Christof Koch - Is Consciousness Fundamental?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 2024
- The great challenge is explain consciousness-the inner experiences of sense, thought, intent, feelings. It's what David Chalmers calls 'The Hard Problem' of consciousness. Is our mental life a random accident, solely the product or byproduct of physical brain? Or is conscious awareness deeply special, perhaps revealing hidden realities of how the world works?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/3Dn6SOW
Christof Koch is a neuroscientist best known for his work on the neural bases of consciousness.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Being solipsistic, I'm constantly surprised by the clever people my imagination creates! 😊
Great comment 😁
Man.... Lol
😂
Thanks me.
Creates?! Or processes/experiences?
Defines or realizes the defined? Fun times
What we call the physical is just a particular subset of what has been viewed in consciousness. It is undisputed between Physicalists and Non Physicalists that all we have ever known are first person experiential states. From this - all objects, all things have been encountered within consciousness. If there is a truest objective mind independent world - we have never known it and could never know it. It is an abstraction, an idea of floating maths equations with no subjective qualities - even though those very equations are themselves just descriptions of our seemingly overlapping subjective qualitative viewpoints. When we talk of consciousness, we speak of the blueness of the sky, the pain of a stomach ache. How could it be that the brain is separate from this? No matter how deeply and concisely we analyse the brain - the thing we are analysing is a mere appearance within consciousness. It is like the blueness, the pain, etc. How could it be that the forms of something appearing in consciousness (the brain) is the ultimate cause for consciousness itself? We are borrowing something from our consciousness, and plunging it into some metaphysical beyond. Pursuing an explanatory model of how states of the brain generates conscious experience is essentially equivalent to studying how the shapes and movements of flames in fire - caused the ignition. It is a circular abstraction. It is not consciousness happening in my head - rather my head appearing in consciousness.
That went way over my head, say again shipmate?
@@Bringadingus I don’t mean to have overdressed my position with complicated words - what is it that doesn’t make sense ?
What we call consciousness is a subset of physical. Consciousness is a complex networks of connections made by the brain. When our eyes detect light passing through earth's atmosphere other wavelengths of light are absorbed and blue light is scattered. This causes our brain to attach the quality of blue to the light that our eyes detected. In your example consciousness did not hold anything it merely looked out and attached meaning to what was happening physically. Also your argument is self defeating because it clearly demonstrates physical reality gives rise to consciousness.
Congratulations you unwittingly made my argument for me. Consciousness in your example becomes an abstraction because it reverts to merely attributing meaning to physical reality. Consciousness can hold an abstract model of an object but it has no direct access to the object in itself.
@@Mr.Batsuperior Basically what my opinion is - is that consciousness is in fact fundamental. If we take the original point that all we have ever been subjected to is our own consciousness, What we call the brain - is just something that has been viewed in consciousness. So trying to reduce all of consciousness to the activity of one thing viewed in consciousness- is like trying to explain how flickers of flames cause the spark/ignition.
Refer to Kant
Such an underrated channel , Robert one day your work will be admired and appreciated much much more than it's now .
Respect !
These are clips from a television show that's been on the air since 2020.
He's recognized.
This is just a place to see "best of" clips.
What's it rated?
@@It__From__Bit It's really odd how many people that comment on this channel think Kuhn is just a guy with a CZcams channel trying to get known.
These are clips from a television show that's been on and off the air (mostly on) since the year 2000.
Kuhn is extremely well known and acknowledged not just for CTT but is also a successful author and international business consultant.
How do they think he has managed to have numerous Nobel Prize laureates and world renowned scientists and philosophers on his show?
They also don't notice that these video clips are obviously spread across a wide span of years as Kuhn's appearance as well as those of frequently appearing guests clearly indicates.
It's rated G btw.
Oh well...
@@b.g.5869 I never noticed anyone saying that. But I'll take your word for it. LOL
@@It__From__Bit The person your responding to said as much (i.e. "Such an underrated channel 😔... some day you'll get the recognition you deserve Robert 😉!" etc).
They're ubiquitous.
They'll say stuff like "You're so prolific Robert! How do you find the time to make all these videos? And they're getting better! Keep it up!" with respect to a 15 year old clip.
“One water molecule is not wet, you take a bunch of them and put them together and then you get wet”. Don’t forget to mix in conscience awareness since “wetness” exists only in the mind of a consciousness being.
Nope, wet effect emerge from molecular properties, it is the way how EM force fields rub against each other. Playing with magnets turned on the same poles feels kinda wet, for example.
@@xspotbox4400 Subjective interpretation
@@xspotbox4400 FEELS kinda wet.... yet no consciousness reqd, lololol
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt Exactly, wet and magnetic is not the same even when both phenomena arise from the same force field, so conscious experience can easily be fooled.
@@xspotbox4400 You're not thinking deep enough. Matter is not aware of "wetness". "Wetness" exists only in the mind of a conscious being. EM waves perhaps exist independent of mind, but the color "blue" is only known to conscious minds. No conscious mind, yes EM waves, no color blue. No wetness.
What a wonderful conversation. Thank you!
The truth is that we cannot proof that there’s anything besides consciousness since everything happens in consciousness. Without it experience of any kind cease to exist . So we have a problem here…
Well put, I’m gonna write this down
... we can see the moon, because of the light from the sun ... this information is rendered by the brain ... but surely without conscious experience in any life form on earth, the structure of the sun and moon still remain ...
@@dn1697 what makes it possible to know this in the first place?
@@dn1697 not so fast--if Humans and our consciousness weren't aware of the Cosmos, then it didn't happen.. You want things to exist without consciousness?? without consciousness, there is absolutely nothing.
Well, does the physical world exists outside of consciousness but we're only able to perceive it through consciousness? Or are you saying that Consciousness is all that exists?
Consciousness is fundamental to first person experience, and first person experience is all we know
It's really refreshing to hear a scientist say that other animals have consciousness, such as a bee encountering nectar and feeling happiness. That's so wonderful.
I’m a scientist and I always figured lower life forms had conscious experience, feelings, emotions. I find it pretty shocking when people don’t. But basically the smaller the brain, probably the less sophisticated. You won’t have a flea pondering the nature of existence. They will have emotions like us, feel pain, just not at the depth we do.
@@weirdsciencetv4999 I wish more scientists saw consciousness the way you do. And I'm really surprised they don't. What you say about different levels of consciousness makes perfect sense.
I suspect (but don't know) the vast majority of biologists think consciousness is not limited to humans.
Edit to pontificate further...
Your nectar analogy is a good one. Does the brain of a nectar-consuming species perceive searching for and finding nectar with some level of consciousness? I think we don't know.
Going deeper, is a tree growing towards the sun perceiving light with some level of consciousness? What about the motility machinery of bacterium propelling it towards a glucose gradient?
If not, where in the biological realm do physical processes become this thing we call consciousness? To think it's solely a characteristic of human biology seems unconvincing.
@@mikel5582 Yes, I agree. I do sometimes encounter people that think spiders can’t feel pain or flys feel fear. But just doing a personal accounting of all my peers and colleagues, they all believe animals and lower life forms have consciousness.
@@weirdsciencetv4999 I don't presume to know the mind of a fly but the flight pattern of a house fly in my kitchen, evading my attempts to swat it, is a remarkable product of evolution.
The same can be said of the butterfly flittering about in a seemingly random fashion while it deposits eggs on my vegetables in a manner that increases the probability of successful reproduction. That's all fun until I notice the caterpillars devouring my veggies.
Explained very clearly. This is what i was looking for . Cleared up my confusion
Oooo. I really liked this - more Christof Koch please
This guy was great!
Can't even understand wat the heck he saying
One other thing to add is that there is potentially a case to be made that a long connection through space and time of 'elements' of consciousness as a closed-system can explain why we have individual subjective experiences that continue over time. Like a line or even a web connecting each conscious experience from the moment our mind emerged in the womb to the moment we die and that all of that (i..e collecting of experiences) remain constantly connected and through this persist as a single entity. It doesn't explain much about why consciousness is but just some ideas really.
The hardest question of all about consciousness is: "Given the 8 billion human consciousnesses wandering the planet right now, how is it that I am THIS one and not THAT one?" In 1980, a new person was conceived inside my mother, and for some reason, that particular baby was ME, and not you. I am here, and you are over there. I am this consciousness and you are that consciousness.
... ??!
You’re touching on dissociation. Consider dissociated minds under DID or MPS. Go listen to some talks by Bernardo Kastrup
From an intuitive nonscientific approach, I could envision consciousness (the awareness of existence) as a grand law of everything that expresses itself as the base fundamental field that allows all other quantum fields to exist and persist at one time or another. At the very least, this would mean that the “consciousness field”, through the influence on various quantum fields, could influence the interaction and status of a given particle/wave and its properties. (This would undergird every from of complex matter especially biological) At the beginning, this consciousness field could’ve substantiated causality and in turn allowed for the dimension of time to persist in our universe due to the grand awareness of location as our universe’s space-time fabric (and all its intricately interacting constituent parts) propagates across this infinite consciousness field. And of course, our own consciousness could be one of many derivatives of this process as it evolves in tandem with but not limited to the propagating universe.
Yes consciousness is fundamental, reality and our body (brain, eyes, ears,..) is virtual. Our body is just the physical constraint of the actual learning lesson for our fundamental player consciousness. Our decisions wouldnt have any meaning without virtualization. And our nonlocal player is part of the nonlocal information system consciousness. Which is embedding all the virtual realities not just this virtual universe.
Infinite Consiousness
This is so interesting !
Robert is slowly morphing into Albert Einstein . ( in hair style
at least )
He could play Eistein lol 🤣
Fascinating interview.
The problem here is to try proving anything without using consciousness.
The problem here is to try proving anything without using consiousness in the Infinite Consiousness
I agree that there's some inherent philosophical paradox in there. Just throwing this out there for discussion. If we used AI/ML to produce conclusions regarding the nature of consciousness, would that circumvent the paradox? Of course, the system would have been programmed by conscious beings and we'd be evaluating the conclusions though our conscious lens.
@@mikel5582 I think it may be possible that AI will get to the point where it can emulate consciousness one day, but as you say, we would be stuck with the same problem in whether that means real consciousness for the AI, as we would have to use our consciousness to be able to evaluate that.
It is undoubtedly an intriguing paradox to me.
Another paradox is if all we are is a brain, why don't we know everything about the brain?
Great guest!!!❤❤❤
Aatmiya DIVINITY
HARE KRSNA
Experiencing amazing 'Contentment' hearing this dialogue *Is Consciousness Fundamental*? and sharing personal points of view on this subject.
Evolution of 😊❤NATURE - (Immortal - Unmanifested) to Manifestation of 😂😂 rocks, plants, animals, and human beings including DIVINE You and me (Mortal), KRSNA having Name, Form, Energy, Matter.
DIVINE, when we know # Consciousness is Fundamental. # Consciousness is Sufficient.
# Consciousness permitting Objects of Experience to appear in it and producing AWARENESS.
# Consciousness is Not Saying -
Not Hearing.
Not Moving -
Not STOPPING. Then does one needing to study Consciousness?
Consciousness is within my self ❤😊😊 JIVATMA and Consciousness is without also, PARAMATMA.😊😊❤
ALL the Objects of Experiences we observe being Conscious and creating AWARENESS are OF the Universe and they all are IN the Universe only.
Very respectfully Loving 💕 ING You One and All DIVINE ❤️ NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Great opinion!
Between classic phisics and consciousness resides not a formula but an algorithm.
Another important point is the essence of mind is our true consciousness is non-verbal itself. Sound is physical representation of the word and the word has its own representation in the non-verbal central part of consciousness.
Life as we know it is the complex collocation of physical filters and adapters existing on different levels and keeping the homeostasis as good as it is possible.
But for sure reason of consciousness existence is fundamental property of matter: as you can build any 3D structure with bricks indeed specific organization of energy will determine a self-conscious replicating algorithm.
The main issue regarding consciousness is our lack of knowledge on how the human brain operates and the assumptions we make.
Most religions claim that there is a metaphysical explanation for consciousness through the existence of a soul but that's an unfalsifiable claim. As for the study of the brain itself, that's still very much in its infancy.
So at this point, it's probably best to admit that we don't know and continue to try and crack the code...
@@Bringadingus As a 100% reductionist who has spent the last several decades researching biology at the molecular level, I think your confidence is premature. I think that some day we _might_ understand consciousness as a physical property but, for now, it's still quite mysterious. That doesn't mean that I propose throwing in the towel and claiming that some sort of supernatural woowoo is behind it. I respect people's choice to adopt a woowoo explanation if that works for them but I draw the line when they insist on promoting that woowoo as some sort of absolute truth.
@@Bringadingus this is a typical answer of human arrogance.
We are far from knowing the mysteries of a human being. We have taken shortcuts on most projects, that's why we don't fully understand in details many researches on a bright scale.
Why dont we have the all healing pill, why haven't we found other existences in space, why can't we revive a dead person, simply because we dont have the knowledge yet.
@@mikel5582 Very well said. Whilst I am not a reductionist/physicalist and don’t believe that the brain (or anything) can cause consciousness, you have really nicely articulated why we can’t say we have ‘explained’ consciousness. Much respect to you!
@@Sierpinskiii Thanks. I try to be impartial but, like all humans I am biased by ego and emotions.
@@mikel5582 I appreciate that you are trying to be fair. But it nevertheless appears that you are (perhaps unintentionally) setting up a false strawman dichotomy between scientific reductionists like yourself, and those opposed who adhere to the fundamental nature of consciousness, as all being followers of "supernatural woowoo." Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm sure you are familiar with scientists/physicists/mathematicians like Alan Wolf, Donald Hoffman, Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, and many many others who now opine that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon in the universe. And of course there is, in accord, the entire Hindu/Buddhist traditions (more recently represented philosophically by what's generically referred to as the "Perennial Philosophy") who have, for approximately 5000 years or so, delved into the vast depths of human consciousness on a personal and experimental level. For us to, a priori, ignore or dismiss the insights of these latter individuals who have chosen that spiritual path, without first going there ourselves, represents the heights of scientific hubris.
fascinating and marvelous
Koch loses credibility by suggesting that science has discovered how natural processes make inorganic matter "alive". There is still huge debate within the community on this question.
That certainly stood out.
Great interview! One comment though. Kristof says life is explained, I'm not so sure it is. The deeper you look the weirder it gets. Also, what if life is somehow related to consciousness?
Considering that non-humans vastly outnumber humans, it does make me wonder why we happen to be born humans? Maybe, just maybe, consciousness is a single force/entity but provides the illusion of linear time and one life at a time - but when we live a life of say a Bee, moments feel fleeting (like we're there, then suddenly we're there - like half asleep) and our lives go much faster when we have smaller brains. But then when we have a life with a larger brain, it seems to last much longer because the lights are on much stronger and so we do not miss many moments unless we are deeply asleep in non-REM sleep or under anaesthetic. This then results in an experience whereby lives we have w/ larger brains feel much longer than lives w/ smaller lives, suddenly removing the mystery as to why we happen to occupying the lives of particularly intelligent beings (relatively speaking) right now and it's not just pure luck.
Yet we look at something thinks it's soft and we actually go touch it and it's rougher than what we really thought or expected still sounds like our body parts are able to fill and help our brain assess or our consciousness assess. I feel a bug bite on my leg my brain didn't know that that bug was there til my leg alerted me like ouch something just bit me.
A good definition of consiousness, is that with a brain. It is true, your eyes do not see, your brain does. Each animal absorbs the universe into their being. It is their universe. It is your universe. It is my universe. Our experience of the universe is internal, and the illusion is that it is external or of the external. Our brains are complex enough to absorb within it the observed vastness and age of the universe. Our brains likely can contain all knowledge which can be learned of the universe, but consiousness at it base is the interpretive aspect animal life has to source energy and avoid being lunch. Our level of consciousness is more complex because our conscious desire to not be the lunch of something stronger and faster has reverted to the subconscious disconcern of such notions because the likelyhood of such an occurance in miniscule. Knowing you are conscious is easy when you compare animals and humans to computers. We all see and experience the world differently because consciousness is diverse throughout the animal kingdom.
Our level of consciousness, has understanding from each of the animals in the kingdom. We can plan ahead like the squirrel and can strategize like a pack of lions. Consciousness exist in the animal kingdom because every animal knows it is real, it's life is real, the universe is real, and that they have to guarantee their own survival. Humans have in addition to consciousness rationality. Therefore, we might be irrational, and for some, irrational all of the time.
It's physics, but the design is something of the universe. You need to understand that the information of the universe, which we represent, allows for consciousness. We are information the universe has created to give rise to consciousness. You need a brain, but you don't need as much uranium to build a bomb. Trees aren't conscious, fungi isn't conscious, you don't need consciousness to be alive. Trees communicate with other trees however. Community is something we have in common with trees, and the combination of community and consciousness with rational behavior is extremely strong by comparison to all the power possessed by the other communities and consciousnesses on Earth.
Woke up from a childhood dream repeating "numbers are the root of nature". No idea what it meant. Decades later this makes me wonder. Given enough minds with both feet on the ground and sharp broard perspectives like these two and there could be a break thru in the transparent bubble of consciousness.
Does anyone else love Christop’s shirt??😊
well its design and color scheme (to me) says "renegade scientist here" and i definitely like that
A guy like Freud talks about pre-conscious, conscious mind and unconscious mind. Here folks make it look like only consciousness matters. The consciousness does not operate on its own. When one wonders about much of the consciousness is physical based one needs to take a look at stuff like pre-conscious and unconscious also.
When the Hindu’s invoked “Gyan”, knowledge, as the term for consciousness, they were possibly saying the same thing that Koch and Tunoni are now calling, “integrated information”. I admire their work. However … Their neologisms are so European in their pretensions: completely gain say all work that preceded them, sometimes by millennia, try and rediscover it, and act like they are the authors of it. Like calling Chomulungma, “Mt. Everest”.
From my perspective, we have two choices. We can either believe that the universe was created by an entity that designed extreme suffering and extreme judgment as part of its plan ... or, we can believe (as did Stephen Hawking, before he died) that the universe always existed, and will always exist ... no creator or creation involved. I don't know about you, but I relate to the following quote ... “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
Could consciousness be an ability to sense and feel causation?
That's a dumb question.
Consciousness is non-physical, so no law of physics can describe it. Our brain is just like a radio receiver.
does the physical world exists outside of consciousness but we're only able to perceive it through consciousness? Or are you saying that Consciousness is all that exists?
Consciousness by definition is non physical because physical things can only be exhaustedly described in terms of properties spin charge mass voltage a long list of numbers.
@@mrbwatson8081 Charge was non-physical before the coulomb was defined?
@@mikel5582 charge is a description of how a given particle will interact with another particle, it’s an entirely physical, quantifiable thing
@@Sam-hh3ry Yeah, my point was that there was a time when charge was not a quantifiable entity yet it was still a physical phenomenon. We currently have no tools to describe consciousness in physical terms. Perhaps it's not a physical phenomenon so no such description is possible. Alternatively, perhaps we simply aren't sophisticated enough to do so currently; like we once weren't sophisticated enough to describe and measure charge.
Choice is fundamental to existence, and choosing is what consciousness does. It's all it does. Proclivity to choose being inversely proportional to awareness, the scope of ones perspective.
Time began and existence itself sprang from the eternal idea: Yes, upon its first and only available choice: No. The first principle simply allows it, but something had to cause dis-allowance and thus latency to produce a cycle of time. There's no time without lag and no lag without resistance, and since Yes is the default, No must be a choice. Yes, absolute allowance, must choose No. Which of course is not absolutely allowed because it isn't possible without the potential inherent to the first principle. Clear enough?
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
James 1:19 KJV
Maybe we should take the time to think about what word we're going to use and how we're going to use that word so that way we speak right things and not just a bunch of Babel but speak orderly.
@@Bringadingus hey why don't you go ahead and prove it to be babble, because until you can I will not delete that comment.
@@Bringadingus guess what I heard him say something and then I ordered my speech to what he said I'm not just babbling off the top of my head.
@@Bringadingus so with your name being bring a dingus you're saying you bring something that you don't know what it is?
@@Bringadingus God makes it know, reveals, through Jesus Christ and his word of the Bible given.
I wonder if consciousness has a lot to do with higher dimensions of space if they actually exist? It would open up some very new ways of looking at the problem.
We need to add an extra category to our understanding which is not similar to the sciences because they work on a longer wavelength of thinking which doesn't get us into the frequency with which our consciousness work.
Interesting. Similar to additional dimensionality.
Christof Koch is my new favorite scientist. i'm sure people will slam me for saying such a silly thing as "favorite scientist"
Never knew Einstein was also a interviewer.So many struggles still managed to make it.
There's an ontological gap between life and matter, therefore between body and consciousness. One is spiritual energy and the other is material energy. There's no gap between organic and inorganic matter. They're just different combinations of the same material energy.
Actually, there are 4 fundamental natural forces, all of them might converge into a single energy potential at some scale. This is why scientists believe the entire universe came from force of singularity.
Where do you see some illusive spiritual energy separated from natural physical forces that obviously exist is beyond me.
Except that no one has explained how you go from the inorganic to the organic world. Not even close. But the answer from the scientist is always the same: "Just give us time and we'll figure everything out!" LOL.
Yes, he blithely assumed that to be conclusive.
Yea, I caught that also. If he knows how to go from dead to live he really should share it with the rest of us.
Agreed, I'm so tired of hearing that hackneyed old fallacious argument.
Regardless of the mechanism, what else could it be? There's evidence that there was once a world void of organic matter and now the world has organic matter. If we accept that premise then organic matter either arose from inorganic matter, popped into existence through some other route of generation, or came to earth from some extraterrestrial source (which still wouldn't explain its origins).
I'm sure the scientific community would be thrilled for you to provide some insights on this topic.
@@mikel5582 I only have problems when scientists say "we know", when they don't. They have theories--some testable, and many not. And I sense the underlying sarcasm, as if no one but a scientist is allowed to weigh in on a topic that they are not an expert in. This is the perfect situation to add the choice of "designer" to the list of possible scenarios. Some people don't like that since it is scientifically untestable, but it's a logical option nonetheless.
1.) Nothing we perceive means anything
2.) We give all the meaning to everything we perceive
3.) Objective science based reality is still a perception. Now go back to the first rule and repeat... We are on a merry go round that exists for as long as time does.. however time only exists in the perceivers " mind" or what we could call his/her/there perception.. now again back to rule #1
How can plant consciousness be explained?
It's interaction in the quantum realm. All actualities, plants and people, owe their origin to the infinite potential from which all arises. It is, simply because it can be. Consciousness is the substratum in which it knows itself, with which it knows and out of which it's made. Peace and happiness seems to be amis behind the body. Mind world notions.
Every complex and internally connected system shall have consciousness, might be true but is a statement ahead of time. Humanity has to wait for the definite answer.
Thanks, I wonder if science will figure out consciousness in my lifetime...
Does consciousness program time?
Can reality crash or get hacked?
Not sure time is something you program?
Thus spoke the materialist
I don't know. But they say that reading is.
Ravens have an EQ of 4.1, chimps 4.2, humans 8.1
If what matters is cerebral cortex. Why can't we engineer an existing species, such as a crow or raven to have a larger skull and a brain with more cortex?
It would be interesting research.
RLK,
Consider the following possibility:
All elementary particles possess MOBILITY in unique directions and quantity, both of which can be calculated using definite completely theoretical formulae.
Forget the standard model, but link the effect of these particles to sense, need and number perceptions and growth of plants.
And if we shift the criterion of proof of the formulae that derive this single property of matter, from experiments and observations that present Galileo~Newtonian physics follows, to PRACTICAL SATISFACTION OF NEEDS OF ALL BEINGS, then it is possible to derive all properties of matter (mass, charge, spin, time, temperature,.... , sense and need perseptions, hence also consciousness and life) as functions of this single property of all matter.
That way the concepts of forces and energy would become superfluous, as particles possess MOBILITY and all properties, including rest, become resultants of interaction among diffeent particles with diffrent MOBILITY.
The formulae pave the way for direct application to plants without mineral based periodic table of elements.
As all minerals are excreta of plants present attempt to derive consciousness as a function of the minerals based elements of the periodic table is not different from trying to define life as a function of excreta (urine, saliva, stool, tear and sweat).
I think it's fundamental. I don't see how consciousness could emerge from 'conciousless matter'. Complex systems only arrange it in an intensified manner, just like nuclear fission happens in every U atom, but you need a critical mass for self-sustaining reaction
Qunta akashic record linear energy 3d atom . ?
Consciousness creates the world and the world is Consciousness.
So consciousness created me and you, why do you think it did that?
@@richardc861 So it could experience itself.
No it didn't ...
@@Moodboard39 any ideas on what created the world and us?
@@richardc861 I don't think anybody knows from what or where the universe arose. I don't think Xcel Golf's assessment can be proved wrong but I also don't think it adds much to the discussion beyond what every curious person must surely have asked themselves before reaching adulthood.
Doubtful human beings will ever advance to a level where they are able to define Consciousness in worldly terms. If we could we would already be God!! It will remain an experience that can only perhaps loosely be manifested as emotions and feelings. This is truly a topic beyond science. Just as the mystery of that instant before the big bang !!!
Why would the conscious status of SEEING someone, or TALKING to someone, be different from the conscious status of FEELING sad? Why is Koch so intrigued by the last status but not the first two?
Consciousness is a force.
Koch opinions changed, that ugly room not... lets take it as a victory anyway !!
I believe he means both awareness and self-awareness cannot be mere functions of complex systems. If this is true, then there is a fundamental and irreducible aspect of all consciousness that is unknown at this point.
The end game will find consciousness is primary. All life is animated by consciousness. The more sophisticated a brain, the more that consciousness can be expressed and express. There are hive and herd consciousness, shared by the constituent life forms. Human beings are just much more individualized, but still very much of a herd nature.
One could start by asking a foundational question. Why do the individual Quantum particles interact with one another in self organizing patterns? This is a constant from the smallest state to the largest. There must be some, as yet undefined, force that compels this. A force that is as measurable and consistent as any of the other fundamental forces in the universe. Figure out a way to measure or mathematically express that Self-Organizing principal and we may step closer to understanding how complex systems that express awareness might emerge as a predictable state.
This is an oversimplification, of course. And ,I am in no way implying a divine consciousness. I am postulating that we might consider that the State of Existence, its' self, is in some sense attempting to evolve toward higher forms of organization and expression. Could that not bring rise to Consciousness as a predictable outcome?
Just a thought.
Remember kids, be humble, be respectful,
and own your dignity like you can afford to share it.
Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
Is physics the product of conciousness? Are all scientific disciplines the product of conciousness? Is our 'Reality' the product of conciousness?
"..conventional science can explain how we get from the inorganic to the organic world.." Proteins and amino acids are all organic structures, but it's a far jump from that to an eating and dying lifeform.
Not a very conscientious guest this time around, but very open and garrulous.
@@Bringadingus Whilst I completely agree with the sentiment of your comment, he (Koch) had nothing to do with the discovery of DNA.
@@Bringadingus lets say "all the steps" are "unraveled" and your theory looks something like this - when you have these sets of neurons forming these special group of patterns having a unique sets of properties such as them firing precisely in a certain fashion with absolutely so and so concentrations of so and so biochemicals, altogether coalescing to "create" the "redness" of a rose or some other subjective experience. Do you not find yourself making the magical claim you seem to be afraid of ? Supposing neuroscience does the best it can (which i hope it does) all it can say is either a process or a state of the brain fundamentally is "equivalent" to consciousness. It can never principally give reasons as to why a certain subset of interactions give rise to experience while some do not. From the perspective of physical laws it doesn't make sense to define isolated brains as there aren't any. There is just one physical system that is the universe. Therefore your theory and any such respectful theory for that matter would fail to explain how individual separate conscious viewpoints can arise from a seemingly unified and interconnected universe. This is the problem of personal identity. Therefore if you were to look closer in any such theory you find this magical jump/ panpsychist claim that without any reason jumps from the world of neurons to consciousness and back.
There is no such thing as consciousness
if by 'consciousness' one means something other than a process.
This discussion about consciousness
is like discussing the point atop a pyramid
without first discussing everything beneath it
including its foundation.
What I mean is,
wouldn't it be better to first nail down what a thought is
since thoughts are what consciousness is made of?
Prove it!
After 5 more years,Koch will take much more refined view that Consiousness is fundamental and rest are explained by Consiousness..
I noticed that you noticed
That's funny I can explain everything that goes on and what happens in my brain when analyzing anyting
With the unlimited potential of creation there was nothing to do but make the meaningless meaningful. Thus the objective reality created the subjective reality. Or was it the subjective that created the objective?
Outside or our experience there is no meaning other than creation itself. So that is why we do the things that we do. Love, art, engineering, everything is an act of creation. Even in the death and struggle of life we can observe the hardship and take measures to abate it such as we have with medicine, meditation, drugs, kindness, generosity, respect, honor, etc and we punish those who compel suffering as a consequence as we should given harming anyone is harming ourselves.
The purpose of reality is to produce choice and thus the ultimate creation that is meaning. Time is simply the mechanic which binds us to our decisions thus of course it is bound to being and relative throughout the universe.
The only choices that matter are those that cannot be undone. That is why we have developed games as the games themselves curb the real violence we would otherwise commit upon ourselves both individually and collectively.
Each of us is an explorer from another reality of being that is boundless. We are here visiting our potential to produce the only thing that we can never otherwise have aka meaning.
In the same way that time and space are not separate things, matter and consciousness are interwoven and expressed in all that we see. The evidence is not in the matter itself but the forces that compel them to be what they are. Those forces define matter which is a property of the subjective experience not of the physical reality. There there is not the subjective and objective realities but only the one reality in which things matter. Even the word matter and it's use is a clue. As the only way things can matter is if their given meaning.
So live your life and realize that the harm you do to others, you do to yourself and so you should try to minimize the suffering, so that we may all get on about our lives and enjoy the limited time we have before we have to get back to our true nature.
Approaching a non material thing with the material sciences is not a good idea.
The physical sciences simply do not "grok" the metaphysical.
It's not a hard problem, as much as a wrong approach.
We want to explore consciousness, and what have we got to explore it with ?
Yes -- consciousness ! an uncalibrated and enigmatic research tool.
So any exploration has to be experiential, traditionally with mescal, psilocybin or LSD.
I took that route in the Seventies, and now in my seventies I'm glad I did.
Consciousness is about complexity. You don't need intelligent design. Complexity is sufficient.
Ok.... How?
Consciousness is seen as everything including you and me and exists without everything including you and me just as clay is seen as all pots and exists without them.
The current scientific paradigm does not respect or appreciate the beginnings of what consciousness is. Once this attitude is adjusted qualitative exploration may become possible.
Example: if a practitioner of meditation discovers a value system that dictates a certain barometer or sense of morality and ethics towards humanity, wishes to declare, "this is the way", then we would need some qualitative understanding of how to accord in that spirit without developing a dogmatic persuit. If we are able for instance to discover that this skillful meditater is developing a clearer or more coherent thought patterns that is not separable in element from a certain moral bearing, then we would need a way to accord in principle or law with this fundamental quality.
It is expected that their is room for endless confusion's and frustration's with how to observationally consistent and mindfully harmonious in the same persuit, but it would be an example of some beginning of exploring consciousness. In the measurement problem the mind is not regulated, and variations are not considered as adapting as much as they are considered inconsistent.
We do not live amongst a societal attitude aimed at mindful discipline at all. We do not have mindful environment's. There is nowhere in public where I can go and expect any kind of meta-mindful tolerances to be maintained. If a spiritual group maintain's a relative mindful tolerance (keeps a certain vibe going) they reguard it as special, exceptional, miraculous, but all they have done is been honest, mindful, and consistent. This would be the beginning of something if their attitude's did not set the bar so low, or so close to their selves.
The mind can be tuned.
Why was Robert not cast as Einstein in the Oppy movie?
Science will likely never be able to explain consciousness, for the same reason that the lens of a camera cannot film itself.
And besides that - There‘s not the slightest reason or explanation to believe that complexity generates consciousness.
The lens of a camera can easily film itself using a mirror.
@@mikel5582 No. It would film a mirror, not itself.
It would record EM radiation reflected off the lens (the subject of the photo) and then off the mirror.
Would the resulting image be different than using a different lens to record the image?
@@callistomoon461 The camera never films anything, it only films the photons that bounced off things, so it's not much different to filming photons that bounced off a mirror after bouncing off a thing.
@@eachday9538 Yep. I think the key here is that we don't have direct knowledge of anything. We make observations based on our senses (or technology that extends our senses) and then try to use reasoning to draw conclusions that are consistent with those observations.
It's funny that people have no problem trusting the phone in their hands to reliably transmit information through the ether using technology they don't understand but they're suddenly critical skeptics regarding scientific explanations that don't match their philosophy.
It’s our minds and thoughts that are literally creating our future. Now doesn’t exist. We are merely perceiving life as it happens. Using our memories to create paths for the future. That is the secret. All power lies within us.
There is no past or future. There is a past because our brain recalls past events and imagines the future. Now is the only thing that exits. We only experience the now.
Huh? NOW is all there is. Understanding the eternal NOW is the key to understanding. You are mistaken by precisely 180 degrees... Its the past and future that dont exist. All of time has already happened. And is all happening at once. Its called NOW
Unfortunately there appears to be an objective Universe out there that sets constraints and has limited resources.
Harry, one of the things that bugs me is the lack of transparency of Arteta in press conferences. He is blatantly opaque. Doesn’t it worry ?
.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”
The answer is.... Consciousness is the computer. 🖥️
@@kyranmccourt7265 and you just shut yours down
@@delq Your virus will be eliminated 😁
Sometimes the smartest response to a question is "I don't know." The second smartest thing is to follow with possible solutions, noting that those are hypotheses yet to be proven.
@@mikel5582 Or you could just try to be brave and have an opinion!
Wait a minute. We can "explain how we go from the inorganic to the organic world?" Absolutely not so. No one has found a way, so here we are speculative. Same for consciousness by the sound of this.
This might turn out to be a completely biomechanical question. It's very hard to speculate how life emerged from an ordinary matter, can't rewind time or travel to some distant worlds and observe a similar phenomenon in progress, we don't have the technologies to do that even if it's possible somehow. Physical forces can create living precesses only under certain special conditions, those might be very rare, so we can't learn from direct observations. This means we have to invent life ourselves, but to do that, we will have to understand everything there is to know about physics. Or do what nature did and simply get lucky.
Next step would be evolution of living matter into complex biological systems, not only species, entire artificial environment must become habitable for primitive and unstable life forms. This is important because consciousness is a part of biological evolution, it didn't emerge with humans but has started with a first living cell. So either we study the entire process or try to cut in between and replicate the most advanced forms alive today. It's a problem because we don't know enough about protons, electrons, molecules and stuff. We don't know because life prevent us to explore what exist right now, we don't know what time is. There might be no objective reality, it's all that strange quantum fuzz. In example, if we could observe reality directly, matter would vanish from our perspective, then all logics stops. And we must switch to irrational tools, like mathematics. We will know when we got our math right because computers will be able to render vision of what we see, emerging from numbers and equations trough stages, if theory works correctly.
So we can relax, nobody will know what life and consciousness are for at least a couple of thousand years. People will build robots, smart machines will design and assemble even more sophisticated devices, controlled by artificially intelligent software capable of tracking and visualizing advanced physical processes. And then it will happen, a new life will be spawned inside a smart machine, made from grounds up, using nothing but light and force fields.
Human conscious understanding will come after the discovery achieved by a machine. Our robot will have to teach us how it did it, transform and convert mathematical procedures into something a human can perceive and understand. Then we will be able to manipulate and tweak the process, change life to something nobody in the universe has ever seen before, and many other things. This will be the dawn of another great revolution in philosophy, when future humans will have to decide, do they give up humanity and became like gods or develop interfaces that would protect the human essence and preserve what we are forever. Earth right now is a great place to be a human, but the entire cosmos is not, the universe is fine-tuned only for a God like forms of life.
So yeah, i bet many people would love to know all the secrets of life. If they can't have it all, perhaps they can manipulate only certain stages and details, like so many labs are working on right now. They don't need to know what brain is to temper with the mind. It doesn't need to work perfectly, they don't care what human thought is, hearing what people think can be very useful. Academia is reporting the latest discoveries to governments, and they decide what can be known in public and what must be kept secret by a military, for example. Everything concerning the human condition can be used as a weapon.
So make us all a favor, if somebody knows what consciousness is and can demonstrate how it works, please keep these secrets for yourself, don't tell anybody, or we're all doomed. Don't do it, never tell, our intimate conscious perception and personal individuality are the last bastions of hope we got, without them there will be no humanity anymore and no place where demons and ghost s could hide.
Spooky 👻 the Einstein INCH equation 😃 g = G Me / r^2 (1e -/+ Ef/Eo) r=c mechanical to 1915 Child. Do you see the Triangle 🔺️ formation in equation? Neutrinos like the water molecule to satellites 🛰 have an Event Horizon. Mass is energy, only transferable.
@@channelwarhorse3367 Triangles everywhere, they're the sign of linearity.
Consciousnesses can also be turned on and off. A property I think is important and doesn’t get enough attention.
Yeah where’s the switch?
@@danread3786 I don't really know. My theory is that conscious has a property that is only like a switch in the sense that it is controllable. Maybe it's more like a dial. Or more complicated than that, like a rule that can run to controllable extents and controllable levels of self-similar hierarchies. The more restricted the rule or algorithm is allowed to run the less conscious a system is and vice versa.
@@saturdaysequalsyouth ok but I don’t understand how can you switch consciousness on or off I definitely don’t have a switch for mine if switching off you mean death we are more likely switching on when we die than just stopping/switching off when we sleep we are conscious there’s different levels of consciousness for sure if your talking ai that’s never ever going to produce consciousness?
@@danread3786 What I'm referring to when I say something like consciousness can be turn on and off or turned up and down I mean there are things that can affect consciousness. This includes some of the examples you already mentioned: death, sleep, drugs, trauma and perhaps meditation are all things that can turn consciousness off or down. And these processes can be reverse (except for death, so far). Where is the switch? I don't think it's in one place, I think perhaps the "switch" is distributed throughout the brain. It's kind of like asking "when does consciousness start?" I'm not sure we know. For example, we can probably all agree that a single cell is conscious. An embryo is probably not conscious. A new baby might have some type of primitive consciousness and a small child is fully conscious. But where is the line? A difficult question to answer. Maybe there's no line and it's all a gradient.
Another way to think about this is when does a thought start and when does a thought stop? Where is the switch you pulled to move from one thought to another? You can't say. But you know you can "stop" thinking one thing and "start" thinking another thing. But is that really how it works? All thoughts always there and it's just a matter of where your attention is focused? When you look around you all things are always there, but you can focus on one thing and ignore everything else, in your mind.
Life is the Only existing reality, Consciousness is Eternal,
the Basic-structure of our consciousness is simple and logical,
even the dynamic nature,
also mirror'ed in the rainbow.
If Consciousness is not understoof as fundamental, then nothing can be known as fundamental.
Matter is fundamental
@@Bringadingus ,How do you know??
@@kos-mos1127 ,Yeah you know that through consciousness lol...
@@achyuthcn2555 The matter still persist after death of a subject. Two people and a dog can look at a comfortable sofa. One person dies. The remaining person and a dog sat comfortably on the same sofa. This means death of a person does absolutely nothing to material objects.
@@xspotbox4400, That's right if you assume Consciousness can be sensed like sense objects. But that's not the case here. How do you know that Consciousness ends when a person dies??
“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…
some of them, like Christof, do a decent job of it though... imo. it's the humble scientists - and those who have the best communication skills - who have the most success in this way. i think these are the scientists who know their area of expertise cold - inside and out, upside and down
Some day, investigating the action potentials in the 🧠, we will be able to read brain activity with electrodes AND write thoughts into our brains. While doing this, and comparing the experiences of people connected neuronally this way, we will finally be able to pin down the correct "science of thoughts."
So a thought 💭 is just sodium ions passing through a membrane…? That sounds like woo woo 💩…. How does a molecule passing through a membrane generate a thought..?
@@mrbwatson8081 I think the physical basis of what we call consciousness is much more complex than this poster let on.
If your argument is that consciousness is unquestionably a non-physical phenomenon then why waste your time listening to attempts at scientific understanding? CZcams has myriad videos covering all kinds of kooky ideas. Do you spend time critiquing those? Perhaps your objection here is deeper than you're letting on.
2:40 is it just me or is he implying here that abiogenesis has been completely explained? Because it hasn’t been completely explained.
We all find out.....
When he said "atom of consciousness" it struck me as being a target for scientists to try to detect and measure. This idea doesn't limit our bodies to having one atom of consciousness - there could be another one that is simply unable to make itself known to us.
That's a fascinating idea. It could explain things like what some people call a Gut feeling or even a Sixth sense. There are so many possibilities. Maybe some of our organs do have a low level of consciousness.
maybe you would like to get familiar with the ideas of Leibniz and the monad principle. Check out this snippet from Wikipedia:
"Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul."
🧠 the image of a process is NOT the cause of the process.
Aromas fragrances are things you can't see. Anybody tried to study those? Cause people could be standing in the same place and smell different things or one not smell it at all. Your standing in a group of people somebody, farted not out loud, which person did it? If people even smell it some people might others might not.
Dude is firing on all cylinders. I will take what he is taking.
;-) So if Chalmers asks why we are not zombies, he can, rather originally answer that we are 99% zombie.
That last 1 percent poses a huge problem.
''two water molecules are not wet '' example is false because the term wet is an abstract concept
Correction: two water molecules is an abstract concept since we are not able to experience only two water molecules. We can, however, experience 1.5 sextillion water molecules as a single drop of water (according to Google). Could we experience two water molecules as being wet if our sensory receptors were sensitive enough to perceive them? Maybe? Either way, Koch's reason is fallacious.
Consciousness has to be electric energy, which doesn't physically have to be stored in the brain, because the whole universe (which btw, the universe has allowed this tiny orb to produce Consciousness from the experiences of living beings). The universe is electric energy everywhere and impacts everything! It's like, the Universe wants our Consciousness to complete the connection to "Itself". Our consciousness could help the universe to get even more consciousness input by our experiences that feed the Universe! Hell, we might even "mysteriously" find another place in the Universe that promises the continuation of living beings,... with more conscious input!
Like wow man 😲
The Earth is a conscious being and it is pissed of with some of its inhabitants who are trying to kill it.
Where does mass come from? An unsophisticated person would say… from protons and neutrons. A sophisticated person would say from the INTERACTION of protons/neutrons with the Higgs field. Consciousness could be like that. Protons don’t create mass. The brain doesn’t create consciousness. Of course brains create neural activity that is projected onto the canvas of consciousness - however let’s not confuse the contents of consciousness with consciousness itself. The redness of a rose appears in consciousness. We can find the brain activity associated with the photons coming from the rose. We cannot find why that brain activity comes with an associated first person experience. The story of the photons hitting the eye and all the resultant neural activity is entirely a third person story. That story can be told entirely without reference to the first person experience. And yet the first person experience is there. The first person experience is a puzzle piece that has no place inside the physicalist story of reality. Physicalists find that annoying and so they throw it out - essentially ignoring it. Sorry physicalists, as scientists we don’t throw away facts just because the don’t fit with our preconceived notions of reality. Newton couldn’t explain some astronomical phenomenon with his laws. We didn’t just pretend those phenomenon were “illusions” just because they didn’t fit into Newtonian physics. We accepted that they didn’t fit and later Einstein came up with relativity that accommodated for both Newtonian mechanics and for the exceptions to it.