Understanding Consciousness | Christof Koch

Breaking The Wall To Understanding Consciousness. How Neuroscience Explains The Rise of Experience from the Brain
Christof Koch, Falling Walls 2014.
Chief Scientific Officer, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle
Over the last years, much has been learned about the neuronal basis of consciousness in the brain. Together with a recently developed Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, this progress raises the possibility that science will soon come to grips with this most ephemeral, yet most fundamental, of all phenomena at the heart of the mind-body problem. These studies suggest that consciousness is more widespread than usually assumed, including in many animals, but not in computer models of the brain. Christof Koch developed his interdisciplinary approach, which integrates the natural sciences and mathematics with more traditional philosophical concerns, during his years of cooperation with his mentor Francis Crick, the Nobel-winning co-discoverer of the DNA structure. After a 27-year research career at the California Institute of Technology, Dr. Koch left academia to become the Chief Scientific Officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science. Funded by Microsoft founder and philanthropist Paul G. Allen, the Seattle-based institute takes a Big Science approach to build Brain Observatories in order to catalogue all the cell types of the cerebral cortex and its complete interconnectivity using quantitative models to understand how it gives rise to behavior, perception, and consciousness.

[@aniccadance13]

Brilliant, thank you!

[@raresmircea]

+aniccadance13 search for his other talks. this is his least educative presentation. he only mentions IITheory without describing it, due to limited time probably

[@keithbell9348]

One neurologist put it this way: "The problem lies in our entire approach to understanding matter. We rely too heavily on physics as an explanation. Physics helps us to understand how matter works. But it fails to explain WHAT matter is or WHY it is". There is a relationship between consciousness and the physical brain. What that relationship is and where it comes from and even why it is there, evolution doesnt even begin to explain.

[@menteencoma]

a whole bunch of nothing, is what he said

[@backwardthoughts1022]

imagine still caring what 19th and 20th century physics ie. almost all current work on in physics has to say about mass energy

[@Sharperthanu1]

Matter is the theoretical opposite of eternal Metaphysical nothing.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@Sharperthanu1 and of just plain nothing. Nothing and something share a boundary on which, oddly, both are dependent for existence except, of course, the existence of nothing presents a rare language problem. (infinity is also pretty tricky to grok the essence of)

[@billhillard]

@@menteencoma And yet that is pretty much where the science is at...

[@guillermobrand8458]

Consciousness explained.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The Rainbow pictures our Eternal Life- and Consciousness-structure, in basic very simple, he mention that Feeling and Memory, is also a part of the Consciousness. Yaeh, Feeling is 'Yellow', and Memory is 'Indigo'. How can You Feel that You are Living, if You dont have the Ability to Feel, how can You remember from word to word, if You dont have Memory. (Memory, is Not in 'the brain') It is a extensive study, to understand the Eternal Nature of Consciousness, in details, but it might be possible to explain all the most important aspects, in a fully picture, in a one-hour video, and with out mention the word 'brain', one single time. So, the point is, that the analysis of Consciousness is very diffent than the analysis of 'the true nature of the brain, which is Not at all, understod by the neuro-researchers, and in common.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Apparently translation AI has a long way to go.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

AI is Superstition and Illiteracy, Intelligence can Never be artificial. Language without Mathematic, is not a Language, and Mathematic without Language, is not Mathematic.

[@kumarvishwajeet8419]

Right

[@michaelshannon9169]

Zaapfe talked about the nightmare state of being like a puppet waking up to only realise its still bound by strings. We are bound by the whimsical nature of reality. All our lives have been merely an exercise of nature where u were and will always be merely a passenger, a puppet on the strings of physics.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Seems to me the illusion of free will arises from the fact that the unconscious source of all my thoughts and behaviors is what seems to me to be MY unconscious.

[@E-Kat]

Strange how his German accent has got even stronger than it was some years ago. Can he attribute this to something environmental or genetic, I wonder.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

cos of course the sound of a german accent exists in the environment or genetics.

[@E-Kat]

No more orange hair! I was looking forward to see it.

[@helioscat4231]

Subtitles?

[@Traderhood]

So what is consciousness?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Consciousness is the label we apply to the process wherein the outside gets inside as representations that modulate one's self.

[@XyZ-de8be]

he speaks a bit too fast to me, it makes me feel stressed :O still interesting!

[@selwynr]

If you can't keep up, play it at a slower speed. You're welcome.

[@GUPTAYOGENDRA]

Consciousness is associated with “Thinking” and is independent of “Thinking”. This thought is understood only by Consciousness.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

To my way of thinking... Consciousness is merely the label for a particular thinking process. This particular thinking process maintains the concept of the self and this process and self concept together constitute that to which the word 'self ' is referring in sentences like... My self is conscious. My self is being conscious. My self is a conscious being. And more efficiently... I am conscious. There is no being conscious independent of a self. There is no self independent of being conscious. Almost like a self and being conscious are one 'thing'.

[@Tarbh1947]

Then, does consciousness continue beyond the death of the brain?

[@donakavite8286]

+Ken Stofft We have to use science to find that out. Good news is that it's testable.

[@Tarbh1947]

+Sebastian Carlo And you're living in a high tech condo on the Himalayas? Like you would know?

[@donakavite8286]

Ken Stofft What has where i live got to do with anything concerning your question? Are you some kind of fool?

[@Tarbh1947]

+Sebastian Carlo No, I am not, but looking at your site makes me wonder if you are.

[@donakavite8286]

Ken Stofft All i said was that we can use science to answer your question and that the question is testable. But you would prefer to talk about my apparent location? You're obviously not very bright.

[@RLekhy]

This guy is obviously not familiar with Buddhism otherwise he wouldn't omit Buddhist idea which is older and explanatory than that of Aristotle!

[@mikestoneadfjgs]

+R Leakey It is true! Buddhists and Taoists had this figured out a long time ago, granted they knew what it was but not how it worked.

[@estring123]

he is aware of buddhism www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/ "It was only later, at university, that I became acquainted with Buddhism and its emphasis on the universal nature of mind."

[@jsmith3980]

Yeah...just what I wrote.

[@jsmith3980]

@@mikestoneadfjgs No neuroscientist will ever 'discover how it bloody works' because that involves the big question of what is the nature of the MIND.The mind does not reside in the brain.And by the way I trained as a doctor but have a greater interest in metaphysics and Ancient Indian Vedic/ Hindu writings and practices.

[@jsmith3980]

@@estring123 Yeah well he needs to give reference to Vedic/Hindu thought.

[@TheControlLogix]

so this 15 min talk was all for getting charity... no information or new discovery conveyed... should have been a different title...

[@Sharperthanu1]

Not everyone sleeps at night

[@majorglitchstudios5362]

Are you referring to people sleeping during the day?

[@selwynr]

Consciousness is what the brain produces, which is cool and all, but that green jacket is a whole other order of coolth.

[@jonathangallant-mills6434]

Ok but where did he get that jacket?

[@E-Kat]

German/Austrian ethnic style.

[@tallsw7290]

I love how philosophers are more confident in their ideas of consciousness than actual neuroscientists

[@liamdurkin7327]

That's a big assumption how would you back it up? I think its ludicruous and know a neuroscientist that would be angry with this statement because philosphers would naturally be working with far less empirical data than neuroscientists.

[@jsmith3980]

Actually...consciousness is awareness.Long before the Greeks Ancient Indian Vedic/Hindus were writing about consciousness.Go to the source people.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

consciousness is awareness, they are synonyms, except it seems in certain realms of intellection, common words are assigned new meanings.

[@robertjohnson7895]

Fractals! Everything is Fractals!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Fractals instantiating holograms which account for the vastness of the content.

[@interqward1]

Yeah but German consciousness is different: German inner selves have always placed their ego towels onto the day-lounges of their mind before their awake consciousness is even up.

[@selwynr]

Thank you for that little slice of cute bigotry.

[@charleswood2182]

The brain cannot explain the fact of capacity for experience. That is from neuroscience and Koch is absolutely incorrect to attribute the fact of experience to brain processes. I mean from neuroscience: Coppola and Purves 1996, and Purves et al in 2015. In 1996, a measurement determined that it is 80 ms after action potentials leave the retina that subjects perceive them. That is the time it takes for action potentials to travel from the photoreceptor sheet to the visual cortex, where they are perceived complete. The 2015 article argued that vision was better understood by a reflex model. Where a stimulus is modified on the way to the visual cortex. The problem which Koch must explain is how does objective randomness in states of quanta in superposition map to the physical features and conditions of the world when objective randomness precludes a causal explanation. The brain can't do it, because of objective randomness in superpositions, that kind of randomness of structure exists such that even god couldn't decode it into what we sense. It isn't just no time. No amount of time could decode objective randomness causally. Coppola and Purves 1996, like Koch, does not recognize that subjects observed the collapse of the wave function as instant presence and recognition of visual percepts. Koch has no idea that all his words have been falsified. And he continues on not discussing science. Period.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Nonsense!

[@selwynr]

Nonsense!

[@charleswood2182]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL First of all, to state in one word your view, well, and then punctuate it to express strong feeling. Where in your life does such an approach to discussion actually work for you? I assume you have read neither study. So I conclude you are not an empiricist, while I am. Show some intellectual honesty then in a critique of the conclusions of Purves in both studies. And why not use your real name like I do?

[@charleswood2182]

@@selwynrBecause? Or in life do you just go around pronouncing because after all, it is you! Who says things! People should care about?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@charleswood2182 It has been 3 months since I made that comment. Perhaps at the time I was not interested in a conversation. Right now I cannot remember a thing about my state of mind or motivation. But I sense that you want to enjoy a conversation so, first of all, happy new year and secondarily cheers! I am happy to still be here, almost everyone I know has died from age related diseases. In the interests of conversation I am completely convinced that I understand exactly what the word 'conscious' means and how evolution brought the self and its being conscious process into its abstract mode of existence. Of course my thoughts stand on the shoulders of giants. Metaphorically speaking. I think Koch's ideas are blithering nonsense. Perhaps that's what I meant by my overly terse comment. Go ahead, ask me a question.

[@billhillard]

I need that wonderfully, hideous, green jacket. Where can I get one?! I NEED one. And nice video. Thank you for posting it. Videos like these are the only good thing online. Billions of pages of crap and then wonderful videos like these. Thanks.

[@lucasajsbdibask]

Schöne Jacke Herr Koch

[@jamesgibson2179]

Very much like taking a car engine apart - very mechanistic, but he can’t explain how the ‘car’ was made or why ! He doesn’t even know where the ‘car’ is going. Far too ‘western’ and materialist. I lost interest when he mentioned Freud the Fraud.

[@gordonpepper1400]

This guy is spending a lot of time and probably money, but will never get anywhere I don't think with his approach to consciousness. Like many others, this guy thinks consciousness is something mysterious, unknown. I think this is totally incorrect. Consciousness is developed through language (or language like systems). A one day old baby is not conscious , but over time the baby begins to make associations using some forms of language (usually verbal at first), which gives rise to consciousness. It is developed over time. I believe this guys needs to study language formation including semiotics (conscious and unconscious signifiers) - he is barking up the wrong tree and wasting his time with mice and men.

[@robertvalentic4939]

If a new born is lost in the forest and raised by wolves, will it be conscious even though it has no language?

[@gordonpepper1400]

nope@@robertvalentic4939