Roger Penrose - What is Consciousness?

Watch more videos the mystery of consciousness: bit.ly/44DYPLU
Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled philosophers. To begin, we must define and describe consciousness. What to include in a complete definition and description of consciousness?
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@grahamtrave1709]

One of the most knowledgeable people on this earth saying we don’t know very much . How refreshing is that

[@danielharrisson]

The smartest people assume they know nothing. It seems to be the difference between real intellegence, and just having a persona that feigns intellegence.

[@samgamgee7384]

That's the state of the art then.

[@peterneumeyer9232]

And this wonderful person is so humble

[@clayhamilton3551]

The more you know, the more you realize how much we don’t know.

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

These book smart nerds haven't had dried magic mushrooms or Ayahuasca yet. No wonder they're clueless

[@JOHNBOYC2]

You can almost see the decades of contemplation in his expressions. What a fascinating mind to have in our time.

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

He could've saved himself decades of research with 1 session of Ayahuasca or dried magic mushrooms

[@JOHNBOYC2]

@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027 happy medium in there somewhere I dare say!

[@chriscantor6329]

Note how often this ultimate expert admitted gaps in his/our knowledge. Preparedness of eg doctors to admit what they don't know, I at times find more reassuring than statements from those who claim their expertise makes their knowledge unquestionable.

[@realist4859]

What do you mean Almost!!

[@robdev89]

What a gem of a human being Roger Penrose. ❤

[@donnievance1942]

Penrose is the one person who could get me to watch this lamo channel.

[@IA100KPDT]

so what is consciousness?

[@michael.forkert]

@@IA100KPDTThey pretend to know what consciousness is, to convince the public that they are a kind of superior thinking human beings. That’s it. Just in time: AND they make a comfortable living out of it.

[@IA100KPDT]

@@michael.forkert Precisely, the guy said nothing about consciousness and yet so many are praising him like he gave some solid insight and revelation. talk about bootlicking.😆

[@jamievarni1530]

And when you talk with him privately, you get the same person. That’s rare.

[@bhadraparekh]

I believe what he means by "understanding" here is what I call it as "knowing". I picked up this perspective from Rupert Spira. "Knowing" or "understanding" is not a function of the mind but an inherent quality (ingredient) of consciousness itself. This is the nature of consciousness. This perspective leads to the understanding that the essence of every object, thought, or sensation is consciousness, dissolving the usual subject-object dichotomy and leading to a non-dual understanding of reality.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Well it cannot be inherent in consciousness itself, because consciousness itself does not exist - it is "itself" an emerging phenomenon caused by the merging of a sense organ with its object. Consciousness does not exist at all until a functioning sense organ and its object come together. This is why consciousness itself is empty of own existence, and of any own properties: its arising is caused by asense organ and a sense object, and its properties are mere imputations from our side.

[@bakkels]

Do you mean he's pointing out there's a difference between 'knowing' and 'understanding'? Because that's my take. There is 'knowing' something. Which means you oberved or memorized a certain fact, emotion or whatever. Than there's 'understanding', which to me is something entirely different but very difficult ot put into words. Maybe 'inherent' is the best word for it indeed? An 'inherent knowledge' to me encapsulates both the knowledge _and_ understanding of a certain subject.

[@BlessedMarkOnAir]

I am so grateful that people like Sir Roger Penrose exist. For a long time I thought that there was hardly anyone who doubted the theory that our consciousness is a computer process in our brain. Sir Roger Penrose's statements are all the better to hear.

[@david.thomas.108]

Excellent interview. I love hearing Sir Roger Penrose’s thought process on consciousness. Fascinating stuff.

[@blijebij]

Same! A very inspiring, excellent and loved scientist. I wish he was 40 years younger so we still would have him around for a long time :)

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

I absolutely love and appreciate Sir Roger Penrose and although i have no knowledge of mathematics and know very little of quantum physics, i have still gained knowledge from his teaching and others, however i feel blessed and equal with my owm knowledge when in it comes to consciousness as no body can explain it only but live it and experience it✨💙🙏

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@ianbrown4242]

An incredible mind, and eloquent communicator.

[@MegaDonaldification]

Sir Roger Penrose, it is "logical." You have always been right.

[@surendrakverma555]

Thanks Sir for the excellent explanation

[@stevedabish9107]

What a great pleasure listening to great interviews through this wonderful channel

[@backwardthoughts1022]

they were good like 15yrs ago now they just support kohns coke bill.

[@BugRib]

@backwardthoughts1022 - What? 🤔

[@colinjohnrudd]

Roger Penrose..... a true visionary because he recognises the mystery!

[@siriosstar4789]

consciousness cannot be learned or understood but it can be transmitted from here to here . From the age of 10 this has been my unchanging unmanifest experience .what HAS changed is the words that i use when i try but fail to create an intellectual understanding .

[@miasmic100]

What an intellect, you dive into deep learning listening to him

[@osks]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers

[@neillynch_ecocidologist]

LMAO "Theologians have talked out their arses for centuries, mass-propagating the religion capitalists shamelessly use to oppress the poor and the ignorant."

[@nuqwestr]

Great to revisit this talk, always stimulates, but still no understanding.

[@terrycallow2979]

I love this CTT.

[@hihello-sx1sx]

Penrose states that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is an indication that our consciousness is not computational. But I don’t see how Gödel’s theorem necessarily excludes computational processes being involved. Gödel’s theorem just shows that we are able to identify truths that apply within formal systems but which are not derivable by the rules of those systems. Machine learning algorithms also do this all the time - Natural Language Processing is probably the most well known example, which is able to compile facts about language syntax and semantics without using any rules about language whatsoever. There’s nothing inherently non-computational about this sort of process.

[@__dRC]

NLP was modelled based on how toddlers learn. But there is so much more to a toddler than learning.

[@hihello-sx1sx]

@@__dRC I don’t disagree. I just don’t think Penrose’s argument sufficiently demonstrates this difference.

[@Oxydron]

To get TRULLY random numbers in computers to train ML algorithms (training algorithms are stochastic), it depends on sensors which capture noise from the Universe. This value captured is non-computational and from the Universe (Universe generates random noise). For me, Penrose is right, and our brains are quantum computers which for sure interact with the quantum states of everything around us. When we know the Theory of Everything explaing all physics, then we can START understanding Consciousness from an analytical/cientific point of view. If you want to understand Consciousness empirically, you just need to learn meditation and self-enquiry.

[@MrGarnache]

I agree ...... His main point was " I don't know " @@hihello-sx1sx

[@thecorruptversion]

I'm pretty sure that if Roger fucking Penrose says it's not computational, it's not computational. There's always a genius in the comments that knows more than the expert. The nerve of criticizing this man's lifework in a youtube comment.

[@jackherer4865]

consciousness is it's content. for human beings, hope , desperation, fear and other innumerable forms of conditionings

[@DoomSlayer-MAGA]

I watch your videos all the time and slowly but surely all these great minds are passing away. I’m glad I get to watch them on this channel

[@will27ns]

I admire Roger for at least trying to answer the question.

[@fuffoon]

I was watching this channel yesterday. Same subject but other scientists. I was thinking I would like to hear Penrose on this show. And voila, the dude is here. He talks about stuff that is more of human interest than just another object we will never get close to.

[@jmanj3917]

6:13 I've always enjoyed learning from Dr. Penrose...and my dogs are loving the birds...lol Go Bluejays!

[@maxhagenauer24]

The entire concept of being sentient and being aware and making decisions of our own, its absolutely mind blowing. Why me and not someone else in this body? How do I make decisions? How do I trust myself with my decision making in the future? Even the next breathe I take. It seems to make no sense how deterministic laws being applied to matter (biology and chemistry) can do this but at the end of the day, we don't know yet what this is and hkw it works on a deep enough level to anwser those questions. We just really desire anwsers about what "we" even is. Maybe one day.

[@markb3786]

Your questions are much smarter than most of the answers on here.

[@maxhagenauer24]

@markb3786 I am glad to hear someone tell me that. Why do you think that though? Is it because I'm not making any claims and I'm just saying we don't know yet?

[@DaP84]

Why not someone else? Cause you are your composition. No external element. Your choises are probably fully deterministic, even though it doesn't seem so.

[@ripukshaymalhotra245]

The psychological person or the mental structure responsible for assuming/ believing that it exists and making decisions or having volition has been termed illusory . While the existence of thought/ sensations has been validated, but the thought taking form of the person and believing itself to be an individual is called illusory. You make take the aforementioned as a possibility or theory and observe. Or you already know all this and I am being presumptuous. 😊

[@DaP84]

@@maxhagenauer24 if that is true, then yeah. But the blaming would also be a deterministic response.

[@likable72]

I’m not a physicist but Penrose is a gem to humanity. He makes mathematics interesting!

[@stellarwind1946]

Consciousness is like a massive object that’s gravity pulls people in from all branches of science to attempt an explanation at.

[@DeewarPutr]

that's because consciousness IS the underlying basis for "understanding" to explain anything which includes the role of belief in a set of axioms that enables building an argument for the explanation itself (i.e no branch of science can do what they do without the ultimate reality of consciousness)

[@bozdowleder2303]

​@@DeewarPutrSurprisingly the reason is actually the opposite. Cognition isn't really mysterious and we have managed to build machines that can cognize aspects of their environment. Any electronic sensor is a good example. Consciousness is something quite different and we don't even understand its purpose, let alone how to create a working model of it

[@DeewarPutr]

@@bozdowleder2303 alright just ask yourself how you “truly” know that to be the case (or any other whatsoever case you’re trying to present)

[@bozdowleder2303]

@@DeewarPutr There is no case. You're simply mixing up cognition and information processing and consciousness. Any ordinary electronic sensor has cognition. Consciousness, or the quality of experiencing something(rather than merely taking in information), is something we cannot even detect from the outside in others. We assume that all humans are conscious because why would we be anything special. And we may extend it to mammals and birds. But we have no evidence for it. It doesn't have any discernible function

[@DeewarPutr]

@@bozdowleder2303 the electronic sensors were built with so called human intelligence with similar principles humans employed already to do some “sensing” in the world for thousands of years.. same line of thought computers can do what human calculators used to already do but better.. so all you need to do is just turn the argument upside down and see that computation or sensing could be aspects of any advanced consciousness but the “awareness” an electric charge has for an electric (or any other) field for all of infinity in space is literally baked into it

[@rchas1023]

I keep looking at these videos in the hope of getting a rational explanation. Alas, the words slip through my mind like water through a sieve. More and more, I think the question is itself a red herring.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

is red outside the skull or inside the skull or both or neither.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Being conscious is the process in which the outside gets inside where it persists in the form of representations (also called thoughts). Consider the representation of one's own body to be the self. Since it is the self that is conscious, as in I am conscious, one can easily imagine that the representations are modulating the self-thought and what's going on there is the core of what being conscious means.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@backwardthoughts1022 Being conscious is the process in which the outside gets inside where it persists in the form of representations (also called thoughts). Consider the representation of one's own body to be the self. Since it is the self that is conscious, as in I am conscious, one can easily imagine that the representations are modulating the self-thought and what's going on there is the core of what being conscious means. Thus red is a representation, a particular modulation process of the self and process, being an abstract notion and representation being context dependent combine allowing us to say 'red' has no location. Approximately and in need of exploration.

[@snesjkksdnuesjjsj]

we are the explanation.we have created the world. now our only task is to look back at ourselves.deep in ourselves.

[@yurkdawg]

That's why the show is called "*closer* to truth" - it focuses on questions that we cannot (and may never be able to) fully answer. However that does not mean that we should not try. Nor does it mean that we cannot make any progress, I.e. to get "closer"...

[@claudetteguimond8035]

I like the name of this channel.

[@scottturner1504]

It's satisfying to know that even the process of understanding in the human mind is a fundamental property of the quantum world

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Nonsense!

[@Gsjsji_jwjsbs]

Experience roger! experience! Storage! And experience! And analysis! And experience!

[@markkennedy9767]

It's crazy how there are so many intersecting concepts here like quality/qualia (Pirsig), computation and its reducibility (Wolfram), measurement problem in QM (Penrose), discreteness vs continuity (the history of the foundations of calculus) that always keep cropping up essentially saying this doesn't fit. There's a throughline in all this stuff that only a few people like Penrose have the courage to say this is off, something's missing.

[@bozdowleder2303]

He is clearly wrong about THAT though. It has become a standard procedure to point out just where Lucas-Penrose goes awry in most textbooks which deal with Godel

[@dhruvChessLover11]

Are you scientist .Are you God saying what is right or what is wrong.😂😂​@@bozdowleder2303

[@pikiwiki]

our understanding enables us to go beyond any rules of proof that you trust

[@nuqwestr]

The annealing of noise at our scale allows us to communicate, understand and accomplish tasks, we don't need to get it 100% correct, our aspiration toward 100% is enough.

[@trsshowstopper9518]

As long as you don't define the term consciousness you will never know what it is.

[@greatunz67]

I really wish they had a closed captioning type of thing you could turn on that simplifies and dumbs down what they are discussing for us average joes who aren't rocket scientists.

[@dhruvChessLover11]

I love him❤

[@gillcelt]

Mathematics on consciousness, is a sentence explaining the space between each word.

[@jacqueslucas8616]

Consciousness is not a computational process….Love it! So simple yet nails it.

[@BugRib]

I think the fact that the contents of conscious experience are comprised of un-quantifiable, pure qualities that can't be computed or described by mathematics, not even in principle, also proves that consciousness is not computational.

[@blijebij]

Consciousness is something very unique and fascinating.

[@r2c3]

5:56 an abstraction layer is somehow complementing the physical one or vice-versa 🤔

[@kimsahl8555]

Consciousness is the terminus of the observation.

[@liviobontempi8539]

Her Majesty and Sacred Empress the Consciusness of Being

[@youfilin]

Sir Roger Penrose is one of the best in the field of study. But the question should sound like "in your opinion, what is consciousness".

[@picksalot1]

When you understand something, the mind is in the form of the object of knowledge. The more accurate the mental form, the greater the potential for correct knowledge and its understanding.

[@mikefoster5277]

But what if all understanding is self-contained? In and of the mind itself? In other words, that consciousness is fundamental and universal - appearing on different 'levels' (within itself) - including the level of the separate, individual, personal mind? In that case, what would 'correct knowledge', or even an 'object of knowledge', really mean?

[@picksalot1]

@@mikefoster5277 I think we have pretty good evidence that Mind is located in the locality of the Brain/Body of the individual, as the accounts for different people knowing different things. I agree with Consciousness being fundamental and universal. We experience and know the world through our identity with a specific individual body, mind, and its senses. An "object of knowledge" can be an external object known through the senses, which mediate the information we receive about the object. There are also thoughts, which are internal objects of knowledge, like the though of an Elephant. Usually, that thought produces an image of an Elephant in the Mind. If the image is of Cat instead, then that would not be "correct knowledge."

[@transcender5974]

The most mature and complete explanation of the nature of consciousness comes from the Vedic Tradition, which says that consciousness is preexisting as an eternal, unmanifest, absolute field beyond time, space, causation...all relative existence. All that exits, the Vedas proclaim, is vibrating consciousness knowing itself in an infinite number of perspectives, manifesting those perspectives as per it's self-referral dynamics. The human brain doesn't produce consciousness..it, like everything else in creation reflects consciousness to the degree that it's structure will allow. More evolved nervous systems will reflect more consciousness with the associated laws of nature for that level of consciousness. The nervous system that is more evolved will have at it's disposal more laws of nature and awareness of laws of nature. A radio doesn't produce the electromagnetic waves it turns into sound..it is a receptor and reflector of some mode of vibration of the electromagnetic field. This can be compared to the how different nervous systems reflect different modes of vibration of the field of consciousness.

[@Caitanyadasa108]

Right; if modernity wants to understand what consciousness is why not look into the writings left by those who specialized in it and developed an entire vocabulary for discussing its nature? I suspect modern science doesn't want to admit that there are some things that it can never know by objective methods while failing to realize it is consciousness employing the methods in the first place.

[@markh7484]

Mature and complete it may be. But utter bollocks nevertheless.

[@jonnydangerous2497]

You clearly have no conscious. @markh7484

[@dhruvChessLover11]

Are you 👻.🤔jonnydangerous2497

[@jonnydangerous2497]

@@dhruvChessLover11 Yes I am.

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Consciousness is a point-like singularity.

[@hansbleuer3346]

There are holes in our words. But, how to describe them? With a new form of logic or math? And, how to we measure them? A quantum theory of language? Sensetime?

[@LivingNow678]

supernatural is supernatural Amen

[@voidstarq]

It's a very interesting hypothesis, and is be very interested to know whether it's true, but I still don't think I heard anything that makes it sound like anything more than an assertion of belief.

[@domini1331]

Anxiety may be the real indicator of consciousness. Our anxiety starts when we develop consciousness and it disappears whenever we lose consciousness.

[@BugRib]

But _all_ of our experiences (e.g. anxiety, happiness, pain, pleasure, taste of chocolate, etc.) begin when we become conscious and end whenever we lose consciousness.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

since you cannot rigorously observe consciousness, what is the point of commenting on it using your folk level of introspection when there are persons who can talk on the matter around

[@Stifford123]

How do you know it disappears? Just means you can't monitor it cause your unconscious...

[@domini1331]

@@Stifford123 Anxiety can be read on the face by others.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@domini1331 behaviour and neural correlates are behaviour and neural correlates, not consciousness.

[@AMorgan57]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig. The quality of experience.

[@neillynch_ecocidologist]

#ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth - a road trip novel I wrote during lockdown, 2019 Naturally, I borrowed part of the title from Pirsig. :)

[@LivingNow678]

​@@neillynch_ecocidologist Probably the scientists of Creative Society are not so Zen, but they are looking for save Life on Earth too 😮😯😊

[@neillynch_ecocidologist]

@@LivingNow678 Zen Buddhism is garbage (like all religion). But then neither Pirsig's book nor mine have anything to do with promoting Buddhism or any religion for that matter. I'm 100% antitheist. :)

[@LivingNow678]

@@neillynch_ecocidologist Fashion (moda) is often garbage the genuine Zen is an existential state that only few persons can live. I don't know what it takes to a person to get to the Original Zen State; maybe many Lives, maybe a particular discipline, maybe .... I'm practicing Yoga (almost the whole day prana through the nose and asanas in the morning) since 35 years (I am 66), still Life and its applications to me are a Mystery. I don't know if I am an atheist or a 'believer', but what I love to say is that: I live in the INFINITO

[@LivingNow678]

@@neillynch_ecocidologist INFINITO is the only Entity that can be understood as enterely without limits and capable of including in It Existential State every possible entity (being), that is: all the existential states. Since, two or more infinito would limit each other, can only exist One. It must therefore be recognised as the only Unlimited Supreme Entity that with Its own intrinsic independence: creates, generates, pervades, emanates, transforms and includes each and all entities existing in It. Whatever element is taken into consideration, it cannot limit INFINITO, which has neither beginning nor end is everywhere expanded, from this {hence} having always existed, subsisting in the absence of a first cause, will always exist. It is not relatable to anything other than ItSelf, which sanctions It's Unconditional Existence. INFINITO has not contraries, adjacent, correlatives, correspondents, opposites, terms of paragon and comparison. Only and exclusively INFINITO can be INFINITO and therefore express ItSelf, exist and behave as INFINITO. In realizing all It's own transformations, by Paradox, by including them all already, It does not change, It is therefore simultaneously in moviment and motionless. Also, although not identifiable by form and substance, It includes in ItSelf all possible forms and substances. Including the All {the Whole}, It includes in ItSelf the whatever "what is", which being generated and emanated in ItSelf, is Its part (macro, micro, human or otherwise), which by simple logic, can never manifest, reproduce, match, live or totally replicate the Existential State of INFINITO ItSelf. Therefore there can be no human, artificial, alien, spiritual, divine or other existential state capable of being able to fully determine, formulate and reveal It for: size, mass, density, aspect, space, vibration, demonstrability, image or whatever. INFINITO, beyond the Principles that found the Criterion, cannot be considered or exchanged for this, for that or for anything else.

I only watch CTT via KZbin. Do the new seasons on PBS feature new interviews or are they splicing together bits from previous interviews in other seasons? Love it all anyway!

[@casnimot]

I don't recall anything Penrose has said that I thought should be dismissed without great care, if at all. Regarding the quality of understanding (a thing), what if that's almost like a blind man's view of an elephant, which is stretched out over 4-d space-time, some sort of feel for that volume relative to the understanding? Not really germane to the discrete vs. continuous dichotomy, nor to whether it's computational. But would also force us to consider resources beyond matter/energy and maybe beyond space-time. Speaking of gravity (to be discontinuous), the separation between that and the quantum world seems rather big. Cosmic even.

[@im2old4this2]

and if something is not a computational process, that implies what about it?

[@sorellman]

He is absolutely right, not that he needed my confirmation. The proof comes many times in the way we understand things, and our understanding of things is neither computable, nor something that we could always provide empiric evidence in support of.

[@markh7484]

@sorellman, "our understanding of things is computable". Your evidence for that is what, exactly? OF COURSE it's computable, as the current large LLMs ably demonstrate every single day.

[@sorellman]

@@markh7484 You are asking me to provide evidence for what I said, as Penrose did, could not be provided evidence for, as in "non-computable"? On that note, don't you think you should be the one to provide evidence for your claim that how we end up understanding things is computable. Show us the records. I will not hold my breath.

[@gr33nDestiny]

One of the best interviews Einstein said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge' which is very concise. I feel like I could add to it by saying that there are 2 sets, the reality set for our universe and our consciousness's ability to understand or make use of the imaginary set. Where does this imaginary set come form and why does it exist in our brains and nowhere else. The imaginary set also seems much larger, so if its infinite it should be a bigger infinity than the reality set. It doesn't seem logical its there for nothing or just as a model for predictions. I believe its a way this universe is representing those sets but I don't know if its a requirement or just because its possible, therefor it exists. Seems like a long time before humans will actually figure out if true conscious AI is possible.

[@UncompressedWAVmusic]

Our understanding is not a computational process. - Roger Penrose

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

at quantum state reduction / measurement, energy (free will) of probability becomes electromagnetic field that turns into photon particle (awareness)?

[@Bob123Max]

There we have brilliant insight. "Consciousness is more than computation". I have read arguments that the honey bee exhibits consciousness. Not so, what the bee does is pure computation - incredibly good computation with the bare minimum of neurons - but the bee does not know what it is doing. However, where an invertebrate possibly shows emotion - I have witnessed a spider being pursued by a wasp - to me the spider looked terrified in its desperation to escape. If the spider was experiencing fear, does that count beyond computation? Mammals clearly exhibit a variety of complex emotions - you only have to live with a dog to see this. Are these emotions beyond computation - I believe so.

[@ZENTEN7777]

Is awareness a result of consciousness or is awareness makes us realize that we are conscious? But then again we have to be conscious of the fact that we are aware before we make the obvious declaration that we are.

[@blange1808]

In the discussions about consciousness I often miss a clear distinction between consciousness as such and the content of it.

[@ripukshaymalhotra245]

Both are same. Content is consciousness. If not yet, you may please read, the discussion between scientist, D. Boham and J. Krishnamurthi .

[@backwardthoughts1022]

​@@ripukshaymalhotra245not quite, awarenesses can observe its own nature rigorously with the development of perfectly single-pointed concentration, at which poijt all external and internal stimulus and objects are by definition emptied out of the mind.

[@blijebij]

@@backwardthoughts1022 I think a better language for emptied is integrated. Awareness is a less complex state of consciousness compared to waking, and it does that by the quality of a higher degree of integrated state. An integrated state is the relation with unity, oneness. A higher degree of Oneness is full and empty at the same time, wich totally fits the discription of an integrated state. From my experience, (I can keep my awareness through all sleep stages even deep sleep and to the nde, i prooved this to myself by an eeg machine, monitoring my meditation and sleep proces) Awareness from my own exprerience, so from practice not from books or others, is an integrated state relation and the foundation of consciousness. It also showed me that consciousness and awareness are holistically in relation. That means that when we are awake we are also a bit a sleep and when we are a sleep we are also a bit awake.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@blijebij eeg is useless, we have the neural correlates for almost all mental functions including attention and concentration. we know that the avg person is capable of 2sec max concentration and we know genuine practitioners can sustain concentration uninterrupted by any external stimulus or internal object for not seconds but multiple hours. work is begining to be done on ppl who maintain perfect concentration throughout the entire sleep period, but currently more neuroscientist attention is being done on meditators in concentration post clinical death one such large study called 'the tukdam project'. eeg is useless meaningless decades old science, we now operate on directly monitoring the neural correlates themselves.

[@ripukshaymalhotra245]

@@backwardthoughts1022 This is age old trick of the mind to keep itself busy/ going by promising a reward of emptiness in the end.

[@100woodywu]

Consciousness is a mystery so I am pleased that scientists like Roger Penrose don’t right off the great mystery that in itself is part of the information or quantum wave function that the universe is, which begs the question is consciousness fundamental to the universe as physicist Paul Davies said in his book ‘ The Demon In The Machine’ ? I think very likely so.

[@LivingNow678]

Ramana Maharishi had his Way to explain what co(n)-science is 😮🤔😲🙂

[@osks]

“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…

[@esorse]

If the representations of a number by two people are sufficient to corroborate it, then you could argue that it is an undecideable Kantian synthetic apriori proposition with analytic subject, the number and synthetic predicate, is unique, implying that no axiom originated statement about the number can be evaluated as either true, or false.

[@clintonjones955]

Talk is Cheap Silence is Golden The Dream World is the Key ...Paradox We start with perception >>> Awareness >>>Cognition >>>The Ambient (container) like an onion that vibrates in tune with the Universe #OMANIPADMI00M

[@user-wb8dh4iv4t]

I can sometimes see black cloth like substance closing down in my vision before blacking out, but if i push thoughts into my head and it vanishes with me ragaining the consciousness. Several times when I had vision and audio cues in persistive matter I feel like time travels without me trying. Also weird phenomenon

[@peweegangloku6428]

I agree. And I should add that all physical structures are computational but not so with consciousness because it is non-physical. Or as the Bible seems to indicate, it is insanely rare and so fundamental that the only source and origin is the Ultimate Reality, God. "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light." - Ps. 36:9.

[@dhruvChessLover11]

👍

[@reginaerekson9139]

3:54 I thought our atoms/dna had some kind of genetic memory - so conciousness is seemingly some form of recycling, like reincarnation for you to evolve to higher spiritual planes and each lifetime gives you a chance to build on your life lessons to perfect yourself spiritually so you can connect with source more fully.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

there is a big difference between chemical carryover and an emergent property of memory contained anywhere in any physical structure.

[@dhruvChessLover11]

​@backwardtMay be yes or may be no.Who knows man.houghts1022

[@heathergrahame9647]

Consciousness is an embrace of what is. It is an openness to what is. It is acceptance of what is. The pupil of an eye is a good analogy for consciousness. It is an opening, gap, or space which allows light (“what is”) into the brain. A narrow consciousness allows only a small amount in, whereas a wide, open consciousness allows a lot more in. When a person is highly conscious, they are not limiting what they are letting in. The are fully open to receiving what is. Again, to speak metaphorically, a highly conscious person is someone who has their arms wide open. And it’s no coincidence that there are many images of Christ, for example, with his arms open. The most poignant of these is his arms wide open whilst hanging on a cross and suffering. That is the challenge. We tend to want consciousness so as to be able to understand why suffering exists or why there is a problem somewhere. We think if we have the understanding, then we can arrange circumstances so that the suffering or problem ceases. But true consciousness embraces suffering. It embraces everything. It embraces what is. It accepts all without limitation or conditions. It is only when we are willing to accept all of what is, are we then able to understand it. As Penrose says, consciousness is not computational. To become conscious, we need to allow ourselves to be impressed upon or to receive thought or receive understanding. We need to be open and receive the light that passes through the pupil. That light is the light of consciousness. Continuing with this analogy, it could be said that consciousness or light exists outside of the brain or outside of the self (actually, it is around the self and embraces the self) and our brain or self is affected by the light or consciousness it receives from the outside. An open mind is impacted by the consciousness it lets in, and the person’s own thoughts align themselves to (or become similar to) the consciousness which has been received. As the thoughts within the self become more and more similar to the consciousness which has been received, the person experiences a greater level of understanding within themselves. Our soul is that which is conscious, and our soul is of God and of all consciousness. It is the soul which enlightens the mind of the self. Contrary to what many people believe, the brain does not engender greater consciousness. In fact, the brain acts as a limitation or barrier to consciousness. It is a blindfold over the pupil which lets in the light of consciousness. The brain is capable of repeated thinking or thoughts along the same lines. When we have very fixed and rigid beliefs or expectations, for example, we are incapable of accepting and seeing something which is contrary to those beliefs and expectations. The brain is computational, and its penchant for continually computing along particular lines actually hinders consciousness. A closed mind or fixed mind cannot see beyond what it already knows. It cannot let in the light of consciousness of the soul. For a person to become more conscious, they must meditate, sleep, or in some way release themselves from their usual thinking processes (for example, some drugs can do it too). I know it sounds back-to-front, but, when you’re asleep, you are more conscious than when you are awake. When you’re awake, your thoughts and beliefs blindfold you and limit what you’re capable of accepting and seeing. As humans, we go through a repeating cycle or rhythm of awake (blindfolded/unconscious), sleep (conscious), awake (blindfolded/unconscious), sleep (conscious). The main purpose of this rhythm or cycle of unconsciousness and consciousness is that such a rhythm leads to an expansion of consciousness. If we were always fully conscious or existed only as a conscious soul, then there would be no need or desire to know more or become conscious of more. However, by having a human form and experiencing ignorance/blindfoldedness/unconsciousness whilst being awake, then out of that is born a desire to know more. That desire to know more ultimately leads to an expansion of consciousness. Human beings are, therefore, at the "leading edge" or "outer edge" of consciousness, where new consciousness is emerging.

[@Blindbrick2]

Consciousness is a prediction algorithm, constantly trying to calculate what wil happen next.

[@harezothman31]

A computer does the same thing, is a computer conscious? Are there levels to consciousness? How does material and physical objects get consiousness? Where it the point where this happens? So many questions but no answers.

[@u.s.navy_pete4111]

And since the future depends on the decisions you make now, hat prediction algorithm needs to incorporate a self-image into those calculations. Et voilà! Consciousness arises, because the prediction algorithm demands introspection to accurately predict the future. Maybe in animals where their own decisions don't influence the outcome of the future (or to a negligible extent), the prediction algorithm doesn't produce the illusion of consciousness. And what if that prediction algorithm gets so complex (through evolution by natural selection) that it not only demands introspection, but also to consider the introspective decisions of other animals? Et voilà! A theory of mind arises. What do you think?

[@williamburts5495]

What Am I? Answer: " I Am " that which allows me to know that " I Am " therefore I Am a unit of self-awareness because to be aware is to be " self-aware " therefore self-awareness is consciousness.

[@kukumuniu5658]

Roger Penrose should start with Dzogchen and Bon practices

[@jamieharford1008]

Sir* Roger to you

[@noumenon6923]

Perhaps acquiring knowledge of what consciousness IS, would involve a epistemic recursiveness for which we are not constituted to perform,... as in analogy that we are not constituted to acquire an intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics for example.

[@ycart_tech6726]

yeah, we're built to die... quite possibly by beings that were built to die(I kinda know I was built by my biological parents half out of whose initial number have already passed per example)... but not before procreating apparently... we are the ones that ultimately hold the capacity to stop ourselves from first understanding and then maybe breaking the cycle... and up until this very day we have done so with near invariable success

[@AnatolyKern]

so qualia of understanding is the key from Roger's point of view with awareness as a major clue. seems in line with my understanding of consciousness via concept of symbiotic organisms.

[@quantumcat7673]

Perhaps that "something" besides the physical brain, that makes consciousness is information that might have a physical manifestation that our brain can tap into. The importance of information is observable in quantum experiments.

[@shevashevasheva777]

sound is consciousness

[@jackarmstrong5645]

This is really "What consciousness is not". Consciousness is the phenomena of subjective experience which includes thinking. And nobody has a clue how cells create a subject and it's experiences which are both totally invisible to an external observer.

[@Caitanyadasa108]

The assumption that the subject is created by cells could be just that. Is it possible that consciousness is different from matter altogether and that its true nature can never be known by the objective methodology of the scientific method?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@Caitanyadasa108 It may involve some unknown aspect of matter and energy but it arises due to the activity of cells. You end that activity and there is no consciousness.

[@Caitanyadasa108]

@@jackarmstrong5645 So in your opinion it isn't possible that consciousness is different from matter?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@Caitanyadasa108 I don't think it is matter. But it could be some unknown effect that arises from the interaction of matter and energy.

[@zemocon2868]

​@@jackarmstrong5645Actually, there can be consciousness even if you shut off brain completely. There can be consciousness even if the person is under anesthesia. Ask NDErs...

[@vivan868]

We are immersed in consciousness.The only thing is when you are born, it depends on the sensitivity of your receptors in the brain how intense your experience of life will be.

[@juanrodriguezsalazar]

consciousness is a spirit that has a language in evolution to each human being, and then each person needs learn to understand the difference between good and bad (i.e. moral) Moreover, each one need to learn self-knowledge to generate an identity and role in the world.

[@Bombo-nd1lq]

I recently read a book that made me lean decidedly towards a form of oriental idealism called nonduality, it's called The Direct Experience the way of non-duality by the author Alessandro Sanna, a masterpiece

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Nonduality may help some to achieve some state of mind. Non nonduality may so the same. In either case, grasping reality will remain forever out of reach.

[@StuartMiles74]

I cannot get my head around how people like Roger Penrose are so insightful about life. It blows my mind.

[@bendunselman]

Can someone explain why awareness cannot be a computational process based on biochemical mechanisms. I must have missed it in this interview.

[@WMAlbers1]

If we consider the brain to be a large instrument for pattern recognition, one also might argue that this "understanding" plays out against logic/computation just by the circumstance that "it feels right".???

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Consciousness is a fundamental property of matter/energy. It is the ability of a thing to apprehend itself, to.experience it's own existence. Nothing can be conscious unless the most fundamental constituents of what we're made of are also conscious.

[@donnievance1942]

Greetings, fellow panpsychist. I fear we're a rare breed. Most people project onto us the idea that we are claiming that particles have intellection, or emotional responses, or a concern for their personal fates, etc. I try to explain that we are simply non-dualists. We don't think that physicality and consciousness are two separate things or that consciousness must only arise at some particular level of complexity. I also think that trying to erect the concept of "emergence" as an explanation for consciousness is one more reflexive unconscious attempt to put the ghost back into the machine. That smells like a new variety of spiritualism or vitalism. Emergence is a description of system behavior, not some new kind of evanescent phenomenon. A system behavior is extrinsic and cannot be equated to the experience of being that system. I say that if one wonders about the content of the consciousness of an elementary or molecular particle, that it is simply whatever information is entangled in that particle. That is as far as we can go, even in speculation. We can speak speculatively about the content of consciousness, but not about what it is fundamentally. Consciousness is the whole reality of an entity, and it cannot be separated from the whole and reified as a concept. Doing that puts us back into the realm of dualism-- the idea that there is a physical entity and then some spooky other thing, something like a "soul" that an entity might or might not possess, depending on whether we were to recognize the entity as conscious or not. I'm not trying to project onto you what I've been expressing here. I'm just laying out what I think, and I'm interested to hear to what extent you agree with my expression. People can only think about consciousness in terms of the content of their own consciousness, so they project and think that when someone says that consciousness goes all the way down to the elementary level, they think we are saying that particles have a consciousness with particular similarities to their own. Of course, they rightly don't buy that, and that is not what I mean. There is a remaining problem of why we don't experience our own consciousness as simply an aggregate of the consciousness of a bazillion particles. I don't claim to have that all worked out, but I think that our particular human consciousness is dominated by our status as homeostatic system phenomena. As biological entities, we have the system characteristic of being programmed to preserve ourselves as entities at this level of system organization. This entails first a self-identification AS beings at this system level, along with the impulses and motives to recognize ourselves as independent and whole at this level and to act to maintain and preserve ourselves at this level. A rock is an aggregate of conscious particles, but neither it, nor its parts, have any homeostatic impulses or tropisms to uniquely identify or preserve themselves as a system. It isn't saying to itself, "I, this rock, am who I am, and recognize myself as such." Much less, "I, this rock, want to live and continue as myself." But its consciousness entails all the information contained in its parts and in their force connections to each other. I agree with you that this state is an "experience," but there is no reason to read anything further into it. At this level it must be recognized that, per Bell's Theorem, there is no intrinsic separation of any field from another and no time constrained limitation on communication, or constraints on causal connection, between any regions of the total field. So, I derive from this the idea that consciousness is both elementary and universally unified. Our animal consciousness of ourselves as being separate from that field is an artifact of our homeostatic and self-preserving system character as biological phenomena. We're a particular local vortex in that field that has created an illusion of our separateness in consequence of our particular system character. Once again, I want to reject certain projections about what I'm saying about this unified field. I'm not claiming that a unified field must have a consciousness of itself AS AN ENTITY (although I wouldn't categorically reject that either) and certainly not that the conscious total field has a centralized intelligence that thinks of itself as a conscious being separate from its constituent parts, the way people conceive of their minds as conscious entities separate from their bodies. I definitely repudiate the idea that we should identify the concept I'm talking about as a God. I think the whole God concept is vehemently pernicious, but that's a different discussion. I think of myself as a philosophical Taoist, if that adds any useful nuance to what I've been saying. "The way that can be followed Is not the way. The name that can be named Is not the true name. The nameless is the root of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the myriad creatures. These two are the same, But diverge in name as they emerge. Being the same, they are called mysteries. Mystery upon mystery-- Behind every gate lies silence." The first verses of the Tao Te Ching minus one (according to me).

[@LivingNow678]

Natural Supernatural Duality vs non-duality Neutral exists but it is a Mysterious space 😮😊

[@painandsuffer]

Closer to truth with more questions...?

[@willemhaifetz-chen1588]

Already read his book “emperors new clothes”? as it came out, still relevant today

[@user-jk8vc5zr9z]

The answer was provided in Bhagvad Gita as "Absolute Truth". The knowledge was shared approx. 5,000 years ago. In Rig-Veda (10,000 years old approx.) it was mentioned as "Nirgun tattva". Additionally, scripture book of Mandukya Upanishad also mentioned it as "Turiya", "which was translated in English as Conciousness".

[@BrianCuthbertson]

How does that explain anything?

[@snebold]

The explanation of consciousness that rings most true for me is that it’s an illusion that arises out of a feedback loop of our nervous system and constant monitoring of our bodily functions. We call this monitoring “unconscious” but it’s probably where our awareness comes from. Our brains aren’t really separate from the rest of our bodies. We just like to think of things that way because it makes it easier to understand systems if we break them down and label the parts. We are most conscious when we are awake and actively observing our surroundings.

[@thecorruptversion]

Oh wow, we got a nobel winner here with that shower thought.

[@r0xkr]

Hi

[@nc8507]

Nothing about Mr. Penrose suggests he's 92 years old. If i didn't know any better I'd easily believe he's 20 years younger.

[@ganeshr8207]

my gut feel is consciousness has to be computational. also depends on how we define it. being self aware, responding to emotional stimuli, deep thought are different aspects. But then if we look at all life, each organism has some level of consciousness but may not exhibit higher levels of the same. and if we map the level of awareness/consciousness to brain size/number of neurons, my guess is there is a positive co-relation. if that is the case, it strengthens a computational basis for consciousness. but then again my level of consciousness is much lower than Penrose's!!!

[@PoliticsReal]

Brain size has nothing to do with the "level" of consciousness.

[@pobinr]

Consciousness is what it is.

[@mpaczkow]

The fruit fly brain was recently completely mapped and found to have about 3000 neurons. Several researchers have studied whether the fruit fly demonstrates consciousness as defined by self-awareness and problem solving and concluded that fruit fly shows consciousness. It would seem that the definition of consciousness should be species dependent. The philosophical question seems to start from an abstract position that is lost in the world of reality and therefore difficult to comprehend.

[@zeroonetime]

Consciousness I.S. Thought ~ Mind Interaction between bits of Information.

[@tedwashburn]

This is all very interesting but how does coffee fit in?

[@u.s.navy_pete4111]

I'm an evolutionary biologist, not a philosopher. I wonder how the complexity of consciousness could have arisen from simple beginnings in the first place. And as always, the obvious answer to that is evolution by natural selection, the only explanation we have (as of today) for how complexity can arise from simplicity. I think consciousness may be an advantage to those organisms that have it, that's why it evolved (gradually over many generations). What kind of advantage? I think consciousness is a prediction algorithm, constantly trying to calculate what will happen next, like a simulation of the future. Being able to predict the future more accurately than others could be a huge advantage for an organism for obvious reasons, leading to more offspring which leads to a new generation of organisms that are even better at predicting the future than the old one. And since the future depends on the decisions the organism makes now -- the organism's own decisions -- that prediction algorithm needs to incorporate a self-image into its simulation of the future. Et voilà! Consciousness arises, because the prediction algorithm demands introspection to more accurately predict the future. Maybe in organisms where their own decisions don't influence the outcome of the future (or to a negligible extent, think of a tree which has minimal options to react to its surroundings/weather), the prediction algorithm doesn't produce the illusion of consciousness. And what if that prediction algorithm gets so complex (through evolution by natural selection) that it not only demands introspection, but also to consider the introspective decisions of other organism (think of a human in a complex society of other humans with their own consciousness constantly trying to introspectively predict the future)? Et voilà! A theory of mind arises.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

It seems obvious to me that you have nailed it, more or less. If you have not encountered bicameral theory then you are in for a treat. See Julian Jaynes' great book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Perhaps you've watched the recent 'Westworld' TV series which uses the theory to explain how the androids were becoming conscious.

[@u.s.navy_pete4111]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Thank you, I will look it up!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@u.s.navy_pete4111 Mind you, the TV series does take some small liberties with the theory (throwing in some 'need-to-suffer' Buddhist stuff (to appeal to a wider audience, I imagine (the theory being a little tricky to grasp on first exposure to it))).

[@ShonMardani]

Consciousness is a Farsi word "کنجکاویست knonch-kavist" which means "Curiosity".

[@DrSerendip]

Could consciousness be as a result of a “carrier wave” that exists in the Universe which all of us can connect with by degrees. Some have a better connection than others for a variety of reasons. Is that why history seems on the surface to repeat itself?

[@johnpaily]

Cociousness is the space- field that is fundamental. However it is. Not related to the mind. We feel this field when we need to Transcend and go inward to the heart realm. Enquiry into it has to come in activating the MIND OF THE HEART and its five extensions connected to the "INNER SPACE"

[@AdamSmith-he3ju]

looks like is comparitional one