Sir Roger Penrose on Consciousness and New Physics (Part 3) | Closer To Truth Chats

Sir Roger Penrose joins Closer To Truth to discuss consciousness and new physics. Can the known laws of physics explain consciousness? Can the mind be duplicated by a computer? What is the argument against Strong A.I.? What is consciousness and how does it relate to Penrose's Search for a Missing Science of Consciousness? And what are the implications of a New Science of Consciousness for the Three-World Model of Physical, Mental, and Platonic?
Part 1 - • Roger Penrose on Mathe...
Part 2 - • Roger Penrose on Space...
See more interviews with Sir Roger Penrose: bit.ly/3UvbYkw
Sir Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist 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. He is a Nobel laureate for “the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity”.
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: closertotruth.com/register/
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced 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.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

Sir Roger is a national treasure.

[@alexanderpeca7080]

A world one!

[@jimmyjasi-]

I don't quite see why Kuhn said that ORCH OR doesn't articulate with Idealism?: If you define Idealism as "Consciousness causes the Cosmos and is Everything" then I dare say Penrose-Hameroff Theory is precisely Idealistic (it's just NOT subjective Idealism)! It's NO Deepak Chopra Woo Woo on the contrary it is just as physicalist and common sense as loophole Free Bell Tests allow us to believe. It is Idealism or may be articulated as Idealist creed it's just that because consciousness causes the Cosmos it DOESN'T mean that it's "human consciousness" that does it. And unlike in Donald Hoffmans philosophy it's not unreasonable if Objective Reduction is correct to suppose that the Laws of Physics are the same for all beings no matter how different from humans in the Universe. I don't quite understand people like Bernardo Kastrups followers: They are biting Sir Roger Penrose just as bad as Tegmark people. Why don't they understand that Orch Or is precisely what Kastrup teaches but just unlike his teachings gives you meaning in the world that can be explored independent of human consciousness and were are ways to objectively confirm that you are not Solitarily mind and that there are solid pieces of reality that no one questions! Not to mention that although I don't know why people came to associate Berkeley's Idealism with things like Telepathy or synchronicities... Copenhagen nor Relational QM that Kastrup proposed gives you no possibility of such things Unlike Objective Collapse with Wave Function being real physical object. At last not only does Penrose-Hameroff Theory if correct falsify Simulation on any conceivable device (Quantum or clasical alike), but if CCC is correct it also potentially may refute more sophisticated versions of "Simulation Hypothesis" such as Universe being created in a "Black Hole computer". 1 Indirect Discovery of Hawking Radiation in 2019 already undermined this possibility and 2 even before that observations of Back Holes didn't quite fit Lee Smolins predictions.. 3 Lee Smolins Cosmology assumes that Einsteins GR is an ultimate description of Black Holes with it's Singularity and White Hole reverse. But the very idea of Singularity pooping supposedy at Big Bang and in Black Holes mamy be just a coincidence and misunderstanding of some deeper Theory. Anyway Sir Roger Penrose is the greatest mind alive!

[@jimmyjasi-]

@@alexanderpeca7080 Sir Roger Penrose is the Greatest Mind Alive (if not of all the human history so far)! Universe is without Beginning nor End , Non-local yet Real yet driver by Consciousness! And Microtubules in Our Brains give us Consciousness descending out of Platonic Realm linking us with Each other!

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@jimmyjasi- protoconsciousness is noncommutative math

[@jimmyjasi-]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Well I'm agnostic. But how does this relate to FTL Non-locality and Relativity /Quantum problems?

[@ahmedtabandehh2554]

He is an international treasure. He is modest and humble, but he has a lot more to say . I hope he lives for many years to come to enlighten us more and more

[@talleyhoe846]

The calibre of the guests on CTT is complemented by the quality of Kuhn's interviewing.

[@johnstrawb3521]

Yes, but please get Roger a decent quality microphone.

[@walterfristoe4643]

I'd love to peruse both of those bookshelves!

[@iscottke]

Such a pleasure to have the two of you engaging each other for 35 minutes!

[@itsjusttoolate]

How do you follow that backwards?

[@pablomoore7557]

“Consciousness is an ingredient of understanding “ , I liked that

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

That makes no sense. It is consciousness that makes understanding possible. Nothing is doing the understanding otherwise.

[@cinikcynic3087]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Tell us more. You seem to have figured it out!

[@tomjackson7755]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Living up to your name again I see. SMH

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

@@tomjackson7755 You're welcome to embarrass yourself again Tommie. You couldn't even understand my last post, conflating a critique of the video title with a critique of the content of the video 😄👍

[@tomjackson7755]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 That's funny. What last post are you talking about? I am talking about how you embarrassed yourself with your total misunderstanding and complete lack of logic in this thread.

[@OumJoonHo]

Why doesn't this channel have more than 10 million subscribers?

[@BugRib]

People are too busy watching reruns of The Kardashians, and talking about what Tom Cruise had for lunch last week.

[@alexanderpeca7080]

I love to listen to Roger's ideas ❤️ more power to our (truly) smart ppl

[@JackSmith-wg4mf]

Thank you, Sir Roger Penrose !

[@TerryBollinger]

I always enjoy your talks with Sir Roger Penrose!

[@smikeladze1094]

Amazing person. True brilliant mind.

[@foxmlder2379]

I love these guys so much. Ugh how privileged are we to live in the same era as them

[@benwrong6855]

Hi guys! Thanks for all the great work, closer to truth has been a great resource for me over the last few years. All the best wishes!

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

THANK YOU FOR THIS TOPIC ENTERING DIALOG

[@nicolabacciu232]

Great interview! Thanks so much for that. It's not so clear whether OrcOR is the process through which consciousness gets actually generated OR rather OrcOR simply activates something more fundamental in the brain.

[@RolandHuettmann]

I wonder why an intellectual discussion can be beautiful. What makes thisvone attractive? Consciousness plays a role here.

[@annmccormick3479]

Thanks!

[@bellakrinkle9381]

Please tell Rodger that he can do it! My mother lived until 107 years! And at 95 we could still debate political viewpoints. :))

[@phoboskittym8500]

He is in fact a Nobel Prize winner.

[@ALEXLOPEZ-eq9qf]

Very, Very educational. Many scholars overlook the depth in the subjects that you are talking about. In which take many years of studying. The degree in the knowledge your discussing are very important for future discussions. 100%

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Just sad really.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

@ALEX LOPEZ The depth of your ignorance is shining bright in your exaltation of 2 of the worst sources available on the nature of mind. It demonstrates you know less than the nothing these two know about the topic. Should be pretty obvious why that's sad. In a similar act of schtoo pidity, you could go to the zoo and ask a chimpanzee to read you a book

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

@ALEX LOPEZ Don't apologize for your ignorance. You clearly have no interest in correcting it. When you want to know what the moon landing was like, you make the obvious choice and ask a kindergartener. I hope you're working a job suitable to your intellect by picking fruit in the fields. I do enjoy blackberries

[@fdarchives_]

the fight for stability or rather, the fight for an equalibrium between two or more states is consciousness. Perception is the key difference between the conscious system, whether its the universe, the galaxy, the tree, the wolf, or mee.

[@alanaudia20]

Can y’all believe this man is 91 years old?

[@chrisbennett6260]

not really but at same the same time their is scope for the extraordinary ,its a blessing as far as i am concerned Roger is here and i hope this remains the case for as long as healthily possible

[@shivadasa]

Consciousness is that which causes the initial collapse of the quantum wave function which causes the universe to manifest. It is pure subjectivity-Isness awareness, not subject to being seen, known, studied, or objectified in any way. The primordial “I.”

[@mrdeeptruths]

greatest boi ever created

[@rxbracho]

Robert questions why the collapse of the wave function "causes" consciousness in biological systems whereas it does not in inorganic matter. Or, does it? If we have a layer of abstraction below the physical world, call it "awareness", we can imagine how such world emerges from awareness, not the other way around. This has been suggested and studied by Dean Radin and Don Hoffman in Closer to Truth, among others. In the cerebellum, I venture, awareness causes control of the human body, for instance in babies, which is then analyzed and understood (in the Penrose sense of the word), "maturing" into consciousness. If this process is keyed off gravity, as Sir Roger Penrose ventures, it must be tied to evolution, which requires, most of all, the existence of time. Physics needs to work seriously on time. It has plenty to say about space but reduces time as a unidirectional and linear pseudo dimension of space, and that's not it! Time is cyclical, as marked by the movements of the celestial bodies. Time and gravity cause evolution by generating diversity (Dyson's words), over the multiple "incantations" of our universe, following something akin to Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.

[@dare-er7sw]

What about the idea that it's all an appearance in consciousness?

[@rxbracho]

@@dare-er7sw Yes, that is a "logical" conclusion if one insists on the emergence of consciousness, because the empirical data punches many holes through that theory. Thus, a way to concile the data is simply to dismiss consciousness. I urge you to find a presentation (complete) by Prof. Donald Hoffman to see the evolutionary evidence that consciousness (or, rather, awareness) is everywhere.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

They are just saying that complex life evolves out of the microtubules with the tubulin enabling quantum coherence that "delays" the collapse of the wavefunction, thereby creating Sentient Consciousness instead of protoconsciousness. The rest of matter still has protoconsciousness since all matter is made of light. thanks

[@luigicantoviani323]

Penrose is brilliant and humble. Thank you for your marvelous insights.

[@bobtarmac1828]

I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. Glad part three is finally here.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

They not only contributed nothing of value to the topic, they completely ignore what's already known about the topic. One doesn't become a physicist, raise kids, have a wife, and still take the thousands of hours required to study Advaita Vedanta, Idealism, NDEs, 5-MEO, and other data which present an astoundingly clear picture of what mind is. You wouldn't ask a pro baseball player what it's like to walk on the moon. If these guys seem intelligent to you on the topic at hand, it's because you know less than the nothing these guys know. Your hounds are barking up the wrong tree... in the wrong state... in the wrong season

[@gregoryhead382]

The equation that really bends spacetime is G, when G coherence goes sqrt(r_0 × 0.5 au) to just object, to G bending 2D.

[@subrijayaraman5593]

Consciousness is built into the Very Fabric of the Universe Even animals are Conscious of their surroundings We are Conscious - So is the Universe We mere mortals should consider the Universe as a Living , Thinking , Knowledgeable & a Concious Entity

[@user-wx1yz9ru5d]

Roger Penrose is a unique personality. Thanks for the talk that stimulates our minds. One request (may be you consider me strange or sort of this, any way)- if someone here knows the address, email, where i could send some articles (links to them) of a russian scientist Gennadiy Shipov, who proposed s theory of physical vacuum in which method of NP-formalism is applied to find solution of equations. In the theory as the author states General Relativity theory and Quantum Mechanics are united in one.

[@ckotty]

Gentlemen, what a delightful conversation. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@junevandermark952]

If the universe always existed, then consciousness always existed.

[@Dion_Mustard]

I can tell you now from personal experience that consciousness IS "secondary" to the brain, namely, is non-local. I have experienced various Out of Body states, and lucid dream states, whereby my awareness was not in my physical body, so to speak. I was able to travel away from my body and witness things which I could not have known whilst 'unconscious'. My awareness during these moments was CONSIDERABLY more lucid than my current waking consciousness - in fact things felt more real during my OBE than what I feel at this moment. So my theory is that consciousness is some sort of energy field which is neither created nor destroyed. I certainly don't think neurons produce awareness. I think its considerably more complex than that and something to do with quantum entanglement. And I am not remotely religious.

[@blengi]

Even though I tend to avoid addressing anecdotes, I have to personally agree with much of what you say. I too have had such experiences and specifically tried to "scientifically" analyse my conscious state during lucid dream and OBE's and it is almost like there's some other aspect to reality not of time and space that coexists with normal physical process. I will just conclude that my "first memory" at a very young age was akin to those things in nature before I came to be in my body so to speak. I had always dismissed it as imagination until having lucid dreams and OBE's much later in life cause me to reappraise. Also like you I'm not remotely religious and at one point was a rabid athiest - Grew out of that distasteful phase though lol....

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@blengi good points. and very interesting to read your comment. it seems many skeptical people have OBEs and it seems to change their opinion on what reality and consciousness is. my own personal experiences have led me to believe that consciousness is MORE than brain. I do not need to include a spiritual aspect to this discussion , but instead I think there are different levels of reality or indeed consciousness which we will not understand until we "die". death itself is an illusion and just another version of reality in my opinion.

[@naheedkhanmd3]

Dear if you're religious, you'll understand consciousness. It's a mechanism created. it's soul that lives for ever, even if the person dies . GOD created soul an everlasting being.

[@slowdown7276]

Temporal lobe stimulation also creates the so called 'spiritual experience'. Read Susan Blackmore. NDE, OBE all has been found to have no basis in reality.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@slowdown7276 i am familiar with S.Blackmore, i've read 1 of her books, but her research is simply wrong. Temporal lobe stimulation does not produce a full blown veridical OBE , and there are too many accounts of people being outside their body and witnessing things in other rooms, or other parts of the world, which were later verified as accurate. I would suggest reading Dr Pim Van Lommel's book Consciousness Beyond life.

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

THANKS FOR RESPECTING OCTOPUS ALSO SQUIDD

[@philipm3173]

I love how he speaks his mind unhesitatingly.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

I adore Sir Penrose, but you'll never convince me he's not a time traveler from Victorian times! 🤣♥️♥️

[@WinrichNaujoks]

Sir Roger

[@petrbaxant]

Please - write his ideas to the stones! For the next generations.

[@philipm3173]

Comprehension and computation are quite different.

[@sonicjihad7]

Let’s hear Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger discuss this

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Roger Penrose has a Nobel Prize. Sabine Hossenfelder is a youtuber. They just are not comparable. Sorry. Although I do agree that Truth is a Popularity Contest on the interwebs.

[@typhoon320i]

Microtubules are about 25 nanometers in diameter and an atom is about .1 nanometers in diameter. So collapsing the wave function at that scale physically affects the microtubules, modifying it's structure or shape?

[@Raptorel]

My hunch is that consciousness is created by the neurons when they create brain waves like musical instruments create sounds in an orchestra. These brain waves are the "music" that the brain produces and that we call "consciousness" - it's this rhytmic, democratic contribution of the neurons that gives rise to consciousness.

[@polkad3v]

Consciousness gives creatures the ability to plan, ie attempt to predict to future. Consciousness rides the Schrodinger wave to imagine possible futures.

[@Jorbz150]

Every discussion I see on "consciousness" starts by refusing to define the word, and then ends in confusion over why something that hasn't been defined can't be explained at all. You're not going to get any closer to understanding if you don't start with some strong, precise definitions first. You cannot understand a thing if you refuse to define it to the point that it can be analyzed. It also makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation because for all you know the other person may be thinking of something completely different.

[@BugRib]

It's impossible to give a rigorous, non-circular definition of conscious experience, in the same way that it's impossible to do so for time. But many or most of us know _exactly_ what it is. The best you can really do is to "point" at consciousness by, for example, "defining" it like this: A thing is conscious when there's "something it's like" to _be_ that thing.

[@shaccooper]

Roger will know soon enough

[@jagjitsehra4081]

Sir Roger predicts that a new kind physics will be required to explain consciousness. Seems to be that he is leaning towards a field of consciousness with the example of how animals working together to create a trap without any know language. Always enjoy listening to Sir Roget Penrose.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does the cerebrum switching right and left from cerebellum do some kind of balancing?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

cerebellum controls emotions and motions so yes.

[@alran1726]

Likely the self willed navigator still surfs the emperium from cosmic foundation to that of being. The neurological tubulin array and it's mnemonics may well be the platform, stage and imagination seat of the experiencer. In this universe the templates of life are platonically pre-existant. So also for the navigator.

[@davidbarbour2368]

It would be surprising if human beings, who are capable of contemplating both the quantum and the cosmic, and whose life is lived almost exactly midway between these two, did not have a selfhood that also participated somehow in the entire spectrum of existence. It would be strange if our consciousness were entirely uninvolved in the quantum world. How do we "understand" the universe if not by feeling a resonance with it within our selves? Is not selfhood a prerequisite for consciousness? A computer cannot make an autonomous decision as to the "rightness" of a solution without a self-interested agent programming into it the criterion for success. A computer cannot direct the process of scientific research, because it has no autonomy, no self.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Except 'self' is a construct in consciousness. If you examine it and break it apart, there's nothing there. Awareness is your ultimate essence, and it does nothing in and of itself but is everpresent and unchanging. You can't examine it because the examiner is within it. Advaita Vedanta covers the subtle distinctions of existence in more detail than 99% of humanity will ever bother to learn

[@BugRib]

I suspect AI will be able to exhibit behaviors perfectly mimicking those behaviors we associate with "selves" within the next few decades, if not within this decade. Makes me wonder: Will they automatically become conscious, or what? 🤔

[@georgejo7905]

The big bang had extremely low entropy . Did it choose a conscious universe? To continue ? Then we are just the I/O of the universe.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

neurons have something that when combined with collapse or measurement of wave function produces consciousness? could neuron energy have a way of measuring quantum wave function?

[@user-ne4gc1mg5e]

Brain - Mind ----- Our brain works on a dualistic basis: usually consciousness and rarely subconsciousness. ------ 1 - Consciousness of the brain works on various electromagnetic energy fields (alpha, beta, . . . etc.) An electroencephalogram (EEG) can record this ''normal logical'' electrical activity of the brain (brain works as computer - "Turing Machine") 2 - Subconsciousness is process on micro-quantum-level (brain suddenly takes a new decision / action - "eureka") The reason of unconscious process is quantum particle . Suggestion: According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only one (1) electron can manage an atom, molecule, cell, brain. ----- a) Quantum process appears when all atoms of brain are in Bose-Einstein state (superfluidity). b) Then the electron gains strength to ''superconductivity'' and can change the old brain's program to a new decision - "eureka". New decision is result of - a "Self-quantum particle". c) After a short moment- "eureka" the brain again works like a computer. (but according to a new program) d) In the brain Quantum mechanics is connected with the unconscious process. =====. ''The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ... without recourse to the concept of consciousness.'' - Eugene Wigner # Book: ‘'The Holographic Universe’' ''Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain'' / page 160, by Michael Talbot / # “… Indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of consciousness must provide the basis of an improved understanding of quantum mechanics. ” / Evan Walker / ======.

[@ianbrown4242]

Sir Roger is sublime, as always.

[@cgmp5764]

Aren't Clathryn proteins at synapses present to from vesicles to store neurotransitter.

[@waldwassermann]

Time is relative and the purpose of relativity is love. Bang. There you have it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

the squaring of the quantum wave function (Born's rule) has to do with E = m * c-squared?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

yes from the de Broglie-Einstein relation so E=Plancks Constant times frequency = mc(squared)

[@BugRib]

Why can't I have any friends like Roger Penrose?

[@user-yt9hw6fe6n]

Me too the only friends I have don't read books to learn

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Godel's logic / rules for mathematics might be used for mind / brain situation?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

yes that's what Penrose says - consciousness is not calculation due to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

when there are neural correlates of consciousness, could there be quantum coherence or decoherence?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

yes it's the microtubules in the neurons - the microtubules have quantum coherence at ultrasound. There is superradiance of acoustic phonons that are nonlocal.

[@Hot_n_Spicy101]

Could the “collapse of the wave function” be a measurement problem. And is consciousness the only current ‘technology’ able to compute/interpret these sub-particle levels. Moreover, to be conscious requires a lot of energy, flow and focus. Thus, most of humans operate ‘unconsciously.’ Idk

[@musamba101]

The Bell's theorem was proven right last year. That is a start.

[@steveng8727]

Hegel- consciousness is Spirit becoming God (cosmos)

[@gregoryhead382]

The square root mean Proton is a reciprocal in superposition for speed of light & atomic units because the square reduces reciprocal light sums.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

No it's noncommutative. Study Alain Connes or Basil J. Hiley. Penrose admits the math is noncommtuative at the foundation of reality.

[@18890426]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 in which video did Penrose admit it? Could you tell me?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@18890426 [Submitted on 4 Dec 2020] Gluing Noncommutative Twistor Spaces Matilde Marcolli, Roger Penrose We describe a general procedure, based on Gerstenhaber-Schack complexes, for extending to quantized twistor spaces the Donaldson-Friedman gluing of twistor spaces via deformation theory of singular spaces. We consider in particular various possible quantizations of twistor spaces that leave the underlying spacetime manifold classical, including the geometric quantization of twistor spaces originally constructed by the second author, as well as some variants based on noncommutative geometry. We discuss specific aspects of the gluing construction for these different quantization procedures.

[@italogiardina8183]

The metaphor of a scaffold where a quantum system supports a conscious state which collapses though entails personal identity over time as a social construction.

[@nicoblack1231]

In a non-creepy way I want to what Roger's dreams look like!

[@notanemoprog]

Legend!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what do microtubules do in the neuron?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

they store memories and process the information through the tubulin and tryptophan type molecules having superradiance (superluminal quantum coherence via acoustic phonons).

[@vitr1916]

The whole universe is like a wave function and can’t be observed, but if you can be conscious a collapsing wave function like you have been observed the solar system.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

once there is OR collapse, decoherence of quantum wave function results? conscious observers see decoherence, not quantum wave function?

[@yoloswaggins1072]

I wonder if this can fit togehter with Mark Solms finding, that conciousness arises from a region in the upper brainstem.

[@Koryogden]

Definitely curious about Mark Solms + Penrose

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

The cerebellum is the subconscious emotional meaning that controls motion of the body. So the protoconsciousness is there while the sentient consciousness is from the pyramidal neurons in the cerebrum. It's related since all matter originates from light and the body relies on nonlocal biophoton signals with the microtubules working with both water and the tubulins in the neurons, etc.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

Do you all subscribe to Sir Penrose's cyclic universe theory to describe infinity?

[@wthomas5697]

Makes sense to me. Otherwise you have to imagine a beginning and an end. How is that even possible?

[@jonathanhaehnel5421]

Not 100% at least i don't understand how it should be possible that the universe reached a state where no matter exists at all. Wouldn't one atom already destroy the whole circle forever?

[@wthomas5697]

@@jonathanhaehnel5421 Too high energy. Matter requires lower temps.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

No, Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, 1845 James Prescott Joule only had to up fall the mass to make a Jed Pillar. Expand Sir Isaac Newton's classical, gravity propulsion emerges the line compressing pi determining all geometry in nature. The earth is up falling from the sun, Sir Roger Penrose does not even talk about gravity propulsion or it's mechanical use, applications of the trinity, r > c, r = c, r < c. Step to Applied Relativity, or the Universal laws of physics. g = G Me/r^2(1e-/+Ef/Eo) 9 planes to x, y, z of Me, Ef, Eo 12 planes example of infinity, Eo1 - x, y, z r < c H2O, Eo2 - x, y, z r > c H2O Power to transfer of the steps of Galileo Pope as General Relativity produces the exact solution to math.

[@jonathanhaehnel5421]

@@wthomas5697 i don't understand exactly. If it's just about energy then ofcourse it can all get entropied through the universe and start a new aeon.. but still one fluctuation that's has not been resolved before all black holes have disappeared is imaginable i.e. energy in a matter state with nothing else around could never change to anything else if no black hole exists anymore to swallow and later radiate it outwards again. it would kill the circle, no?

[@rickgoranowski9428]

What about cerebellar defibrillation of the sciatic nerve? It is pain that derives consciousness not Orch OR.

[@rickgoranowski9428]

Sciatic process of imaginary pain still hurts without physiologic causation.

[@rickgoranowski9428]

"When the old Cricketer leaves the crease ...."

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

sit in full lotus padmasana

[@rickgoranowski9428]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Yes, full lotus works. So does ice

[@MagdiNonDuality]

Could it be that we are conflating sentience with consciousness?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

protoconsciousness is not consciousness - Penrose makes this distinction

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

as quantum probability becomes classic probability upon measurement; classic probability reverts to quantum probability when there is recoherence of quantum wave function? what happens when there is recoherence of quantum wave function?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

there is no need for the wavefunction as Professor Basil J. Hiley explains. The math is noncommutative with the position and momentum arising out of time and freqeuncy. As Hiley explains classical physics is wrong - that's why our modern science has caused the ecological crisis with massive social injustice masquerading as "progress" etc.

[@johnyharris]

OR may lead to a better understanding of the quantum brain but I doubt very much that it is the whole story. There is a lot of research being done now on the nuclear spin of phosphates and other molecules in the brain that act as qubits. One research team recently discovered such nuclear spins were entangled with molecules in the heart. It's early days but if these kind of findings are proven then they could go to explain the speed at which the brain acts on the body.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Penrose's model is relativistic quantum so it incorporates spin already yes.

[@thebee6142]

if it’s undirected it’s end of the debate.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

do anesthetics stop collapse of quantum wave function in microtubules, to take away consciousness? how might anesthetics stop collapse of quantum wave function in microtubules?

[@sohraballahyari7595]

From the explanations provided by Prof penrose, a few other conclusions can be derived here,as the followings: Microtubial coherence effect could be originated by some kind of crystaline vibration ,to initiate the process,and also a new analogy in between the creation of a state of resonance,specialy once it is explained here there are active symmetrical elements working at two higher and lower levels of may be frequency and vibrations,what could be also associated with microscopic sw energy,having a direct role in the entire operation of creating a super position phenomena,in within the brain structure,which can also be incorporated with the existance and creation of tiny black holes,with holding vast amounts of informations and memories at their surfaces,which can be recalled and get access to via the selective method of taping into the archives of stored informations,and it all looks very much a alologeous to what could also explain the theory of everything,which its actual mechanism also most certainly not only envolves the application of sw as the main carrier and intermediate wave in action also justifying the mechanisms for the quantum mechanics entanglement ,also working as the spooky hidden variable in action as Prof Einstein put it,and the whole package seemingly anologeous and identical in basic principles of operations and mechanisms,in otherwords what happens in space in terms of action of eather,or interconnection of all different elements of informations and datas all taking place almost instantaneously and simultaneously,with sw is the main contrubuting factor being active and in operation ,a replica operation of the same mechanisms, could well be what actualy takes place in within the brain structure,in otherwords,the human consciousness and universal consciousness seemingly could have extremely similar mechanisms of action,and further details simply can follow by further studies into different hypothetical mechanisms of consciousness also associated with creation of an alternative dimensional media,where huge and unlimited amounts of datas and informations could be stored And also an empowered state of quantum superposition ,where physical muscles may come into action,and again the derivation of material from the fabric of dark matter and dark energy from within the emty space,these are the topic technologies in action which could be active to explain the ongoing mechanisms and also analogies In between the universal and human brain consciousness, as well as supper human brain qualities such as telekinitics, Or , resonance cooperated coherence operations of brain mucrotubilulars creating and magnifying the collapse of waveforms phenomenas,also in cooperated with actions of crystaline structures at the surface of the pinial gland once activated,decalsified and operational, Which again Could function having an active role to higher the levels of amplification and magnification needed for the collapse of waveforms. ,once applied to the pinial gland, Hence from the said above ,also the basic hypothesises for interconnection in between spirituality and materialism,as well as possible extraction of materials derivatives from empty space ,and the mechanisms for the universal and human brain consciousness basic principles have been hypothesised.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Penrose relies on noncommutativity. Study noncommutativity to find out the answer. thanks

[@sohraballahyari2396]

To utube, Why my access to my uploaded articles are deleted,and why my uploads cant be viewed on my utube page?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@sohraballahyari2396 your youtube channel has nothing on it. Just so you know.

[@sohraballahyari2396]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I mean my comments must be accessible to me and also contents protected,

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

How would "the collapse of the wave function" generate consciousness?

[@juancano4716]

Mathematics, symmetries, quantumm coherence, biology and evolution, difficult to explain but so reasonable if you stop to think about it for a while. Emerging life/conciousness "emerges" from a complex being maybe by serendipity but from something rather than anything, you can try to follow the footsteps backwards and find the cause/origin/root of it

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

@@juancano4716 Thanks. As Roger Penrose said, physics as we know it does not explain consciousness. So why should the collapse of the wave function generate consciousness in organisms anymore than in any other physical system?

[@juancano4716]

The mistery of life, maybe in the future we can get closer to the real answer, the path of science is open for anyone curious enough to unveil the foundations of life, maybe in the way we understand a little bit better ourselves

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Consciousness is a tough nut to crack. Where does it come from and what happens to it after death?

[@therick363]

Both good points/questions

[@panicsum]

We don't have consciousness. Consciousness has us.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

there is a direct knowledge or formless awareness that is fundamental time. This is what Penrose calls protoconsciousness - it creates the universe.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might neuron firings at the same time produce consciousness?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

there is synchronization through resonance at different levels of spacetime that arises out of what Penrose calls "fundamental time."

[@natmanprime4295]

Consciousness, the present, and infinity, are 3 aspects of the same thing, the same trinity.

[@BugRib]

What if the mental/experiential _just is_ the Platonic world?

[@BugRib]

...And what if the Platonic realm _just is_ the physical realm? Makes sense to me.

[@JHeb_]

Because it appears to be that mathematics encompasses concepts and structures that extend far beyond what is directly manifested in the physical world. And it seems that mathematical truths would be true regardless if there were a physical reality to reflect them or conscious entities to think about them.

[@emergentform1188]

I'm inclined to agree with all his viewpoints. The Copenhagen interpretation is silly :)

[@natmanprime4295]

He's only got one eye??! Wow I'd never have guessed

[@Hot_n_Spicy101]

Language is seperate from consciousness - which is why consciousness is so hard to describe with pragmatics. Consciousness is yet to be defined with phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.

[@Hot_n_Spicy101]

Whilst humans can use language to internally guide consciousness; free will.

[@Hot_n_Spicy101]

@@realitycheck1231 sound is language

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

it's music. Human language is from Musilanguage. The truth of music is noncommutativity that is also protoconsciousness.

[@Hot_n_Spicy101]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 culture.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@Hot_n_Spicy101 A recent study showed chimpanzees have something like a hundred hand gestures to communicate and humans can understand these gestures. Humans started out communicated by hand but with right hand tool use then left brain voice took over instead of the right hand.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

why would there be consciousness with correlates of neuron energy?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

it's a resonance of different levels of spacetime via fundamental time as protoconsciousness

[@bimmjim]

Step one ---> Steal underpants. Step two ---> Something to do with consciousness. Step three---> Create Grand Unified Theory

[@evgenipeev1348]

isn't it obvious what consciousness do? It gives meaning to the things. Attaching qualia to the things is just beginning of that process.

[@Self-Duality]

Genius.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Consciousness, as I think about its purpose is that consciousness allows those that are, or become conscious, to own their minds, meaning that decision making is from within, instead of depending on others - such as mainstream "controlled" media, friends, or family. Discernment is rare these days. Consciousness is a bi-product of overcoming one's neurosis. I doubt those who are psychotic can become conscious, since there are perhaps organic reasons for their specific mental disturbances that are untreatable. My understanding is unproven and unscientific, obviously. However it is Experiential. My remarks seem simplistic in comparison to the sophisticated level of ideas presented by Closer to Truth and Roger Penrose. Why does no one else offer up their experiences and hypotheses? Could I be delusional? Possibly, but doubtful. I'm willing to be tested. Step up! Anyone? LOL...no takers yet!

[@Patrick-qd7ye]

These are all interesting views, but here’s my take. First off, let’s define consciousness. I view it as being unified subjective qualitative experience. It’s the awareness that “the lights are on” from the inner perspective of an agent. My view is that consciousness is fundamental, irreducible, and metaphysically simple for the following reasons. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property that arises intrinsically from neurons themselves or from the propagation of action potentials amongst the vastly complex neural networks in the brain. If it were an emergent property, than it would be rational to conclude that it would be ontologically epiphenomenal, thus being incongruent with the indisputable fact that we have knowledge of our consciousness and thus, are able to share its qualitative contents with other agents. We have epistemic access to our own consciousness and to imply that it is a phenomenal emergent property, would require top-down causation which we have no evidence for in the natural world. A simple analogy for epiphenomenalism is how an emergent property, the color red from an apple, has no causal influence over the chemical composition that gives rise to it. The color red is an “effect” of the atoms that the Apple is composed of. A higher level “effect” cannot “affect” lower levels of structure in any material quantity or process we observe in nature. Moving onwards, consciousness cannot be identical to brain states, or by extension, the neuronal correlates of consciousness. According to the Law of Identity, two quantities can be identical, if and only if, they share the exact same properties. To showcase how mental events are ontologically distinct from neuronal events, one can consider statements or beliefs that we view as being either true or false. If I think of something as being true, it’s correlated neuronal states are not representative of being “true” by themselves. If I subjectively experience the rich and sweet taste of vanilla ice cream, there is no associated brain state that can match up with the mental, qualitative experience of taste. It is a category error to equate mental states to neuronal states because the two are of separate ontologies. Material quantities cannot be representative of other qualities simply by themselves. A conscious mind is required to ascribe a relational, semantical meaning to a physical quantity. Despite a wealth of empirical evidence that showcases material causation on conscious perceptions such as color, sound, and tactility, it is hasty to rule out a causative role for consciousness on material quantities. We, and by extension, our brains have knowledge of the existence of consciousness, which should dispel any epiphenomenal claims that consciousness is an emergent property with no causal power. Moving onwards, consciousness is intrinsically intertwined with intentionality and semantics. The very relational aspect it ascribes towards certain subjects, forms the core of its ontology. Consciousness cannot be an intrinsic or emergent property of computation. Computation deals solely within the domain of algorithms. Put simply, a computation matches an input to an output in accordance to an algorithm. In other words, computation is involved with the manipulation of syntax, not semantics. Intellection, which can be described as the ability to comprehend abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, and beauty, requires a distinct and separate ontology that is not congruent within the tenets of computation. Regardless of how complex an artificial intelligence program becomes, it will never possess the qualities of intellection as it can only deal with syntax, not semantics. A good philosophical thought experiment showcasing how computation is incompatible with intellection is John Searle’s “Chinese Room.” An individual who does not speak or understand a single word of Chinese is placed inside an isolated room with many filing cabinets labeled with foreign Chinese characters. The only connection between him and the external world is through a small slit which another person can use to deliver papers with various Chinese symbols written on it and instructions on which filing cabinet symbols to match them with. After several hours of matching corresponding Chinese symbols from the filing cabinets to the symbols inserted in the room from the slit, the person inside the room slides the finished arrangements outside through the slit and the people outside start becoming convinced that the person inside the room is gaining a true semantical understanding of Chinese. Despite several months of manipulating syntax through the form of Chinese symbols, the person inside the Chinese Room does not gain a true comprehension of the semantics underlying the Chinese language. Thus, computation, being the matching of an input (Chinese symbols from the slit) to an output (filing cabinet Chinese symbols) in accordance with an algorithm (instructions on how to match the symbols in a language the person inside the room has semantical understanding of) showcases how computation is not ontologically equipped for semantics. No matter how good the person inside the Chinese room gets at executing the instructions on matching Chinese symbols, he will never gain a semantical understanding of Chinese. This thought experiment can be applied to any biological or non-biological computational apparatus, such as neuronal circuits and silicon-based integrated circuits. Thus, it is rational to conclude that the attribution of a relational quality to a given object/subject requires a non-computational entity to do so. This is what I view as being the core function of consciousness. Assuming the existence of conscious agents beyond one’s own subjective experience and avoiding any solipsistic notions, humans and other animals could have been non-conscious biological automata carrying out virtually identically tasks to their conscious counterparts. There is no reasonable evolutionary advantage for a complex multicellular organism to be conscious and comprehend semantics, although it does not mean that there necessarily has to be. But, to state that consciousness itself evolved over the course of our evolutionary history seems to be at odds with its non-computational ontology. If consciousness is fundamental, irreducible, and metaphysically simple, it cannot be quantified, thus making its evolution over time seem rather implausible. Although you can increase or decrease the number of qualitative experiences being experienced by a conscious observer, such as through the evolution of new sensory organs, it does nothing to explain the ontological evolution of consciousness itself. In conclusion, I think that it is a category mistake to label consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, as doing so would lead to an incongruent notion of epiphenomenalism, which contradicts our common sense, subjective notion of having knowledge of its own existence. To claim phenomenal emergent consciousness, would indicate top-down causation which we have no evidence for existing in nature. In addition, equating conscious states with brain states is equally as fallacious, since it fails to address how neurons themselves equate to semantical states of intellection or how computation enacted within the substrates of biological neuronal networks is compatible with semantics. Computation itself is insufficient for explaining how abstract contents that possess relational attributes other than themselves ie. intentionality, can be encoded in individual neurons and their myriad of connections. As I’ve stated previously, computation involves the manipulation of syntax. It is not ontologically equipped for semantics. As preposterous as this may sound, I believe that there may exist a fundamental mental reality that is abundant with semantic attributes that cannot be reduced to physical attributes. It’s as if mental attributes such as qualia, and abstract concepts seem to “wrap themselves” around physical substrates, such as neurons in the case of humans and other animals in some incomprehensible, non-spatial manner, whenever we see correlated neural activity in the cerebral cortex. I acknowledge that the onus of proof falls upon me to be able to empirically validate this claim, in addition to addressing a bi-directional causal mechanism that can account for communication between the mental and the physical substrates, such as neurons. However, given my reasons for why consciousness is non-emergent, non-computational, and not equated with neurons and their connections, I remain unconvinced by materialist philosophical scenarios that can account for addressing the mind-body problem. I find myself at a cross roads between substance-dualism and idealism. Either the mental realm and the physical realm are two separate ontological entities that interact with each other in some way that we have not yet discovered, or it is the case that consciousness is fundamental and “physical reality” as we know it is derivative.

[@mikewiest5135]

The consciousness need not be epiphenominal, in the sense that there are physical/behavioral outcomes that are only achievable by creating a physical state that entails a corresponding experience… But I agree we need to add some kind of fundamental mental variable to existing physical theory: I agree there’s no way to derive or “emerge” experience from non-mental physical variables like mass, charge, position and velocity. So I think we can still entertain a dual-aspect monism rather than resorting to the idea that the mind is not related to the brain, which is really not supportable. So far I haven’t addressed how these physical states with mental properties are “about” other things-I.e. intentionality. I think they appear to refer to outside things by referring to different aspects of their own internal representation; and because we ground our internal model on sensory inputs it usually agrees with others’ internal model enough that we can communicate and agree about empirical results and the ‘real’ world. I don’t think this pushes us all the way to idealism but may be consistent with it.

[@davidusa22]

Very poor audio quality... if your guests don't use microphones, they are difficult to understand

[@Alex-bl6oi]

Isn’t consciousness, a.k.a. awareness just logical decisions, but intertwined with human emotions? Couldn’t consciousness be a fallacy or an illusion due to our addiction to emotions? Not to be-little the complexity of the physics of our body’s ability to make quick and accurate decisions, like discussed in this video. Amazing topic, and very interesting to ponder about.

[@youdontexist.]

The memories are what makes consciousness aswell? You gain memories by decisions based on emotions. In presence you use your experience from past. You make new decisions based on your experience and memory of emotions from past.

[@juancano4716]

You didn't understand a thing... The point he is trying to make is that conciousness/soul/self aware/mind is different from simple computations like those in a PC, microchip, AI, electrons firing in a circuit, pure computing power, neural networks, etc. When you realise something that is beyond the scope of what a silicon can "understand" (it just follow complex algorithms, a rule of instructions that are in a close system of step by step logic preprogrammed of 0 and 1). For instance, when you want to make a computer have a trip how do you insert it the drug, mushrooms, acid, psychodelics through the ventilator or via electric waves, it is kind of weird to have computations like in a washing machine, fridge or tv have an experience apart from following the book with the guidelines, we are humans not robots, so don't reduce awareness to logical decisions cause then your smartphone will be more "aware" than you. If you are an illusion kill yourself and let the non fallacy/thinking individuals swim and enjoy life. For singularity, General AI fans, can your dream GOD dream or experience the world or just question itself, or have the will to do something or be critic about its purporse? Good night

[@abhishekshah11]

Define awareness, emotions in terms of current physics book concepts. If you realize they are irreducible phenomena, you've understood the hard problem of consciousness.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Emotion is a meaningless term without a knower/experiencer of the emotions. Awareness and consciousness are not the same thing either. Advaita Vedanta covers Awareness, consciousness, self, reality, and god in tremendous detail. All physics does is educate stupidity into the studier. These doofs spend their whole life and career spending 5 minutes learning Advaita Vedanta and dismissed it immediately as it didn't fit into their conditioned belief system. Until one learns to UNLEARN their built-in stupidity, they'll get nowhere on consciousness

[@youdontexist.]

if there were no books, no people thinking about this, how would you describe consciousness?Forget all you know and observe.

[@pavelham]

Not to be contrary, really, but we still haven't defined Consciousness and we and they here use the word constantly.

[@Gww376]

Whomsoever was here the longest has the computing all harnessing ability to manipulate the Environment would be sir GOD I presume😊

[@hammerdureason8926]

it seems to me the first responsibility of the subconscious is to create & maintain a 3-D Euclidean space with a preferred anti-gravity direction ( up ). -- the totem orientation, the geometry of consciousness. the dark weightlessness of the womb without orientation is a crucial primordial purely physical experience i.e. unconscious that is contra to 'being" in the world. birth subjects the body to gravity a new and differentating purely physical ( unconscious) experience of a preferred orientaion. the first conscious 'worldly' thought must be that of up/down. in the first 10 months - 12 months or so the unconscious interact with the body to builds out the 3D Euclidean space ( adds a measure ), feels time ( hungry), creates a variety of clocks throughout the body, synchronizes them, bulids intuitions of causality/logic/physics/math & when ready instructs the body to standup ( actualuze in the body the 'totem orientation' built by the subconscious ). this process & actualization ( the success of standing experience ) is the birth of consciousness, i.e. "aware of being in the world/synchronized with rhe world" at this juncture the unconscious has completed its primary physical function -- fused the body to an unconscious abstract orientation compatible with the physical world. along with this it has built a collection of vague intuitive/unconscious tools that render the world more knowable & navigable. the subconscious now can relinquish its monopoly on the body to other faculties along with those vague seeds of 'knowledge' ( wave-collapse patterns ) now residing in the subconscious/intuition. so they may be actualized & refined in world. the idea here is that there are macroscopic & microscopic/quanttum wave-collapse patterns in the phtsical world related to this totem orientation that the subconscious must learn to select for & synchronize with. humans cannot cannot see other patterns of collapse as they were filtered by the subconscious and not allowed in the body long enough to be made conscious as were not useful or at worst 'disorienting'. indeed the subconscious may have noticed other patterns but are set aside as not suited for purpose and had a brief time ( if any ) actualized in the body. Note: there is indeed a profound nostalgia/fear for the primordial unconscious phase of existence. On the nostalgia side the weightless, without orientation & undifferentiated from the world for it is in these moments that the subconscious has access to the body & to synchronize it so can 'revisit' or investigate other curious & potentially useful wave-collapse patterns it has noticed. On the fear side this is the anxiety of death.

[@essoblue9288]

Mr Penrose was once in one of those see through embryos. The tiny world. Amazing what came from the small embryo. Once conceived and before it divides, you can still see through it. What puzzles me is how the lifeform knows how to put everything in its place, which seems advanced in its own right, yet the baby comes out needing the help. I was thinking about if the embryo was female? With the data for two million eggs or so over a lifetime. If it were possible that the eggs were female programmed with the data for two million eggs each. It seems a lot of life form data in a small space. Things go very small. That same data is still inside today maybe. For all the intelligence, and all what has been recorded in like the mind? it may all revert to a core that is very small. I don't underestimate dying and that being it. What gives me faith is the quality build and its spirit, very intelligent, and technically harmless. Its like its on a mission. Natures mistakes in the offspring tend to in some cases put a spanner in the works. It's otherworldly which is doubtful we would ever get to the bottom of. The outside of the lifeform carrying the life and going back in time to a point where it was as see through as the life it carries, maybe like certain jellyfish. And thinking back to a time when it may be possible where it was like an invisible energy that then over time was able to mould into intricate pathways to form all different forms of life. Maybe a lot about it is feeling which life seems to get a lot out of. It's like the think running up and down the pathways is the business end and its just formed a backbone and coat for this environment. Everything is just interconnected in the body, a complete sensory system. Looking at the quality of what you see, and the quality of the picture in dreams (even though a lot of nonsense takes place while asleep). It may seem strange one side of the brain working the other side of the physical body? But is there something really going on in the outer world that it has to compensate for. Atomic structures of the human body all bonded and all energies in their own right, and this lifeform using all that for an energy pathway. Multi-layered energies creating all what we know and it even comes with an internal medicine cabinet. All that in an embryo. Is it pre-packed with its bacteria and virus structure that is in an unseen form that unpacks along with everything else.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

why human could define "beauty vs ugliness"

[@frankhoffman3566]

I concede it's POSSIBLE that the collapse of the wave function has something to do with consciousness. It is in the nature of species to evolve ways to use the properties of physics to their advantage. Light, sound, odor are obviously all conditions of physics which species have evolved to use. .These conditions are, of course, understood, as are the sensory organs which gather their aspects. We see noses, so we are accustomed to having ready answers to the question of how odor, for example, is perceived.. We see no specific organ sensing wave function collapse. This does not mean we don't possess any. The immune system perceives risks and responds to them without an obvious sensory organ planted on someone's face. I guess I am, however, still skeptical at Penrose's claim that consciousnes is "not computational". This seems a tremendous leap given the fact we have not reached the limits of, for example, computer computation. We should, I think, have a fuller understanding of what computation alone can do before we declare what it cannot do.

[@alexandergofen1771]

I had come to a realization about the three-worlds paradigm (similar to that of Sir Penrose) on my own. However, here I dare to disagree with Sir Penrose in two aspects of his paradigm (posted in the file the-theory-of-the-three-worlds-penrose). His paradigm claims... 1) As though each of the three worlds affects the two others. 2) As thought "undoubtedly, there are not three separate worlds in reality but only one" - which triggers an immediate question to Sir Penrose. If the "everything" is (or must be) just "one world" governed by some Unified Extended Physics, then everyone's conscience (or soul) must be also immersed into that Extended Physics! An idea as though our soul (or mind) were deterministic, governed by Physical laws (rather than being above them) seems abhorrent! I dare to assume, however, that there are the three worlds, where ... a) The Platonic world affects nothing and IS AFFECTED BY NOTHING. It "exists" eternally independent on the other two. b) The Physical world perhaps was designed and created (by God) using the ideas of the Platonic world. c) Mental world (conscience, soul) is beyond the Physical. By its very definition, conscience is an ability of free CONTEMPLATION of the reality in many ways: wrong or right. However, yes, the conscience (the mental world) may affect a part of the physical world, which is within a living body containing this conscience.