985]

I would love to hear a dialogue between you and Bernardo Kastrup. Solving the combination problem by positing that there are ultimately no subjects sounds a lot like idealism (Bernardo has made similar points about the combination problem). I suspect you may have some reservations about the label “idealism” and some of its historical and cultural baggage, similar to your reservations about “panpsychism”. Nevertheless, the substance of your presentation here seems very compatible with certain formulations of idealism (like Bernardo’s).

[@rooruffneck]

Agreed. Annika has problems with the use of the term 'subject' and, unfortunately, Bernardo has problems with her problems. :) That said, they actually are talking about the same thing. Bernardo just doesn't want to change the traditional language regarding 'subject,' but he certainly agrees that there is not a subject in the sense of an entity sitting within consciousness that pushes and pulls the levels of the will and all of that. His point is simply that when an experience is happening, it happens as a united field. He calls that field a subject. That said, nothing in his system need imply that a new field isn't being generated every second. Where they might actually have a real difference is where they draw the line considering the ultimate demarcation of a person. Annika might suspect that there really is no overall process being referred to when we speak of "I", whereas Bernardo sees the body as an image of a distinct field of ongoing experience. I hope they get a chance to talk and have fun parsing this stuff.

[@sxsmith44]

Yes please.. bring on Bernardo Kastrup!

[@Rheologist]

If consciousness were not physically causal, then why/how would anyone say that they are conscious?

[@goldnutter412]

Will try to catch this And YES, absolutely. This context solves all the paradoxes, and gives deep understanding of symptoms of modern, complex human life. Emotions tell us all we need to know about our personal evolution; a subset of our shared evolution. Thanks to physics, we appear decentralized..

[@cluistube]

I just want her and Sara Imari Walker to sit down and talk life and consciousness. I think it would yield some cardinal directions for all of us.

[@ZeuzBluez]

Brilliant talk. I think fundamental particles may be conscious at their level and when we die (or in deepest state of pure awareness)we d have the same ground consciousness as them as we are made of them 😉

[@goldnutter412]

Over thinking it 🥰

[@ryanashfyre464]

This is, of course, panpsychism and the outstanding issue with that is what others term the "combination problem" - in other words explaining how effectively countless particles w/ just their own itty bitty bit of consciousness can come together to form the coherent, singular whole that we recognize ourselves as. Actually, that's not even the worst problem. That distinct honor goes to the fact that what people refer to as "particles" don't actually exist. The unbelievably tiny marble-esque balls people tend to think of aren't actually a thing. They're pure abstractions in that the world behaves *as if* they actually exist, but no one has ever actually seen a particle. What 'particles' are are actually the excitations of underlying quantum fields, existing like the ripples on the surface of a lake.

[@thomassoliton1482]

This talk made me very aware of some very muddled thinking regarding consciousness. Are “sensations” by themselves conscious experiences? Then earthworms are conscious - they sense chemicals or water and act appropriately. “Sentience” however, could be sensation alone, but can also involve “perception” - which is much more complex. A percept is a concept or idea, something recognizable, and generally is associated with thought. Sentience and Nagel’s “what it is like…” are very similar, and the latter revealing - for in order to consider “what it is like” to be or do something, one must have an idea of that something (e.g. a bat) and instantiate it. In that sense it is quite different from raw sensation - you cannot sense what a bat senses, but you can conceive of flying at night, “sensing” echos of insects, and maneuvering to catch and eat them. But is consciousness just sensation? Then bacteria and protozoa or other unicellular organisms are conscious, even though they have no nervous system. If having percepts or concepts is necessary, then that requires a nervous system and memory and the ability to recall and compare stored information against either sensations or other concepts. The real problem with this discussion is that if one believes e.g. only sensation is necessary and bacteria are conscious, one is forced to envision consciousness as an entity itself, because there is no known mechanism by which a bacterium could be conscious in the sense animals are. However, the point is moot, because consciousness is an illusion. It is essentially thought itself - comparison of sensations or percepts to concepts. “I think, therefore I am “ (conscious). Consciousness is itself a concept we have to expain how we can be aware of external reality and our internal model of it and flip back and forth rapidly, often hardly noticing. I challenge anyone to explain how consciousness can exist without memory.

[@KauTi0N]

The crowd is too small for what Annaka is talking about. I do a lot of my own work on this topic and there are profound concepts and incredible insights being covered here. More interest is needed!

[@andrewbrown6307]

Her cascading hair is glorious.

[@eddymoretti3742]

LIGHTS ON: I can’t wait to see this film. And it’s a perfect title for this mysterious, and vexing “thing.” Oh and I love the CANCEL PAN-PSYCHISM symbol!

[@WalterHassell]

Thanks for posting this! Any idea where we can listen to the Goff/Carroll debate? I can’t find it anywhere 😰

[@rd5854]

Its on KZbin now

[@harrisonwestphall2381]

They did the wave analogy on the good place.

[@goldnutter412]

It is very useful to separate "cognitive processes" we call consciousness.. and treat that as a subset Entropy is something we can be cognitively aware of, at a very basic level. But it drives us.. all the hints we need if thinking logically. Why are we here ? there you go !

[@user-is2qh2ud5o]

You really should talk to old painters.

[@jamestucker4800]

Consciousness / spirituality is on a completely different dimension than scientific proof based mind. The instrument of mind can never go there, and if you try and force it there you will only frustrate yourself

[@Hi-cu2vx]

What’s your solution?

[@fireside9503]

I have the biggest crush on this woman. Wife knows. She does too. 🎉

[@goldnutter412]

Futurama on Hulu has a beautiful final episode about "simulation" and the whole Matrix doomer perception.. thanks for your dedication and deep digging keep it up !!

[@ts200010]

Way too many commercials. Could not follow what was going on.

[@yoursubconscious]

A Thai monk. coolio!

[@petb2815]

Is she conscious of Sam's consciousness??

[@dixztube]

She’s so smart and beautiful aw man I hope her politics towards people in Gaza isn’t as insane as her husband’s. Politics aside I enjoy her academic work and might pick up her book. Her husband I had to leave his influence years back …anyways good talk

[@tjssailor4473]

As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.

[@johnhausmann2391]

Let me ask you this: 1) I'll assume that you agree that science can in theory completely describe how a tree (or bacterial colony, if you wish) over here and a tree over there get produced and how they maintain themselves as living things in their environment (if you don't agree, you can stop reading, but I'll assume that you agree). I would maintain that if you ask science to explain why this tree here and that tree there are different in even the most general aspects (why this tree has a bifurcated trunk, and the other, does not, for exmaple), it would fail miserably. Although science has a handle on the biological processes, the actual tree in the world is so complex that science couldn't answer even basic questions about two trees in proximity (and from the same parent, lets say). Science can reduce things in the world in principle to processes of inert matter, but in practice, it cannot be expected to give an account of living organisms in their particularity. In other words, you are asking too much of science and materialism. Regarding 'Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia', I'd refer you to Dennett for a good materialist response.

[@johnbaker5565]

A little too scientific in presentation to hold my attention for 42 minutes. I have read the comments and references to Dr Bernardo Kastrup appear. His talks are mostly too long, but he is an original thinker, suggesting we are disassociated identities. The spiritual teachers who opine on consciousness cannot agree on the nature of MIND. The word is often used to describe unwelcome thoughts or mental chatter. It is the lack of clarity with words that confuse so many. Understanding what awareness, consciousness, presence, attention, observation are and what differentiates them . If asked the question, What is the difference between awareness and attention? Awareness and consciousness, presence and attention. Mind and awareness? Does experience appear in awareness or mind? These are the choke points to limiting understanding. It is important to realise what is knowable and unknowable, and it is no co-incidence that consciousness and Mind are whole and indivisible. Thanks for video

[@stevendebernardi8291]

Umunumumum😢

[@johnhausmann2391]

Why does she ignore a third option after emergence and panpsychism? The third option is that there is no consciousness in the way that we like to believe that consciousness is some 'thing'. What if consciousness is simply an aggregation of behaviors and we have false beliefs about teh aggregate of these behaviors we see in others and reflect on in our own mental processes? For example the belief that there is a conscious 'I' that has feelings and experiences of colors might well be false. So what I think of as my consciousness is just a story that I create about myself and other people that is useful for getting around in a world and predicting behavior of others. This is roughly what Dennett thinks. Why is this third option not considered? It's not an uncommon belief among people who think on these matters.

[@stanleyklein524]

Consciousness is not a scientific topic. One, it has no meaningful units and so cannot be quantified (as per scientific necessity). Second, it is subjectivity proper and thus not objective (again as per scientific necessity). Please stop.

[@rodnerdd1247]

did you even watch the video?