Quantum Consciousness Debate: Does the Wave Function Actually Exist?

Quantum Consciousness Debate: Does the Wave Function Actually Exist? | Penrose, Faggin & Kastrup

Рет қаралды 267,249

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 1 300

@joesauvage1165 2 ай бұрын

To have Sir Roger Penrose, Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup in one meeting to share their views on consciousness and reality is something we will be ever so grateful for! Hans, you have navigated the map and territory so skillfully and respectfully. Deepest thanks for making this happen.

@lucyhanks500 2 ай бұрын

How many phat of the land are there behaving like pharaohs, quite a few? Science appears to have pharmed babies for exploitation by the many and whilst brazenly formulating the cerebrally narcissist streak to not believe it embarrassing? Got to wonder on these people who consider themselves sweets stolen from babies; it looks very ‘dancer in the dark’ meets ‘walk the line’.

@dltooley 2 ай бұрын

Mathematics is relation, yes? And the collapse of the wave function is all relation, yes?

@lucyhanks500 2 ай бұрын

@@dltooleyyeah, relation is tech head and autism, tells her parents what you mean when they get it wrong. She can watch the Eminem voiceover of finding Alaska via children’s internet cartoon for 3 hours straight withought getting a headache though. I did say she’s a lot like my mother. My mother however, gets annoyed if I read the film sub content like a mind map, if she can’t see it. Since our mind maps aren’t the same, she feels like she should be able to view everything my mind views, even though I can’t see what she views. The youths mind appears to be of similar lines, but the parents are putting words in her mouth to give away information about ‘an enemies situational disadvantages via popular choice of dissociation, except by less wealthy, less famous twin(s)’; ie: a flat or a room in someone else’s house, not a house or a large house itself, a supermarket or factory assembly line, not a large salary on the mintel demographic pyramid, put simply.’

@lucyhanks500 2 ай бұрын

It’s funny how that light on the tv on the right, looks like the photographs of the boy from the sixth sense, with a ghost or spiritual presence in every picture. Although it doesn’t feature the mind to mind communication experiments logos featured by some KZbin scientific research practitioners, since it isn’t a paid role. Collapse caused by limit of spiritual traffic to mind can’t be measured via one to one contact by reality, because invisible psychological traffic isn’t a quantifiable anomaly which is easily measured, defined & categorised by conscious countability and support. Since hostility doesn’t appear something which anybody wants to be honest about and cultural purity isn’t a scientific question. However, having to talk about oneself in the third person, due to popular mass hostility, is I’d say a real sign of an amount of psychological aggravate motivated by self-entitlement and assumed superior status with the intent of deliberated damage. Thus said, although damaged, there appears to be no visible chain of psychologies…I guess such phenomena is deemed fixable via the Rossman fold narrative…although somebody would have to relinquish control over an army of memed psychologies used as a weapon of abuse & oppression? There’s no mention of such persons, processes & motives?

@ukaszczop4373 20 күн бұрын

Looks like they want to say GOD is manipulating particles but they have not enough humility to do so and not enough humility to take Bible to their hands and put quantum mechanics in the corner.. "No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (Lord Jesus Christ)

@aidanhall6679 2 ай бұрын

I’ve come to expect a lot from Essentia, but can’t say I expected THIS. Hats off to Bernardo and his team, they continue to raise the bar for interviews on the frontier of physics and philosophy and it’s a privilege and a pleasure to watch it unfold!

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@undercoveragent9889 2 ай бұрын

But don't you find it annoying when uploaders ask you to give a thumbs-up _before_ you see the video? How about giving hotels 5 Stars the week before you stay there, right?

@undercoveragent9889 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 Cobblers!

@PADARM 2 ай бұрын

Sir Roger Penrose is 93 and only I can say Wow What a mind! He is already a legend

@dmkb-j8t 2 ай бұрын

hawkings and penrose books are awesome

@rajneeshsingha 2 ай бұрын

He is so clear even at this age!

@jefferyzielke7665 2 ай бұрын

A word treasure.

@MostConscious 2 ай бұрын

I disagree. He seems pretty ignorant to me.

@PADARM 2 ай бұрын

@@MostConscious let me know when you win a Nobel Prize

@jenmdawg 2 ай бұрын

What an incredible discussion. I’ll never be able to see the world, life, my own mind the same after watching this. My late fiancé and I had these talks for years by e-mail before we met in person. He’d love this.

@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist 2 ай бұрын

@@jenmdawg That's amazing! It's life changing 🙂

@ChaLy-r4d 2 ай бұрын

@@jenmdawg strange. I didn't think much of it. Everyone was tiptoeing around Sir Roger not wanting to offend his British sensibilities by suggesting the Hindus had figured out better than Einstein.

@Littleprinceleon 2 ай бұрын

@@ChaLy-r4dDid they? really? Educate me 😅!

@JamesGough1 2 ай бұрын

@@ChaLy-r4dyou don't know your history either.

@raggensen 2 ай бұрын

@@ChaLy-r4d Exactly! He is stuck in the view that the world is real and Donald Hoffman and the Hindus can tell us it isn't. It's maya. But very impressiv for a man this old!

@tevis190 2 ай бұрын

We love you SO dearly Roger. Thanks for staying engaged in this work and thanks for your theory. Watching a session or seminar with you is like opening a bottle of the finest wine, a delirious pleasure for the intellect.

@ryanmckinney8460 2 ай бұрын

The moderation at 16:35 or so blew my mind. What a thoughtful moderator to reframe the subject perfectly while two juggernauts have just laid out huge theories and allow them to move forward in a direction that is fruitful.

@notexactlyrocketscience 2 ай бұрын

Yes, he did an amazing job. Often politely reframing a slightly missed question here and there. He carried on a beautiful conversation. This was a very special video, glad it's been recorded.

@Killane10 2 ай бұрын

I am so grateful for the opportunity to see and hear these very interesting and knowledgeable guys speak. This is groundbreaking new media that is allowing us to understand the best minds and their specialisms. ❤❤❤

@amaliaantonopoulou2644 Ай бұрын

What a blessing to watch these three exceptional scientists having this wonderful conversation!Thank you for sharing!

@QuicksilverSG 2 ай бұрын

@9:49 Penrose explains the most profound aspect of Godel's Theorem: That moment when you work through the proof yourself, and suddenly understand WHY Godel's Theorem must be true, you are experiencing a thought process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm.

@esad-ij5ie 2 ай бұрын

Which is like the unconscious mind. We compute a flying ball hit by someone to us into lef t field with such precision with practice or hit moguls with precision coming down a snow-covered hill at 40mphs. The computational skills it takes to do these things in real time are cazy. I think the brain does have a quantum computational process to it.

@h.e.x. 2 ай бұрын

What about beings without brains? How do they react quickly to their environment without a biological quantum computer? I'm not convinced the brain is quantum as you say (aside from the universal quantum laws it follows). Because if a quantum brain is the reason we can react with such speed and precision in real time, you'd have to find a reason for life forms being able to live and react without brains.@@esad-ij5ie

@matswessling6600 2 ай бұрын

but that is not true. The goedel theorem is proved in such a way that a computer algorithm can prove it and thus also internalise and understand it. There is nothing i the proof that requires you to represent non-representable truths.

@QuicksilverSG 2 ай бұрын

@@matswessling6600 A computer algorithm "understands" nothing. It can manipulate arbitrary symbols, but it takes human insight to recognize what makes those symbols meaningful.

@matswessling6600 2 ай бұрын

@@QuicksilverSG "insight" isnt myserious, is just that the brain created shortcuts in the associations for that subject. The mind doesnt do what you think it does. The mind is no computer. the brain is in a way a sort of computer, but the mind isnt, its more like running software. our minds are not a "complete formal system" and thus is not needed to follow Gödels theorem.

@kimsoares3271 2 ай бұрын

Only sir Penrose having subtitles is straight from the Monty Python sketch😂

@longshotkdb 23 күн бұрын

😂😂😂 That's so true / funny / absurd ∆ love it.

@ciarandevine8490 2 ай бұрын

After an NDE in 2002, I have been very focused on this very subject of consciousness and as a direct result i received answers to my questions. I'd like to share something on this important question. The brain is the engine room of the physical form we occupy. The mind is in every cell and doesn't have original thought but rather operates from experience, external and internal events, what we learn, hear, taste and observe. All creative thought comes from the field beyond our physical form, what seems to be separate but through Quantum Physics we discover is a part of us. Everything IS consciousness and everything comes from consciousness. 💥

@rikabel8301 28 күн бұрын

i came to same conclusion through DMT

@kriszSTNX0 27 күн бұрын

This is not an answer. You have to correctly formulate how physical laws emerges from your proposed conciousness. On the other hand, in order to say everything is conciousness, what causal relationships and symmetries and properties conciousness has, that governs its behaviour apart from randomness, needs to be defined first.

@ciarandevine8490 26 күн бұрын

@@kriszSTNX0 ah! Kris, you're into the physical form and what we have to do. You must be living in a closet, Kris. What if everything you believe is real was actually an illusion? Take Time and Soace. Do you think Time and Space is real? Einstein's theory of SpaceTime is beautiful, GPS and everything else is based on it. But the very mathematics that proves his theory also shows its limits. Time ceases to have any meaning at 10 - 43 seconds and Space at 10 - 33 cm. In other words we have discovered that Time is a single moment NOW and Space/Distance is a single location HERE. Time is not linear and Space isn't real, both are an illusion. So Kris you'll have to rethink your THINKING. You believe reality is the physical universe but you are not who you believe you are. "Time" to wake up. ❤️

@brendawilliams8062 2 ай бұрын

Experiments favorable is supportive. Penrose is a skeptical and thorough scientist. A Giant

@neurobits Ай бұрын

Like is dumb diminishing experiments, EXPERIENCE.

@jasonporteous9722 2 ай бұрын

Bernardo has the most open mind. He is at the forefront for me, he has so much respect for everyone but more importantly he knows his experiences are coming from somewhere else.

@louisdelossantos6827 2 ай бұрын

This is the first video ive seem by you. I LOVE this format, where you slice up the conversation and provide context. This makes these topics so much more digestible. Thank you and keep it up!

@miacrowell1472 2 ай бұрын

What a pleasure. Thank you all so much.

@nadamuchu 2 ай бұрын

As a deaf person who is extremely interested in this discussion it's very disappointing to see what can only be described as a half assed effort to provide accessibility. I really hope you reconsider and take the time to add captions for the entire conversation because it appears to be one that is worth the full effort.

@extavwudda 2 ай бұрын

I am only 45 minutes into this conversation, but the phenomenon of personalities dancing around each other trying not to offend the others is very palpable. It's as if Gaggin, Kastrup and the moderator have agreed upon a very tentative conversational strategy up front. And Penrose is simply not biting and not sufficiently enticed to reason outside of his materialist world view. Having said this, it"s easy for me to say, obviously, and I respect the effort.

@Seeker2043 2 ай бұрын

😂😂 Wow! This sounds like a typical sample of my inner dialogue as i watch such presentations.

@oliviergoethals4137 2 ай бұрын

True

@markcounseling 2 ай бұрын

Yes, it's fascinating to watch and also a little painful, as one witnesses the challenge of opening an old mind to a new idea, and one knows of course that we all have the same problem as Sir Roger.

@AdeebaZamaan 2 ай бұрын

@@Seeker2043 I ❤ you.

@gnostic1955 2 ай бұрын

Yes, nice…Penrose is a materialist. He refers to two realities, one quantum, the other classical…No, Classical is the reality decided by the quantum world, which is not a reality but an infinite collection of possibilities put to consciousness.

@maitlandbowen5969 2 ай бұрын

Wow, so good - Sir Roger Penrose - I dearly wish that minds and personhoods like his could go on forever. 🍂🍃🌈

@Franciscasieri Ай бұрын

Perhaps they do...

@rikabel8301 28 күн бұрын

@@Franciscasieri Federico Faggini would agree :)

@burakgozluklu 2 ай бұрын

There cant be a better discussion and the team of debate than these 3 people

@jdove1977 2 ай бұрын

Add Don Hoffman, and I would agree.

@burakgozluklu 2 ай бұрын

Correct 👍🏼

@ezbody 2 ай бұрын

After having a few LSD trips, anyone can become a real expert. Just take a look at Kastrup, he used to be just a high level engineer, but now he is an expert on combining words and sentences that collectively create an illusion of knowledge.

@JosephLuppens 2 ай бұрын

@@ezbody Oh my! Is that why Penrose is holding his forehead?🤣

@rikabel8301 28 күн бұрын

Add Alan Watts, and I would agree. Oh wait.

@susanvaughan4210 2 ай бұрын

What a huge privilege to be "a fly on the wall" while this amazing discussion, between these extraordinary humans, takes place. Deep thanks!

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@santyclause8034 Ай бұрын

You neglect narrator Point of View, Tense and the Active Voice. Consider this claim: Reality is arguably an Eternal Now, for it can only be verified in Nature when it is observable, ie. when it exists. You cannot observe the Future from this analog, and the Past is a matter of remove from the observer, its witness.

@willywalter6366 2 ай бұрын

What a wonderful constructive argument - and a very thoughtful moderation ! Was a joy and pleasure to follow a very mind heavy topic!❤

@Atoku0 Ай бұрын

I am happy to follow Roger Penrose since Convey's book for high school that dedlscribed his tiles in one chapter. Then in early 90s I have read the emerors mind and was totally fascinated by the ideas. Last time I have seen Roger was in Fairbanks Alaska when he visited UAF. I was shocked by the huge crowd of Alaskans tried to fit into the auditorium where Sir Roger used simple hand written slides and talked about physics. I don't know a deeper thinker currently alive than Sir Roger. Thank you for bringing this conversation online.

@joebenham27 2 ай бұрын

Go to 56:02. Penrose says that the qualia of another’s conscious experience is something that simply can’t be known. He also says that quantum reality can only be confirmed, not ascertained. Perhaps these have some connection.

@santyclause8034 Ай бұрын

You can put thought into speech acts encoded into codified text, ie. a book. Doesn't mean the book is conscious.

@TheTimeOfThePlace 2 ай бұрын

That was incredible and almost surreal, I think if Penrose were a peer of Kastrup, Hoffman et al he would be in total agreement, but he provides the wall so to speak that new theories must vault over.

@dmi3kno 2 ай бұрын

Subscribed. Thank you! The Bernardo-Federico duo is awesome!

@stevendebernardi8291 2 ай бұрын

Consciousness remains a mystery. Conversation about it remains conversation.

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@ChristopherDwiggins 2 ай бұрын

Nope

@sedalia9356 2 ай бұрын

I mostly agree, except for the mystery. It is just simpler than they can admit.

@gk10101 2 ай бұрын

perfectly said. in a thousand years we will be no less closer to "solving the problem of consciousness". our tech will be way cooler though.

@Shane7492 2 ай бұрын

Actually, consciousness is the one thing that isn't a mystery. Everything else is a mystery, because consciousness is the only thing that has ever been experienced. There is no hard problem of consciousness. There is only a hard problem of matter.

@carmellephillips5668 2 ай бұрын

Let’s add the physics Tom Campbell with his MBT theory of everything in this discussion. Thank you great discussion 🙏🏽

@robdev89 2 ай бұрын

I see some analogous to what Donald Hoffman proposes and what Faggin is claiming. Would be interesting to see them talk about their theories. Awesome channel! Top Quality guests! I sure hope dear Roger is around for a lot longer. What a joy to listen to him speak, whether you agree with him or not.

@lastchance8142 2 ай бұрын

Wow! The concept of conciousness being a postulate, or an axiom is something incredible. Never explicitly stated, but this implys that the "universe" is "conscious, and quantum physics reflects the "free will" of the universe in the collapse of the wave function. I'm with Penrose on this being metaphysics, and creating more questions than it answers. Indeed, how can conciousness be seperated from a mind?

@jimseventytwo7256 2 ай бұрын

This isn't a new finding...the yogic science's are way beyond these guys.. journey onwards and outwards and escape the imaginary finite world of the mind and experience the infinite truth of of reality of what we truly are.

@masticloxpoker1006 2 ай бұрын

Dont say wow and get overexited by simple stuff my friend, what will you do when you understand that you are me, and that this comment you are reading right now is written by yourself?

@jimseventytwo7256 2 ай бұрын

@@masticloxpoker1006 or maybe get excited and fall hopelessly in love with the wowness of everything...wahe guru 😋

@visitor9408 22 күн бұрын

@@jimseventytwo7256 I'll disprove all your conviction with a few cans of beer

@neerajamb 2 ай бұрын

Fabulous conversation and people here! I don’t understand if Penrose is deliberately not entertaining the idea of consciousness as a fundamental concept in the fabric of reality. Gaggin and Kastrup are being crystal clear about their counter proposal. Quantum physical observations appear the way they do as a result of our conscious mind and its properties. Penrose, brilliant though he is, keeps going around it.

@calebbright8289 2 ай бұрын

Glad I wasn’t the only one feeling the same

@marcosfraguela 2 ай бұрын

At one point he said something like “philosophers and physicists care about different things”.

@apexmoon6912 2 ай бұрын

I have the same opinion as penrose, I can't see an argument for WHY consciousness needs freewill. Or whatever your individual interpretation of freewill is.

@KanoLAD 24 күн бұрын

I can, hence the discussion :)

@apexmoon6912 24 күн бұрын

@@KanoLAD There was no discussion, they brushed over it because it's a retarded argument.

@abduazirhi2678 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing this magnificent talk !! Sir Roger Penros is an amazing scientist to listen to. I admire his intellectual humility and compassion. Consciousness is fundamental posing serious challenge to scientific materialism.

@dysfunc121 2 ай бұрын

Everything is a claim that I am not convinced by, Penrose is the only who has the skepticism I would trust.

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@julianfloa 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838I bet you have also reflected why things take on a dual structure, if so please elaborate on that topic hyperduality. There are many types of dualities but are you aware of the duality they all pertain to, the duality of duality? And although categories certainly are dual to sets it is not true that syntax is exclusive to the former and semantics to the latter, the most generalised syntax for instance is doubtlessly containment which pertains far more directly to sets than to categories.

@julianfloa 2 ай бұрын

Categories are in mathematics what analytic predicates were for Kant, while sets are in mathematics what synthetic predicates were for Kant. Syntax is necessary everywhere where we are dealing with composites of distinct things, synergy, synthetic, synapse, syndicate, syntactic, they have one thing in common in addition to their morphology and etymology itself reveals it so we don't even need to theorise about it. Things are coming together without being already the same every time it starts with "syn".

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@@julianfloa Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, Functors or dual basis. Riemann geometry is actually dual so curvature or gravitation is dual as there is a dual basis hiding in Riemann geometry, upper indices are dual to lower indices -- Tensors. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration - Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality. Time is dual. Likewise space must be dual:- Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry or space duality. Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points where the points are the boundaries in topology (homology) -- space duality. All lines or distances are non null homotopic -- space duality. Space duality is dual to time duality -- duality within duality or hyperduality. Thesis (the future) is dual to anti-thesis (the past) creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis (the present) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The present is the synthesis of the past and future according to the Hegelian dialectic. Time is a dual concept and space is a dual concept -- space is dual to time -- Einstein.

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@@julianfloa Energy is also dual, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy or gravitational energy is dual. Everything in physics is made out of energy or duality. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem. Hence there is a 5th law of thermodynamics as duality (energy) is being conserved -- Generalized Duality. Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual. If forces are dual then energy must be dual:- Energy = Force * distance -- simple physics. Gluons are force carriers as they attract and repel quarks. The proton would collapse in on itself if there was no repulsion between quarks likewise two quarks attract each other via gluons otherwise the proton would not be stable. Gluons or force carriers are dual. Energy is duality, duality is energy!

@burakgozluklu 2 ай бұрын

One thing scientists (which also I am) should use from eastern mystics is that the core consciousness is “the witness” the one “who is there”. If you remove all senses, memory or even thoughts, will there be somebody ? Yes, that is consciousness

@kronoscamron7412 2 ай бұрын

There was a Brian greene documentary exploring this idea. And also explore the fractal nature of consciousness within biological beings. That consciousness is inherent in the universe.

@bojackhorsingaround 2 ай бұрын

@@kronoscamron7412 Then what causes psychopathic abominable crimes? Is that the universe itself acting up? 😅

@Littleprinceleon 2 ай бұрын

@@burakgozluklu what if the deep meditative state enables the experience of the most basic level of awareness as the ability of the brain to be aware of its own existence and not some deeper reality? Which of course doesn't exclude the possibility of such...

@burakgozluklu 2 ай бұрын

@@Littleprinceleonit can be even if very few can attain a level of meditation that opens the door to such possibilities. The main intention of my statement is to point to the hardship of defining consciousness, even the hard problem of concentration doesnt do the job. People still talk about “things” like color, smell etc but not the awareness which is witnessing it.

@JCol-o3n 2 ай бұрын

Yes and I think what hints at this is: how are we all conscious of the same things? If there was a red coat left on a table a monitor would pick up the red coat and report it found and the person who thought they lost it would show up. That shows that something beyond physical, in the human mind, identifies the red coat. Many human minds are detecting the red coat. So that’s maybe not seeing things as they really are, but it points to a universal consciousness that perceives the same thing. It may not be reality but it hints that we all are together and can witness reality together too because perhaps we are all the Mind of God perceiving Itself as we look to this Egotistic, One Ego & Mind.

@paulkeogh7077 2 ай бұрын

Language is symbolic so it’s use to precisely describe reality inevitably bifurcates the one reality into subject and object. I see Penrose using very precise descriptions so it’s no surprise he bifurcates reality into quantum (subjective) and classical (objective). Although, Faggin and Kastrup clearly appreciate and can articulate the dichotomy or duality of explicit reality, they also exquisitely and somewhat poetically gesture towards wholeness by describing implicit reality as a universal field of consciousness or subjectivity (Kastrup’s terminology). Penrose’s explanation of the inevitability of wave-function collapse without conscious intervention doesn’t deny the catalytic power of agent-directed consciousness (attention and intention, free will) to speed up the process. Doesn’t our modern world exemplify the power of human consciousness to profoundly and exponentially reshape reality? I appreciate the nuanced discussion around free will and acknowledge the difference between deterministic, self-identified agency and agent-directed attention (reflective consciousness) in creatively participating in manifesting the world or explicit reality. The more humans consciously cultivate and recursively integrate the dual aspects of attention (right-brain openness and left brain closure) the more coherent will be the relations between inner and outer reality, between subject and object, between us and them, between me and you.

@adriatik7070 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for great discussion. I am voting for Federico on this one

@Mystery_G 2 ай бұрын

I am deeply appreciative of this gathering and discussion. Yet, with that said, I cannot help but to consider that it remains beyond tragic that the West, by and far, continues to act as though the East has no history of deeply examining both consciousness and free will, as if their history doesn't have a great deal of value to add to the West's conception and understanding of these subjects that can provide for a more robust understanding of ultimate reality. Though, thankfully, there is a generation of thinkers like Kastrup, Vervaeke, Sheldrake, and the like, who are breaking new ground in challenging the West's present cul-de-sac of thinking, which appears to be showing gtrat signs for the future.

@Lucinda_Indigo 10 күн бұрын

How fascinating is this discussion?! I have no idea what any of this means, yet I am so completely transfixed I can't stop watching. 😅 I wish more teachers were this inspiring.💗📚

@alexjan108 2 ай бұрын

The discussion is awesome and although there are different views they smile and are very polite. The bright analytical intellect, how Bernardo summarizes, is unparalleled and gives goosebumps. But there is always confusion between participants , also in many other discussions, how consciousness is defined. Some understand it as mind others as absolute consciousness. Nisargadatta brings in here awareness as the primordial which is the matrix of every experience. May I share: Nisargadatta Maharaj: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness? Nisargadatta: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy….., Sorry for the excursion. Best regards from Vienna 🤗

@BC-lf4om 2 ай бұрын

YES, Nisargadata is an important voice to consider ....read:. I AM THAT.

@umaneelakantan9327 Ай бұрын

Thankyou for the excursion. Valuable. I appreciate your clarity on the usage of "consciousness" and "awareness". Many Teachers use these different terms . .. differently.. But when the student is earnest and sincere, he "gets it" clearly. . ...

@joellakrall7445 2 ай бұрын

It is truly amazing how smart Bernardo is and how humble.

@hechanova07 2 ай бұрын

Sorry I’m a realist. Anytime someone mention qualia and how it’s something self evident - the same as considering consciousness and free will as postulates - I’m immediately let down by anyone proposing this. Saying that something unexplainable (consciousness and free will) explains another unexplainable thing (quantum mechanics) is like giving up on both.

@souvikporel255 2 ай бұрын

What an episode!!! Even though it is 131mins it took me nearly 2 hours to finish it. Thank you...

@jonburton4897 2 ай бұрын

I’ve had a collapse of my brain function

@TheSouthernSiren 2 ай бұрын

I'm about to have one trying to hear what he's saying😆

@AbooLayth Ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@irrealislife 9 күн бұрын

😂😂

@thechurchofdave 2 ай бұрын

I loverd this. It is just so beautiful how well this went. Intelegent, polite, respectful. An absolute honor to get to see these people interact so effectively.

@proheretics 2 ай бұрын

Very clear example of primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness. Penrose is battling against reality deniers on every side.

@OlofBerkesköld 2 ай бұрын

You're a dualist?

@proheretics 2 ай бұрын

@@OlofBerkesköld objectivist

@matthewmorrison9255 3 күн бұрын

So you’ll indefinitely update your ontological beliefs in line with the latest mathematical theory?

@spac3junk117 Ай бұрын

Penrose doesn’t like to jump to assumptions or conclusions without a compelling understanding. Thanks for keeping it real, need more philosophers and physicists like him

@ahmedkhan25 2 ай бұрын

Absolutely great - I love that you got Roger Penrose - these ideas have to be refined and put through the philosophical and experimental rigor otherwise it’s just new age wishful thinking - I’d trust Penrose’s intuition but I also feel like I’d personally love for Bernardo’s world view to be real because it explains so many things - still wishing for something is not enough we must follow scientific principles in our metaphysics as much as is reasonably possible

@maesk52 2 ай бұрын

You’re already experiencing the world that Bernardo speaks of my friend. And your wishful thinking is the confirmation of that, the cat is alive if you believe it to be alive.

@Jeff-op9sl Ай бұрын

What a gem of an interview, one for the history books for sure. Thank you all very much!

@bartomalatesta5652 2 ай бұрын

These are GIANTS of humanity.

@MrSensis 18 күн бұрын

I've been waiting years for these kinds of conversations. Thank you so much.

@pedrofigueiredo9146 2 ай бұрын

My problem with Roger Penrose point of view is this: if its true: A) that consciousness can't be explain by a matematicaly computable formal way (with the invocation of the Godel's incompleteness theorem) B) the collapse of the wave function indicates that the QM theory is not complete (or correct in his own words). Then if we reach a point in the future that QM in complete (something that Penrose says it needs to be done) and its able to mathematically and formally explain the collapse of the wave function then it can't explain consciousness because that can't be explain formaly (and we're back to Godel incompleteness theorem).

@pedrofigueiredo9146 2 ай бұрын

So in my view if consciousness is not an emerging property of the formal laws of physics then it really needs to be fundamental and for that the explanation presented by Faggin makes more sense.

@danielm978 2 ай бұрын

Can something not be unexplainable?

@artlessons1 2 ай бұрын

@@danielm978@danielm978 yes, as Kant says, the thing in itself can't be explained or known as it's beyond the limits of our knowledge.

@benayers8622 2 ай бұрын

@@danielm978 Penrose seems too sure everything can be measured as if he thinks the world is just how it looks at face value, i expected more from him.. If this isnt a computer simulation and is truly analog reality then surely analog cannot always be reduced to a digital scale no? Like when people say something is physically impossible they are the science version of a religious nut because science must change to accept reality, reality doesnt have "laws" humanity has just lost its way and transformed a system of studying our environment into a belief system.. Teaching kids theories are facts to keep them dumb.. Since the 50s nobody will be allowed to accidentally advance research that may affect Fission based weapons, its been made sure of by totally changing how mainstream science sees itself and ensuring anyone who questions the status quo never becomes an expert and challenges the system.. History science medicine/drugs news it is all being controlled or discoveries covered up to ensure nato and the current global trade economy stays intact because it started for peace but now its just too inconvenient for the richest 1% to allow those old agreements to fail regardless of what the people want, anyone you are allowed to vote for is part of the magic show, whichever card you pick the result will always be the same. Its the illusion of choice to keep the majority docile, if people think they have some sort of control they are much less likely to try take back power for themselves in a more difficult manner as they believe in the system changing if they ask nicely which weakens and divides the masses.. Lots needs to change we are living in a system designed by dead people who never passed on the secret to the plan so its on autopilot now and being used to ensure the richest stay rich free of risk while making us all victims of data harvesting and surveillance.. We have much to fix the kids who arent old enough to remember before 2000 sadly dont realise whats happened. The frogs nearly boiled hopefully we free human progress from this corruption before its too late.. ✌❤️

@benayers8622 2 ай бұрын

thers a 3h eric weinstein vid very recently who sums it all up very well he knows the score.. Apart from science becoming a new form of religion historical sites like gobekli tepe been buried, grand canyon cave city was all concreted and barred shut with armed guards for 'peoples safety' too! but rock climbing sky diving cave exploring all legal, thers so much blatant interference. We the people deserve truth regardless of the effect on religions or alliances or rich institutions based on lies or mistaken history, those things are so much less important than truth. These things buried and lost from living memory is just unacceptable in my opinion.. The truth fragments still remain but ai will probably change that eventually i guess.. Stay free✌❤️

@illuminaut9148 Ай бұрын

Such a non egoistic conversation. This is how conversations should go.

@PKWeaver74 2 ай бұрын

I don't understand the argument that free will exists, in fact I've never heard a logical argument that it exists so I'm surprised to hear it stated as an axiom in this discussion. The consciousness discussion is fascinating although I'm persuaded by the possibility that we will never understand consciousness as it's not possible to study it objectively. We may have to embrace uncertainty.

@OlofBerkesköld 2 ай бұрын

So you appeal to mystery? Like religious people do with free will.

@hacheLP 2 ай бұрын

You don't to search for a logical/physucal argument tha ' that free will exist' so for consciousness...these exist! It is evudent by itself, that what Federico Faggin says

@luizadolphs6084 Ай бұрын

Sometimes you just have to go trough the other way around: if free will doesn’t exists, everything could be, some how, calculated (or computed)

@PKWeaver74 Ай бұрын

@@luizadolphs6084 or a combination of prior causes and randomness.

@rithinsiby2653 Ай бұрын

Guess you didn't have choice to write this. 😢

@matthewskillo8577 Ай бұрын

And Thank You ALL in this podcast ~ I am a big fan of you all!

@KipIngram 2 ай бұрын

No, "collapse" does not correspond to any sort of physical process. The wave function doesn't even actually exist in physical space. It really exists in a "space of possible measurement outcomes. People get confused about this because so often the example that is considered is the POSITION measurement of a single particle. That space of possible results is a three-dimensional space of, well, POSITIONS, so it's easy to squint and let yourself think you're talking about physical space, but you actually are not. And in more complicated situations the space may not even be three-dimensional, so it's CERTAINLY not physical space. Quantum theory is not a theory about "what happens in the world" the way classical physics is. Quantum theory is about WHAT WE EXPECT THE RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS TO BE. Therefore, you can't even get rolling until you specify what it is you're going to measure and how you're going to measure it. And when the pre-measurement quantum state becomes the post-measurement quantum state, there is no "physical" that steers that process. It's just an action we take as part of the problem solving procedure. We LOOK AT THE MEASUREMENT RESULT, determine the eigenstate of the measurement operator that corresponds to that result, and MANUALLY shove it in, as a step in our problem solving process. It's not physics at all. Just to be clear, I don't mean for the above to contradict anything in this video. I agree with these guys by and large. All I mean is that collapse isn't something that happens physically IN THE CONTEXT OF MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I don't mean to say it doesn't represent anything at all happening. Just nothing that we can capture in our physical models. My argument DOES address Penrose's objections to quantum theory. It does indeed leave out an explanation of what collapse is. But that's just because collapse has to do with stuff that's not included in the physical model at all - our minds, consciousness, and so on. There's no way it can be explained within the confines of ordinary physics.

@marek-kulczycki-8286 2 ай бұрын

'Not about "what happens in the world"' except it can give the answers which are applicable (and useful) in macroscopic world - our everyday life. Chemistry, metallurgy, electronics - nowadays these are based on specific solutions of the Schrodinger's equation. I think we have similar intuition: QM is about outcomes of measurements, not about the reality itself. You can reverse-engineer a structure of a car by using photons or electrons (microscopy) to see all details, but if you could only crash two cars and measure distribution of remains, what could you learn about mechanics? But perhaps the collapse of WF is corresponding to the process of interaction between quantum fields, which is the same as the process of quantum measurement (we have to let something observable to interact with the quantum entity we want to get the eigenstate of)?

@KipIngram 2 ай бұрын

@@marek-kulczycki-8286 What I meant by that is that classical physics gives you a complete picture of the evolution of "the world" (or the part of it you're studying, at least). For example, if a golf ball is whizzing by, we can measure it's position and velocity at one instant and then calculate a complete trrajectory. We get a much bigger picture than just the result of the measurement. Quantum theory doesn't do that - we get the measurement result, and that is all. Of course, the theory gives us a full picture of the evolution of the wave function, in periods we are not measuring, but we can't really observe the wave function so that's not the same thing at all. So, we can measure a particle at time A and learn something about it, and measure again at time B and learn something about it, but we don't get any info on observable properties in between those two times.

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@KipIngram 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 Waves are not converted to particles by diodes. That's nonsense. Current waveforms simply have their negative going excursions suppressed. What's left is still a waveform - just a different one. That's if the diode is ideal, of course - a real diode only "approaches" such behavior. I think you're just throwing around words that you t hink sound profound. Trying to sound like you know more than you do.

@VindensSaga 2 ай бұрын

Ah yes, the "experts" on youtube are at it again,

@nilsbecker-c7n 2 ай бұрын

Disaggree with BK on this : "Collapse is epistemic" may be right, but not because "superposition is epistemic". Superposition is not epistemic in a classic sense of theoretical construction, it is real, and proven by interferences between states, even for one quantum and one time. Feynmann path integrals have also been made to solve the many-path reality into one experiment. That is why, collapse can be ontologic. And when due to decoherence, it is ontologic too. Also, Parallel quantum computing is impossible if superposition is just "epistemic". Remind also than circular polarisation of light is a superposition of two electromagnetic fieds, even for only one photon.

@Ekkiert8 2 ай бұрын

Great HOST! Really enjoyed the video. Host did a great good of summarizing and clarifying some comments from the panelists🌼

@markcounseling 2 ай бұрын

13:40 The collapse is the _expression_ of a field that has consciousness and free will. Brilliant. The consciousness is the field part, and the observation/measurement is the free will part.

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

Collapse = Rectification. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@Byneford 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838you definitely live up to your username 😂

@scriabinismydog2439 2 ай бұрын

Free will? How?

@markcounseling 2 ай бұрын

@@scriabinismydog2439 Free will is a postulate here of an ontological primitive. So there is no "how". But it has the sense and benefit of being directly validated in each person's own experience. You experience it right at this moment, for example.

@markcounseling 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 Interesting, thank you. It seems that the primal duality is found in the Heart Sutra.

@patrickdelarosa7743 2 ай бұрын

Thank you EF for this discussion, kudos to Hans the moderator, great job sir !!! 🙏

@TheMikesylv 2 ай бұрын

I would never bet against Sir Roger Penrose, that is a gut feeling not a intellectual one

@sambo7734 2 ай бұрын

That was absolutely wonderful! What an incredible conversation, thank you :)

@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt 2 ай бұрын

40:08 Sir Roger is still old-school and insists on the subjective-objective world. This is a philoshical view that dogs many that is caught in this presupposition. Faggin on the other hand believes that the whole of reality is subjective and merely mirrors a fundamental consciousness both individually and collectively. I side with Faggin There is a story of two monks arguing. One insists that the wind is moving the tree. The other insists that the tree is moving the wind. The master arrives and tells them:"you are both.wrong,it is your minds that.are moving" .

@akosiwaray1837 2 ай бұрын

This is the type of conversation I'm looking for. As an unimportant curious low frequency human person.. thank you so much for making this possible. Subscribed.

@khuzytheartistsyd 2 ай бұрын

Penrose didn't politic for even a second and kept it real

@Reality_Road 2 ай бұрын

Loved it. Thank you so much. Federico's consciousness mapped to quantum field is phenomenal!

@markcounseling 2 ай бұрын

20:20 it seems that sir Roger has not yet noticed the moment before cognition occurs. There is the _expanse_ of the unknown and then a "collapse" into a known. This transition does not happen materially, but it most certainly happens phenomenologically, and this is what is captured by QM.

@Franciscasieri Ай бұрын

Yeah you noticed and he didn't...wow Mark!!! You solved it!!!!!

@markcounseling Ай бұрын

@@Franciscasieri Do you see it?

@dexterselboy9187 2 ай бұрын

Just three actual experts respecting each others different ideas. Refreshing.

@Gminor7 2 ай бұрын

Incredible discussion. I’m grad degree in philosophy 1979, and I’m usually with Bernardo, especially since he encompasses Schopenhauer, in my experience.

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@Gminor7 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 All of which is empiricism, and has nothing to do with ontology, which is the issue at hand. In my experience many do not understand ontology. Syntax, information, mathematics, semantics, etc., do not deal with ontology. They describe qualities, quantities, appearance, behaviors, relationships.

@martinavazzolermartyvazz 2 ай бұрын

Thank you very much! The best conversation on this topic of the year! Looking for more of this!

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@IntuitArt-rb4br 2 ай бұрын

Faggin has my vote. Penrose is still essentially a materialist. And Kastrup has the most compelling Direct Path notion as he just follows 'Nature' ... and knows that he is doing it. Love that!!!

@sterlingcooley7401 2 ай бұрын

Penrose has indicated platonic idealism multiple times - unsure where you are getting your information from

@NoobTube4148 2 ай бұрын

Faggin is opening up for debate an area that deserves serious academic study. Start with the postulate, forget the spiritual and religious connotations as that’s what seems to push people away (sadly). Just take it as a possible reality and create some experiment and theory to consider it a serious possibility. Science was never broken to push it into new eras without going against the commonly held beliefs of the day.

@JJBerthume 2 ай бұрын

Penrose is definitely not a materialist, I don't think he thinks that mathematics is fundamental to all of reality, he just hasn't reconciled the dualism between math and consciousness and assumes that it can be done in a way that equals them out with a third understanding as opposed to positing that mathematics cannot exist without consciousness. The way I see it, in order to count something you must have a single perception that contains evidently differentiatable objects, but to perceive the coherent differentiation is to bely the a-priori perception that gave rise to the items. In that sense I am on Kastrup's side: everybody only has ever known oneness, inside of which everythingness exists. It reminds me of Lao Tzu: "From the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, from the three comes the ten thousand things." In other words, being=the field of consciousness (one) divides reality into polarities (two), but the two ends of the polarities still imply the existence of the original conscious perception, which, being not limited to having to perceive polarity in order to exist is thus separate from the pole as the watcher (which implies three: the two ends of the pole + the awareness), upon which all individual objects of cognition (including tokens/symbols) arise epiphenomenonally (the ten thousand things). But none of it could conceivably exist without the single field of consciousness. It's all so intuitive and obvious (and I don't mean that patronizingly); people just aren't comfortable with the pan-psychism implicit in idealism because they are racist against rocks and minerals (that's a joke) and obviously humans are naturally anthropocentric. Side note: undifferentiated beingness without even QUALIA can be experienced, paradoxically, on high doses of psychedelics. 5-MEO dmt is quite good at reliably doing this if you can let go of egomind and pop through the vortex. Anyone who has experienced this will know exactly what I'm talking about, and anyone who hasn't naturally won't believe it's possible, just like a person blind since birth wouldn't believe color is possible (and even if they did conceptually, it would not replace the actual experience). In closing, Krishnamurti: "The description is not the described."

@hyperduality2838 2 ай бұрын

@quixodian 2 ай бұрын

@@IntuitArt-rb4br Perhap not materialist so much as metaphysical realist i.e. there’s a real, mind-independent state of affairs that science ought to disclose, not contingent upon the observer.

@filiuslaurentius 2 ай бұрын

my quantum state wishes to express gratitude for being able to eavesdrop such a deep, wonderful, special conversation.

@jj4cpw 2 ай бұрын

Sir Roger is clearly brilliant when it comes to the physics of the 'headset' (to use Don Hoffman's term) but, also clearly, he will never get beyond the physicalist ontology.

@max5665 Күн бұрын

it's not consciousness that defines us humans - it's trascendence - and we are the only ones who have such a capability of moving beyond physical needs and realities.

@sonarbangla8711 2 ай бұрын

Forget consciousness, I find it complicated in just trying to explain how is it that a flower is beautiful. However much I try I cannot give a complete description of what is it that makes a flower beautiful? Any amount of description remains insufficient and incomplete.

@LukasOfTheLight 2 ай бұрын

Finding something beautiful is an aspect of consciousness.

@gacaniso 19 күн бұрын

Brilliant discussion. Everyone expressed their view quite clearly. I’m more convinced by Kastrup and Faggin. Materialism refuses to die!

@goodquestion7915 2 ай бұрын

Yes , cells have microtubules, and buildings have trusses. Do trusses confer the property of "computation" to buildings? No, right? So, why would a structural support mechanism confer cells with any "information processing" property?

@МатвейМиронов-г7с 2 ай бұрын

Maybe because your presupposition that microtubules are just structural support is wrong. Which it is, cause microtubules are also used for transporting chemicals to different parts of the cell.

@goodquestion7915 2 ай бұрын

@@МатвейМиронов-г7с Any comment about "information processing" would be helpful.

@sebastianveratoledo2319 2 ай бұрын

Thank you very much for this debate

@cezaryj1493 2 ай бұрын

I watched the program with great interest. I'm not a physicist and I'm far from understanding quantum physics, function collapsing, etc., but I notice that there are three people directly in the room, and the fourth one participates in the discussion, using an internet connection and a laptop, on equal rights, although he is far from the others. It tells me that everyone is equally consciously involved in the discussion, and to me that means that consciousness is something beyond this world of matter and biological life, that it is something that is a property of spirit. And here on earth it only expands his knowledge of feelings through the experiences of earthly life. So far, physics has no instruments to study the spiritual world, and therefore consciousness in this area.

@pieterkock695 24 күн бұрын

Faggin basically builds his theory on the idea consciousness and free will are inseparable.... showing he lacks basic (and advanced) knowledge on the different concepts of free will. stunning... Big respect for Penrose and Kastrup who know where their knowledge starts and ends.

@goodquestion7915 2 ай бұрын

Kastrup has a "deep" confusion in his microtubules. His ideas are good for "B" level fantasy movies. Pure assertions, no demonstration whatsoever.

@mbtrewick69 2 ай бұрын

Heres a fascinating idea! Training octopuses to interpret and communicate the results of a quantum experiment could be an intriguing way to explore the intersection of consciousness and quantum mechanics. Here are some considerations and potential steps for such an experiment: Training the Octopus: Octopuses are highly intelligent and capable of learning complex tasks. You could train them using positive reinforcement techniques to recognize and respond to specific patterns or signals. For example, you might train them to distinguish between different light patterns or shapes that represent different outcomes of the experiment. Designing the Experiment: The double-slit experiment could be adapted to include visual cues that the octopus can observe. For instance, you could use a screen that displays the interference pattern or particle pattern, and train the octopus to indicate which pattern it sees. Testing for Consciousness: The key challenge would be to determine if the octopus’s response is due to conscious observation or simply a learned behavior. This would involve designing controls and variations in the experiment to rule out simple conditioning. For example, you could introduce random elements or changes in the setup to see if the octopus can adapt and still correctly identify the patterns. Interpreting Results: If the octopus consistently identifies the correct patterns, it could suggest a level of awareness or understanding. However, interpreting these results would be complex and would require careful consideration of alternative explanations, such as instinctual behavior or advanced pattern recognition. Ethical Considerations: It’s important to ensure that the experiment is conducted ethically, with the well-being of the octopus as a priority. This includes providing a stimulating and enriching environment and avoiding any harm or distress. While this experiment wouldn’t directly prove the role of consciousness in wave function collapse, it could provide valuable insights into the cognitive abilities of octopuses and their potential for understanding complex phenomena. It could also spark further research into the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world.

@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist 2 ай бұрын

Kastrup, Hoffman and Faggin are right. Penrose just needs to take that final step towards idealism. Consciousness is the ultimate reality.

@stephensmith7995 2 ай бұрын

I think he needs to be true to himself. If you feel an urge to convert others to your way of thinking, then that's an indication that your way of thinking has become religion. It's a belief system intertwined with your sense of identity (ego) which needs to be defended. The desire to convert others comes when we are insecure and unsure of our own beliefs. Better to use Bayesian inference when thinking about such subjects to avoid getting entrenched in a black and white dogmatic belief system. No 'final step' towards idealism required.

@dmi3kno 2 ай бұрын

Or the other way around? The Ultimate Reality is conscious? The ultimate reality is THE Consciousness (of which our consciousness if a mere reflection). That consciousness that is ultimate reality is (causally) prior to the consciousness that you (and I and Sir Roger) have. Welcome to theism!

@ahmedkhan25 2 ай бұрын

@@stephensmith7995absolutely agree we cannot let analytic idealism become another religion

@jenmdawg 2 ай бұрын

Perfectly stated.

@FigmentHF 2 ай бұрын

For me, it’s obvious that we can’t know today, or possibly ever, and so epistemological humility is the best way to go. Kastrup turned me from a physicalist, to something more neutral. Let’s not be too certain, it’s just more stories for the brain that needs a story

@davidsomerville8540 Ай бұрын

As long as you start with the derivative belief that you are a separate self, it is next to impossible to integrate back to the knowing of being the infinite. One needs to start with the understanding that each of us is the infinite temporarily taking the derivative experience of a separate self and working with a model of reality from that direction.

@GreatAwakeningE Ай бұрын

37:45 Who said conscious needs to be useful? Consciousness just is! I thought free will had been disproved anyway! Experiment proved the brain decides before the awareness of the decision.

@terrav3815 2 ай бұрын

This was such a delightfully rich and well spoke debate. Much gratitude!

@Phillipdumont 2 ай бұрын

My reasoning and intuition tells me consciousness must be fundamental. I have listened to Hoffman and Kastrup extensively and they have convinced me. (I am just now starting to listen to Faggin more) Still fully absorbing it, yet I'm sure they are on the right path. It only makes sense to me that we are immortal beings of consciousness as opposed to just material. It seems very obvious to me that we are part of one consciousness. It's obvious because where do we come from if not consciousness itself. This is an experience the consciousness is having through us! that seems obvious to me. Yes we are dissociative now, but not after death. What is mental cannot be lost as it;s connected to the interweb of consiciousness. I did magic mushrooms once, phillosopher stones... i swear to god i heard voices in the universe. I felt a sensation that hte universe was conscious. It's exactly as they're describing that everything mental is all around us.

@tajzikria5307 2 ай бұрын

Totally agree!

@herzhory 2 ай бұрын

I'm wondering how exactly are we the same (one) consciousness. It's impossible we do experiencing simultaneously since now I don't have yours experience. Do you live your live from second person (my) perspective? Or are we manifested sequentially and after my death I eventually become you. Other idea is we can live in sequential game. Once you fall asleep all other players take their turns

@DanielOrriN-f3w 2 ай бұрын

@@herzhory you can image this like that - every brain just probing a small portion of 'whole' consciouses. Becose it can be like fractal it work, at the same time for everyone.

@Ripred0219 2 ай бұрын

Weird I have been getting the same exact intuition

@Ripred0219 2 ай бұрын

@@herzhory To wrap your head around this concept picture our individual minds as a subset of whole consciousness. This subset is defined via the boundaries instilled through our ego. Our ego is a kind of illusion that makes our current conscious experience "feel" distinct, unique and "ours". You can see the boundaries of our ego as something that blocks the view beyond and into the collective consciousness thus preventing us from realizing the interconnectedness of all consciousness. By blocking this view, we are in a way blind and metaphorically amnesiac; as a result we must indulge in deep introspection of our own minds to realize this Truth. Understanding this also makes it easier to understand why people who undergo a psychedelic experience report attaining this intuitive Truth: that we are all oneness and united under some unifying substrate (spoiler: the substrate is consciousness). This intuitive Truth is a product of the psychedelic sub-experience, Ego Death, such that by having your ego dissolve into nothingness you can see beyond the once in-place barriers and realize this Truth via pure subjective experience.

@thinkingyas4245 Ай бұрын

I found it interesting that they didn't really seem to convince each other or change any of their positions but I know it was only one conversation! It was a great conversation to listen to, assessing the objectivity and existence of maths as well was an unexpected bonus. I keep thinking that its accurate to talk about the human self and consciousness as results of quantum mechanics and 'as' the universe, not something separate residing in it. Yet I also recognise, what I felt came through from Sir Roger Penrose, that these processes are objective and physical, not tied to our phenomenological or anthropological notions directly or necessarily.

@nir7830 2 ай бұрын

Have u noticed the vintage 8bit era computers at the back ? One is the little known casio fx 9000p from 1981 with a z80 cpu. What is the other to its left ?

@jayherring3227 2 ай бұрын

Oh joy! To see these three wonderful people around a table. Congratulations to Essentia for making this happen

@excaliburhead 2 ай бұрын

Penrose gets it, imho

@johannakunze3300 2 ай бұрын

GREAT idea to give an Introduction into the mens basic theories and conclusions.

@clivejenkins4033 2 ай бұрын

Love sir Roger penrose but I'm with bernardo on this subject

@Littleprinceleon 2 ай бұрын

And so what?

@altvibr 2 ай бұрын

@@Littleprinceleon I believe its called a 'comments section'

@clivejenkins4033 2 ай бұрын

Yes, it is a comment

@Littleprinceleon 2 ай бұрын

@@altvibr and so what? 🤫

@mikael_mv Ай бұрын

Debate between gentlemen. Roger Penrose has arguments that prove the non computational nature of our essence, but he will hold his position from a physicist point of view. You will never get him to address the issue from an idealistic point of view, and that’s because of who he is and status he has reached. In fact, Hameroff himself often admits Penrose would not agree with his arguments when he gets metaphysical. That’s all we need from Penrose and I am happy with that. He is and has to be consistent with what Penrose is recognized for. I think that Consciousness is not the exact term, because certain properties can be associated with the individual biological profiles. Consciousness is not deep enough. What we really want to address here is what is commonly referred to as spirit. The spirit is our true essence, and has no intention of being spotted. If it would, then we would run into a paradox because the whole point for the spirit is to make a focused experience through incarnation. We do recognize its signs and we mistake that for consciousness. That is where humans show this desperate attempt to understand what these signals from within are through all sorts of theories.

@TheParadoxDestroyer 2 ай бұрын

Essentia has a new video. I stop everything I was doing...

@jekonimus 2 ай бұрын

No need to stop what you were doing, you would have done so either way :p

@TheParadoxDestroyer 2 ай бұрын

@jekonimus sorry, you forgot the r in your name after the e.

@maxbaniwas7970 2 ай бұрын

Words is the same as physics They are limited Great conversation

@disgruntledwookie369 2 ай бұрын

I generally agree strongly with most of what Penrose says, but there is one point on which we take very different views. He said consciousness must have causal power since otherwise it would not have evolved. It would take me far too long to justify this here, but I am all but convinced that consciousness has virtually nothing to do with evolution. I believe that there really is no caudal power behind the observer, it is purely a passive awareness of things which are happening and which the perceiver cannot influence. I believe that occurrence and experience are two faces of a coin, they "arise mutually" so to speak. Lifeforms evolve intelligence and cognition for obvious reasons but the associated conscious experience is purely inadvertent. Simply everything which happens has an associated perception of it having happened. The human brain is just one of those things which happen, but happens to be very complex, taking in information from a large volume and combining it, contrasting, comparing, storing and replaying. All this gives rise to a rich conscious experience. But crucially, the brain does not generate awareness, rather the awareness was already there, the brain simply produces the objects of awareness.

@artlessons1 2 ай бұрын

You might like the work of the presocratic philosopher Paramandia, who famously kicked off this philosophical argument.

@paulaoh5306 2 ай бұрын

Thought-provoking discussion. Thank you.

@PeeGee85 2 ай бұрын

It sounds to me like the term "consciousness" was in a superposition of different meanings this entire conversation, and noone thought to turn the conversation into an observer that would collapse it into a single definition ;).

@Littleprinceleon 2 ай бұрын

If we would have at least a reliable model to study those things/stuff associated with consciousness 😞 Perhaps we should start with a definition of qualia 🤔

@BabarizamDK 2 ай бұрын

hahahah, this is amazing, the way sir Roger put his hand on his forehand, hahaha. He knew where the conversation is heading.

@erawanpencil 2 ай бұрын

Note that Roger keeps his language very concrete, while the others throw around philosophical lingo private to their in-group. Even if you're unfamiliar with the topic (math, physics), that should be a clue as to which side here is more pragmatic.

@sciagurrato1831 2 ай бұрын

Pragmatism isn’t under explicit or implicit discussion here.

@margad-erdeneamgalanbaatar5028 2 ай бұрын

That's because they are trying to explain something that can't be explained by materialism.

@faramarzharati7275 2 ай бұрын

آفرین...nice point to consider

@artlessons1 2 ай бұрын

Any intelligent person understands that religion, science, philosophy, and math have their own language and can speak through that domain. . . A cat can't bark like a dog when wanting food.

@margad-erdeneamgalanbaatar5028 23 күн бұрын

@@EsdrasOlivaresPcmasterrace just because we don't have the language to explain shouldn't mean it doesn't exist.