WSU: The Biology of Consciousness with Christof Koch

How can we experimentally probe consciousness? Neuroscientist Christof Koch guides you through the research he conducts at the Allen Institute for Brain Science. #WorldSciU
This lecture was recorded on May 30, 2015 at the World Science Festival in New York City.
Experience the associated free online course at World Science U: worldscienceu.com/courses/the...
0:00 - Start
The Puzzle of Consciousness - 00:00:05
Modern Understanding of Consciousness - 00:14:15
The Neural Correlates of Consciousness - 00:27:32
Integrated Information Theory - 00:41:21
Official Site: www.worldscienceu.com
Twitter: / worldscienceu
Facebook: / worldscienceu
Instagram: / worldscienceu
Subscribe: / @worldscienceu

[@CaptainFrantic]

Consciousness is an endlessly fascinating phenomenon. I cannot think of anything nearly as interesting. And so here is my "random guy" take. It seems to me that consciousness, at it's most distilled, is merely "that which observes", nothing more nothing less. I posit that consciousness has no agency whatsoever and that it merely observes that which the meat machine of our brains presents to it. I further posit that consciousness is indeed a fundamental aspect of matter (or a necessary response to events which occur) and that the brain evolved to make use of it. Maybe it turns out that there is evolutionary advantage for the brain to identify as the observer and the instigator, building an internal model of itself and then reflecting it off consciousness. I apologise for the word salad but I hope whoever reads this can make sense out of what I am trying to convey.

[@iahmmei1849]

applause... to put it in scientific terms..."me likey!"......

[@CainanParker]

I can think of something that competes for me in terms of interest, the unconscious mind.

[@CaptainFrantic]

@@CainanParker Fair point. However I would maintain that the unconscious mind is "merely" the processing and ordering of information. I guess I would relate the unconscious mind to the "neural correlates" but as you say, fascinating in it's own right. Thanks for the reply.

[@hopeanne543]

I appreciate how you worded that and I really think there is evolutionary value! We are experiencing these flesh vessels with conscious minds to evolve into everything we are constantly simulating with our thoughts

[@yurimilyutin9219]

Buddhist detected :) or at least is sounds exactly like Buddhist definition of mind

[@mizuka6501]

So happy to see these talks again!!!

[@Justinehumanity]

When I saw all these uploads, I honest-to-god squealed with giddy excitement. Thank you!

[@mizuka6501]

@@Justinehumanity Something for us to watch while on lock down!

[@Justinehumanity]

Mizuka - exactly :)

[@esmeraldaherrera6608]

I love WSF with all my brain! Thank you Christoff for a great talk.

[@STICKSANDSTONED]

Same same same

[@petroniaskho]

Amazing lecture. Even more amazing fashion sense. Mao meets Idaho. Also, I love his mustard trousers with all my brain.

[@ProfFeinman]

Means you are conscious. But it’s the perception of causality that is important. Understanding that the lecture is actually caused by the mustard trousers but his accent is under the control of his jacket. That’s the important part.

[@ryanroberts7339]

This was easily one of the best lectures I’ve seen in a while. Great job everybody

[@ryanroberts7339]

@itacs ltd It's a good amount of information at a good tempo that doesn't make me sleepy or bored or overwhelmed. I've seen several experts try to define consciousness and I think Dr. Christof really breaks down the path to the most basic version of a definition that we can muster that can translate across the science world. It showed more about what we don't know, however, rather than how much we do know and I think that's a good starting point to begin learning more.

[@gordonpepper1400]

Totally disagree (respectfully). This guy doesn't understand that consciousness is not something mysterious, but rather it is developed through man's ability to form and use language. He should study the relationship between language and identity (awareness/consciousness/subjectivity) and he will advance his understanding of the entire field.

[@katerinalabiri7051]

i am seriously amazed

[@dismalthoughts]

"Your dog doesn't sit there and think to itself, 'I'm a dog'"... that's a rather bold, *assured* statement from someone who, in the very same lecture, discussed the solipsistic idea that the only thing you can ever know is that you exist

[@kvaka009]

You misunderstood. The only thing you can be absolutely certain about is that you exist. That's not at all the same as not knowing anything except this. That doesn't even have to be solipsistic. It just means that whatever else you know, you also know that there's a you-- the one experiencing whatever it is you know.

[@dismalthoughts]

​@@kvaka009 I guess it depends on how you define "know"? I think in the context of solipsism, to "know" is defined as 100% certainty -- you can be 100% certain that you (or it might be more accurate to say consciousness) exist(s), and everything past that is varying levels of confidence below 100% (like I'm 99% confident that if I step off the top of the Empire State Building that I'll die, but I can't be absolutely certain). So yeah, if you want to say that "knowing" something means anything above, say, 90% confidence, then sure I guess you could "know", but then you're not using "knowing" in the same way that it's meant in defining solipsism. Past that, how can you ever be certain that you percentage confidence is accurate? We used to be incredibly confident that Earth was the center of the universe. When you can't even be certain that this life isn't just a matrix, how can you be certain about the confidence level of _any_ of your beliefs? And that's the point. Nothing is certain except this one thing: you/consciousness exist/s.

[@ASLUHLUHCE]

Good overview of consciousness

[@expatexpat6531]

Excellent talk. Regarding missing brain areas: I hear a lot about the plasticity of the brain, i.e. the brain rewiring itself to enable functions that were previously handled by a part of the brain that has become damaged. Is there any evidence that plasticity can re-enable consciousness or even generate consciousness that has gone AWOL? Example: Stroke patients often take time to recover and get back to a state where we recognize the personality of the individual as having been restored. Their brain is repairing itself during that time. Putting the overall question in crude terms: Can consciousness "move house" within the brain?

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Koch is moving in the right direction.

[@sawdat9376]

Hey I have a question let’s say two people have the same level of anxiety and both experience the same type of effect that triggers said anxiety. Would this preclude that both are going to react and process it the same way?

[@JimGriffOne]

I don't think it's possible to probe consciousness directly. You can probe cognitive processes at the neural level, but you're still not probing the bit that's observing those cognitive processes that are occurring.

[@seanwatts392]

Jim Griffiths right!

[@DaveTerrasidio]

amazing

[@trajklogik7304]

Regarding the 1st and 3rd person views is why do I experience "physical" brains/neurons in the 3rd person but the 1st person is not a pattern of neurons. It is experience composed of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and memories, not neurons. How do neurons create the visual experience of visual depth and empty space? It seems to me that if the one thing I can be sure of is my mind, then maybe brains are just models of other minds and the world is not "physical" at all rather the "physical" nature of the world we see is really the mental model of external processes, like other minds. In a way, the 1st and 3rd person views are one and the same as the the 3rd person is really just confusing the model with reality, or the map with the territory. We only ever have a 1st person view as the 3rd person is just how the 1st person view models the world. To say that you have a 1st person view is to say you have a 3rd person view of the world, or what else what does it mean to have a 1st person view of something?

[@0Apostata0]

Here is a question: If in our whole universe, there was not a single thing that gave rise to consciousness, therefore consciousness does not exist, does the universe exist? Can a universe exist, without being consciously observed by something? No matter how I look at this, I come to the conclusion that consciousness is the most fundamental thing in the universe. That matter does not give rise to consciousness, but consciousness gives rise to matter. Everything else, makes no sense. In my humble opinion, the materialist world view is wrong.

[@dailybookreading]

7:08 Definition of Consciousness After recognizing & Coming out of illusion

[@sohraballahyari7595]

As a brief explanation of brain functions ,When we hear human brain has the capability to sense and process a multiplex of frequencies,according to the so called five vibration secrets, hypothesis ,and also as about the pulsating mechanisms of the action of neurons,and senopsises ,they add up and confirm the digital function of the brain as part of its operational proceedure,usualy by definition of digital and logics mathematics ,having the capabilities of making comparison and matching operations ,on two or more variables or sets of datas ,frequencies and/or informations,with the eventual output of either an exact firm conclusion to chose one or a more as preferred options,once the brain function can deduct and conclude a firm undeniable result after the processing of the data inputs,can come up with an exact and output to chose one or the other or one the many as the result of its comparison mechanisms and operations. Or the best option according to the highest consistent results of evaluations ,according to probability rules of quantum mechanics,and the said above mechanism as an indication to provide some form of a clue about how can the brain act in a similar way to a digital micro processor of somekind And also what comes to mind is,that the spectaculated pulses could also be specifying analogue informations by the levels of their pulses amplitudes at the same time,which can also explain a simultaneous operation of analogue and digital taking place practicaly at the same time which may also involve an analogue comparison function as well,and all the above again can be considered as best explanation to the complex multi functions of brain .May be the obvious explanation for why the complication of input datas seemingly not being able to handled by brain frequency analysing mechanisms could be that of the brain doesnt necessarily work with one single or groups of frequencies detection and analysing mechanisms,but rather hypotheticaly handling the proceedure through analysing may be a multiple number /groups of different frequencies as encoded for that certain event or experience in its memory database,or if the arriving infos being not previously experienced then a new database file should be created for that new particular experience,through which after the event or experience are coded and portraited or embeded ,there will be a reference database created and inplaced in the memory cells of the brain,and this is the mechanism which could well illustrate the analogy in between brain function ,as compared to computer memory and database,operations. To summerise,to explain the complicated function of brain in connection with processing complex input datas and infos,the best hypothesis could be that again brain working in just the same way as of a frequency analyser/generator,but only processing several different individual /groups of frequencies by different parts of brain left and right sides each responsible for handeling certain ranges of frequencies,and to go even further down the pathway,if we should tend to assign any kind of consciousness operation interfering with the process,again that consciousness of creating some form of illusion or hollograme should and does have its own brain function mechanism creating that phenomena,meaning somekind of resonated energy most probably created by microtubules mechanisms are to be projected on a hypothetical visionary plane somewhere within the structure of the brain,and hence having said all the above the whole concept of data and information processing and decoding/generation could be explained via an almost simple multilayer frequency processing function of the brain,right freinds?

[@georgegrubbs2966]

A point of confusion in consciousness research and discussions is the term "consciousness." There is no accepted rigorous scientific definition of "consciousness." I see "consciousness" as a collective noun, much like, flock, crowd, team, automobile, and so on. The collective term takes on an identity and has characteristics, "the team was aggressive today," "the car is acting up," "the flock was beautiful winging its way overhead." Consciousness is not something separate from the brain activity; consciousness does not emerge from brain activity - consciousness is the collective noun that describe brain activity having certain characteristics. It seems to me that consciousness must start in the brainstem (the "first brain") where the sleep-awake cycle is managed. The key structure is the RAS (reticular activating system). When we wake up, the RAS sends signals to the thalamus and other structures in the deep brain (hypothalamus, basal ganglia, hippocampus, amygdala, ... ) that "boot up" from their sleep state. Signals are broadcast to all areas of the cortex that also "boot up" and then the brain is fully functional and "conscious."

[@jopmens6960]

About 25:00 there is a fascinating book: thinking fast and slow, by Daniel Kahneman. I think it is pointless to look for where consciousness resides, because if you look at various extreme neurological patient cases and other evidence... It seems our body is way too adaptive, makes do with the hardware it gets. Cf Mark Solms.

[@DeconvertedMan]

This should be fun. :D

[@greglawrencemusic]

If you were born without the ability to sense taste, touch, sight, smell, hearing, temperature, or pressures of any type, would there even be a state of consciousness?

[@dominikxxxxx9642]

Yes as there are more senses even the 'sense' of your own thoughts. In short: No senses= no consciousness :)

[@SKMalm]

Yes. As Dominik noted, awareness of thought is a conscious experience completely devoid of what we think of traditionally as "senses". Also, there are conscious states in which one can be completely separated from and unaware of sensory input while maintaining consciousness, such as with some high dose psychedelic experiences.

[@ck58npj72]

With no stimulus, likely no thought.

[@footballfactory8797]

Not necessarily, would you say you are unconscious while in deep sleep? No your still conscious as you hear your alarm clock go off, but your not conscious of anything, no thoughts no visuals. It is strange that time goes so fast or even doesn’t feel there during deep sleep.

[@greglawrencemusic]

@@footballfactory8797 without the ability to sense taste, touch, sight, smell, hearing, temperature, or pressures of any type,

[@richardvernon7019]

I Know one thing,..... my wife wouldn't be conscious if I left the house dressed like Christof....excellent lecture......., I'll always look at my Newfoundland dog as a Buddhist, now.....

[@LS-pf3bb]

Does it ‘feel like something to be a brain’?

[@patriciatorrestorresakakua4089]

I was very intrigued by the name of this conversation... I have to say that this was a big waste of time. It started good but very soon seemed that the point of the conversation was too much for the time that he had it... would I watch another conversation from this source... perhaps.

[@alpegt]

I BELIEVE CONSCIOUNESS ALLOWS FOR THE PERCEIVED REALITY, USING OUR BRAINS/MINDS.

[@kvv2199]

Do we learn consciousness?

[@UnleashTheGreen]

i appreciate the lectures a lot, i'm not a fan of the production values though. the needless drifting and switching angles and shots are distracting.

[@alexwareham8005]

You don't really need to watch it, just listen. It's meant to be informative not a visual blockbuster.

[@UnleashTheGreen]

@@alexwareham8005 i wasn't interested in a visual blockbuster, quite the opposite. "It's meant to be informative not a visual blockbuster." that is exactly my sentiment.

[@mdesm2005]

Very interesting, and good sense of humor. Towards the end, I have a problem with the skepticism of "computer" simulation of brains. Maybe these researchers don't know enough about computer technology (I do FPGA designs for a living). If every relevant aspect of the chemistry of a brain is reproduced in a simulation (including the growth of connections between synapse, the parallelism, etc) , then it must meet the definition of "consciousness". I hope was is meant is that there is no algorithm of consciousness. But a "computer", in theory, could be fast enough to simulate the life of several billion interconnected neurons.

[@abhishekshah11]

I've always wondered, what is the significance of memory in structuring human consciousness. I know that as a baby, I probably didn't know "red" is called "red", and soon a neural correlate of red developed in my head that would go on to be identified with every "red" I see. But the fact that there is something like "red", the ineffable characteristics of redness that are incident upon my state of being when I see a "red" object, has no analog to it, other than "redness" itself. Where did this "original red" come from? From genetics? I don't think that is the answer because genetics are molecules, and every combination of molecules can only result in a combination, nothing more. This is just one experience. The same can be said about sound, touch, and even the sense of self. Without being conscious yourself, you are unable to understand what the word even means. Is it a mathematical object? A state of matter? The very quantum of reality? Nonetheless, very mysterious indeed.

[@drms7768]

Well said Mr. Abhishek. One answer to the original red thing is that it is already known to the consciousness. Very often religious texts quotes”all knowing” self. One little evidence for this is Archemides came out with the law of floatation when he was relaxing in his bath tub.

[@abhishekshah11]

@@drms7768 That's an interesting observation. I wonder how long it's this catalog. Is it finite or infinite?

[@millenialmusings8451]

@@abhishekshah11 A cursory observation leads to this paradox - there are finite number of brain states (although they could measure in as high as quadrillions), however, the number of experiences you can theoretically have are infinite, given that the universe is potentially infinite (assuming every experience corresponds to a unique brain state). I think this paradox can be solved if we think about experiences (and brain states) on a continuum instead of thinking about them as consisting of discrete entities

[@desoan]

"[The enteric nervous system] doesn't seem to give rise to consciousness." It could, but it doesn't have its own motor or speech apparatus to convey this (assume that an apparatus like that could report on its conscious state). It sounds like he assumes that any instance of consciousness from one body has to be experienced by his current instance (ie. the one claiming the ENS doesn't have consciousness), which seems like a random unsupported premise. In general, making claims about consciousness from our experienced narrative doesn't seem very fruitful.

[@hypnouncensored]

We now know that we have neuron-like cells in the heart…so “I love you with all my heart” still works.

[@janklaas6885]

📍27:32

[@shubhamkumar-nw1ui]

We could one day discover the most fundamental particle from which everything is made of ,or maybe discover the most fundamental laws from which all the other laws arrive but i highly doubt we could ever find the reason why a thing purely material suddenly starts to have conscious experience

[@DeconvertedMan]

Could you turn "on" the part of the brain that "sees red" and make the person see red even though they are not, in fact, seeing red? O_O;

[@richardgamrat1944]

I am pretty sure you can do something along those lines.

[@vitordelima]

Yes. people who may be close to this presenter are illegally testing such technology on people since years ago.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@vitordelima got evidence of that?

[@vitordelima]

@@DeconvertedMan For this person specifically, no, but search about cyber-torture in any good search engine.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@vitordelima ooo its on the INTERNET. Well it *must* be true then (rolleyes)

[@kotovdotin2167]

Please feel free to share my website, you can MAKE BLOTTER PICS there!

[@tenzinsoepa7648]

30:00

[@kevinanthony8687]

His outfit is legit

[@ASLUHLUHCE]

"A lot of perception is a con job"

[@pmatti01]

A mistake Christof makes is his assertion that it is a fact that the brain causes consciousness rather than just a popular mainstream theory. He largely dismisses the hard problem of consciousness, which is still unsolved within the physicalist paradigm, that is no one has been able to show how consciousness arises out of matter. In this regard he makes an obvious mistake in his interpretation of Neural correlates of consciousness, by describing these lit up areas of the brain as being causal rather than correlations (as in the name). I would suggest that anyone with a genuine interest in gaining a deeper understanding of consciousness should look up Bernard Kastrup.

[@miroslavmilosavljevic377]

Good point!

[@hendrikstrauss3717]

In my estimation, consciousness is an emergent phenomena of the social realm. Humans symbolize themselves as they know they are perceived by alter egos as independent actors in their own right. Alter egos acknowledge ones capability to meaningfully select(select oriented to the future) and expect the same from the ego(as the ego is alter ego for them). This is expected by both parties and makes for an interesting case of double (complicated term but wait a second) contingency. Both humans act in a way, that they could have acted otherwise, just as evolution could have been otherwise in innumerable cases. To deal with that complex, and the baffling nature of the argument is a showcase for that, situation and communicate in it, the mental model of ones self in the relation to the situation has to be attained. To navigate in the social system(Term coined by Niklas Luhmann). The sphere of complexity of social interactions. This is only possible due to language which offers possibilities of communication otherwise not attainable and in that line complicates the whole thing.

[@SYSM71]

I woked up as well.

[@cvan7681]

Or Don Hoffman, Menas Kafatos and Nima Arkani-Hamed

[@tstecksuan]

Why did you day we are not conscious when we are in deep sleep? It that is true, we will never wake up once in deep sleep.

[@user985121]

Great talk, it's a shame the talk ended with a conclusion that gave no new clues about what consciousness could be and where to look for it

[@millenialmusings8451]

That's because we're really clueless about the things you mentioned. He was honest in admitting that we're in the dark about consciousness, unlike some others who are dead sure and confident about what it is or is not (looking at you Dan dennet)

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Nobody knows where consciousness comes from and what happens to it after we die.

[@highvalence7649]

Maybe it doesn't come from anywhere. Maybe it's a so called 'brute fact' - a fact which cannot be further explained (or a fact that explains itself). And maybe the same fundamental thing happens to consciousness as what always happens to consciousness. What do you think happens to consciousness between one moment to the next?

[@jewels454]

The Heart feels and we have gut feelings. We are electrical beings with energy fields. Who is to say our consciousness is located in the brain. Could it be flowing through our torus shaped electrical field?

[@staudingerk]

It is not yet answered how consciousness is generated and more importantly what consciousness is. What if brain does not generate consciousness? It is time to open our mind to more nuanced approaches.

[@millenialmusings8451]

You can muse all you want. If you're convincing enough you can even start a new religion and grift the naive and gullible, like countless prophets and saviors of humanity have done in the past. Good luck 😊

[@jukeproject]

Actually, IIT (as far as I understand it) holds that brains are not the only thing that instantiates consciousness - they are merely exceptionally good at integrating information.

[@rezadaneshi]

Not that I know enough... But once we define life correctly, we'll find that biology is the ultimate evolution of chemistry, what we think of as consciousness is the ultimate evolution of biology, science is the ultimate evolution of superstition and we'll redefine God as a set of 20+ constants from which, the quantum particles were permitted to practice the Google plex number of combination on the fabric of space time for lack of a better definable concept, to leave behind the most universe at the lowest energy cost of matter. Critical mass seems to be a constant law, in how the Continuously expanding universe seem to be a medium that ultimate gravity can bring back together all the mass that can fit on a head of pin and blow up on an existing vast space time it had created from the time before. Maybe on every rebirth, it expands faster because it has thinned out the fabric with the fields of its particles trying to come toward zero energy. It's a nice thought experiment without clutter or glitch. Maybe gravity is never going to unite with nuclear forces and unified theory is a good enough excuse to Exercise expanding our consciousness in the web's we weave in explaining parallel and alternate universes, being the current superstitions in the way of what we can never know with our time Restricted existence. I hope you're smiling.

[@MikeKleinsteuber]

A lot of words but very little said

[@millenialmusings8451]

You're just sad that he didn't say what you wanted to hear..

[@bobroberts7643]

Color blind?

[@NoahsUniverse]

Ehh...

[@andecap1325]

Acually humans become self aware or "self conscious" at 18 months.

[@dominikxxxxx9642]

Well, what you refer to is experiments (e.g. dirt, face, mirror) where we infer from the behavior some kind of self consciousness. What Mr. Koch talks about is the full spectrum of the average human self consciousness fullly developed at about the age of 30 (statistical scattering always applies of course) :-D Thus, self consciousness can be there before 18 months after birth, depending on its definition, testing and individual development.

[@dominikxxxxx9642]

@Megan H Sounds like you are on the right path to understanding of consciousness. Consciousness is as always a defintion problem and updated now and then. If I take the current understanding even the Internet itself is consciousness (if self-consciousness, another question, yet a cool and creepy one). One thing ist clear though. consciousness occures when certain patterns occur, what particular patterns isn't clear yet or to what extend we define it still as consciousness. I mean if I take your univiersal approach for example, then I could even label the univers as such to be consciousness. (Hint: brain with its neurons and neural connections vs. particles and forces connecting them or even quantum entanglement on a even more tiny level of reality) Take care and enjoy your consciousness in this particular permutation of the (multi/uni)-verse :)

[@vitordelima]

It depends on the person, some ethnic groups are known for their lack of consciousness.

[@ASLUHLUHCE]

Self awareness (like recognising yourself in a mirror) isn't the same as consciousness

[@andecap1325]

@@ASLUHLUHCE What is "self conscious" in your opinion?

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

There are only brains, no minds

[@millenialmusings8451]

When are you collecting your Nobel Prize

[@Gerardemful]

This science chauvinst should read some Fichte, Hegel and Vedanta.

[@millenialmusings8451]

Omg you're so smart.. And edgy 😱

[@davidaemayhew]

So far nothing.