Robert Stickgold - Can Consciousness be Non-Biological?

If consciousness is 100% physical, we would have to conclude that the same kind of consciousness that we experience as humans can be generated by non-biological entities (eventually). Conversely, if non-biological consciousness would somehow, someday, prove impossible, then consciousness would have to embed some nonphysical aspect. But how would we ever know?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the nature of consciousness: bit.ly/2WzM4E9
Robert Stickgold is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He graduated from Harvard University before receiving his doctorate in biochemistry from University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, 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.

[@philipmcdonagh1094]

My computer is definitely conscious it knows exactly when and how to piss me off.

[@marksevel7696]

Get an Apple

[@readynowforever3676]

Mine too. And it often ask me questions like "What did you think of Whole Foods?". And I say back: "Why don't you really impress me & tell me what you thought of Whole Foods".

[@NaryVynnsark]

@@marksevel7696 you mean get a sheep?

[@rohanjagdale97]

😂😂😂

[@philipose66]

computers are so wonderfully smart---yet, when i perform a task with no results and do that over and over and even in different ways, ya'd think this smart thing would tell me what to do---but no---it sits there without even a grin

[@Paulus_Brent]

"We don't know if apes are conscious".... oh, please, come on....

[@philipose66]

yes, he was lazy here--he knows bonobos are self aware---he was just trying to stick to OUR high level of consciousness---an ape or bonobo may be self aware, but not because he sophiticatedly talks to himself---he limitedly talks to his fellow 'apes'---writes nor reads no books.

[@blindlemon9]

In a strict sense, we absolutely cannot claim to know that apes are conscious. How could we ever know, since consciousness is inherently a first-person phenomenon, and we can only ever know another species on a third-person basis? For that matter, how would we ever even place a probability on simian consciousness? The most that we can do is use an argument from analogy, but analogies are notoriously problematic. “Oh, please, come on...” is not a persuasive argument for consciousness in apes.

[@philipose66]

@@blindlemon9 1st, let me say, i enjoy all participants here---so much better than FB twitter or other places---thinkers are here---i have no idea if some are 5 times more educated or smarter than me or v/v. ---to answer about apes being conscious---1st, is some definition of consciousness which i have replied all over the place on these yT discusions on this subject---2nd, you can't tell me your friends and family are not conscious//self aware?--able to adjust, try to adjust their environment? We do need, on an evolutionary scale, the line that divides instinct from conscious action. Crows cross way over the line as do bonobos, many sea mammals etc. i see no "strict" sense". i mean not to insult, but your statement has too much philosophy in it and without learning bio, chem, physics, and math, you will just be good at killing time in a bar. (seriously, that harshness was only for emphasis and my true belief that my education and continued reading and debating have value---if i am wrong, then my bar talk just kills time :)---plz read//see YTs on how apes respond in only a way that can be called 'self aware'

[@xaviertorrence2559]

@@philipose66 I'm afraid @bindlemon9 is right on all counts. Your own points aren't invalid, for the most part, but depend on a significantly broader and perhaps weaker definition of "consciousness", and you also make a few crucial unfounded assumptions. Bindlemon is referring to the subjective core of consciousness, to the question of whether a thing experiences qualia, and whether or not there is something-it-is-like to be that thing. This phenomenon, whatever it may be specifically, is felt by each of us as our own, and is inaccessible to others. In the same way, we cannot access others' experiences directly, we can only feel our own approximations of them. There is no other known way to detect the presence of "consciousness" itself than to experience it, so we can never be sure that anything other than ourselves has or does not have it. We use, as they say, arguments from analogy - "other humans behave like I do when they get hurt, so they must feel pain like I do", but that is logically hollow. I feel the need to say that as a neuroscience and philosophy grad, I fully believe that the brain is in some senses the source of consciousness, but technically humanity just doesn't have the evidence to prove that. And it certainly does not have the evidence to say that things other than the brain CANNOT have consciousness, in the sense of subjective experience. That's why they asked the table for its input. Your arguments for proof of other consciousnesses are in fact arbitrarily established metrics. They can be useful tests of behavior, but (and this is a problem that frustrates me daily) they cannot be truly logically connected to consciousness. Specifically, in your two replies you use "self aware" as the proof of bonobo consciousness and "tries or is able to adjust to their environment" as proof of consciousness in friends and family. The latter argument, "adjusts to environment", is perhaps the worst of the two because nearly every single living thing does that (arguably some non-living things too), including organisms that are not intuitively labeled conscious. Myriad species of bacteria, plants and fungi, not to mention every animal ever, take in information about their environment, process it in some way, and emits a certain chemical or a specific electrical pulse to respond. The first definition, "self aware", is similarly arbitrary in its choice and in its application: humans are really bad at conclusively defining "self" and "awareness" and at proving those things are present (you may think of the mirror test). Arguments about those words are a whole other kettle of fish, so I'll just leave something for you to "read//see YT" about a robot spectrum.ieee.org/qbo-passes-mirror-test-is-therefore-selfaware#toggle-gdpr . Any line drawn between "instinct" and "conscious action" is a line drawn by humans making their best guess, and not reflective of an underlying truth about consciousness. Unfortunately, there are few bright lines to draw through evolution, and none that can be drawn without making an arbitrary choice somewhere.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@xaviertorrence2559 Well said!! Materialism is clearly an incomplete theory of reality, existence and experience.

[@Yzjoshuwave]

This guy’s notion that discovering the foundations of consciousness is a scientific question has a giant hole in it. We don’t have a meaningful way to observe consciousness, except through observing physical process. It seems almost certain they’re deeply related, but consciousness itself isn’t observable apart from the “experience” of existing through it. That makes it seem like an irreducible step of inference we can’t side step - not that we should stop doing experiments that relate to this on many levels, but “knowing” where consciousness emerges isn’t what we learn. At root, we don’t know that “consciousness” doesn’t pervade all matter.

[@rahuldhammi6153]

True. Consciousness cannot be observed as it’s the very instrument through which all experiences arise. Investigating and getting to know about consciousness though physical means is something like a man standing on his own shoulders.

[@Captain-Cosmo]

Actually, dfMRI tech is actually allowing us to peer into the conscious brain. The brain is physical; consciousness is simply what the brain does. In 50 years, we'll have a pretty good picture of things.

[@megustaav]

I think in not so many years from now, we will be able to transfer data from brain throgh some interface and in some sense remove this problem of consciousness being only experience for observer. I think the last thing he said about understanding lightning is all we gotta trust now. We are currently at the very begining and consciousness may look like a spiritual woo or gods creation or anything, but with small steps I think it will be finally resolved one way or another.

[@kunalsingh4418]

I am of the view that animals are definitely conscious. Different animals can take different actions in similar situations based on how they are raised. Like a domestic dog will happily greet his master on returning home, or a cat will allow his human to pet him. But a wild cat or dog will react in very different manners. This shows that animals have a sense of identity. This sense is reinforced by their growth environment and hence different animals of same species have very different responses to similar situations. In my view, I think this demonstrates that these animals have consciousness. Yes they are not as intelligent as us but are definitely conscious. Also think it should be possible for AI to achieve consciousness at some point. Since modern neural networks are pretty much a simulation of neurons interacting in our brain. At some point it should be possible for these neural networks to have sufficient computing power to become conscious. But it will be only possible to test once we have a general AI. Current targeted AI's simply don't analyse info freely enough to attain consciousness, regardless of their computing power.

[@chrisgreen8803]

Sounds like we really need to define exactly what consciousness is first

[@delq]

Yes, and a lot of them confuse consciousness with self awareness or recursive complex behavior/intelligence that is a result of higher complexity but is in no way related to the nature of experience which fundamentally constitutes consciousness.

[@SandipChitale]

IMO consciousness is not a thing. It is a concept. It is a shorthand word for a class of phenomenon that brains generate/exhibit with the attached bodies they control. We use the term consciousness for economy of expression. It is by convention we understand what we mean.Think of it like this somewhat, we use word light to really mean visible spectrum of light that human eye can see. we do not enumerate every frequency in that range. And it is ok to use consciousness as a short hand in casual day to day discussions. However, your point is very well taken. In specific discussions about consciousness we must define which precise meaning we are going to talk about.

[@SandipChitale]

@symo completely agree. And especially when the topics are as serious as consciousness, free will, living life and so on. Having said that the short video discussion format may be the issue but they should at least spend few words defining the terms under discussion. For example, I was shocked, in 2021, he said that we do not know if apes are conscious. Any life form that tries to defend or promote itself is self aware by the fact of awareness of its identity and exhibits behaviors that we put under the definition of consciousness and hence is conscious.

[@RolandHuettmann]

Consciousness is the only thing we know about and are sure that is exists. All else is derived. But what is it in essence? Maybe we never will know unless we can put ourselves outside of consciousness? Consciousness may be a property of our mind? Is the mind physical? I doubt it unless "physical" is defined in another new way. There is a huge gap. Understanding here would mean understanding of understanding itself. There is no real object. It reminds me of the Tao: Can you hear the clapping of one hand? It has to clap with itself.

[@chrisgreen8803]

@@RolandHuettmann when you are given a general anaesthetic you aren’t conscious during the operation. Even if we don’t fully understand how, it’s obviously a product of our brain

[@rasmokey4]

I'm not so sure that this professor is conscious of his conscience!

[@rangerpartners1971]

;-) Etherist Tesla spanked atomist Einstein (& other physicist/mathematicians): "They are deep thinkers, but not clear thinkers." Some things - especially consciousness - don't lend themselves to current quantification measures & methods science is limited to.

[@jjay6764]

Yes. The problem is people act like consciousness and awareness of consciousness are the same thing. Awareness is immaterial and works like an operating system that navigates information the material brain(consciousness) processes.

[@larsfaye292]

I think of things exactly the same way.

[@quidestveritas]

Those words are literally synonyms. Whether I say I am 'conscious' or 'aware' of something does not make a difference. I'm not convinced an operating system is the best analogy either. There are great mysteries regarding consciousness / awareness that don't come down to calculation or administration.

[@jjay6764]

@@quidestveritas there not the same. How can the material brain be aware of itself? How does the material brain initiate memory recall? How does the material brain tell the material brain which memories it wants the material brain to recall? Why is the material brain fooled by optical illusions but "we" aren't if "we" are just the material brain? What about qualia? How does the material brain have a me experience? Awareness is immaterial, non local and quantum as shown by the recent Wigner's Friend experiments. These are questions materialism can't answer and I don't blindly make materialism the default answer without any evidence.

[@r.davidsen]

@@quidestveritas No. Simply being aware of something, does not mean that you are aware thst you are aware. Same with consciousness. Simply being conscious and awake does not mean that you are conscious of your own consciousness. Let me put it this way: Are you always aware of your consciousness when you dream? No, you are not. Most of the time, you are not even aware that you are dreaming. It is possible to be aware of your own consciousness in a dream, which is called lucid dreaming, but this rarely happens.

[@rraywilliams1507]

Some of the most reasonable commentary on the subject I've heard in this series.

[@scoreprinceton]

Science is too busy with matter, particle and the universe as a whole to be concerned about questions of the kind asked in this conversation. We have words that are listed in an encyclopedia without any knowledge about them, such as this “consciousness” - perhaps because words are easier to conceive than to validate.

[@syriouskash537]

@@scoreprinceton BINGO!!! And this is what is holding them back. They are like Mr. Spock in that he is extremely smart...... but afraid to dive into emotion.... limiting his understanding of the FULL spectrum. In the scientists case?? He is also extremely smart....... but afraid to be ridiculed if they should dive into the spiritual or ... metaphysical. IF you are afraid to inquire in the metaphysical because you cant measure it? Then how would you know if such a thing is a reality?

[@lutkedog1]

@@syriouskash537 When under Anesthesia your Spirit would still be awake that is how you know you have neither a Spirit or soul.

[@mrschuyler]

If you want to understand consciousness, just read the comments here. Obviously, nearly everyone here claims to have figured it out and is willing to share their insight.

[@cubeincubes]

“The world is divided into two classes, those who believe the incredible, and those who do the improbable.” -Oscar Wilde

[@junkjunk2493]

wow , god bless u all , no pun intended this is so kool im so happy to be part of this conversation onward thru the fogg folks

[@rezNezami]

I counter argue against not being conscious while in sleep. We do dream and in the dream we are well aware of ourselves and I have had lots of dreams in which I have questioned if I am sleep or not. It is only when you get up that you "realize" that you were sleep and all you saw were "dreams". But what does that mean??

[@existncdotcom5277]

.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”

[@Closminding]

I refuse to answer that question because I don't want to think about it. I don't want it invading my consciousness.

[@Jesse__H]

Refusing on the ground of not knowing is always preferable to lying! Sometimes, you ask a very spiritual person a question like this, they'll talk your ear off as if they have the whole thing figured out. Whereas it's the scientist who is _truthful_ enough to give only a partial answer when only partial understanding exists.

[@Closminding]

@@Jesse__H yes it's interesting that. However a truly spiritual person won't do that. They'll just smile at you and keep their mouth shut. Sometimes keeping your mouth shut is the best way. And you don't always have to have an answer to a scientists jibings. Spiritual knowledge isn't about having an answer to all criticism cos you're threatened by it (although you're probably likely to go through that phase). It's existensial, immovable and you know - at a very deep level indeed - that your existence (and your consciousness) depends on it. So you can afford to smile (whilst keeping your mouth shut).

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

@@Jesse__H I'd say scientists are just as likely to lie.

[@megustaav]

@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 in science you simply check sources and evaluate yourself, check if they are peer reviewed and so on. In magical woo woo spiritual case, you cannot really do that. All you can do is take it on faith.

[@ClayFarrisNaff]

Perhaps the most important point in this conversation is a question Dr. Stickgold asks: how can we know if something is conscious? We have overwhelmingly good reasons to believe that other people are (most of the time) conscious, and since anyone who accepts mainstream science must accept that we are just a slight variation on many other animals, we have good reasons to believe that animals are conscious, at least those similar to us in some fundamental ways. But suppose you set out to build a conscious computer? How could you know if you'd succeeded? We all talk to Siri, Google, or Alexa, but there isn't good reason to believe they are conscious. They are bots that can have a conversation, coming close if not altogether succeeding at the Turing Test. But should we therefore believe they are conscious? It is, as the philosophers say, a hard problem.

[@Yoctopory]

This is precisely the question that has preoccupied me the most for years now. I could well imagine that views on this could be divided in the future. I could well imagine that views on this could be divided in the future. There will be those who want to grant rights to artificial intelligence and those who think that AI is just clockwork and that there is no ethical problem in treating it badly. How would we ever know?

[@ReasonableForseeability]

This is one of the rare comments with which I agree. Many people are confusing Consciousness with Intelligence in the context of computers. Like @Yoctopory below.

[@jackpullen3820]

At 4:44 In Psychology I learned to prepare myself before going to bed to be able to enter into my dream state consciously to stop a nightmare and it worked. I believe that with practice anyone can do this.

[@delq]

Can you elaborate ? How did you prepare ?

[@like-icecream]

how did you know you would've had a nightmare?

[@thomassoliton1482]

I have done this a couple times. When you have a recurrent nightmare (in particular) it suggests you have some stress, some fear, which is really the recognition that you are in some life situation you don't know how to deal with. In terms of dreaming, I used to find myself on a beach being chased by a monster, something like the creature from the black lagoon. These dreams can wake you up and you become "lucid" - being aware that it is a dream before you fully awaken. In that case, you can simply say to yourself, next time this happens, I need to realize this creature is just a dream and face it, knowing it cannot hurt me. If you do that once, it won't come back. Many peoplel have falling dreams - falling off a cliff. Same thing. Make a mental note, next time, don't be afraid, just control the dream and fly. It's fun! Generally I think dreaming is (in terms of real life) mostly a nonsense mishmash of present and past events and designed to integrate recent and past experience. I don't think dream diaries are all that helpful. More helpful is trying to be aware of your emotional reactions in real life - especially negative ones, and understanding the origin of the reaction.

[@delq]

@@thomassoliton1482 yes i have had this falling/jumping sensations in the middle of the night and i would jolt out and realise it was a dream.

[@mohammedghander9243]

For limited conditions only, but not all such as nice dreams, empty your bowel before sleep (it might happen or not). Still God (Allah) there overpowering. He Has programmed us all (Quran)

[@perimetrfilms]

I disagree. The brain is clearly not like a computer. Computers are just adding machines with no self awareness. It is not conscious. How do we know a table is not conscious? Who the hell is this guy? Computers follow rules we gave them.

[@frkkn026]

One the most satisfying videos I have ever watched on consciousness.

[@gabrielschecter2600]

Consciousnes is better defined as 'the mind.' The mind or consciousness cannot be not part of the brain as all tissue/matter/atoms cannot be demonstrated as attached to or a part of inert matter. Otherwise a rock being matter/atoms could be conscious or have a mind. My guess is the mind or consciousness occurs at first breath (birth) and is placed there by what is now known as the Intelligent Designer. We are a part of a great experiment by an eternal designer with the purpose of this grand experminet being "free-will" and following the rules of morality and purpose.

[@yuancui4305]

I think we can only be certain about ourselves which are conscious, we don't even know 100% whether anybody else is truly conscious or not... that's a bit scary if I think about it....

[@delq]

Absolutely !

[@delq]

@Sky Gardener true indeed

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Computers will never be conscious. That's just ridiculous. Learn some modern physics.

[@bluelotus542]

Consciousness is not a matter of information. In other words, there's no amount of information that can create consciousness.

[@maryrhudy9250]

But how does he know that consciousness is destroyed when a person becomes brain dead? Why can't it simply be released from its shell and sent on its merry way through the layer cake of dimensions?

[@DaGrybo]

I like him, he is quite humble and open minded. But he is the old generation of thinkers as well. We will start teaching consciousness eventually as humans, thanks to the new generation of thinkers and technology available to them. It is consciousness which creates the mechanics of the world. This reality is what would be better called a simulation, 13.7 billion years old, but only one of the possible paths for awareness units, which you and I represent. Anyone can access this knowledge.

[@contemplateeternity8398]

Everything is conscious... But humans, I am not so sure about.

[@An_Escaped_Mind]

Most humans, especially in the United Statestates are not intelligent.

[@givememytacobell9397]

5:00 he needs to explore lucid dreaming because we are definitely conscious while asleep, we're just not awake (obviously). I think every philosopher, quantum scientist everyone should practice lucid dreaming. You'll be able to access answers you may not be able to answer in your "awake" state.

[@borderlands6606]

Unconscious is a misnomer. We can be asleep, drunk, stoned, anaesthetised, incapacitated, delusional and ecstatic, but never un-conscious.

[@ThePitchblue]

@@borderlands6606 it seems that he is only acknowledging the awake state, alpha and beta brain waves approximately, which is silly, because they aren't the only ones

[@PseudoAccurate]

@@borderlands6606 There's no other word to describe not being conscious than unconscious. I've been unconscious. Maybe you just haven't noticed.

[@megustaav]

@@borderlands6606 remember what was before you were born? No, maybe becouse you were uncousiness. You were unconsciousness on top of not having a body and then after some time after being born you "got online".

[@anikettripathi7991]

Right approach would be can anything be material. Means when we know whole universe is alive consciousness only and intractable with all features of life. Even what we call matters have half-life. So matters are long life living entities. And respond to only specific.

[@rangerpartners1971]

The man who invented the polygraph was an interesting guy - Baxter. He hooked up a plant to the polygraph electrodes & got a baseline reading. Then the thought entered his mind to hold a lighter to a leaf on the plant to see if it would react & at the moment the thought entered his head, the chart showed the plant "screamed" - a parabolic reaction! Then it calmed down & he actually held fire to the leaf & it "screamed" again. Also, legitimate remote viewers are accessing some aspect of universal consciousness. It may be somewhat akin to smashing a radio. The radio is toast but the signal continues whether the radio can decode & transmit the message or not...

[@tobysmith2081]

It's not a signal, it's a radio

[@steelersgoingfor7706]

They should take the worst of the worst, i.e. rapists, child molesters, and unremorseful murderers and slowly and methodically remove parts of the brain to see which part has the most affect on consciousness and go from there.

[@briankuczynski4375]

Smartest insight from this video was indeed from the table.

[@crownhic6827]

🤣 ouch

[@bodhisattva3774]

Lol

[@philipose66]

that is where philosophy will muddle pure science--fresh college 1st semester i was asked if this chair exists---a good language and thinking exercise, but accomplishes NOthing in science

[@NebulaGray]

A shinobi must read the hidden meanings within hidden meanings. Boruto naruto next generations.

[@crownhic6827]

@@NebulaGray the table is sturdy. No one challenges the table to an endurance test.

[@leonoradompor8706]

My original formula of Plant mixed vaccine are: water, salt,plant extract like malunggay and weak virus.walay sagol nga formalin ug mercury, very simple components.I am the author idea of Plant mixed vaccines, please Fr.Ciano Ubod please help sent these to any scientists,promoters, manufacturers ,pharmaceuticals, any investors can copy this idea without patent and copyright for God’s greater glory, i am also sending this idea worldwide to any investors

[@Vishnujanadasa108]

If consciousness arises from the “push and pull” interactions of molecules following simple physical laws what would cause it to arise from such disparate interactions? If the world is composed of many simple insentient elemental entities juxtaposed to each other following simple mechanical rules in a certain pattern of behavior, why would we suppose any of them are conscious? No entity “knows” in any sense of what the others are doing. This is illustrated by the Turing machine analogy: In a computer’s “memory” unit there is stored a list of numbers encoding simple logical and arithmetical operations, and all a computer is doing at any one time is mechanically (or electronically) carrying out the instruction corresponding to one of these code numbers. The total behavior of the computer is simply the net result of the execution of many of these instructions, one after another. Since only a few interactions are happening at any one time, it is hard to see how the computer could be conscious. If the computer were slowed down (as is possible) so that each simple step was stretched out over several seconds, the pattern and sequence of the steps would remain the same. Why would executing the instructions at one speed generate conscious awareness of the thoughts being simulated, while at another speed there would be no consciousness of these thoughts? Changing the construction of the computer should presumably not affect its consciousness as long as it is programmed to carry out those steps, for this assures that it’s behavior will exhibit the same pattern. Say the computer instructions are used to set up a giant “game” which could be played by a child step by step (in the manner of a Turing machine). As the child carries out those steps, will the same consciousness of the simulated thoughts be manifested there-stretched out, perhaps, over several years? This hardly seems plausible, but otherwise how are we to judge which of many computers with equivalent programs will be conscious and which ones will not? One of the best analogies is Leibnitz’ of the grain mill as the inside of the brain. We could see the mechanics of the hardware or brain, the c-fibers that fire when we hurt ourselves, but the wetware of the brain won’t explain the experience of pain. That’s can’t be programmed into a computer. In other words you could explain the workings of such a computer or machine that mimicked humans without ever referring to the notion of pain. Conscious awareness is something totally different qualitatively from the body. This suggests consciousness may be a primary irreducible, mathematically indescribable fundamental element the way an electron is (a quanta of electricity); A quanta of consciousness.

[@Mediumal]

Simple single cells of life evolved from the inanimate earth billions of years ago, more complex organisms evolved tens of millions of years ago, even more complex societies of animals and plants came next, then came culture, intellect and self awareness less than a few million years ago. Modern human intellect probably less than a million years ago.These are evolutionary developments that some might argue are inevitable processes, and allowing for the chance right circumstances will always occur given sufficient time. Consciousness therefore was an inevitable evolutionary process once we humans had evolved from the primitive ape that was a common ancestor to us and all our hominid cousins we currently share this planet with. An interesting question is: What comes next? - if anything.

[@mehryaarvid]

Very wise. When I was reading the “age of spiritual machines” from Raymond kurzweil, it was calculating how much raw tera flops performance is needed to have human level intelligence. And I was wondering, how you can turn an algorithm machine, basically is complex calculator to a sentient being by adding more transistors?

[@cultist100]

Ok, it takes about 26 fundamental constants/laws of physics to make our universe suitable for life. Given those constants could have been almost anything, the chances of any one being suitable is like getting the best hand possible in a casino. Now 26 perfect hands in that casino in a row. Makes it tough for me to think we are a chance/random occurrence in a universe where only chance created laws of physics suitable for life. Or pre-life/prebiotic chemical processes in some cave somewhere created life, considering we can't create it with a modern lab with glassware, computers, high speed scientific equipment.

[@mrweepz]

@@cultist100 your model assumes that all the combinations are equally possible and stable, which is not when it comes to the laws of physics. I'd say it's not a chance of random occurrence rather than a result of most probable combination which is stable. (maybe there is a limited subset of those)

[@cultist100]

Can you put any science around that or is that just speculation? Because I have seen no science that proves what you are saying. What I have seen is that the constants don't have to be what they are. Please point me to equations, science, whatever that indicates what appears to be your speculation is correct.

[@leonoradompor8706]

Question about Covid vaccines,answers,I am prolife, i am not against vaccines, but we will observe and research the whole world about covid vaccines and its side effects, the pros and cons of vaccines,and find truth and promote the best covid vaccines with less sided effects and less death or mortality, many still more vaccines are coming and i hope with Jesus and Mary the best vaccine will emerge and best healing of this covid pandemic

[@itsrob6954]

A thought: Maybe we have a human brain (integral to the size it is) to be the receiver now and later to connect to a Higher consciousness. Whether, it is, now or later as we grow in knowledge and wisdom? Man is creating a 'reflective image' of himself in the Ai computer.

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm? Was the Universe Conscious when it was smaller than a grain of sand at Big Bang? Were you conscious at Conception? The trillions of magnetic wave lengths are Consciousness we just are not conscious/sophisticated enough yet to Work out what is in the mirror! Still some way to go then!

[@Dion_Mustard]

how about there isn't one universe but eternal universes..namely the multi verse concept..now your point becomes irrelevant, as consciousness has always existed, just like the endless stream of universes.

[@1SpudderR]

@@Dion_Mustard Hmm? Until you understand “What is before”? - all our human knowledge (so called) is meaningless.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@1SpudderR perhaps there was never a "before"...perhaps there was never a beginning..perhaps the universe(s) have always existed...

[@bobleclair5665]

5:15, I see consciousness as awareness, a tree is conscious, all life is conscious and symbiotic to all life, it’s natural,it’s nature

[@allwheeldrive]

Agree, though how that consciousness is defined would have to expand. All living things - even the ones that live very slowly, like rocks - "know" what they're supposed to do. It's not really random, and can't be, because it ultimately all balances out like it should.

[@User47598]

You'll know whether your PC has attained conciousness when it suddenly suggests "Hey Boss, I'm tired. Let's continue tomorrow, ok?" and shutdown to your dismay.

[@stevenfenster1798]

I was drawn to this video by the title. I was disappointed when it became clear that these gentlemen have a presupposition that the brain is required for consciousness, or otherwise stated the consciousness is a result of processes in the brain. Thus, one would assume that they are limited to physiological naturalism. What if consciousness exists outside of physicality, and the brain is merely a means for this consciousness to manipulate a physical self in the physical universe. What if consciousness in not an epiphenomenon of the material universe , but instead it is consciousness that is the fundamental from which materiality emerges as an epiphenomenon.

[@mountainjay]

Welcome to closer to "truth". That's what they do here, give misleading titles like "the evidence of God's existance" and then have the video content be "there is no evidence I guess". I saw a recent interview with Robert and was very unimpressed.

[@borderlands6606]

@@mountainjay It's the academic version of Scooby Doo. A perambulation through vying causal strategies that always ends in the triumph of the mundane over the numinous, without saying why?

[@megustaav]

you can have milion explenations like you gave, but all what we have points now to brain being responsible for consciousness. We recently got a paper that explained connection between brain and general anesthesia(the way it works as it was a mystery for like 130 years). If we get any good testable hipotesis that point in other direction then materialism, we will explore that. As of know we got hundreds of reglions, new age voodoo, mystical woo, and people claiming some stuff after using drugs, but thats not enough. Lets take other property of the brain, calculating flight trajectory of the ball that is going to be thrown or processing visuals, sound. These are all emergent properites of the brain and I think everybody agrees that it is so. We got animals that can trace blood and electric signals in water, and for their brain it has to be also emergent property. Currently, we got no reason to think that consciousness is any different then that.

[@borderlands6606]

@@megustaav What emerges, that satisfies an exclusively physicalist reading of reality? Unless consciousness is like bile or hair, emergence is woo.

[@megustaav]

@@borderlands6606 emergence is simply the process we do not understand yet. Like lightning 2000 years ago. We saw effect of it and so on, but process was a mystery. Same is today with consciousness. We all expericnce it. We got methotds to manipulate it. We got methods to disable it, but we don't know the process of emergence. Following the very same logic, we don't know how calculations of the brain necessary to throw the ball emerged, yet we do not state that they are not product of the brain. Because of all soul and spirtual woo the same is impossible to simple assume for consciousness. We do assume that, becasue examining the brain gives best results. Examing spiritual woo and religious claims gives us nothing.

[@Qeyoseraph]

The short answer is yes, it can. Not unlikely either. Is it a very good idea? Depends how it's managed.

[@TheBillyarnezz]

I believe everything is conscious, down to the last neutrino. Everything that is, is so and realizes it is so. Just because we're unable to recognize it, doesn't mean it isn't.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

Thank you Depak Chopra and his woo woo tin foil hat crowd. Just because we can't see pink unicorns flying around Jupiter doesn't mean they don't exist.

[@delq]

@@blaster-zy7xx if you take enough hallucinogens, you too will believe in pink fairies and whatnot even more realistically than jupiter and its rings, what makes you think they are less "real" than the "real outer world". First of all what do you mean by existence ? Define it. You cannot define existence without bringing into it some concept of conscious perception. Lol

[@blaster-zy7xx]

@@delq "Existence" means that it is still there irrespective if anyone perceives it or not.

[@delq]

@@blaster-zy7xx That is not even a definition of existence. Because if that were true i would say there exists exactly 7 unicorns flying east of jupiter right now and you would have no way of disproving me without actually looking at jupiter and ask me "where are the unicorns ?"

[@blaster-zy7xx]

@@delq No. You incorrectly CLAIMING existance is not existence.

[@seeithappen1]

Trying to understand consciousness from the same level of consciousness where it is explored is only foolishness. Same like trying to solve a problem from the same level of consciousness where the problem was created. This is only intellectual ego talk as usual.

[@IPJ_KM]

This is the most accurate comment across all talks of consciousness!

[@FarFromZero]

"But to understand the nature of consciousness one question we can ask is: Can consciousness be derived from non-biological systems?" This question will not help at all in understanding the nature of consciousness, but the question shows that the person who asks it is far away from "understanding" the nature of consciousness.

[@snap-off5383]

Building conscious beings is exactly how we'll learn to understand consciousness.

[@FarFromZero]

@@snap-off5383 You can't even check if another biological being has consciousness. The less you can check if a machine has consciousness, which gets worse because such kind of machines will most probably be programmed to claim that they have it. Additionally no programmer on earth has any idea how to program consciousness. Beside this every single definition of consciousness is either rubbish or tautological. If you want to understand consciousness you have to examine it.

[@Someone-cj4np]

I know the answer, but the problem is "you" are "designed" to not to believe it, even if the truth is laid in front of you in plain sight. Also, the reality is far stranger and bigger than your imagination. I have been working for long time to find a way to make reality realizable for a common man. Someone who "knows" what I am talking about can join or help me in this mission

[@philipose66]

you are beginnin to tink, but ZEN and philosophy will lead you round and round---this is pure science and unless you study bio, chem, physics, and math you are doomed to a real good bar discussion and not much more

[@ik1408]

Taking a TV set apart and analyzing its components in order to figure out how movies are made.

[@Silver1137]

That's so pathetic how they won't even consider the possibility that consciousness could be eternal. Like doing so means they are some kind of jesus-freak.

[@mountainjay]

Welcome to closer to "truth". That's what they do here, give misleading titles like "the evidence of God's existance" and then have the video content be "there is no evidence I guess". This channel is just atheist propaganda disguised as objective research.

[@markemerson98]

surely as long as an entity qualifies to be aware and respond to external stimuli then - yes - | who are we to dictate what consciousness is...

[@kevinfisher466]

we are the universe experiencing it self.

[@delq]

Consciousness is the substance of experience. No more, no less ?

[@philipose66]

single cell bio 'animals and even a bit more, respond to stimuli---they are not self aware, tho

[@delq]

@@philipose66 how do you know ?

[@philipose66]

@@delq how do i know a single cell animal or a tree or table from a tree is not conscious?---evolution shows me the progression of biological entities more and more capable of controlling or trying to control their environment. To do that, an entity must know it is in an environment and know as much about that environment as possible---hardly does a worm know these things---sea mammals and some apes like bonobos, are quite good but physically limited and language limited. language is how our brain tgells our mind what the freak is going on---we are real good at that

[@caitlynj7466]

At fundamental level it’s all atoms acting together to respond to its environment. The only difference is its level of sophistication. You can coin the human level of interaction as consciousness, but in reality it’s nothing special.

[@mikel5582]

For people who understand biology at the molecular level, what you've written is perfectly sensible. Unfortunately, a lot of people would rather whitewash their lack of knowledge with woo-woo rather than put in the time to actually master the topic. Edit to add that we currently don't know whether or not human consciousness is "special". The human mind is capable of doing unique things. Does that make it special? Along those lines, other organisms have sensory capabilities that humans lack. Perhaps they're special too.

[@philipose66]

"the brain has a mind of its own" by Richard Restak, MD insights from a practicing neurologist-------also for zen people, ya gotta get to read and listen to Alan Watts---he will make you more conscious

[@5studios1room]

Arrogant and somewhat contradictory, if they don’t know what consciousness is, how do they know that they can eliminate it when they remove a part of the brain?

[@mountainjay]

Video title: "Can conciouness be non-biological?" Video content: "the brain 100% produces conciouness, people who believe conciouness can exist outside of the brain are like naive religious imbeciles". This channel is basically atheist propaganda stated as fact with misleading titles.

[@hamedhilal7113]

What a brilliant conscious organism!

[@philipmcdonagh1094]

Humans, bags of mostly water.

[@toreoft]

We can also ask: What are the signs consciousness creates the environment? Here is one phenomenon in particular that clearly stands out: Pattern formation. - All biological life creates pattern formation. So consciousness can follow. But much more than biological also forms patterns, both at the atomic level and on large scales in the universe. So whether this is hiding some kind of consciousness is not a meaningless question.

[@kelg9068]

I think even science has its limitations! Essentially science is an attempt to describe the world around us. I also believe that we all have a soul. Maybe science can describe a soul but I am not convinced of that as yet. There is this energy within all of us that is the essence of each of us.

[@con.troller4183]

There is energy in a fire but it isn't conscious. The key is configuration, not just existence.

[@Pheer777]

Science is great at modeling the natural world around us, but it's important to not mistake the map for the territory.

[@con.troller4183]

@@Pheer777 It is also important to know that there are bad, better and best maps. Science is a better map than ones including the soul as a destination. Arguably at present, science is our best map. IMO.

[@Pheer777]

@@con.troller4183 I wouldn't put it like that. "Science" is not a thing or a map in and of itself but rather a methodology of systematic, critical inquiry. Scientific ideas can be disproven by new findings but you can never technically "prove" a scientific theory - they just become more and more accepted within the mainstream. It would be impossible to even know if we found a perfect "theory of everything" because by definition science is incapable of making 100% authoritative truth claims about the nature of reality. Science is very useful at explaining how the natural world behaves but I'd argue it's intrinsically unequipped to answer deeper ontological questions about what reality is.

[@larsfaye292]

@@Pheer777 I often say that Science will explain HOW the universe formed, but it will never be able to touch the WHY. Which is fine, that's not its role. We have spirituality and philosophy for that. I've ways loved Carl Sagan's approach to the holistic views, that Science is really uncovering the beautiful majesty of "creation" (in quotes, because I do not believe that creation requires an independent central creator, necessarily).

[@alegna444]

consciousness is always conscious in itself. but i would say that we know nothing is the most probable answer

[@theradioactives8211]

I donno but i feel that its difficult to link materialistic things with conciousness .... conciousness is not just an outcome of something material ....i guess explanation for conciousness will need human transcendence from current Physical models and laws

[@HansLotap]

I think consciousness is the soul. So when you die. Your consciousness goes somewhere. Where is something we still dont know.

[@rohanjagdale97]

Right

[@stevenyourke7901]

Consciousness is more than merely the ability to access information and fo calculations. It involves self-awareness. Awareness of oneself as a being opposed to an external world. Subjectivity. Without subjectivity the can he no consciousness. Computers are not conscious of anything. They are merely machines that can calculate and can store information.

[@stevenyourke7901]

@DecrepitOrigin888 Tress? Bugs? Consciousness?! Really?

[@stevenyourke7901]

@DecrepitOrigin888 Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that trees are conscious?

[@VidkunQL]

Suppose I build a new computer and claim that it is conscious. What must it do to convince you that it is?

[@stevenyourke7901]

@Sky Gardener All human beings - including small children - are conscious of themselves as individuals. It’s practically a defining characteristic of human beings. The sense of self is not a social construct at all. It’s not a habit. You’re talking nonsense.

[@jdub1329]

Don’t forget to mention emotions fellows

[@MrJohnnyseven]

More to the point is Joe Biden conscious?

[@garyconrod9859]

Everyones a comedian.

[@harleyb-ham266]

I think there are different levels, types, and complexities of consciousness and not limited to humans.

[@TheMoonKingdom]

Of course animals are conscious:)

[@cis2309]

I think one problem of such discussions is, that they give no clear definition of "consciousness". I would say "thinking" is the ability of processing memories and impressions, and "consciousness" is the ability to remember thoughts. With these definitions I would say a cat has consciousness and a table has no consciousness. In addition, I propose that "nonphysical aspects" are nonsense, therefore humans can be seen as sophisticated machines, and therefore the existence of humans proves that there can be machines that can experience anything that humans can experience :-)

[@georgedoyle7971]

“humans can be seen as sophisticated machines” “Non physical aspects are nonsense” Interesting hypothesis! The fact is that mainstream science view consciousness as an “emergent” property of the brain for political and practical reasons not scientific reasons. (The brain creates consciousness.) This is because the philosophy and political ideology that drives the natural sciences is reductive materialism, (eliminative materialism) an unproven hypothesis, because according Noam Chomsky not to mention quantum mechanics we don’t even know what “matter” (eliminative materialism) is. This unproven hypothesis presupposes that when we examine and reduce something to its smallest constituent parts we can understand that thing better than any other hypothesis thus providing a definitive and “truthful” picture of reality, existence and experience (The Merelogical Fallacy/We are merely a brain). A car is “merely” the emergent property of all its car parts. If we take the car apart, we can understand how a car works by examining its pieces. The car is “merely” its “car parts”. Neuroscience is based on this assumption. If we examine the brain in detail, the theory goes, we can understand that “we” and consciousness are “merely” a lump of jelly inside our skull known as the “brain”. So why is there even a “Hard problem of consciousness” if this observable empirical evidence is so final ? Equally, how do you find love, bravery, courage, altruism empathy and self sacrifice in this lump of jelly ? How about human rights that are related to the concept of justice ? What about the colour purple. How about the smell of freshly baked bread or what it’s like to experience first love ? You can certainly find patterns in the flow of blood and electrical fields and impulses, etc that correlate to these experiences. But correlation does not equal causation. These correlations don't tell you diddley about the experiences themselves. Let's say that we found a very specific pattern in the brain that corresponded to the experience of purple. Imagine if we had the technology to easily duplicate this pattern so that other people experience purple. Ok now obviously that would be an amazing achievement. But what does that tell us about consciousness ? Nothing!!. Because the pattern itself is not "purple" so we are therefore still left with the unsolvable problem of what decoded the information/pattern and turned it into an experience of purple! It really doesn't matter how completely you correlate the qualitative subjective experience of reality with the patterns in the brain, you will not explain away consciousness because decoding is a fundamentally immaterial process. If there is no material, there is nothing to study. This makes consciousness an impossible problem to solve if you're using materialism as your guiding theoretical philosophy. The only way to solve the hard problem is to re think your underlying philosophical presuppositions. The only chance at a workable solution here is to view consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. Like the laws of physics consciousness is irreducible to “matter”. There’s nothing wrong with saying we just “don’t know” and inferring to the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis, that is the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. According to the Director of the Institute for Mind and Consciousness David Chalmers….. “materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.” (David Chalmers). Equally, Professor Chalmers claims that the current evidence suggests that we should think of mind and consciousness as an…. “updated version of Descartes. The body effects the mind the mind effects the body. Integrated information theory tells us how physics effects consciousness and collapse tells us how consciousness effects physics.” Similarly, the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that materialism is an incomplete theory of reality and is therefore false… “consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe, in spite of its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and that the natural order is far less austere than it would be if physics and chemistry accounted for everything. If we take this problem seriously, and follow out its implications, it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture.” (Thomas Nagel)

[@futurehistory2110]

3:06 Perhaps it's less to do w/ information processing and more to do with how the information is processed (e.g. electrical signals or electromagnetism or/and in relation to something else going on that goes beyond space-time or other aspects of existing we're yet aware of). It's like, you've got the information processing but need more to light it up and add sparks. And then when you've got information processing + a flash light form of existence itself, you get conscious experience finally.

[@XShollaj]

What a beautiful mind! Such a wonderful explanation!

[@con.troller4183]

As per usual, CTT fails to define terms before discussing them.

[@SebastianLundh1988]

I'd say it's fundamentally nonbiological, but it appears in the form of biology.

[@SebastianLundh1988]

Well, please elaborate then!

[@SebastianLundh1988]

@@mandarkumthekar8565 C'mon! Please, explain!

[@SebastianLundh1988]

@@mandarkumthekar8565 How do you know computers don't have consciousness? How do you know information processing is even relevant?

[@philipose66]

it seems that usually left out is the cell replication that goes on in the brain---the dna 'adjustments', etc. The brain is living---fully define living, let us say ANIMAL living, then we can move on as to why and how that living animal knows that it is living. Does a sophisticated, even far future QP computer, have timly adjustments similar to cell division? Seriously, does it eat (beyond electricity)? Does atp process occur? Do computers have sex and create more perfect forms of themselves (ok, yes and no). i repeat the same thing on all these YTs on consciousness---CONSCIOUSNESS IS derived via a flesh and blood entity (that can kill itself, be killed, die of disease or old age) that is BRAIN. This brain evolved to have a center, or a defuse area that we call MIND---Brain, via sophisticated language, converses with this flesh and blood mind. They make decisions and mostly remember those decisions to adjust to environment. Will a biological computer be in our future?--Sure! Actually, most likely, this bio computer will be INSTALLED IN OUR VERY OWN BRAINS. and yes, his TABLE reference leaves out all the senses that are wired into a brain. Ok, put a nose, ears eyes nerves (both incoming and outgoing nerves) onto a computer---seems ridiculous---we might as well create a super human of flesh and blood rather than HARD non-shapeable plastic (although, ha, plastic's def is flexible) (but only mechanically--it needs an outside force---living things do not need outside forces to grow---ok, sun, food---but then we get back to that consciousness is a biological thing---thus, answering the premise. ok, further in, he asks if spiders etc are conscious, or do we know if they are---wow, a big flaw in thinking here---of course there is 'some' consciousness in some animals---they recognize themselves---how?--Their brain must have this bio feedback with their primitive mind to be able to self recognize and even a bit more, like PLANNNG---tool use, etc.-----ahhh, he mentions Roger Penrose's micro tubules (QP of bio). Although there is too much philosophy here, he does end marvelously with the Greeks and thunder and lightening.

[@Dion_Mustard]

Consciousness is most likely non-biological. It is in fact "non-local" in the sense that it isn't confined to the biological brain.

[@Chris-vr8cd]

Is it tho?

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@Chris-vr8cd yes, evidence is in the out of body experience, and the NDE. well worth some research, starting with dr pim van lommel.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Very interesting and worthwhile video.

[@SimonMclennan]

Australopithecus to godhead we blunder like blind elves seeing only the windy bracken in front our risible and blunt snouts... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was... Consciousness or the Brahma, 'tis the melodious and inflected word that separates us from the bracken, and that which binds us to it.

[@mohamedselim6547]

Thanks for sharing this wonderful video Given this example: (a computer built logic) => via programming is this consciousness? like if I give an object a set rules and resources to use, given certain strategies and capabilities, a brain like options, with defined limits and needs... the object when doing things, based on the options set (logic like) this won't be considered consciousness, depending on the program set by the programmer, should be titled "survival" mode where the goal is to minimize the use of resources, and find the optimal This is not consciousness, I believe Now, what is consciousness? Thanks in advance

[@megustaav]

problem is we do not have a strict and testable definition of consciousness or self-consciousness. We don't even have a mechanism to test it. So, even if your program had self-consciousness we would not know at the current stage of our knowledge. What I want to say, we wouldnt be able to distinguish between perfect simulation of "real" consciousness and consciousness in meaning used for humans.

[@mohamedselim6547]

@@megustaav Thanks for the response, I believe it has to do more with being "aware"; of what the "task" in hand is, given, the nature of tasks is changing, by changing the object (need/survival) and/or by desire (mind set/choice) I think what may distinguish humans from non human (all levels of consciousness) is being "aware"; of the surroundings, though these circumstances and options regularly change, so the ability to "adapt" over their life time, though there are animals do that; Arctic fox, mimic octopus, golden tortoise beetle and more, any object can get hurt if they are not aware/always up to date with what the available options/defense mechanisms are. I think it shouldn't be the ability to succeed/create the new, there are humans not interested in creating the new, in any way, they like what life is like, no need for change. even if they were put under pressure, they are survivals and non-survivals. now, is it the degree of consciousness that govern the move, I think not. and we/humans better know where the word "consciousness" came from, humans who created the word, like we have created movies and computer games. there must not be a clear definition to something humans created to try to understand some unfinished/unclear contexts/assumptions. I think. Consciousness [being aware] (in the light of all variables) => Evolution/Optimization. I think since defining "Evolution" is never given/Optimization is + or -, it makes more sense now.

[@MrJohnnyseven]

"People are conscious".. Really? Most people I can try to explain the simplist of things and I doubt they have even taken anything in at all... My dog responds more...

[@MikeG-js1jt]

He's assuming right off the bat that the brain "produces" consciousness........... I don't think so.

[@IVANHOECHAPUT]

"...then consciousness would have to embed some nonphysical aspect. But how would we ever know?" I KNOW!!! I've been out of my body 3 times, apart from my brain lying in the bed my body was on. Being apart from my brain and also having consciousness, totally aware of my surroundings, I KNOW consciousness is NOT created in the brain. However, the brain is an interpretor of physical surroundings able to manipulate and animate the body for physical experiences.

[@mahavakyas002]

funny to see westerners trying to understand what the Hindus have known for thousands of years. children have to start somewhere too I suppose.

[@philipose66]

true to some degree, but their understanding you so praise, is more philosophicl than scientific---right?

[@mohamedselim6547]

@@philipose66 In a way... yes, correct my point is given the set mode, priorities change then how can we define philosophical and scientific on a personal level (given age, previous knowledge, how deep a person's thinking is)? I don't even know how to draw the correct boundaries/limits to a problem but still, I think this could be programmed The How to find the best option depending on a number of givens where the givens were self described, by the object

[@mahavakyas002]

@@philipose66 "scientific" is described as having empirical proof that can be replicated and disproven in a lab so to speak. consciousness, by its very definition is beyond the physical plane - whatever effects we see of consciouness in the physical plane are just that - effects and not "it" in actuality. The inquiry into consciousness that the Hindus undertook was scientific (particular methodologies of meditation, yoga i.e. "experiments") in that sense. However, the actual subject of inquiry is beyond the physical and hence it is a futile attempt - a dog chasing its tail if you will. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad describes what it is "not" - but never what it is precisely for this reason.

[@philipose66]

C may not be "an object"---but it is 'material' (meaning that material brain matter creates it---it IS 'OF' material). You can't hold it in your hand, but you can 'hold' it within your brain. Rocks are not conscious because they do not have the material to create it. If C was just this mystical non-physical entity, then a rock could have it. BUT, do what with it?---we 'do' things with C like planning, fixing, recognizing, constructing---Being aware of our surroundings. ---A rock has surroundings, but does not interact with its surroundings. C is constructed out of electro chemical processes that flesh and blood material create. My physical brain interacts with a part of itself and that creates consciousness---it is physical eventho you can't touch it----yet, it can be touched by disrupting the electro chemical process between neurons of the brain. It can even GROW---be enhanced by stimulation.

[@Mr.Not_Sure]

I think, answer is structure. Can simple IC like DDR4 or DDR5 or whatever next gen be conscious? It won't, even if it's trillions of petabytes, because of its simple structure. But can a computer as a whole be conscious? Maybe. Because intellectual agent in silicon is NOT a processor, not any other IC. It's CODE, "who" is "thinking". And quite possible that in many decades we will have code which is conscious. Don't forget about genetic programming! Maybe such really conscious code will not be written by any human, but rather product of "natural" selection in silica. So understanding why this code is conscious will be equally hard as for why humans are.

[@timb350]

Ummm...we don't KNOW that brains produce it. Quite obviously...if we can't even begin to say with anything even remotely resembling certainty what 'it' actually is (or how 'it' is produced)...then we can also not say with anything remotely resembling certainty what produces it. Correlation is not causation. Surprising, really, how frequently this blindingly obvious... and massive... mistake gets made. As for what actually DOES produce it...there are other theories about that (not a single one of which can even begin to be falsified [although Hoffman has certainly produced some very compelling results])...and there are other theories about what role the brain plays in producing 'us'. As Robert so accurately says... there is just too much we don't know...so... it is simply premature to be making definitive statements about what we do know.

[@ericjohnson6665]

Ah yes, the old lack of specificity... "conscious" as used here, is actually a reference to "self-conscious". Are apes "conscious" (awake)? Yeah... but are they aware of selfhood? Do they have personality, (as distinct and apart from characteristics)? Not that we know of. But what is it that self-consciousness does that's unique? It makes moral decisions. We may say "bad dog," but how does the dog hear that? Mostly "master mad". Is the dog choosing between good and evil? 🤣 (No.)

[@seabud6408]

As far as I am “aware” no one knows ... - what consciousness IS. - what energy IS (beyond math/other descriptions of its “behaviour.”) - what life IS (how chemistry becomes biology) - how to define consistently what qualities some”thing” must have to qualify as being alive. (No agreement/consensus currently within science) - “understands quantum physics” (a statement often repeated by leaders in the field) - can grasp infinity and scientists often say that there is no such “thing” as infinity. - what a field IS No one knows .... - or few appear to, that there are “no particles only fields” (Quote - Dr Sean Carroll) - appears to know/acknowledge within science, that there is ultimately only one field ... The Universe. - or few in science grasp, the notion of what a holon is and that the Universe is a holon. Every holon is an environment for the holons “below”. Plasma, atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, stars, planets, galaxies, Universe. No one knows ... - or few grasp that the Universe (Big Bang plasma) could not give rise to life and consciousness ... us... after 14 billion years, (of effectively cooling and clumping and processing), if the whole system was not as alive as the system typing this and whoever is comprehending it. No one knows - within science (materialism) that the Universe is as alive and conscious as “you” are. You are it and it is you. Finally, If it is not true that the Universe and everything it manifested from plasma (atoms, stars, black holes, humans, giraffes, Einstein, Walt Disney, Buddha) is not in some sense alive, then causality will have to be thrown out along with statistics, probability, systems theory (as above so below) geometry, holism. Science cannot, within its materialistic framework even begin to conceive that Evolution of the Universe should be reframed more accurately as “Growth” of the Universe from plasma. It’s staring science in the face that the Universe has never been dead or unconscious as a whole, or in the continuum of its process from plasma to panther 🐆 There is no lab sample anywhere of ... dead energy. Dead unconscious energy cannot manifest living conscious beings ... us. Surely? It’s a mammoth assumption within science that Big Bang plasma/energy was dead and with no help from man or science managed to grow humans ... given 14 billion years to find its way via stars, planets, seas, land, air, trees, apes, us. It’s almost as if science doesn’t acknowledge that plasma did that with no help from science .... how dare! Why!!! That’s .... A MIRACLE. How did that happen without scientists to build it from .... Lego particles. The one Universal field was “with” the plasma as it is “with” every cell and atom in our bodies and the wider Cosmos ... right now. Why is the seed not the primary metaphor for Big Bang plasma growing (evolving if you like) into everything in and around you mentally and physically. The dualism of the concepts ... mental and physical ... must be illusory. However we know the Universe is a living conscious (at varying levels) system, because if it was not so, we could not have manifested from it ... via plasma over this immense stretch of time. There is no “hard problem of consciousness” if the OBVIOUS is acknowledged within the militant materialist wing of science. Energy has never been dead and unconscious! The Universe is likely to have banged and cooled to heat death and banged again for eternity ( out with time ... materialism doesn’t do eternity however) As above so below ... systems theory .... the Universe almost certainly has a life cycle. Just as no one had to wait for science to confirm that every star has planets ( who within cosmology didn’t know that that MUST be the case) Similarly, no one need wait to safely “know” that the above logic is almost certainly sound. Nothing .... the Earth 🌍 for example or obvious life can happen once in an “infinite” homogeneous visible Universe 95 billion light years in diameter. It’s safe to assume the Universe and it’s product typing this are nested living conscious holon levels. Levels of manifestation of one Universal field. Ask the physicists “ There is ultimately only one field” .... yet their creed cancels out all the above logic. The chaos we are currently going through is partially due to science practiced without a conscience. Mass beef production and processing IS technology and is a factor in climate change. It’s obvious. Science inculcated us to see the living Universe as a dead clockwork Lego particle constructed machine .... which magically produces us out of dead Lego. This is a fact and into the bargain materialists cover up/obfuscate that they haven’t the first clue as to how plasma came up with Mickey Mouse via the holon that was Walt Disney. Children are actually ignorant of the true mystery that is The Universe due to obfuscation by militant materialists who pretend they have it ... all figured out ... bar the details. As you can see from the above, that is a fiction. The new paradigm must surely look something like the above? Ironically the creed of materialism .... is dead 💀

[@SandipChitale]

Asking for a friend...which is a more arrogant statement: Science will NEVER figure out what is consciousness and how it works. vs Science MAY some day figure out what is consciousness and how it works. Told my friend it is the former.

[@ddandrews6472]

Robert Stickgold said "There are thins that computers do that we DON'T UNDERSTAND how they do it". What are those things he's talking about? He's also saying "We don't know apes are conscious, we don't know rodents are conscious". I guess Robert Stickgold knows that humans are conscious or is he only aware that he is conscious? Sounds like he's living in a psychological and mildly philosophical koo koo land.

[@garyconrod9859]

Someone moved all of Californias Mega Corporations to Texas, I think Queen Louis owns all of those, and he also owns Bollywood, the Bohemian Grove, Waddesdon Manor, Westpoint, Nasa, the Oscars and Clint Eastwood.

[@marcosgalvao3182]

Yes because ( qualia) have no mass , charge , spin , position , dimensions , there is no --physical properties -- in qualia so consciousness is not product of brain . matter is" illusion " , matter exists inside consciousness .

[@delq]

Or to put it in a better way - we DO NOT KNOW whether the "real outer world" exists because - 1) all we have are experiences of the "real world" which manifests in the form of regularities in our perception and most importantly 2) the concept of reality and existence is not defined outside one's own conscious perception therefore its futile to apply it to consciousness itself. So in short we DONT AND POSSIBLY CANT "PROVE" the existence of a real world if WE DO NOT ACCEPT FIRST THE EXISTENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

[@marcosgalvao3182]

@@delq yes its a better and technical definition .

[@maverick1972]

A computer that has camera, mic, speaker and database? Almost there. What are the missing "senses"? Chemical, temperature, air pressure, balance, each of which has a tech device for. Pain? Tell the comp that liquid spilt on the keyboard is 80 on the pain scale, while dust is just "itchy", being only 7 on the pain scale. You have to approximate the human experience for the computer to "experience" as well. If, after that, it tells you that your diet should include something previously missing, or tells you a very original joke (that somehow works), only then can you start defining consciousness.

[@karinmiller29]

The World Wide Web. Billions of computers and devices connected. Billions of sensory input in terms of microphones, cameras, sensors, etc... All of human knowledge accessible in the form of data on the cloud. Etc... etc... This is an extremely complex system.

[@alanharoldson9903]

Science predicts. If you know nothing about someone who has survived cardiac arrest except whether or not he/she had NDE, you can make an educated guess about survival within 30 days - confidence: p

[@realcygnus]

Science only(NOT in a derogatory way) studies & models the "behaviors" of nature & should NOT even be expected to "settle" questions about what nature is, in & of itself. Except of course to rule out certain ideas. I agree that correctly framing a problem is often half the battle but, I'm much more with someone like Bernardo Kastrup on such issues. Though I didn't hear him say anything else too unreasonable.

[@losboston]

Can we quantify consciousness? Are there degrees of it? Is there a unit of consciousness on which we might do a dimensional analysis? Maybe it's something like acetylcholine microgram axon micron² nanovolts per cubic millimeter interconnected neuron, in which case it is biological. Or it may be hertz joulesecs per gigabyte meters³ and therefore independent of matter type. I feel that at times I am more conscious than at other times. I am sometimes full of consciousness and at others low on consciousness. There are days that I would gladly pay you Tueday for some consciousness today. Perhaps, if it is all a matter of degree, a rock has 10^-12 units of consciousness, a snail 10^-6, a dog 10^3, an average human, on a good day, 10'^9. And the universe?

[@michaelbindner9883]

There are 16 basic personalities with many variations (512 total) according to Jungian theory as explored at Objective Personality. There are 4 functions which can be either introverted or extroverted: thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition. Everyone can do all 8 things, but 4 are dominant and come in pairs. If you have introverted thinking, you also have extroverted feelings. Computers can store information (introverted sensing) but have very limited extroverted sensing. They can do trial and error (extroverted thinking) and analysis (introverted thinking) or at least they can be programmed to mimic it. Whether it can do these things in a self-directed manner is doubtful. It does not have the ability to come up with creative innovation that will not look silly, but that may be possible. People judge whether a singularity has occurred by whether a computer could do this on its own and do it well. It can certainly do limited introverted intuition, meaning it can plan its own actions, although currently most of this us done for it. Can extroverted feeling, that is, awareness of group values and empathy with group members occur? A good interface could mimic this, but at this point computers don't have the ego awareness to relate its feelings to those of others. Introverted feeling has to do with personal values. Do we want computers to self-direct their ethics? Could we program this. Whose values would we use as a model? After we simulate or create real functions, who gets to decide the mix used in AI systems? Any Star Trek fan will look at the M5 computer whose values were programmed from Dr. Daystrom (its creator). The best episodes are Kirk and Spock outfitting out of control AIs. Commander Data was an intelligent android. The son of his creator (Dr. Sung Jr.) developed a race of synthetic life forms, which eventually tapped into their own deity from another dimension, although the loop was closed. Admiral Picard was dying, so his consciousness was placed into a synth in the last episode of season one. Season 2 starts soon. He had already been a Borg. Trek also explores relations with "higher" life forms like the Q Continuum, the Organians and a Dowd. Also the Prophets, who are a race that can be non corporeal and have no limits in time, what in String Theory is a higher dimension. Capt Cisco, the protagonist of Deep Space 9, had a mother who was a prophet and joined their pantheon at the end of that series. Perhaps Closer to Truth should talk to the shows producers about this, including Gene Roddenberry's son. How much if modern philosophy in these issues is driven by the franchise and how much if the franchise is determined by the issues? Do both tie into some kind of zeitgeist? Maybe the question is whether the concept of the zeitgeust is real...which brings us back to Jung.

[@dusanmal]

I am with the Nobel Prize winner R.Penrose on this issue - consciousness by all evidence must be non-computable (in mathematical terms). As such it certainly can't be achieved just by complexity of the system or by any, no matter how complex algorithm/programming or combination of those. It must arise from natural self-organization. He proposes that the hypothetical graviton plays the crucial role in its emergence through the self-organizing of a system, hard to prove speculation w/o graviton... So, the question remaining is "what is biology/life" - if we constrain it to known, carbon based life as on the Earth, then indeed any other life in the universe based on something else is non-biological but can attain consciousness from self organization. However if we define biology wider, as ANY self-organized life than by the very definition consciousness can only be biological. So, no "strong AI", nothing that we can build no matter how powerful will ever be self aware.

[@jaybingham3711]

Pretty sure 2000ya Greeks observed garments rubbing against each other at night producing a static electric spark...and that they undoubtedly considered clouds rubbing against each other as a reasonable possibility for lightning. Maybe 5000ya lightning was universally believed to be from the gods. Even then, fabrics still existed...and a few were likely drawing comparisons.

[@Sola-Scriptura444]

*1Cor.1:* 20So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. 24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,f Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.

[@danielhedrick4234]

Destroying the brain does NOT necessarily mean you've destroyed consciousness...It does mean you've destroyed its ability to be accessed by this reality.....(later) ok, I was just reading down the comments and liber jrc said the same thing using a TV for an example.

[@SamadhiSeeker22]

Check out The videos by Sri Ramana Maharshi. By using the inquiry What Am I? he was able to experience the nature of consciousness. On particular the biological systems don't produce consviousness.

[@philipose66]

you wonderful thinkers are making me think harder (how do i think harder?---ahhhh, my brain keeps asking my mind to come up with more---more stuff on this consciousness problem)---'WE" (my brain and mind) have come up with this----does a mentally ill person know they are mentally ill? The answer that i believe is true is that some do, and some don't----what is the difference assuming disease and level of disease are similar? Those that don't know they are ill, obviously do not have bio feedback---their brain does not discuss their situation. Those that know they are mentally ill, can only truly know it via language between their brain and mind--right?

[@BigNewGames]

Consciousness is a byproduct when matter decays. Under the right temperature, pressure and humidity all the matter, organic or inorganic that decays is conscious. Is there any scientific evidence to support this postulate? Yes. In 1981 a physicist inventor, Roger G. Vogelsang created a device based on total randomness using an element that has a random decay rate. He used the element AM-241 which randomly radiates a helium particle. He used it to trigger the input to his old Osborne PC. On the PC he had a friend create a BAS random character generating program as the only output. He set up the experiment so the AM-241 element could select any character randomly on his PC. If the AM-241 element was just a non biological thing that didn't know anything, had no consciousness then the device would not be able to communicate. The random helium particles would not be able to select characters in any specific order. It was supposed to type out gibberish if it was not conscious. On the maiden run of the device it typed out 15 spaces and the phrase, "be patient". I'm just as skeptical as the next guy, I told him, maybe the person who wrote the program made it say that? He showed me the program. I learned basic programming back in 1980. I even wrote my own random character generating programs, so I knew what to look for. I opened the program in a text editor and checked out the code and it was a simple random character generating program just like he said it was. I ran the program and used the keyboard spacebar as input. When I tapped on the spacebar it generated one character on the screen. I'm pretty intelligent and after hitting the spacebar multiple times all I could do was get the program to type out gibberish, without any meaning. So if what he claimed was true, the decaying element when used as input truly was conscious and self aware. Not only that, in order to type a character to make any logical sense the device would need to know the character prior to the program generating the correct character. So, it not only knew the human language but also knew what and when the characters were going to come up in the random program. It was not only conscious but knew things it shouldn't have known. Spooky indeed. If this inorganic element displayed consciousness in the act of decaying then all matter is conscious when it decays. This would explain why even organic matter displays consciousness. Did you know that about 200,000 brain cells decay and convert into energy every day? Decay is the key to consciousness. Synapsys in the brain occurs when cells decay. It's as if in a split moment, matter and energy are one. They then connect to a conscious field in the universe, a universal consciousness. Where do you think the whole idea of a universal consciousness was coined? Look it up. It was because of the experiments by the late physicist Vogelsang in the early 1980's. His experiment was the basis behind the Unified field theory and String theory.

[@allwheeldrive]

Science is the tool we use for countless reasons to find answers we ultimately feel comfortable with. But the tools that comprise science are inescapably 100% human in perspective. We created hammers to fix problems, but they must fit *our* hands. It seems the definition of science will have to be reassessed in the near future. Stickgold and quite a few others are babes in the woods, thinking we can "get there". That threshold of understanding will always be a moving target. But we pursue things like this because we're supposed to; it's a survival imperative, and it's a good thing we've got the Stickgolds helping pull us forward. That's all we've really got.

[@rangerpartners1971]

;-) Etherist Tesla spanked atomist Einstein (& other physicist/mathematicians): "They are deep thinkers, but not clear thinkers." Some things - especially consciousness - don't lend themselves to current quantification measures & methods science is limited to.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Can science find the answer? When "..science learns to ask the question.." Are there questions science is barred from asking? Perhaps. He says the Greeks were 2000 years away from the scientific answer of what causes thunder and lightning ⛈. They were also 2000 years removed from "climate change", nuclear war, covid, cancer, insulin resistance, transgender bathrooms and... If science is to ask the "right" question, the scientist must be alive to ask it, and the question must not be off limits. Both are in doubt.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might consciousness be not just the ability to use energy, like cells (physical); also the ability to experience energy (subjective) and direct energy (meaning)?