Nicholas Humphrey - Why Did Consciousness Emerge?

There was a time when there was no consciousness in our universe. Now there is. What caused consciousness to emerge? Did consciousness develop in the same way that, say, the liver or the eye developed, by random mutation and fitness selection during evolution? Inner experience seems to be radically different from anything else. Are we fooling ourselves?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/3HRMHhf
Nicholas Humphrey is an English psychologist, based in Cambridge, who is known for his work on the evolution of human intelligence and consciousness. His ten books include Consciousness Regained, The Inner Eye, A History of the Mind, Leaps of Faith, The Mind Made Flesh, Seeing Red, and Soul Dust. He has been the recipient of several honours, including the Martin Luther King Memorial Prize, the Pufendorf medal and the British Psychological Society’s book award.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@tdiddle8950]

I do love "Closer to Truth," because it inspires me to know myself and my own beliefs better. It makes me want to speak truth in the field that's governed by fools.

[@Ed-quadF]

What an interesting take on the subject! Starts with a mechanistic definition of consciousness and brought so much beauty into that definition. I don't agree but, WOW, and will contemplate it.

[@bobbabai]

Humphreys' view of consciousness is fairly close to my own favored view, so I'm pretty amenable to listening to him. But he seems to project a lot of certainty about his ideas that I'm not sure is warranted. I'm not a scientist in any respect (except as a practitioner of the chaotic science of practical existence), but I take enough of a scientific view of my own thinking to say I have no real clue whether my favorite view of consciousness is better than others. I wish he gave some explanation for why he seems to be so certain.

[@medv4380]

Defining Consciousness as the "Inner Theater" is an interesting way to put it. If that's how you define it then it actually isn't hard to define why it evolved. That inner theater doesn't actually exist for some people. My wife has Aphantasia, and it creates some communication problems. There has been many times where I would try to describe to her they whay anyone would normally describe something to get them to visualize what happened and it's beyond her. She can't even visualize what our living room would look like with the furniture movied around without copying it into the Sims and then moving it around in a game. It's pretty clear why that part of our minds exists. If I'm playing basketball on a team I can't see everyone all the time. I have to visualize where they used to be and where I think they will go based on what I know about them and what I know about the other team. For any type of fight from a basic sport, hunting, or even on the field of war. How good you can visualize the things you can't see could mean the difference from victory or defeat. Heck, it can give you the chance to see the loss ahead of time, and retreat to live another day. I woudln't say the "Inner Theater" is Consciousness. It is something that Consciousness uses, but to say that it is Consciounsness is close to saying my wife doesn't have Consciousness, and that's clearly wrong. She has an inner monologue, plays music, understands abstract math.

[@elliottcovert3796]

It sounds to me that you are conflating consciousness with abstract visual imagination. It seems to me that abstract visual imagination is an aspect of consciousness but consciousness is much broader; it's inner subjective perception, and the ability to visualize things in one's mind is one of many manifestations of it. Thus a person who is blind from birth and has no qualitative concept of what things looks like still has consciousness. They still have an "inner theater," just a theater that doesn't involve visual perception.

[@medv4380]

@@elliottcovert3796 In the first min of the video, they defined consciousness as the mind's eye or "Inner Theater," hence why I quoted it. My wife has no Inner Theater, and she isn't blind. She describes her thoughts as more like Wikipedia links which isn't helpful to me since that just causes me to visualize a computer pulling up Wikipedia. It also allows her to speed read like books are nothing. I'm always stopped by the fact that the words slow me down as I read, visualizing what I'm reading, and she's wholly confounded that others can visualize and that we can't not visualize the information. It sounds excellent to her, but she can't do it at all. Now she does have an Inner Voice, but there are people who lack that as well.

[@elliottcovert3796]

@@medv4380 I have a friend who actually has those same tendencies; it's interesting stuff but the point I'm trying to make is that the definition of consciousness provided by the interviewee in this subject is lacking. An "inner theater" may be an aspect of consciousness that most people have and some people lack. The same may be true of feeling specific sensations like pain. But consciousness *isn't* coextensive with these phenomena so this guy's definition is inadequate (though aesthetically appealing.)

[@leviwedel]

A person with aphantasia still has an inner theatre, just one without images. I think you may be taking the idea of theatre too literally. Even with aphantasia, there is still an awareness of the happenings of the world, of being in a body, an ability to contemplate experiences and abstract ideas, etc. There is still a consciousness that acts as an audience to events-the "theatre" is still intact. Everyone's inner theatre likely differs.

[@medv4380]

@@leviwedel "Inner theater of Visions of Sights and Smells" That is literally in the video. Those "Visions and Sights" in the mind are optional, and it's literally in the first 20 seconds of the video. Both of them are even a bit baffled as to why it even evolved. Why they're confused when it's not hard to see how visualizing somone's possible moves might help you in a fight. However, this can be taken even farther. Some people don't even have an internal monologue. This flys in the face of people like Chompsky who think that our thoughts are words. Are these people less conscious? Do these people even have thoughts? I'd say they still have thoughts and are conscious hence why defining consciousness as at all dependent on the inner theater as an interesting but false path to understanding consciousness. Consciousness is what you have when the theater is gone, the voice is silent, and you reach that level of zen Buddist talk about.

[@mattcorregan4760]

We have been gifted with a soul? It was given to us to trick us? Who is doing this "gifting" and "tricking"?

[@chyfields]

Fabulous! Thank you.

[@NothingMaster]

What humanity regards as the emergence of consciousness is simply part of the natural evolution of being. The nontrivial question is: What is it ultimately that we think we are conscious of? Looking in the mirror and recognizing ourselves / self-awareness, or reasoning that “I think therefore I am” are hardly gonna cut it anymore; nor can we hide behind our technological achievements.

[@TheAlpineAddict]

You're either conscious of something or you are not. There is no room for thoughts like 'am I conscious of this or that?' Once this quetion is aksed, for example 'am I conscious of my breath?' the breath has become conscious. Our conscious awareness can only hold so much at a given time and is always shifting and floating. "What is it ultimately that we think we are conscious of?" This question doesn't make much sense. You don't observe your breath and say 'I think I am conscious of my breath'. We can have questions about the breath, and think many things about it, but while breathing, we are either conscious of it or we are not. Being conscious of something and understanding it are not the same. We can be conscious of the world around us or the presence of our own inner being and still not know what it actually is.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?

[@pequod4557]

experience is all there is

[@kgrandchamp]

Maybe that's why when one gets older and aches and pains set in, it makes it easier for one to want to leave this world of suffering. The magnificent show is fading! :)

[@junkjunk2493]

.... yup , i know the feeling ...

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Don’t ! I’ve for a bad back right now .

[@mikel4879]

A very decent discussion about the 'conscious thought'. 👍👍

[@handynas6529]

I would think that the ability to imagine the future through the understanding of cause and effect and thus to be able to plan as an evolutionary advantage of consciousness.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

Recently discovered biocentrism which actually completely reverses the traditional idea of consciousness arising from the physical universe and that consciousness predates this and is actually responsible for producing the universe we observe, which could explain fine-tuning etc, sounds fairly plausible to me?

[@adossantos69751]

I very much enjoy to watch this Chanel. I understand consciousness as much as I understand my own existence. I exist but yet I do not.

[@krzemyslav]

The effect of consciousness is understanding, meaning processing or using John Vervaeke's term relevance realisation. It is required by open, adaptable systems to cognitively solve novel, unforseen problems. It seems to me that you won't get that from zombies. Maybe I'm wrong and there are other ways to get understanding than through consciousness, but I think it would require working general AI which isn't conscious to prove it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

why might consciousness goes beyond cause and effect? could consciousness focus on something not physical?

[@Promatheos]

Awareness isn’t for anything. It doesn’t exist to serve a purpose or goal. It’s actually the most fundamental aspect of existence. The hard problem arises in the minds of these philosophers because they implicitly treat consciousness like it’s an object. It’s the only thing in the universe that isn’t an object. It is the subject within which all objects appear. Consciousness is not an add on or emergent phenomena. It’s the bedrock of reality, not the capstone.

[@mattcorregan4760]

I agree with nearly everything you say except for the statement that consciousness is the only thing that isn't an object. Numbers aren't objects, they are concepts that arise from the material world. I'm agnostic about whether consciousness is an object or not, but I do agree with the notion that it is the fundamental aspect of existence.

[@Promatheos]

It could just be a disagreement based on semantics, but I would classify numbers as mental objects. Just my opinion though I can understand how definitions get murky. Thanks for the supportive words!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"The hard problem arises in the minds of these philosophers because they implicitly treat consciousness like it’s an object. It’s the only thing in the universe that isn’t an object. It is the subject within which all objects appear."* ... By using phrases like _"the only thing"_ and _"It is,"_ you are inadvertently treating consciousness as a "thing." Those who don't subscribe to your definition of consciousness simply consider it the "brain" (which is an object). I consider consciousness as a higher form of information that's able to extract, categorize and assess value judgments for all other forms of information. So, consciousness is technically a "thing" (information), but not restricted to the human brain, because it's "information," just like everything else.

[@Promatheos]

You’re right that my use of the words “thing” and “it” are problematic but this is due to the way English works as a language rather than a reflection of what I believe. English users also call animals “it” when they want to be gender neutral even though that usually denotes being non-living. I just don’t know a better alternative.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Consciousness is the bedrock of reality? Maybe it is the bedrock of our ability to know as much as we can about phenomena, but as you wrote it, someone might understand that consciousness somehow is making reality what it is, real... And it is one aspect of our existence, there are many things that exist without having consciousness. Obviously, our ancestors needed it, and maybe it is a product of becoming smarter, more intelligent, but in any case, it seems that it is gained, obtained, or exists because of evolution because human beings become intelligent...Maybe intelligence is somehow "making" it, maybe one can't be as intelligent as average Homo Sapiens without having that quality, consciousness.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might consciousness make the world and life about more than survival; to enjoy existence so there is a reason to survive?

[@pikiwiki]

this is one of the best interviews I've seen on this channel

[@Traderhood]

What part? Because I heard only blah blah blah.

[@Ghost_bros]

Oh you understand what they mean...I wish I could

[@pikiwiki]

@@Traderhood what I took from it was consciousness is the essence of what it means to be alive. As if there was some kind of principle or agent inherent in being alive that encourages the very act of being alive, something maybe outside of the human body that wants you to live and creates consciousness to do so. To me that sounds pretty interesting

[@Traderhood]

@@pikiwiki Sorry I didn’t hear any of that in it. I expected him to explain why he considers consciousness to be emergent.

[@dongshengdi773]

@@Traderhood unfortunately materialism has already been debunked by quantum mechanics

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Consciousness giving joy ? Sure... for some, but compare Siddhartha Gautama Moreover, what evolutionary advantage would a life form that experiences joy and pain have over one that could experience neither ?

[@ebptube]

Provoked by the postulate that there is no free will I often think about this question. My thoughts are that our mind or consciousness is an outer world simulator necessary for trying out options before choosing one that is not dangerous, expensive, rediculous but most effective according to the capabillities our person have. That choosing is the free will. A consciousness without free will is just an inert observer. Evolution usually eliminates luxurious functions that has no purpose.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think this is right, consciousness is a result of our mental processes including a very sophisticated model of our own reasoning abilities and that of others. Philosophers call this ability "theory of mind". This means we are aware of ourselves and our own experiences, and can reason about the experiences of others.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Perhaps we'll catch on to the trick and the illusion of consciousness and realize we're not necessarily so grand. This still won't stop consciousness from being a turbo charger for human progression.

[@vatirhea]

I believe you consciously made that statement. How ironic.

[@waldwassermann]

Consciousness always has been, always is, and always will be one. The concept of emergence is as such a misnomer. The real question is: why did consciousness veil itself as manifoldness? ❤

[@Traderhood]

Or not. You just die and it will be gone. Same as it is gone in anesthesia.

[@bobbabai]

Always will be one what?

[@bobbabai]

@@sven888 how can it be demonstrated that something or someone asks all questions and therefore answers all questions?

[@bobbabai]

@@sven888 already have. It didn't give any suggestions about consciousness and it certainly helped lead to me to non-belief in a god.

[@SteveSteve7590-di2dn]

Evidence ?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

an existence, perhaps cosmic mind, provides consciousness for reasons beyond survival and life? outside natural selection? not physical adaptation (still material?)

[@tedgrant2]

Consciousness emerged in the same way that truthfulness emerged. Or hopefullness, or tactileness or angryness, or troublesomeness or awkwardness. All you have to do is stick "ness" on the end of an adjective to get a noun.

[@richk562]

Is consciousness increased with intelligence.?

[@mounirasnai]

Thanks

[@peter5455]

Updated , closest to the truth.

[@bparcej6233]

Wonderful celebration of consciousness…all peoples are of this one essence…so, love one another as oneself PS we bring self awareness to the infinite universe

[@fr.richardhill2900]

"It was set up to trick us into believing we are more important than we really are." It certainly does look intentional, although I disagree with his belief of what that intention was (or by who).

[@johnandrew2370]

Consciousness accidentally emerged Robert? No. There is nothing random in a universe controlled by mathematical law. 'Random selection' is nonsensical. Our entire universe is a form of intelligence. How could anything make a 'selection' if there was no form of intelligence doing so? Big fan. I believe your videos should be taught in every middle school in the world.

[@frankjspencejr]

I remain bewildered by this kind of explanation. First he suggests that consciousness isn’t doing anything physical. I presume this is because he realizes that there are no physical phenomena that can explain subjective consciousness. But then he suggests that C is doing something physical, because he says it changes your behavior. He suggests that people act differently than they would if they didn’t have consciousness. Obviously, this means consciousness has physical effects. But every physical effect must be explained by physical phenomena. Unless he is a duelist. And then he will have to explain how non physical phenomena can affect physical phenomena. Each time I see a new one of these videos on consciousness I hope someone has some new insights. I remain bewildered. I remain impressed by the absolute reality of subjective consciousness, and the appearance of everything else.

[@dendennis9060]

Thank U, Infinite Intelligence 😇

[@phuzbrain]

Very much in line with Donald Hoffman and his theory of 'The case against reality'

[@ArcadianGenesis]

Maybe it's not possible for creatures like us (with nervous systems) to *not* be conscious. Maybe when you have a sensory-motor apparatus, you just automatically have conscious experience, and it wouldn't make sense *not* to. After all, the whole reason why we feel things is so we can react and avoid harmful stimuli. If we didn't feel bad subjectively, we wouldn't be as motivated to avoid harm.

[@highvalence7649]

Why wouldn't it make sense? Would that be in virtue of some contradiction?

[@ArcadianGenesis]

@@highvalence7649 I imagine it's a causal relationship. Maybe sensory-motor systems cause subjective feelings, and it wouldn't be possible for them not to. The whole purpose of sensory-motor systems is to *sense* stimuli so the organism can *move* appropriately. Sensing is feeling. Maybe you think sensation could have occurred without subjective feelings. I think that wouldn't be as effective. Feelings are motivations, so they serve a purpose in evolution. When something hurts, you're motivated to avoid that thing. If it didn't really *feel* bad, you wouldn't be as motivated to avoid it.

[@elliottcovert3796]

Couldn't all the nerves serve the same function without a qualitative association of subjective pain, though? I imagine a robot could have heat sensors that would indicate when it was experiencing temperatures too hot for the material it was made of to survive, and it could be programmed to avoid such temperatures while not feeling any subjective pain. If the machine alone would do the trick, why the ghost?

[@ArcadianGenesis]

@@elliottcovert3796 This is where biological organisms differ from engineered machines - organisms evolved by natural selection, which sets all the constraints and necessities for that creature. I'm suggesting that consciousness could serve an adaptive advantage in evolution, because when you really *feel* the heat, you're more likely to react to it because that subjective feeling makes you *want* to react more strongly than a ghost would. If that's correct, then it would mean only things that evolved "naturally" could be conscious. I don't know how I feel about that, but...that's the idea I'm proposing.

[@elliottcovert3796]

@@ArcadianGenesis To clarify: the "ghost in the machine" I'm talking about is the subjective experience we call consciousness. You seem to be saying that the ghost's function is to preserve the machine more effectively than an unfeeling machine would preserve itself on its own. If the materialist worldview is true, then the machine would behave the same way with or without the ghost and any explanation of the machine's behavior that appeals to mental states of the ghost like *feeling* heat are just illusions and products of "folk psychology." I'd recommend checking out Robert's videos with eliminative materialist philosophers for more.

[@jffryh]

If animals don't fear death, why do they run from predators?

[@matterasmachine]

something that we don't define is "benefit for survival"

[@duytdl]

I dunno why but he looked blind to me, so I googled him and though he isn't actually blind, he has discovered something called "blindsight". Lol weird coincidence.

[@handynas6529]

I know what you mean. His pupils glitters under the stage light. I suspect he has glaucoma?

[@southface06]

Blindsight was indeed an appropriate reference - I wish that Robert had a dialogue with Peter Watts. Nicholas Humphrey's arguments for a function of consciousness are just unfounded speculations.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@TheAlpineAddict]

That's a bar! 😀

[@stamsorc7294]

Unawareness is unknown by unawareness alone

[@thejackdiamondart]

A question I don't hear asked is, Why is life driven to reproduce? Why not just spring into life exist and die? why life at al not just chemical processes? All life seems goal drivenThe more complex the life the greater the goal. In human life self gratification doesn't seem to advance life as much as co-operatin or maybe co-operation isn't self gratifying enough.

[@MrSanford65]

How could consciousness emerge from flesh that isn’t previously conscious ? It seems you would have to have consciousness and self awareness first before you could have the flesh or else humanity would’ve been stillborn. Also, if the world is a projection of consciousness , consciousness must supersede all physical reality or else our illusions would be detrimental to our survival with interactions with the reality behind our illusions. And it seems that the triggers in the world for conscious reactions surely out numbers the number of receptor sites that any physical body could possibly have.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

You are implying that a fertilised human egg conscious , even before it has a nervous system . This is clearly nonsense

[@jesusbermudez6775]

Well I was not fully conscious for 34 years and then gradually became conscious. However, when I was not conscious I was a university lecturer.

[@jamezkpal2361]

😂🤣

[@jesusbermudez6775]

@@jamezkpal2361 This is a true story. For 34 years I was only 5 percent conscious. It came about because as a 14 year old I observed life in the following manner 1. Why do I need information if I can do mathematics and solve problems from scratch? 2. Adults are like children who play with other things 3. I should be fine because I can do mathematics and play football. I can outdo the children who play better football than me because I can do better mathematics than them, and I can outdo the children who do better mathematics than me because I can play football better than them. As a consequence of 2 the emotion of compassion fed on me. This meant that I was pure emotion and about 5 percent conscious. During much of this time, I was a university lecturer at the University of Westminster. Given that I was not fully conscious the only subject that I would teach was programming. It was the only activity I could carry out. Programming is an activity that is solving problems from scratch. When I was 47, my sister mistreated me and the emotion released me. From that moment onward, I kept dislodging the emotion and became more and more conscious.

[@ProPandaPlays]

@@jesusbermudez6775 stop being insane.

[@ProPandaPlays]

@@jesusbermudez6775 your too young to be this senile. you look like your 60 stop lol

[@commandvideo]

So does consciousness makes free will a fact ?

[@janelperez9726]

Once you get used to do something that had not worked they way you expected and that is not working in the present you know that it would not work in the future.

[@Tozniak]

I am conscious of the desperate incoherence of his speech. It was a simple question asking how and why and the answer was a song and dance.

[@davidpalmer5966]

I'm not convinced by Humphrey's argument, but then I don't find materialism at all plausible, but I really admire how he eschews the all-too-common materialist path of mechanism and embraces the wonder and magic of life in an almost spiritual way. It's just that he sees awe and pleasure as a survival benefit. Good on him for admitting we're not just machines.

[@danielfrancis3660]

I'm under no illusions regarding my self importance. I am not important in the grand scheme of thing's. There're people who think as a species we are very important and must survive irrespective of natural circumstances hence the race to colonise planets.

[@tedgrant2]

Consciousness arose for the same reason that fingers arose. We need both to play Beethoven's Opus 27 #2 on the piano.

[@wisedupearly3998]

Humphrey well describes the joy in life that consciousness provides. Well done.

[@skwalka6372]

He thinks humans are unique, he has no idea.

[@wisedupearly3998]

@@skwalka6372 You are indeed unique to yourself, and that really the only judgement that matters; Your existence/consciousness has inestimable value to you. BTW, as far as I know, humans are the only species that suicides because of the false belief that "life has no meaning."

[@icarus6424]

To my knowledge there hasn't been any Nobel prizes for scientific research in consiousness. There isn't even a framework devised that could lead to understanding the nature of consiousness its possibly connected to the what's the nature of reality question which is also another difficult one. Right, I'm off to the pub.

[@objective_truth]

Why did conciousness emerge? I will answer your question. Just by chance. That's it. Consciousness is an illusion. You may say it is so amazing and exceptional, so it is different from other "ordinary" phenomena. I tell you. That is exactly what I mean by "illusion."

[@vatirhea]

You consciously made that statement. I'll dismiss it as just an "illusion".

[@johnyharris]

A precursor for consciousness could be a single cells binary awareness of its environment. The evolution of multidimensional consciousness found in some multicellular organisms would utilise this ability of its cells. Similar to our multidimensional full colour sight evolving from a patch of nascent binary light sensitive cells.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"A precursor for consciousness could be a single cells binary awareness of its environment."* ... In my book I argue the same via the "3rd Recursion." In addition, I extend that precursor to inanimate structure as far back as the emergence of the hydrogen atom (2nd Recursion) with its single negatively charged electron and single positively charged proton (0-1 binary configuration, respectively).

[@videosbymathew]

A single cell doesn't have consciousness or awareness. If you think it does, you're talking about something else than what the video is talking about.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@videosbymathew *"A single cell doesn't have consciousness or awareness. If you think it does, you're talking about something else than what the video is talking about."* ... You wouldn't have any problem with a claim that a lesser-intelligent chimpanzee has consciousness, would you? You also wouldn't have any problem with a lesser-intelligent frog having consciousness, either, would you? A lesser-intelligent earthworm also demonstrates a certain degree of consciousness, right? *So now it's your turn:* what living creature demonstrates the least amount of consciousness of all animals that have emerged, and which living creatures do not demonstrate any consciousness at all? A single-celled prokaryote is "alive," so set the record straight!

[@johnyharris]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Have you seen Michael Levin's TED and Lex Fridman interviews? This guys work literally blew my mind. He has compelling evidence that DNA isn't the whole story when it comes to body structure, it merely provides the hardware for bioelectric signals that determine goals for individual cells in a multicellular life form. The same bioelectric signal that are found in the brain. If you haven't seem them I highly recommend watching them.

[@videosbymathew]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Consciousness has a wide range of operation but still requires computation combined with inputs and outputs (eyes, ears, other senses that all connect to that computational operation), and thus a brain or a brain-like structure that incorporates all of these qualities. There's your minimum. If it doesn't have that, it's operating on chemical responses and similar stimuli only. We as humans too easily anthropomorphize everything and that makes us fall into the trap that consciousness, something we have, must be exhibited whenever something appears to react a certain way.

[@billhill897]

What he is describing is an essential new skill so he is refuting his own argument that consciousness is not an essential skill.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

The only thing he got wrong was insisting that it's an illusion. Wrong. Every single level of organization and experience is equally real. Just because something is made up of smaller units does not make it unreal.

[@Fireneedsair]

I recommend everyone read “the last messiah” by Peter wessell zapffe as an different take on “consciousness “

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

So, he is presented as a materialist, denying consciousness really exists, and goes on to sing the praises of how joyful it is (subjectively), and how life-changing it can be (apparently presupposing consciousness has tangible effects on physical events). Am I the only one who senses a contradiction here? Also, *why* consciousness emerged is perhaps an interesting question, but given that materialists cannot conceivably provide an account of *how* it emerged, I'd say that latter point should be of higher priority.

[@rishabhthakur8773]

Who is I, we, us ?

[@vladkrus5796]

His obervation is true than those scientist theories

[@scientious]

Nicholas Humphrey couldn't be more wrong. Consciousness enables actions that would otherwise be impossible. It has a direct and provable evolutionary benefit. The fact that this channel can't separate genuine science from intuitive fantasy is sad indeed.

[@bybeach4865]

Illusion or not, I really like Humphrey's thinking. I'm not prepared to take a materialistic or reductionist viewpoint, at least as a singular position, myself. But this is a much better approach I think to take, than to just map consciousness as just pathways through the neuronal network and say that's it. No doubt in my mind there's no self-awareness without the brain. And yet, through physical, electrical and chemicals functions, look at what emerges. I am not sure that things can be any other way, but there is something emergent. And perhaps transcendent

[@charlie-km1et]

Materialist or not the Universe is HUGE, some say infinite and may last an eternity or two so NO MATTER WHAT material or not consciousness (if it exists) has come out of it is in this universe now BUT is stuck in this planet with a 100% chance of annihilation. So what good is that?

[@amdredlambda]

the illusion of consciousness emerge from the development of high intellectual language. The awareness of conscious is evidence observed in every living organism. From the most simple cell organism, it start at the nucleid proteins and amino-acids, and resides on the interpretation of physics properties from energy electromagnetic thermodynamic radiation.

[@wthomas5697]

Consciousness obviously provides for consideration of survival options. It's an effective change agent.

[@waerlogauk]

In systems terms it's the feedback loop that refines the unconscious actions.

[@wthomas5697]

@@waerlogauk Exactly.

[@itsjusttoolate]

Why does everyone say we are fortunate enough to have been born into the world? It's absolutely mind boggling that people think this world is good and is for a good reason...ITS NOT, we are in a fallen simulation prison, everything about this life screams we are not here for the greater good but yes we try to make it good by creating things but the fact is its not for the good I mean even death is a punishment

[@missh1774]

Maybe it is the point at which the personal prison has been resolved, and the good objective becomes more noticable, resulting in gradual updates of the entire simulated experience. 🤔 maybe...

[@ZahraLowzley]

Mathematically my "best guess" , most viable model is that this is a temporal prison but not a simulated one , as the same mechanism which prevents a person from recognising the absurdity of a dream when experiencing it, that is a constant which is far more potent when awake, thus when scientists speak of causality they seem blind to the astounding lack of explanatory mechanisms they are are putting forth which lead me to consider that they aren't sentient . I have no cause to assume scientists are sentient for one very damning reason, if you really try to investigate reality you hit an inevitable wall in regards to the absolute necessity of accounting for perceptual differentiation (this is a simple , and correctly used term, but if one speaks of perception, lexically constrained minds perceive a Theological position, it is really quite incredible, there can't be a God or a designer, they would give scientists more than 4 options, we could replace their vocal cords with a draw cord which says "sky daddy, dunning-kruger, anti-science, you wouldn't understand"),, but only a sentient a being would encounter the methodological negation. I have a section in my book whereby I convert a data field into various nonsensical arbitrary formats, and show that the patterns still emerge, it's incredibly difficult to see the anomalies, as you will perceive false differentiation as a distinct operator, numerical rainbows . I put forth that numeracy is not for measuring reality, it is a differentiation faculty, not for pattern recognition but for the implementation of typological stratification, a Social Genome, so to speak,, and that variation is the result of adherence to false identification, something you can show a hundred different ways. It astonishes me that it isn't questioned if beliefs are just declarative, without any genuine cognitive disposition . I don't have an "inner narrative", but most people I ask say they think "I", why? Why would any being need to refer to themselves, to themselves in such a manner, it's because not only do we habituate language but also lexical thought, and then such people ask psychologists what their own motives are, but never wonder where the psychologist got that insight from. Anyone who thinks in words cannot reason, logic is merely a vague sense of reasonableness . We learn language via mimicry ,just as a parrot, but it has no meaning , it is declarative, an adjunctive way to compell variation. My stance is profoundly reductionist, and on my best day il only say something is viable, not fact , but lexically minded people perceive this as a theism, because if a person can only think in words , they are confined to mimicry , there is no intentionality . I don't like that the species is splitting, but it is, the causal explanations given for the laws of nature, to are akin to "it go" , and the numeracy is anamorphic, it means nothing , there's only 4 varients, and technically two are inverted, but they aren't integers in any sense of the word, it is a pliable proportionality , when it changes , you see variation where there is none. I don't think this is a simulation, it doesn't need to be , because we don't investigate it, we are evolutionary lexicographers, and profound stupidity is incredibly useful, and necessary, and all we need is the vague sense that evolution adapts to itself and everything we are made of , with our "massive brains". The universe is like a cartoon, the complexity is a perceptual extrapolation. Ironically Einstein did speak of a temporal base but if you speak to a scientist about temporal stratification they pound their chest and grunt "word salad" , because they are just a very bad mimicry of life. I'm not a solipsist, I consider that you would need at least two people to make this work, oh and the four versions of everything, I guess that's the limitation , the universe could well be a singular carbon atom , it just rehashes the same 4 varients. I don't expect you to perceive this , I expect "so God did it?" Despite having just stated that this universe is pathetically crude and needs no more input than the stupidity of one person who doesn't realise that they quite literally are their own worse enemy . Id find it humourous if it weren't so lonely here among the cartoon theatrics. Oh and technology,oh my , well, not seeing causality is one thing but if you don't know what energy is (mechanism, not a symbol) , it's probably not your little corner of cognition pulling the creative ropes , we are just too special to deal with a temporal universe so we make a comfort blanket of senses and energy and gravitons . There's no big mystery , no simulation, no need for a God , we are too dumb to notice disparities, it's a glorified bookmark with spatial training wheels, we could all just talk but we aren't mature enough . My motives, my deep secret motive is , I'd like to not be alone , I hope there's no reincarnation, because there's no one left here but empty husks who can't remember why they think everyone has grandiose agendas. We could find some form of cooperation so easily , we look for a big transcend truth, as our species can't even find something worthwhile in each other . I didn't mention sentience as an insult, to me it is tragedy that we can no longer listen to each other. I would remove religion and science if the pursuit of compassion overcame the need to argue about how old the universe is

[@missh1774]

@@ZahraLowzley 😗💨 ... there was a little bit of dust there. No worries, it gets like that after being in storage for awhile. It reads like a nonbiological stratagem at 4 intervals. Too bad it is heavy footed on the regeneration function. It's two children hugging and smiling, not "two insecure people".

[@chadwcmichael]

Consciousness allows up to collapse the wave function in our favor. Everything that has ever been accomplished by a human being, has been accomplished because of some kind of thought.

[@skwalka6372]

You are right. In places where consciousness doesn't exist, such as Texas, the wave function hasn't collapsed.

[@bobbabai]

Ooooh, you've been watching some Dinesh D'Souza! He claims all sorts of stuff he knows nothing about!

[@blijebij]

@@skwalka6372 xD

[@Traderhood]

Wave function, huh? You are so smart.

[@garygray6545]

As materialist he must know then that 99.999999.99% of everything is nothing?! How would he account for that??

[@alreyindustries]

Hard to follow. I have a lot of questions: If we were tricked into developing consciousness, who or what tricked us? Why is this “thing” tricking us into survival? Everything is dying. Everything is going to die. Why is survival the ultimate goal of “evolution”? Can non-intelligent, strictly material organisms have goals? We emerged for no provable objective purpose. We exist for no provable objective purpose. We are moving towards no provable objective purpose. If all of this is true, it means absolutely nothing at all. All of it is nonsense and worthless. It can’t be true. Right?

[@stanh24]

I have to disagree ever so slightly with Dr Humphrey. Consciousness does in fact enable us to do things we wouldn’t otherwise be able to do, as for instance having these sorts of conversations.

[@michaeljacobs5342]

The brain/mind of man together with all the elements of the human anatomy is a product of higher universal intelligence. It is the unifying field of the entire universe that is the same unifying field that combines all functions of the brain as total experience. Just by means of analogy an alien from a planet without water would not be able to make sense of the formula H20, this can only be known by direct experience. In like manner the study of musical symbols alone does not lead to the experience of music that may evoke all kinds of memories, or emotional experiences as a biological reaction. Also, to mention the electromagnetic field of nature is vital to every cell function and biological process, we are part of nature not a separate entity. In respect of consciousness there are two sides to the coin as the brain must first be of a suitable formation for consciousness to emerge. To suggest that consciousness is a projection of the brain, to repeat is only possible if the brain is first formulated to enable such a faculty (horse and cart). If, as suggested consciousness is a projection of the brain this is the equivalent of reading into, more of a belief, as opposed to not necessarily being true to 'What Is', in other words an illusion, or invention of the brain. Whereas, as a fact of nature information must first be discovered in nature to activate formation, man is not the creator of intelligence. The driving force of life is universal higher intelligence seeking to know itself through mankind to come ever closer to the truth, a merging of mind and matter that due to the limitations of the physical structure is from moment to moment, forever unfolding in time, that can never be totally grasped. The grand mystery tour that keeps us searching to know the truth of our existence.

[@catherinemoore9534]

Since we're going to die, where is the advantage in survival that Robert keeps going back to? I am skeptical about this. Consciousness is much more than the mere instinct of survival. IMO, consciousness turns our lives into stories. We are made of stories. Human consciousness is an illusion but one that gives meaning to our lives if we want to understand our own stories. With this intention, we can evolve.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

From an evolutionary point of view , it’s not survival that’s important, it’s surviving just long enough to reproduce . Thus passing on genes .

[@catherinemoore9534]

@@tonyatkinson2210 even so... It comes down to the need to survive and humans are not only aware of death but also, sometimes commit suicide. Passing on genes isn't on most people's must-do list. Having children is motivated by much more than that, at least since the Agrarian revolution.

[@user-eu6rt6vf6u]

you are the consciousness and still you are hoping to find it outside of you as an object . just know yourself who are you in reality , and you are consciousness in reality and not the body-mind . objects of consciousness change but you are not the object you are the consciousness in which everything appears and disappears

[@donnamarie3617]

So, Why Did Consciousness Emerge?

[@ArtieTurner]

"...Set up to trick us". What a way to end that clip. Trickery involves two subjects, no? Who's tricking whom?

[@NullStaticVoid]

I think consciousness is merely the benefit of self conscious behavior. To be able to anticipate threats and rewards. An animal with this feature will have obvious Darwinian advantage over those that do not. I think one of the real questions of consciousness is how far down does it go in the so called lower animals. Consciousness is not by it's nature connected to language. But we seem to presume that the other animals, which do not talk to us, are not conscious.

[@WyreForestBiker]

Follow the money .... In an evolutionary sense . Just as the roots of human behaviors can be traced back to other species so can our level of consciousness which is nothing special, just another point on a continuum. So many seem to assume human consciousness (or higher consciousness) is in some way special, a view often born out of religious dogma. It's just a high level expression of the simple mapping of the immediate environment that most life forms are able to perform.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe human being (s) has reason for existing more than survival and life?

[@a.gwhiteley1855]

I confess to finding this kind of reductive, Darwinian view of consciousness purely in terms of its "purpose" or "function" almost comically absurd. There is no reason why consciousness should have developed as it has in human beings purely for survival value - bacteria, for instance, survive perfectly well without it. In the end, having spoken most eloquently and poetically about our sense of importance and the privilege of being in this "enchanted" universe, Nicholas Humphrey lets us all down with a bump by saying, in the final ten seconds of the interview, that of course it's all merely an illusion - generated by a mindless, purposeless, purely material cosmos. This belief, if accepted and remembered, is not very likely to bolster our sense of ourselves and our value!

[@vm-bz1cd]

The statement is phrased in reverse... it ought to read....Why did the world/universe we observe emerge out of Consciousness?

[@Stegosaurus12345]

They could be parallel phenomena, neither a product of the other, two sides of the same coin.

[@tekannon7803]

Professor Khune is at his level best in asking quality questions that Professor Humphrey explains in quality explanations which he gracefully does in broad strokes of primary colors.

[@rjgood1]

If consciousness evolved to trick us into believing that we are more important than we are, the joke is on evolution because the more we evolve the more important we are.

[@thomassoliton1482]

If consciousness has a purpose, then natural selection has a purpose, because that is how (panpsychism aside) consciousness arose. So what is the purpose of natural selection? Maybe to produce material life in the image of god? We have met God, and he is us. Pogo knew what he was talking about.

[@tdiddle8950]

This video does bring up a philosophical truth that's very important to me: say, is the life of a human or a chicken more important? I think that all points in the Universe are equally important. But, I must also give credit to the idea...that even though I don't particularly care for humans, it does seem that our universe is homo-centric. I truly hate admitting such a thing.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

I’m an unashamedly speciesist . A choice between saving a dogs life vs a babies is not something I would have to consider for more than a nanosecond . A hundred dogs wouldn’t do it .

[@HuMI317]

Consciousness allows us to learn about ourselves and then improve ourselves to live with each other happily.

[@pikiwiki]

so does that make consciousness something outside of the human body?

[@bigdog4574]

@@pikiwiki Yes consciousness is the soul… when the souls separates from our body so does our consciousness… that’s how the near death experiences happen.

[@LaloHuber]

Conciousness did not emerge. Matter emerged from Conciousness.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

People have an intuitive sense of being more than their body and brain even when they are told otherwise by the matierialists..

[@backwardthoughts1022]

actually ask any 15yo where their mind comes from they will say their brain

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@backwardthoughts1022 *"actually ask any 15yo where their mind comes from they will say their brain"* ... 15 years later, many of those same individuals will claim that it doesn't come from the brain.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC nope. its almost impossible to find a nonphysicalist outside of those who blindly adhere to Christian beliefs

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@backwardthoughts1022 *"nope. its almost impossible to find a nonphysicalist outside of those who blindly adhere to Christian beliefs."* ... I don't believe in God, nor am I am loyal, faithful member of the "Church of Hard Determinism," nor to I believe that the brain is exclusively responsible for consciousness. ... _What's that make me?_

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@backwardthoughts1022 I think very diferrently now than I did when I was that age

[@terrencekane8203]

Consciousness was here first. Before matter. Before time.

[@suatustel746]

Then hold on Eons until first humans emerged.... Do you realise the implacation? A space traveller needs to acquire a new kind consciousness in order to adapt the environment..

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

my soul is definitely intervening in my brains consciousness of my thumbs telling it to convey the spirit of my soul in this text. One where you can repeatedly test it as you unpack it in reverse. I worry about those who play musical chair of relativity to ignore answers they don't like

[@Traderhood]

What? How do you know you have a soul?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

human brain conscious of time by turning electromagnetic wave(s) into quantum wave function?

[@makeracistsafraidagain]

“Why” isn’t scientific. How is the only question.

[@alirezam7247]

i beg to differ. I think survival is a far more primitive reality. Need for survival is what gives us the illusion of consciousness not the other way around.

[@gitaarmanad3048]

Consciousness is all there is. It is the most fundamental 'substance' of creation. Everyting else resides in it. There is no need to know this, because consciousness has created this material illusion to be as real as possible. It's okay to forget about this if it makes you feel better.

[@Stegosaurus12345]

nothing much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens since wheelbarrow, rain, and chickens don't exist

[@TheAlpineAddict]

That which truly is fundamental cannot be defined. If you can define it, there is still room to go deeper.

[@raueugen9047]

Not in slightest measure convincing.The consciousness not appeared for poetry or to wait the moment one is asking himself what is its purpose.

[@whitefiddle]

Closer To Wild Speculation

[@jffryh]

Why couldn't a zombie behave as if it experienced joy in life even if it didn't truly experience joy

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Sounds like somebody needs to do some meditation 🤶

[@tunahelpa5433]

So it looks like mammals have used consciousness to create a nexus among neural networks. In my opinion, evolution discovered this and made use of it in the lower mammals. As the brain grew, the use of consciousness grew in this respect in both complexity and purpose. Just my opinion.

[@michaelhowell2609]

I can watch 3 videos on consciousness and get 3 different theories as to what it is. Why can’t someone just say we really don’t know as of yet. Progress has been made and we hope to know in the future. This sounds like the scientific example of the god of the gaps explanation.

[@longcastle4863]

How do you expect science to work? If you don't want to hear about the back and forth debates and incremental steps of progress in the field, don't pay so close attention or just wait for the big announcements to be made

[@nyworker]

The reason why Pansychism is so in favor because everything in nature can be analyzed down or proven to be an expansion up from the fundamental level. The question of why becomes moot because the why, how, what, when, which etc. are just brain states for a higher functioning being that has advanced language and thought. The why at this level is no different than the why at the fundamental level. Both levels comprise beings that are interacting with their environments. What makes it baffling to us that nature shuts off consciousness to attain learned behavior or it unclutters the conscious bottleneck. In other words many of our processes are like unconscious amoebas.....woops.

[@billhill897]

Consciousness is not an illusion but it is a construct.

[@fr.richardhill2900]

Are you thinking emergent or the construct type that requires a constructor?

[@billhill897]

Everything we perceive or interact with is a construct of our own consciousness including our consciousness. A circular argument I know, but likely the only one that is valid.

[@davideowatching]

@@billhill897 How can consciousness be a construct of itself? A construct cannot create anything by itself, so there need to be an actual consciousness to start the process of creating antoher "consciousness". So, to my mind, consciousness is excluded from the construct to begin with. Now, I wouldn't say that anything we perceive or interact with is the mere construct of consciousness, because we are not alone in the universe. In other words, if we see a tree and it was just the product of our imagination, then other people shouldn't see it, which is clearly not the case. That's why our environment has to be external objects to consciousness, and consciousness can perceive them through different operators from our physical body, like the eyes. And our sense of touch can confirm what we see... If we see a wall, we know we can't occupy the same location because if we try, we would come into direct contact with it due to its physical or material resistance blocking us and preventing us from going further in that direction. That's why I don't think all of the objects can be the mere projection of consciousness, because not only it would means we all have the same hallucination, but also due to the fact that we would be able to pass through objects instead of coming into contact with them like we do.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

No life form devoid of consciousness ever committed suicide. Of course, I am NOT arguing that consciousness is bad... To the contrary, I think that consciousness is on the whole GOOD ! Instead, I am arguing that consciousness must have an evolutionary advantage that is not simply the possibility of experiencing joy and pain.

[@davideowatching]

Well, if you refer to animals as other life form, I believe they do have consciousness. It's just that they are not self-consciouss as to have free will, but they do feel emotions, physical sensations such as pain through its receptor, taste when the eat, smell, etc. And to feel anything, you need to have a level of consciousness, in order to experience it. Consciousness can be an active thing that cause you to make decision, such as killing yourself. But it can simply be a passive perception, like when you eat a fruit, your consciousness perceive it as having a perticular taste, excapt that you have no control over that process.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@davideowatching Well, much of what you wrote here is obvious... But the point I am making is that consciousness serves as a tool of survival for those life forms that possess it, and that it is not simply a 'theater' for experiencing the joy of life -- as the guest speaker is claiming. The real advantage of consciousness is that it allows the life form to make judgements that can overrule its bare instincts. Instinct is also a tool for survival, but it is inflexible, whereas many life-edangering situations require flexibility.

[@davideowatching]

@@alwaysgreatusa223 Oh, ok. I didn't know what you meant. Besides, I stopped halfway watching the video because I couldn't understand the guest's English pronunciation. So I probably missed many points. To me, what you call instinct regarding animals, is their level of consciousness, which we humans also have. Because instinct is a feeling of compel that needs consciousness to be experienced. However, we have a higher level of consciousness in terms of intelligence, allowing us to understand morality and such.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

It isnt corrected . Guys believes reality are conscieness but unpredicted conscieness no show up reality. Guys lack evidence conscieness standard. In this sense guys are so ignorant not show true evidence. He unpredicted conscieness breaks conscieness proceedings.