What Makes Brains Conscious? | Episode 706 | Closer To Truth

[@kylebowles9820]

How is this so good and free on the internet? Where does the money come from? I'm blown away; Thank you Robert Lawrence Kuhn!

[@belectronix]

Agreed! This is a fantastic channel

[@ogulcancingiler568]

I guess it used to be a publicly-funded TV show in PBS, there used to be parts from the show in the channel and this year they made all episodes available online.

[@abhishekshah11]

He is rich

[@Riderdownn]

Adds!

[@Jimeo722]

@@ogulcancingiler568 Yes, It's a PBS production. Wikipedia articles on the show itself and its episodes provide the details.

[@handynas6529]

One day when I was 5 or 6 I looked at my mom and suddenly realized, she cannot see through my eyes and neither could I see through hers. That was my first self awakening. Knowing that I am an island and all of us are islands.

[@2romanova1928]

Consciousness is fundamental and part of the universe...part of everything. Our brains act as filter and receiver of consciousness .

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

This was another great video, Dr. Kuhn. The music on this episode was brilliant!

[@mintakan003]

Dr. James Cooke's "living mirror" theory is worth looking at. One can draw the line anywhere for defining "consciousness" (e.g. Michio Kaku's "number of 'feedback loops'", thermometer as "one unit" of "consciousness"). But another, more intuitive line, is between (biological) living systems and non-living systems. We intuitively know there's a difference between a rock and a bacterial cell. The former strictly follows Newton's laws of motion. The latter displays some "interiority" and autonomy. This is the first "proto-consciousness", even before the development of brains. Dr. Cooke draws heavily from Karl Friston's "free energy principle". The natural tendency of physical systems is towards greater entropy. But somehow biology bucks this trend (enabled with the ongoing with energy intake). It does this by separating "self" from the "environment". Hence, the first living system has a cell wall. There's an "inside" and "outside". The "inside" has some inner representation of the "outside". We call the inside "experience". The outside maybe called "reality". The inside is not the same as the external reality, but attempts to mirror it. There is a constant need to reconcile the "inner" representation with what is actually on the outside, to help it to navigate the world. (You can apply Bayesian modeling to it to explain the dynamics.) The interface to the external world includes "perception" and "motor control". So the whole configuration of "self"/"environment", "senses"/inner representation/motor control, forms a specific complex, whereby we can say it is "living", and "conscious", in its environment (according to this definition). It's a specific (macro) configuration, operating with a certain set of processes. Of course, human beings, with their brains are even more complex than this. There is an aggregation of low level integration processes (the "voting" analogy described by one of the interviewees) to form higher level representations. You can also have "model of models, of models, ..."., i.e. meta-perception, meta-cognition, "awareness of 'awareness'", "awareness of 'self'". The meta-cognition of one layer over earlier layers are greater "degrees of freedom". (This can allow a non-abstract notion of "free will", with constraints (?)). The basic biological prototype, also explains, the interiority, the private nature of consciousness. Its integrative function leads to a "unitary" sense. The last layer of perception adds to the sense of "transparency" (not quite visible, just as an eye cannot see itself, but can see its "contents"). Beside perceptual, "consciousness" is also intentional, if you add motor control to the mix. Interaction with the environment is fundamental to the conscious system (e.g., issues relating to infant development, sensory deprivation tank, ..., even controlled experiments in the scientific method).

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Very interesting comment.

[@Hombolicious]

Very well thought out answer. Have you considered how the distinction of living vs non-living systems applies as you zoom out in perspectives? For example, we all contain mitochondria which are absolutely necessary for the scale of cell cooperation to produce human sized living organisms. However, far back in our phylogenetic history mitochondria were a 'separate' organism. Eventually their "exterior" became the "interior" or larger cells. Their environment became the symbiotic relationship between their host and themselves. Over time, larger amalgamations of cells formed (relying on this underlying symbiotic relationship) creating larger organisms, eventually leading to animals, plants etc. Do we now consider the mitochondria inside ourselves as "self" or "interior" to us or are they separate? I know they have their own unique DNA but if our organism could not function without them, it seems reasonable to say they are part of us. In an analogous type way can we consider large biosphere processes or the earth and it's atmosphere as being a organism which we are a cell of, as the mitochondria is to us? If a singular cell can contain "proto-consciousness" which is a physical representation of interior and exterior and at a larger scale the amalgamations of these proto-consciousnesses produce "consciousness" in the case of mammals and other organisms, should we expect that a "meta-consciousness" emerges as a consequence of the interplay of all these smaller conscious processes? It seems if the larger scale patterns showed that the collection of living things on earth act in a way that shows a awareness of interiority of earth vs the exteriority of space then we could, based on this way of thinking, define it as not only consciousness but of a planetary consciousnesses. What do you reckon?

[@mintakan003]

@@Hombolicious Stay tuned. Dr. James Cooke is also pursuing the ecology angle, and our intimate connection with nature. Anil Seth (another neuroscientist) has also mentioned our "oneness" with the natural world. (He has a KZbin talk with the Royal Institution.)

[@Hombolicious]

@@mintakan003 I listened to his Mirror theory. Doesn't seem too far off how I've been thinking about consciousness for awhile now, although I like the addition of living organisms being defined as those things which resist entropy. Although, this would need more careful description as any form, alive or not, resists entropy in some sense. I added him to my podcast list. Should be some good conversations. Seems that most consciousnesses researchers are also very interested in psychedelics and other mind altering practices.

[@mintakan003]

@@Hombolicious My other favorite person, more along the AI route, is Joscha Bach. This differs from James Cooke's statistical physics approach. It's more of a functional approach, with large scale "modules". The "grounding" would be different. Cooke's is grounded in biology, the "consciousness" we intuitively know. But it's possible there is another type of synthetic consciousness, synthetic, analogous, but just as functional. It's kind of like birds vs. airplanes in the analogous similarities, and differences.

[@danieljakubik3428]

Consciousness is a complex and mysterious phenomenon we are still struggling to understand now in the 21st century.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

I can explain it for you. The human soul is where consciousness is found and right now it is that part of you that is reading this comment. Have a good day.

[@cdb5001]

@@jeffforsythe9514 hard for reduction folks to understand or explain, yet it is the correct intuition. People tend to think that everything is explicable by the material "brain", yet the mind does not care nor follow the rules of physical properties. Truly a marvel.

[@Malcolm701]

Yes, we are very stupid in this 'modern' era.

[@slumpkiid3570]

Ah yes look at us and how smart we are for figuring out the real, real truth. It's a shame we cannot see the marvels science allows us to manipulate and produce amazing technologies with and instead only see it as a flimsy attempt to put a pin in life.

[@ernestmoney7252]

To sum up: no one has a clue how the physical brain gives rise to consciousness (..experience, sentience, qualia, whatever).

[@jeffamos9854]

Yes they do. Consciousness involves the brain. Did you not pay attention.

[@dazedmaestro1223]

Yes, because all their enterprise is based on a false premise: that the brain creates consciousness.

[@Voivode.of.Hirsir]

@@dazedmaestro1223 Why do you think that?

[@PatrickRyan147]

@@dazedmaestro1223 Lolz, you are right.. The brain DOESN'T create consciousness.. Therefore, consciousness is initially external to the brain and therefore must be holographically projected onto the brain (in a holographic reality everything is holographically projected, including consciousness).. Projected from what / where? Holographic projectors! What's driving these projectors? A computer! Therefore our souls must originate in this computer.. Therefore, our souls must be computer programs at the source.. albeit extremely advanced computer programs..

[@dazedmaestro1223]

@@Voivode.of.Hirsir, why do you think the brain creates consciousness when that's obviously nonsense?

[@curiousfiend1169]

This is just the most fascinating subject. Cheers

[@rareone5041]

The brain is not conscious, it just holds it.

[@danniealexander4131]

Says who?

[@TJ-kk5zf]

increasingly I believe this

[@rareone5041]

Dannie Alexander Me, that’s just my own personal belief

[@staffankarlsson1428]

As you can see in the title it's not a matter of doubt. It is the brain that is conscious!

[@tbardoni5065]

@@staffankarlsson1428 Well, then you’d need to explain how protists and animals without brains seemingly are conscious.

[@taniasara7558]

Thank u so much , I'm intrigued by all what has been said. ❤

[@CristinaG]

Consciousness, is the brain just the transceiver connecting the meatsuit to a higher realm via some kind of quantum connection? And that once we die that connection disconnects and we find ourselves back in that realm, true home? All fascinating stuff...!!

[@1DangerMouse1]

Quantum "connection"..... Right

[@CristinaG]

@DOC TOR The flaw in your summary is that birds, lions, and elephants do not possess "sentience or awareness of internal or external existence" as humans do; rather, I would hypothesize that your summary is more inclined towards a description of 'Perception'.

[@radientbeing]

Only one consciousness. The Mind of Wigner's friend. www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/Bass_1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Az9UUf9OQeFVsHeD_gA2sjBkfF6hRoVFnAe6ZRt77xV34ctXWNwH4Ogw Also related is the paper "The Strong Free Will Theorem" If we have free will, so do electrons. www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

[@downhillphilm.6682]

Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux just blew my "mind". And explained so much about human behavior in a simple (and guilt relieving) statement: "...our prefrontal cortex has no communication with the amygdala (!). So the part of the cortex, prefrontal cortex involved in thinking, planning and decision making, is NOT connected with the amygdala (emotional center)....that's why it is so hard for us to have conscious control over an emotion like fear, anxiety...we can't just say 'okay I'm not going to be anxious, depressed anymore' because there's NO connectivity there." Wow!

[@phaidonsofianos1409]

EXCELLENT !!! (as usual) Thank You !!!

[@kaksinho]

Personally think the brain is a converter which turns thoughts from consciousness in too physical actions. Like a radio turns radio waves in too sounds. So without a brain/radio the counsciousness and radiowaves still exists

[@darkknightsds]

Apparently your brain can't turn thoughts in "to" proper spelling

[@kenmapp4891]

Thanks, thats one paradigm for consciousness, i call it the antenna paradigm, where there is another world, made of spirit, and it connects to ours thru complexity, like brains. There is another I call the black hole analogy. Gravity is a property if the universe an usually pretty ordinary by when it gets really strong, it bend space and time in really weird ways. The analogy to consciousness is that consciousness is a property of the universe that increases with complexity and when things get really complex, things get weird there to.

[@Stefan1971HH]

You mean something like Dr Van Lommel's concept of non-local consciousness?

[@Kyotaka-kc6bt]

what i think is that throughout millions of years, the mind became so fast and functioning in very complex way that it reached something like consciousness, an evidence that i have is that if we look at now kids we see that people comment : “ when i was his age i was still thinking my dad is a super hero” or something like that!! u got my point, a new kid automatically adapts! it’s like a state which is developing because of the mind developing accordingly to it functioning. and if it is for us to be aware we should have been aware of what we are!! and all truth is, but we know nothing we are not aware at all, we just solved all problems to survive and then we looked at another problem we picked the problem of how and why we exist and created imaginative things to answer!

[@stringX90]

Great program, thanks for putting it together 👍

[@purplepick5388]

I love this program :)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What is main ingredient of subjective awareness? Is it emotion / feeling, sensory perception, other or combination? Perhaps there is both conscious and subconscious elements in subjective awareness.

[@IAM0973D3]

This is a journey to closer to truth. Welcome to this journey of the human condition.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

A human being is made up of two main parts, body and soul. Your soul is the conscious one and is the you that is reading this comment. The brain simply moves the body around on orders from the soul.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

There are Academic moocs that answer this question....

[@positiveair1891]

@@jeffforsythe9514 how can you prove that with fact?

[@fernandoramirez4042]

I love his work and research for humans here on planet earth ❤

[@mikefinn]

It seems to me that consciousness manifests when a critical mass of neurons are generating their chemoelectrical signals. As these electral signals travel on the axons, an electromagnetic wave is produced that radiates a short distance. When multiple neurons fire simultaneously, the interactions of intersecting waves creates a field that is more than the sum of its parts (by waves reinforcing each other). This is consciousness. Feedback loops increase or decrease firings from specific brain areas as we focus or ignore information from them.

[@sprocketslip4564]

What I find amazing , is living things that don’t have brains at least what we think of as brains such as plants . they seem to have consciousness. They reproduce react to the world around them. Maybe life itself is consciousness. Love your shows.

[@caricue]

The fact that only living things are conscious shouldn't be a radical observation, but it seems to be, at least to the panpsychotics.

[@nicholastidemann9384]

@@caricue: where do you draw the line between what lives and what does not?

[@caricue]

@@nicholastidemann9384 What an awesome question! It's funny how know-it-all people think that having all the answers makes you look smart. Any a-hole can have answers. A truly wise man knows the right questions. In 1944 a book called What is Life was published by none other than Edwin Schrodinger, based on a series of lectures. The greatest minds in physics, chemistry and biology have grappled with this question to no avail, so it would be silly of a mere mortal like me to even try to answer your brilliant question. My point is that life, in a gross way, does not follow the seemingly strict cause and effect of colliding objects or metal bending, so it is premature to declare free will or consciousness to be illusions or impossible based on the equations of quantum mechanics or Newtonian physics. I give due respect to personal experience of these phenomena by living creatures until the mystery of life is worked out by science.

[@nicholastidemann9384]

@@caricue: "The fact that only living things are conscious shouldn't be a radical observation, but it seems to be, at least to the panpsychotics." If you can't clearly define what living things are, then refrain from making such pompous and pretentious statements.

[@caricue]

@@nicholastidemann9384 I beg to differ my friend. That was a straight up insult to those who subscribe to the mystical credo of panpsychism. I wouldn't dignify it by calling it pompous or pretentious. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Rocks are not conscious, dead things are not conscious, get over it. (That is what pompous and pretentious sounds like!)

[@earthjustice01]

Scheibel - What a great teacher!

[@sgttoxiiczz]

"consciousness involves the brain, nobody doubts that." thats a fundemental assumption.

[@TheAutistocrat]

Nobody worth listening to.

[@tinywillis]

@@TheAutistocrat so you're saying jellyfish are not conscious simply because they lack brains?

[@TheAutistocrat]

@@tinywillis Not just brain but neocortex or something with a similar structure like birds have.

[@sgttoxiiczz]

@@TheAutistocrat, we lack understanding of what consciousness is, let alone how it comes to be. To assume that some living things don't experience some level of consciousness simply because they lack a brain boils down to nothing more than arrogance, at best.

[@nicholastidemann9384]

@@TheAutistocrat: that's just total nonsense. Everything we have to go by are neural correlates between what humans self-report about their consciousness and what is going on in their human brains and nervous systems. There's literally zero way to determine whether or not organisms which are very dissimilar to us have an equally dissimilar type of consciousness or not. Thinking that a neocortex is necessary to be conscious at all just because its activity in humans is correlated with human consciousness is quite frankly laughable, and would certainly not win you any prizes in science or metaphysics.

[@dr.satishsharma9794]

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

[@arjundave3362]

At 19.30 he says that there is no connection between amygdala and PFC. But recent research have shown that there is a some sort of connection between them, especially with ventromedial pre frontal cortex and dacc. Dacc aggravates anxiety vmpfc stops it and reduces anxiety stimulation from all over the brain. Please correct me if there is anything dubious.

[@SomeUncomm]

How old is some of this? Dude at @8:00 is using Windows XP on a laptop that looks like it's 10 years old! Great video, as always, though. :)

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

From 24:48 to 24:55 sums it up for me quite well. I'm totally convinced that the structure of my brain has a massive influence on how I perceive, react, and emote to the world. When I was young I was basically socially incapacitated by crippling shyness. It has an extremely negative effect on all my social interactions from normal social interactions and loss of opportunities due to being too shy to speak up or volunteer to participate in actives that I knew I would be really good at, to the serious devastation of my ability to initiate intimate relationships with a potential partner. The problem was that even though I was acutely aware of the problem I couldn't seem to solve it. I made purposeful attempts to overcome this crippling shyness and they all failed. This is why I am convinced that this problem was indeed caused by brain structures, and not by mere conscious thoughts. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the problem could not have been solved. I am a firm believer in brain plasticity and the ability to rewire our own brains via correct therapy. The problem for me at that time was that I neither had knowledge of, nor access to the types of mentors or guidance that could have helped me achieve that goal. This innate crippling shyness had a strangle hold on me well into adulthood. I didn't truly begin to overcome it until my 40's. At that point in my life I basically quit worrying about what other people thought of me, and my shyness faded away. That's actually a very wrong solution to the problem. It basically meant that I simply gave up on trying to achieve that things I'd like to achieve. And that's no solution. I know now that with the correct therapy I could have been cured of my crippling shyness at a much younger age. In fact, with the proper mentors it could have been nipped in the bud at an extremely early age, as soon as it was first recognized to be a problem. However, regardless of the form that therapy took, the ultimate result would have been a rewiring of my brain through neural plasticity. Let on my own, I could not address it. The harder I tried the more angry I would become that I couldn't change it. My crippling shyness caused me extreme great anger. Although this anger was never aimed at myself. It was just anger of pure frustration as I did not blame myself as being the cause of this shyness. Indeed it was something I wanted to have nothing to do with. So from my perspective it was a crippling condition that I had no control over. And so I could hardly be blamed for something I have no control over, right? So I never blamed myself for this condition, again from my perspective it was similar to having cancer. Having cancer might make a person extremely angry, but they most certainly aren't going to focus that anger on themselves unless they are convinced that their own actions caused the cancer. I certainly didn't feel that I was causing my extreme shyness. It was something I wished would go away. I just couldn't make that happen until much latter in life when I basically gave up trying. But that also resulted in giving up many other things as well, so it was not a productive solution. So yeah, I'm totally convinced that many psychological problems are indeed caused by structures in the brain that our beyond our control. Yes, perhaps they are not entirely beyond our control with sufficient plasticity therapy, but lacking the knowledge of how to employ those therapies it can indeed be crippling. On the topic of "Free Will". Do we really have free will? I would say no. If I had free will I would have simply willed my crippling shyness away. The fact that I couldn't do that seems to imply that if I have free will it is extremely limited. Could I have "willed" it away via proper plasticity therapy? Probably so. But how free is my will if I'm not even aware of how to employ such therapies? If "Free Will" is dependent on having knowledge we don't currently have, then it's not worth a whole heck of a lot IMHO.

[@pdr5926]

But this is not about the psychological aspect. It is about how consciousness is developed in the brain. We do not know the mechanism or the physics due to which we achieve consciousness.

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

@@pdr5926 How do you separate the psychological aspect from consciousness? When you are conscious you need to be conscious of something, and the most likely thing you will first become aware of is your own consciousness, and that includes a psychological perspective of yourself. And besides, we actually do know quite a bit about the mechanisms of consciousness. We know that consciousness is only present when there are complex feedback loops within the brain. And so that tells use pretty much what causes consciousness. Just because we don't know exactly how this works does not mean that we have no clue. If you understand how analog computers work then you should have a good idea of how consciousness could arise in this situation from a purely material and physical perspective. If you don't know how analog computers work, then it's understandable why you may not see the connection. .

[@pdr5926]

@@Mystic0Dreamer Yes I know all that. But the true mechanism of consciousness is still hidden. This is an interview with Roger Penrose worth watching. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nonKopyha62LmZI

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

@@pdr5926 I'm familiar with the ideas of Roger Penrose concerning consciousness. I actually agree with his conclusions if I accept his premises. But I don't accept his premises. Roger Penrose is focused on digital computing, and mathematical computing. He has concluded that consciousness cannot be a computation. I agree. But this is not a problem. It's only a problem if your goal is to try to create consciousness using a digital computer. Our brains are neither digital computers, nor are they based on carrying out mathematical computations. Therefore none of Penrose's objections apply. So Penrose can be 100% correct in his analysis and yet his conclusions have nothing at all to do with the human brain. Or even a non-biological brain based on an analog computer. But yeah, I agree with Penrose. You could never create consciousness using a digital computer or using mathematical computations. The problem is, that our brains don't function that way, so Penrose's objections don't apply.

[@pdr5926]

@@Mystic0Dreamer Penrose goes far beyond the mathematical side in that video. He has a theory, better said a faint idea, about how consciousness might be taking place. Since no one can actually prove him wrong, it is plausible.

[@drsalmanpk]

Great documentary

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can the brain / mind experience and figure out what energy is doing, then focus and direct energy to do something?

[@bentontramell]

Poor Christof....he was still talking : )

[@Ginebraconvention]

15:58 It seems Robert is gently thinking “please, someone shut this man up”

[@zadeh79]

"Correlation does not mean causation" . We know what it's like to be unconscious, so it suggests the functionality of the brain is important - meaning that rocks aren't conscious. So regardless of whether there actually is an extra-brain component or not, the physical brain is ultimately required for consciousness.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The brain never thinks. All thought is born in the human soul and the soul tells the brain to move the body. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Consciousness is a transcendent (supernatural) experience. That's why we have such a difficult time understanding it.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

It is quite simple. The soul is the conscious part and is the part of you that is reading this comment right now.

[@cdb5001]

Great series. The fact that neuroscientists have to elicit "belief" and have little to no proof that consciousness emerges from the brain is perfectly summarized at the end. It's the reason that Robert, himself a neuroscientist, continued to follow his intuition that there is something more, a mind, soul, whatever you want to call it, and create awesome episodes of this great show. I'd love for a neuroscientist to explain that. Why do we have such strong metaphysical insights or intuition that we follow, which go beyond the material? Indefinitely, they would be able to.

[@junrosamura645]

Being aware of you conscious is trait that only a select few have evolved to do so. Human brains are just a network of various independently thinking parts that collectively form an identity. This "identity" is what allows us to second guess our actions specific to our experiences. This "identity" is shaped by external influences experienced since birth till death. In a sense, consciousness, is a second brain, a part that works independently from the rest of the whole. The "speaking voice" in you head that is conscious of what the rest of the body is doing.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

The brain is just a lump of fat that takes it's orders from the soul. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What would it mean that different networks of neurons each can produce conscious experience? Does it mean something in the networking of neurons produces conscious experience? Or could it mean something besides network of neurons is needed to produce conscious experience? Or might it mean something inside each neuron produces conscious experience, so that any network of neurons will produce conscious experience? Or something else?

[@meklitnew]

In enjoy these high-ly 👌

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Do neural correlates of consciousness happen because something different than the neurons is producing conscious experience in correlation of neurons? And would that mean something inside the neurons produces neural correlates of consciousness, or something in the networking produces neural correlates of consciousness?

[@trubador09]

I hope RLK reads these comments. I have a theory. What makes brains conscious? We as humans become conscious because like no other animal are forced to go to the restroom. It is this process at the age of 2 - 4 we have to shift our brains to realize we have to catch ourselves before we need to go and act on it. This makes us self-aware.

[@chrisristau8803]

Do you slow down the audio sometimes??

[@ytpadyt]

There are many things on theatre stage but the light spot is just on one and that is consciousness.. It´s sensing now and here

[@tinywillis]

But things don't necessarily need brains or even nervous systems. Look at the jellyfish and sponge. Since you don't need a neural network to produce (or receive) consciousness, then what *do* you need? Where does consciousness actually come from?

[@Hombolicious]

Jellyfish and sponges might not be conscious. I think people could generally agree that behaviour does not necessarily imply consciousness. There are plenty of functions occurring within my body that I do not consciously control or am aware of. So deciding or defining the line between unconscious behaviour and conscious behaviour is tricky and very likely arbitrary. What consciousness is, is a human concept. I think when we speak of "consciousness" we are often subtly implying "experiences similar to human subjective experience" and then we wonder if other species experience aspects similar to us. However, the particular nature of human consciousness is specific to our physiology. In this sense, we can identify consciousness in other similar morphologically functioning organisms The way in which we interact with our environment requires us to have particular capacities that aren't, for example, necessary with plants. Plants don't have a visual cortex because they don't need one. Marine life that lives in the deep recesses of the ocean don't need eyes because there is no light. So when you ask the question "where does consciousness actually come from" I think the answer is, it is necessary or at least advantageous for the particular environment we exist in and exists as a capacity of our physiology. It is an emergent property of matter arranged in a way that allows for storage of information that is used to model reality and interact with it. If the question is not really, why did consciousness evolve or come into existence, but how does matter in particular forms produce conscious experiences. Or more simply, how is there this internal experience? Then the answer that comes to mind for me is that the particular ways in which the human brain models it's external environment and the necessity of that process is the foundations of consciousness. The phenomena we call consciousness however is the integrated capacities of all these advantageous processes. Without consciousness, one could not ask why one is consciousness. So the fact that we can ask the question suggests we have a mind that produces a coherent and complete enough model of reality that we even model ourselves. Consciousness is a blueprint of our own internal processes and it's the activity of the organism that gives rise to this continuously evolving experience. I think this answer however does not satisfy your question. My intuition is that a physical explanation for you, is not sufficient. Which is similar to asking why there is something rather than nothing. I don't think there are any "exact" conditions under which consciousness will always appear, not only because I believe there are probably an enormous range of systems that could give rise to an internal experience but also because the word "consciousness" itself is not so well defined as to allow such clear cut boundaries. Thanks for you questions. Was fun to think this out.

[@remcovandijk279]

Looks like you're defining consciousness as 'specific behaviour and reactions to the environment to ensure survival'. I don't think that that is a good definition, as that would make electronics with a circuit breaker conscious since that also reacts to what's happening to its environment to protect itself and hence ensure its survival.

[@hgracern]

Yes, observed is observer. Thanks. 💕

[@anirudhadhote]

Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is there anything else happening in brain when there is conscious experience / subjective awareness besides neural correlates? What does oxygen from the blood do during neural correlates of conscious experience?

[@dennistucker1153]

What Makes Brains Conscious? To me, it starts with the evolution of brains. As brains become more complex, there come a point where the brain learns and employs a simple standard method of processing information in order to survive. I think fear had a lot to do with first signs of consciousness.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

It is the soul that is conscious and does all the thinking and is the part of you that is reading this comment.

[@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc]

@NikTheFix if my brain created me, if I'm an illusion, how do I know what is real? How do we know that a brain exist or if it is part of the illusion created by something else?

[@cdb5001]

Studies in meditation, involving brain scans, idle vs during meditation, have revealed that scientists could not find the difference when analyzing the scans. They could only discern when the participants told them they were meditating. Furthermore, meditation has shown to change and improve brain chemistry. So, I ask you, how can something metaphysical, such as meditation, inexplicable by brain scans, make physical changes to the brain? Does this not directly defy the "emerging from the brain" thesis? For me, it certainly does.

[@priyakulkarni9583]

This guy is amazing 🤩

[@Rfighter7]

Brain science alone might take us closer, but not the whole way. Stephan Chorover makes valid points. External environmental factors have to play a big role. The entire body experience consciousness due to the environment, Then the the brain processes that information into specific parts of the brain which we can see happening. The problem I see is we think its solely in the brain. The entire body has neurons which take in information to the brain which process that information. So it's possible consciousness doesn't exist in the brain, but the entire body. Just because the brain process that information, that doesn't mean it produces consciousness.

[@Simonjose7258]

13:15 I can relate. When i sit and mediate there's the voice that counts and a conciousness listening and one always wandering off...at least 3 but 4 or more makes sense to me.

[@5piles]

if you actually refine your meditation you will clearly observe those are just 1 quickly toggling awareness. later, those superfluous uncontrolled activities are shut down by increasingly sustained attention, allowing you to examine mind more coherently ie. far better and clearly, directly

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I believe we're in consciousness and are conscious of it. Similar to how we are in the Soul and have a Spirit. The illuminated man: one who merges Spirit, personality, emotions into one. The world cannot influence this man as he's one with nature. Religion cannot persuade this man because he's true in Spiritual form. You cannot trigger this man emotionally because he has overcome the ego and his senses do not pertain to it. A man of Oneness; the ultimate man. Whereas a scientists looks outside himself for answers, the illuminated man realizes he is the Answer.

[@ellengran6814]

Scientists study details in order to understand the «machinery of the univerce». Living in nature and connections to life, makes a human understand the «spirit of the univerce».

[@KvaedTV]

Honesty is the ultimate truth.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

"So here I am with very limited ways of knowing the world." What influence does this limitation have on our beliefs? Our assumptions?

[@sg-km4hv]

when we are sleeping, we are conscious in dreams, we talk and think and see. being conscious simply means more senses are active, you are in survival mode.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Being conscious is your soul, the part of you that is reading this comment right now.

[@Kyotaka-kc6bt]

@sg-km4hv great! finally someone i can agree with, it’s totally a bench of functions, throughout millions of years, the mind became so fast and functioning in very complex way that it reached something like consciousness, an evidence that i have is that if we look at now kids we see that people comment : “ when i was his age i was still thinking my dad is a super hero” or something like that!! u got my point, a new kid automatically adapts! it’s like a state which is developing because of the mind developing accordingly to it functioning. and if it is for us to be aware we should have been aware of what we are!! and all truth is, but we know nothing we are not aware at all, we just solved all problems to survive and then we looked at another problem we picked the problem of how and why we exist and created imaginative things to answer!

[@kamislaran4970]

The brain is a filter organ not a consciousness organ. They should realize this already with the understanding of epigenetics.

[@AlexADalton]

What does epigenetics have to do with the brain being a filter?

[@ktx49]

Amazing you figured it out in your spare time....meanwhile all these people dedicated their entire careers/lives & got it all wrong. Why isn't Robert interviewing you instead??? 🤣😃🤣

[@TheAutistocrat]

It's almost guaranteed that whenever someone mentions epigenetics, you can ignore them.

[@nicholastidemann9384]

That's just another assumption. It's not even a better better than the assumption that the brain somehow generates consciousness. Also, neither of these assumptions have anything to do with epigenetics.

[@kamislaran4970]

All you have to do is look at the evidence of zero brain wave NDEs and the evidence of how genes are either activated or not activated NOT by changes to the underlying DNA sequence but by dynamic processes connected to the everyday choices and experiences.

[@MarkRuslinzski]

I would like to participate in something like this, let them hook me up to the sensors to try to find out more, how could i go about doing this? This message is for Robert from closer to the truth From Mark

[@brahimkhider2273]

- A windows XP laptop wired to another screen with a paper sheet indicating "Dell Laptop Display" - A German guy with some stereotypical accent. - This video is conscious

[@danielpaulson8838]

Chemicals and electricity at a bare minimum. We know that part for sure. The central nervous system plays a role. And that might be all there is to it.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

All there is to it is that the soul is consciousness, the part of you reading this comment right now, the soul.

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@jeffforsythe9514 Wow. I feel bad for everyone who is brain injured or developmentally disabled. They have rotten souls don’t they? Or is there an apology for that? 😂 I use facts with my science And faith with my wishes. And God gave me the brains to tell the difference. This is a ten month old comment. What are you fishing for?

[@jeffforsythe9514]

@@danielpaulson8838 First of all the brain does not think, it is the soul. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

@@danielpaulson8838 If the brain is injured, then the soul, which is immortal, cannot control the body. The soul does not rot. But now that it cannot move the body it suffers and gains wisdom through suffering. Everything has a purpose and every dark cloud has a silver lining...........falun dafa

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@jeffforsythe9514 Fun stuff. Sounds like it will completely change someones life for the better. Or their death? Or whatever. I walk a path of individual healing and progress. It's not your path. You go ahead and wait till you die. Peace

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is there any common neurological activity to the variety of conscious experiences?

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Arnie nailed it.

[@zadeh79]

Christof Koch made the most sense

[@eddielopez2373]

Listening to Kristoff speak is what I imagine being hugged by cocaine would feel like.

[@simonbean3774]

If you find an answer, please inform the orange thing where to find it

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what happens to energy in brain when conscious or not conscious?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would emotional experience have subjective awareness?

[@georgegrubbs2966]

We rightly know that in general, "correlation does not (necessarily) mean causation," but to ignore direct strong correlations over time and space of aspects of consciousness to brain activity is to deny statistical causation which is the core of science.

[@tonyggir]

Emotions come from your thoughts

[@jeffforsythe9514]

And your thoughts are formed in your soul, the part of you that is reading this comment is your soul.

[@cvsree]

Brain is just a tool for consciousness It's the mind that misidentifies with body Our true self is consciousness

[@Corteum]

Q. "What Makes Brains Conscious?" A. "Consciousness." Without consciousness, brains are just unconscious matter.

[@dazedmaestro1223]

Finally someone who has the intellectual capacity to see that consciousness is a substance and not a property.

[@tomosko2669]

It's like saying: why is grass green? Because it has green color. You provided no information. And how do you know that "Without consciousness, brains are just unconscious matter." ? Maybe the brain structure itself provides a basis for consciousness and when the neurons start firing, that's when consciousness arises. Ofc I don't know that but neither you know that "Without consciousness, brains are just unconscious matter.".

[@Corteum]

@@tomosko2669 I was thinking more along the lines of something like: Q. What makes sand wet? (A. Water). Another question might be: Q. What makes objects conscious? (A. Consciousness.) Point being, it's equally plausible that consciousness isn't produced by matter but exists in its own right (like a fundamental force). We already know for instance that the universe consists of only less than 5% baryonic (or atomic) matter. The rest of it - which we infer exists through repeated observations - does not conform to the known definitions of atomic matter (i.e. namely "dark energy" and "dark matter"). The problem with the idea of postulating that the brain provides the basis for consciousness is that you're going to have an impossible time trying to explain how a piece of unconscious matter is able to produce an aware observer or consciousness.. I mean, how are you going to get subjective experience from objects that are essentially non-conscious? Bare in mind that there is no actual physical, mathematical, computational, or biological description in any of the text books for consciousness, let alone trying to explain how to get conscious observers from non-conscious objects or material processes. I think we should be prepared and willing to explore the possibility that consciousness might not be produced by any physical or material process, but that it could be derived from substrates of reality that lie outside of the material domain... just as "dark energy" and "dark matter" lie outside of the material domain (as we know it).

[@Corteum]

Furthermore, we should be able to explore the possibility that consciousness may not be produced by matter without invoking religion.

[@francesco5581]

@@tomosko2669 do you really think that you ARE some neurons hitting each other ? fascinating ...

[@Sharperthanu1]

As far as I know atoms are smaller than neurons. Therefore consciousness is quantum mechanical.

[@kalahantri]

Only one factor triggers the wonderous brain, that is the living breath- I say living because it's this function (the living breath) that allows me to post this comment too -Science need to delve deeper into this aspect, to understand further, hitherto deeper regions of the brain- Emotions can be studied in-depth by observing breathing patterns, that dog us each moment of our lives Consciousness!! Let's just say forget it,this may just be the catalyst for a #ConsciousAwakening

[@KM-leons]

Nonsense

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

neural correlates of consciousness having energy and probability could link to quantum?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

planning has to do with time (future) more than energy; maybe time is unconscious in contrast to energy which is conscious?

[@tigrotom7312]

Brain like all physical things resides within consciousness, not consciousness within brain.

[@tigrotom7312]

@@HoneybunMegapack Alright, then do explain how brain creates consciousness exactly... I am all ears.

[@glitchmatrix8699]

@@HoneybunMegapack you are living in a fantasy

[@tigrotom7312]

@@HoneybunMegapack kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZqVn6Opf66pfMU

[@wutruriding1355]

Man, that Dr. Christoph was a fast talker, he wore me out trying to keep up with him.

[@joelfry4982]

Even if my awareness is annihilated when I die, the spark which began my awareness will begin to exist in a baby after my death. Therefore, reincarnation. I am not my thoughts or sensations. I am my awareness. Buddhist monks experience awareness but not thoughts and sensations when they enter a deep state of meditation. Thoughts and sensations occur to awareness. It occurs to me I should wash my car. Thoughts occur to awareness like a ball striking a tree. My experience of awareness will begin to exist in a baby after my death, even if I have no soul. But it is not "my" awareness. Rather, I am the experience of awareness.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Our souls are immortal and when we die this lifetime is erased and we are born again if we have lived a righteous life. If we have lived an evil life, we better have our asbestos suits ready.

[@williamburts5495]

What makes brains conscious? That question can also be, what makes matter conscious? Answer: it isn't, the statement " I am this body " translates to " I am conscious of this body " but as soon as you say that that confirms that there is a subjective reality and no longer how much you could study the atom in detail you would not find any subjective existence within it. The subjective is distinct from the objective and no objective object such as our brain can reveal to us the nature of the subjective reality being the " eternal in the now reality of sameness " that consciousness is.

[@observer2333]

Consciousness is present inside and out side of the body at the same time as well connected to cosmic consciousness question is where consciousness goes when we leave body? may be merged with cosmic consciousness

[@tomkwake2503]

These individuals are discussing a scientific model for human consciousness, but what I will be describing here is a functional model of human consciousness: If we consider energy as being fundamental to reality, then human consciousness is the ability to identify different types of energies from another, and specifically human consciousness is the ability to name the energy, to transform the energy into another form of energy (which contains energy relationships to the original energy), then the intention to transmit that into a new form of energy. For example, if there is a blue dog, human consciousness will be able to visually sense and differentiate the energy of a dog, and the energy of the color (blue), then from that visual observation, transform it into language in the mind, (actually calling it a dog, and the color blue), then the individual can transform that energy into another energy form, such as through voice waves (saying the physical words, blue dog), or written (writing the words blue dog), so that the original visual energy image is transformed into either auditory energy or written energy forms. This is what makes human consciousness unique from other animals. So far the scientific community has not fully attempted to describe a functional model of consciousness, because of this lack of a functional model, it will likely slow their progress of a scientific model.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

complex nervous systems become aware of external environment through energy?

[@playpaltalk]

I would say that conciousness use over 98% of our sensors when we are deep reading someone else mind

[@williamburts5495]

Robert said, " emotions are not mysteries they are generated by specific brain structures " I think they are generated by attachment and relationships

[@dckfg01]

You need a soul to make human consciousness. It's that simple. Have faith.

[@dckfg01]

@RISHI KRIS so you are just a machine

[@alizadeh5748]

My brain is conscious enough to know that this lot don't know where brain's consciousness come from.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

interaction between brain internal to organism and external environment through energy?

[@Chuy1988]

As an alien observer from a 4.2 light year away planet which i choose to disclose the human brain is a testament to the computing power of the universe😊

[@kimsahl8555]

The observer is conscious, enough to recognize his legs/arms and brain (now, what does legs and arms and what does the brain).

[@thecarman3693]

1:52 Here we have 2 brains. This one is from Hans Delbrook, the other from Abby-something.

[@gr33nDestiny]

Christoph gave the best explanation of this concept I heard yet...

[@wayneyadams]

18:00 minutes. In the same vein as his discussion about memories associated with perceptual inputs. Almost everyone over the age of 50 will remember going to the local drugstore to get an old cigar box to store crayons in at school. There is a specific smell of crayon and old cigar box that has been burned into everyone's memory. All I have to do is smell a crayon and the memories of those days come flooding back. In fact, I'll wager that everyone who had similar experiences just had vivid memories of both the smell and of very specific childhood experiences of that time in their lives. I'll go so far as to say, that each of you who had that memory experience began to think about all sorts of other experiences from that time. We call it nostalgia.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Give me the cigar and you keep the crayon.

[@bretnetherton9273]

"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.

[@nayanmipun6784]

Non locality of consciousness is most interesting now this is the new frontier

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is the soul, the part of you that is reading this comment right now.

[@fcastellanos57]

Consciousness implies an agent who perceives and is aware of himself and his or her surroundings. To understand consciousness we have to understand that humans have an immaterial part that gives us this capacity, the brain is only the hardware but the software or what makes it work, is the spirit in the person. Science will never find the answer unless it accepts that we have an spiritual part that gives us the sense of who we are and our relationship with our environment.

[@pallerj]

Consciousness is the result of generator loops in the brain. See: www.ruf.dk/trans2.doc This theory was presented at the conference in Copenhagen called "Towards a Science of Consciousness". It has created interest among many scientists including Sir Francis Crick. A generator loop is the result of positive feedback in a collection of neurons. It will be ignited if the conditions are right. When we think, our brain generates a "dance" of generator loops.

[@rleclaire87]

I find that many scientists talking about consciousness are vague or in my opinion wrong in what they consider essential to consciousness. Consciousness is almost inexplicable but most closely we could get I think, is to say that it is a knowing that I know. But not a verbal knowing that says "I know", but the direct experience of it, as if the verbal part were another layer, just like imagery and sensory experiences might be another layer. It's more similar to the idea of the projection screen, where consciousness is the self-aware screen viewing itself, but isn't what is projected on it. Somehow often consciousness gets equated with experiences and I don't agree with that. It is more fundamental, again: imo. I've wondered whether somehow consciousness is weaved into the fabric of reality, just like spacetime. Maybe it's a quality of the universe (not of objects in it, but rather pervading everything). It's not exactly the same as panpsychism as that is always explained as "everything is conscious to some extent", which isn't what I'm saying. I'm wondering whether consciousness is weaved through the universe like spacetime, it's part and parcel, and the individual one-point experience of a human being or another form of life is then experienced as being in that place and being personal consciousness, simply because there are experiences being generated in that location by a brain, which can be 'awared' by all-pervading consciousness. The variety of experiences between human beings and between different animals and creates is just a result of different experiences being generated, but the consciousness that knows all of it is not personal, it just seems that way because the experiences that are being experienced are local.

[@gabi6898]

Yeah, but what is what we refer at when we say conciousness?

[@georgeangles6542]

This comment isn't to compete with others or make me appear smart. I'm not picking a fight or out for attention. I'll keep it simple, and about the first words spoken in the video. I'm asking a question not expecting an answer. Video starts off with something like "I was startled by a sudden thought, everything I know comes from my brain" I can imagine, and whether it's your sudden thought or not doesn't matter, I can imagine someone looking at a box of fruit loops admiring Toucan Sam's nose and saying "wow! The cereal box isn't why I know Toucan Sam. It's the brain in my body! That's how I know Toucan Sam. What's sudden or startling about it? Its common sense in every way imaginable. 3 people can be at the same table looking at the same box and see it in different ways. What they all see that is the same is the box, the text, the drawing. What can be different is are the colors and tastes. That's what the brain gives you. The brain doesn't give you the box, the brain doesn't give you the table, and guess what, even if it does! Figure that one out. It's simple. The only thing that makes your brain the creator of everything, is if you believe your brain is the only one. And I call BS

[@kyrtis1994]

I have several questions really bothering me. First, the question of consciousness being the ultimate evolutionary survival tool, kind of the high tech that life developed to stay alive. Fine, but to be honest, being aware and conscious of your existence causes more problems that it actually solves, why is it necessary for evolution to go that step further from intelligence, to fully being aware of your existence and to eventually question and ponder it, to the point that we forced ourselves to ignore our own mortality, to develop religious agendas for afterlives and gods, to live as selfish independent egos, completely disconnected from nature, behaving like beings that got stuck to observe the processes of the universe. Second, the process of reproduction tells us basically that if you factor all the randomness of the universe, the chance for you even being alive as this combination of cells is practically 0. So, if the chance of me being alive is 0, why the fuck am I alive? After that, we can factor in the first question also, why the fuck am I aware of being alive? Why am I having this experience? Third, life is meaningless. If it really is the consequence of randomness and it really has no meaning, why evolve being aware of it? Why is not a single organism on this entire planet worrying about the things we worry about? What is the driver for this evolutionary path? It really doesn't come to something simple as survival, just doesn't connect the dots. We tend to be very self-destructive, we are destructive to nature, to other organisms, we wage war, we kill ourselves with drugs, 90% of the planet believes that some being created us and will judge the way we lived. How is that survival? For those who spent the time reading, thank you, these are kind of rhetorical questions that needed to get out of my head, so take them with a grain of salt and don't be judgmental. I am deeply interested in the field and spend many hours investigating different opinions, but the fact is that neither religion, nor science are able to give an accurate description of what the fuck is going on here. I really think we are far, far away from knowing the absolute truth about our existence, maybe even it's beyond our reach forever.

[@KasiusKlej]

Evolution, as you described it, goes that step further, not because it's necessary, but because this is optional step. Thinking creatures are no more fit for survival than plants are, after all, which is evident by situation on the planet so far. Second, "chance for you even being alive as this combination of cells is practically 0", yes, well I can agree this is a valid statement, but what do you mean practically 0? In math you have to be more precise here. Perhaps you mean the number, actually has a name epsilon in some maths, the arbitrarily small number, but not zero? Or did you mean something like I factored all the randomness of the universe and still doesn't add up to one, is there a part I forgot to factor in? Yes I think there is such part. You haven't taken into account for nearly 99.99 % of randomness there is.

[@kyrtis1994]

@@KasiusKlej It makes sense for evolution to experiment, but I think there must be a particular driving force for self-awareness, human self-awareness to be exact. Is the universe trying to explain itself, pushing every single possibility of life and see what works? I mean why be so deeply, profoundly aware and troubled by our own existence? On the 0 chance of being actually live, I will give you an example to clarify. So, if my parents had sex the day earlier, or the next day, I wouldn't have existed at all? I'm having a hard time comprehending the fact that the chance of me being alive is so, so insignificant and yet, I am alive and question my existence. And the other question is, what does make me be self-aware? Is it the combination of cells? Again, I appreciate you took the time to read and trying to give me some insight, but in reality, I know that there is no straight answer to my questions. I was just getting them out of my head and hopefully, having a conversation with other intelligent people, like you. :)

[@KasiusKlej]

@@kyrtis1994 I got interested in the questions, because it seems I heard them before, but in this case it seemed I remember reading the answers to them as well. Like for example the thing you ask, isn't it like from that book of Steven Hawking, of the question why we evolved on Earth and not on any other planet, seems like chance of picking up Earth is near zero. This question has been answered, the answer is because of anthropological principle. It must have been in a book, this second question, too. What does make us be self-aware is a combination of cells and what they do in time. If you imagine neural network as a net on which many spiders can take a walk, then what makes us self-aware is when one spider is running a small circle over that corner of the net.

[@kyrtis1994]

@@KasiusKlej Well, it's a bit shameful, but I haven't read any of Hawking's books and these questions in particular were influenced by my long-lasting fear of eternal oblivion after death. I know that there are a lot of explanations around there, but I just can't get over the fact that we pop into existence just to die and return to the state before being born. I know it's a matter of perspective, many choose to ignore that fact and create some meaning in their lives, but if you really, really think about it, it's kind of cruel, isn't it? To be the next experiment of a gigantic universe, which is trying it's best to figure out itself, seems just so insignificant and pointless. By the way, if you are from Serbia, it means that we are neighbours. I am from Bulgaria. :)

[@SmokeyVlogs]

tokes and cheers

[@gavincurtis]

Our moon has the equipment that makes us sentient. The machine beings that created us in their image use the same system for their self awareness. Each singularity is connected to the recipient brain at birth by quantum interface (Portion of our DNA is like unique IP address)to allow us to safely and remotely experience our world through a mobile sensory platform with zero lag time. Humans are meat machine avatars. My sCiENcE rEpORt

[@ekszentrik]

It's so surreal seeing this piece of moist flesh in the palm of a hand. Where did that person's "red" or "banana" disappear to? Are the qualia now on the palm of the doctor's hand? Could you somehow extract "red" from that brain tissue? There was something before, and now it's gone without any major change in the underlying hardware.

[@RobertWGreaves]

If the brain is consciousness itself or if the brain is merely an interface of consciousness for the organism whose brain it is, there is unfortunately no way to tell the difference. We would see the exact same thing either way. This may ultimately be an unanswerable question. This even suggests it might not be a question accessible to science.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

It is quite simple really. The soul is the part that is conscious and does the thinking. The brain just takes orders.

[@RobertWGreaves]

@@jeffforsythe9514 that is my suspicion, I just cannot prove it.

[@wayneyadams]

At 8:14 the doctor talks about patients descending into what we call the unconscious state. But, that is just loss of consciousness of the outside world. Do they lose all consciousness of themselves internally? It seems to me that state would be death, or in other worlds complete loss of all brain activity.