To have Sir Roger Penrose, Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup in one meeting to share their views on consciousness and reality is something we will be ever so grateful for! Hans, you have navigated the map and territory so skillfully and respectfully. Deepest thanks for making this happen.
How many phat of the land are there behaving like pharaohs, quite a few? Science appears to have pharmed babies for exploitation by the many and whilst brazenly formulating the cerebrally narcissist streak to not believe it embarrassing? Got to wonder on these people who consider themselves sweets stolen from babies; it looks very ‘dancer in the dark’ meets ‘walk the line’.
I’ve come to expect a lot from Essentia, but can’t say I expected THIS. Hats off to Bernardo and his team, they continue to raise the bar for interviews on the frontier of physics and philosophy and it’s a privilege and a pleasure to watch it unfold!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
But don't you find it annoying when uploaders ask you to give a thumbs-up _before_ you see the video? How about giving hotels 5 Stars the week before you stay there, right?
@9:49 Penrose explains the most profound aspect of Godel's Theorem: That moment when you work through the proof yourself, and suddenly understand WHY Godel's Theorem must be true, you are experiencing a thought process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
Which is like the unconscious mind. We compute a flying ball hit by someone to us into lef t field with such precision with practice or hit moguls with precision coming down a snow-covered hill at 40mphs. The computational skills it takes to do these things in real time are cazy. I think the brain does have a quantum computational process to it.
What about beings without brains? How do they react quickly to their environment without a biological quantum computer? I'm not convinced the brain is quantum as you say (aside from the universal quantum laws it follows). Because if a quantum brain is the reason we can react with such speed and precision in real time, you'd have to find a reason for life forms being able to live and react without brains.@@esad-ij5ie
but that is not true. The goedel theorem is proved in such a way that a computer algorithm can prove it and thus also internalise and understand it. There is nothing i the proof that requires you to represent non-representable truths.
@@matswessling6600 A computer algorithm "understands" nothing. It can manipulate arbitrary symbols, but it takes human insight to recognize what makes those symbols meaningful.
@@QuicksilverSG "insight" isnt myserious, is just that the brain created shortcuts in the associations for that subject. The mind doesnt do what you think it does. The mind is no computer. the brain is in a way a sort of computer, but the mind isnt, its more like running software. our minds are not a "complete formal system" and thus is not needed to follow Gödels theorem.
What an incredible discussion. I’ll never be able to see the world, life, my own mind the same after watching this. My late fiancé and I had these talks for years by e-mail before we met in person. He’d love this.
@@jenmdawg strange. I didn't think much of it. Everyone was tiptoeing around Sir Roger not wanting to offend his British sensibilities by suggesting the Hindus had figured out better than Einstein.
The moderation at 16:35 or so blew my mind. What a thoughtful moderator to reframe the subject perfectly while two juggernauts have just laid out huge theories and allow them to move forward in a direction that is fruitful.
Yes, he did an amazing job. Often politely reframing a slightly missed question here and there. He carried on a beautiful conversation. This was a very special video, glad it's been recorded.
I am so grateful for the opportunity to see and hear these very interesting and knowledgeable guys speak. This is groundbreaking new media that is allowing us to understand the best minds and their specialisms. ❤❤❤
One thing scientists (which also I am) should use from eastern mystics is that the core consciousness is “the witness” the one “who is there”. If you remove all senses, memory or even thoughts, will there be somebody ? Yes, that is consciousness
There was a Brian greene documentary exploring this idea. And also explore the fractal nature of consciousness within biological beings. That consciousness is inherent in the universe.
@@burakgozluklu what if the deep meditative state enables the experience of the most basic level of awareness as the ability of the brain to be aware of its own existence and not some deeper reality? Which of course doesn't exclude the possibility of such...
@@Littleprinceleonit can be even if very few can attain a level of meditation that opens the door to such possibilities. The main intention of my statement is to point to the hardship of defining consciousness, even the hard problem of concentration doesnt do the job. People still talk about “things” like color, smell etc but not the awareness which is witnessing it.
Yes and I think what hints at this is: how are we all conscious of the same things? If there was a red coat left on a table a monitor would pick up the red coat and report it found and the person who thought they lost it would show up. That shows that something beyond physical, in the human mind, identifies the red coat. Many human minds are detecting the red coat. So that’s maybe not seeing things as they really are, but it points to a universal consciousness that perceives the same thing. It may not be reality but it hints that we all are together and can witness reality together too because perhaps we are all the Mind of God perceiving Itself as we look to this Egotistic, One Ego & Mind.
After having a few LSD trips, anyone can become a real expert. Just take a look at Kastrup, he used to be just a high level engineer, but now he is an expert on combining words and sentences that collectively create an illusion of knowledge.
This is the first video ive seem by you. I LOVE this format, where you slice up the conversation and provide context. This makes these topics so much more digestible. Thank you and keep it up!
My problem with Roger Penrose point of view is this: if its true: A) that consciousness can't be explain by a matematicaly computable formal way (with the invocation of the Godel's incompleteness theorem) B) the collapse of the wave function indicates that the QM theory is not complete (or correct in his own words). Then if we reach a point in the future that QM in complete (something that Penrose says it needs to be done) and its able to mathematically and formally explain the collapse of the wave function then it can't explain consciousness because that can't be explain formaly (and we're back to Godel incompleteness theorem).
So in my view if consciousness is not an emerging property of the formal laws of physics then it really needs to be fundamental and for that the explanation presented by Faggin makes more sense.
@@danielm978 Penrose seems too sure everything can be measured as if he thinks the world is just how it looks at face value, i expected more from him.. If this isnt a computer simulation and is truly analog reality then surely analog cannot always be reduced to a digital scale no? Like when people say something is physically impossible they are the science version of a religious nut because science must change to accept reality, reality doesnt have "laws" humanity has just lost its way and transformed a system of studying our environment into a belief system.. Teaching kids theories are facts to keep them dumb.. Since the 50s nobody will be allowed to accidentally advance research that may affect Fission based weapons, its been made sure of by totally changing how mainstream science sees itself and ensuring anyone who questions the status quo never becomes an expert and challenges the system.. History science medicine/drugs news it is all being controlled or discoveries covered up to ensure nato and the current global trade economy stays intact because it started for peace but now its just too inconvenient for the richest 1% to allow those old agreements to fail regardless of what the people want, anyone you are allowed to vote for is part of the magic show, whichever card you pick the result will always be the same. Its the illusion of choice to keep the majority docile, if people think they have some sort of control they are much less likely to try take back power for themselves in a more difficult manner as they believe in the system changing if they ask nicely which weakens and divides the masses.. Lots needs to change we are living in a system designed by dead people who never passed on the secret to the plan so its on autopilot now and being used to ensure the richest stay rich free of risk while making us all victims of data harvesting and surveillance.. We have much to fix the kids who arent old enough to remember before 2000 sadly dont realise whats happened. The frogs nearly boiled hopefully we free human progress from this corruption before its too late.. ✌❤️
thers a 3h eric weinstein vid very recently who sums it all up very well he knows the score.. Apart from science becoming a new form of religion historical sites like gobekli tepe been buried, grand canyon cave city was all concreted and barred shut with armed guards for 'peoples safety' too! but rock climbing sky diving cave exploring all legal, thers so much blatant interference. We the people deserve truth regardless of the effect on religions or alliances or rich institutions based on lies or mistaken history, those things are so much less important than truth. These things buried and lost from living memory is just unacceptable in my opinion.. The truth fragments still remain but ai will probably change that eventually i guess.. Stay free✌❤️
Go to 56:02. Penrose says that the qualia of another’s conscious experience is something that simply can’t be known. He also says that quantum reality can only be confirmed, not ascertained. Perhaps these have some connection.
I am only 45 minutes into this conversation, but the phenomenon of personalities dancing around each other trying not to offend the others is very palpable. It's as if Gaggin, Kastrup and the moderator have agreed upon a very tentative conversational strategy up front. And Penrose is simply not biting and not sufficiently enticed to reason outside of his materialist world view. Having said this, it"s easy for me to say, obviously, and I respect the effort.
Yes, it's fascinating to watch and also a little painful, as one witnesses the challenge of opening an old mind to a new idea, and one knows of course that we all have the same problem as Sir Roger.
Yes, nice…Penrose is a materialist. He refers to two realities, one quantum, the other classical…No, Classical is the reality decided by the quantum world, which is not a reality but an infinite collection of possibilities put to consciousness.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Actually, consciousness is the one thing that isn't a mystery. Everything else is a mystery, because consciousness is the only thing that has ever been experienced. There is no hard problem of consciousness. There is only a hard problem of matter.
We love you SO dearly Roger. Thanks for staying engaged in this work and thanks for your theory. Watching a session or seminar with you is like opening a bottle of the finest wine, a delirious pleasure for the intellect.
Thanks for sharing this magnificent talk !! Sir Roger Penros is an amazing scientist to listen to. I admire his intellectual humility and compassion. Consciousness is fundamental posing serious challenge to scientific materialism.
Wow! The concept of conciousness being a postulate, or an axiom is something incredible. Never explicitly stated, but this implys that the "universe" is "conscious, and quantum physics reflects the "free will" of the universe in the collapse of the wave function. I'm with Penrose on this being metaphysics, and creating more questions than it answers. Indeed, how can conciousness be seperated from a mind?
This isn't a new finding...the yogic science's are way beyond these guys.. journey onwards and outwards and escape the imaginary finite world of the mind and experience the infinite truth of of reality of what we truly are.
Dont say wow and get overexited by simple stuff my friend, what will you do when you understand that you are me, and that this comment you are reading right now is written by yourself?
Nothing & Everything: Several hypothesis and theories propose that at some point in time, all matter and mass in the universe will be swallowed by black holes, then all of the information about the matter is evaporated as hawking radiation and becomes photons. Roger Penrose has a very strong hypothesis called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology that I highly recommend studying. In this scenario, spacetime ceases to exist because photons do not experience time or space. In the absence of spacetime, all photons become a single, unified photon capable of exceeding the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement. This leads to an infinite overlap of all points in the universe, creating a paradox where the universe simultaneously ends and begins. The exact moment everything becomes a photon is the exact moment everything becomes matter again, demonstrating a paradox where GR and QM overlap, and the universe exists in a state of both physical and non-physical infinity. This is an extreme scenario where all matter in the universe converts to photons, resulting in a universe composed entirely of massless, virtual particles. Given that photons travel at the speed of light and do not experience time or space. This conversion of matter into energy leads to the cessation of spacetime. Due to quantum tunneling, entanglement, and the absence of spacetime constraints, all photons unify into a single photon capable of exceeding the speed of light, leading to the simultaneous end and rebirth of spacetime. This is where E=mc², and m=E/c² come into play. c² is the square of the speed of light, which only happens when there is no vacuum. 1. What we know about Photons - Photons are massless particles that always travel at the speed of light. According to special relativity, photons do not experience time or space; there is no interval between their point of emission and absorption in their frame of reference. If the universe becomes a unified photon, spacetime, as traditionally understood, ceases to exist. - The cessation of spacetime means that the conventional dimensions of time and space lose their meaning because there is no mass to curve spacetime, and photons themselves do not require spacetime to exist in the conventional sense. 2. The Singularity Illusion - In a photon-only universe, without the usual constraints of spacetime, all photons can be considered as part of a single, unified quantum state. This unified state implies that all photons are entangled with each other, sharing the same quantum properties and existing as a singular entity, resulting in a super position. - Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous correlations between particles regardless of distance. In the absence of spacetime, the distance and time separation between entangled photons becomes meaningless, allowing them to behave as a single, unified photon. 3. c² - With spacetime ceasing to exist, the unified photon state is not constrained by the speed of light limit. In a spacetime-less state, photons can "tunnel" across the entirety of what would be considered the universe without restriction. This process is known as quantum tunneling. - This unified photon state also allows quantum entanglement to exist simultaneously across all points, effectively exceeding the speed of light. The photon’s wave function would encompass the entire universe instantaneously, creating a state where all spatial and temporal coordinates overlap, and the moment the wave function collapses is the moment the physical universe is created. 4. Endless cycle of Birth, Death, & Rebirth - In this state where all photons are unified and spacetime has ceased, photons can interact through quantum fluctuations and collisions, leading to pair production. This process would spontaneously generate particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electrons and positrons), reintroducing mass into the universe. - The moment mass is reintroduced, spacetime is reinstated. The paradox arises because the exact moment spacetime ceases is also the moment it begins again. The absence of spacetime allows the unified photon to exceed conventional limits, while its interactions simultaneously recreate matter, restoring spacetime. Time is the measurement of matter as it moves in space. In a universe where all matter converts into photons, the cessation of spacetime allows for the formation of a single, unified photon state. This state enables photons to exceed the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement, resulting in an infinite overlap of all points and moments in the universe. The universe reaches a paradoxical state where its end and rebirth occur simultaneously. The instant spacetime ceases due to the lack of mass, the unified photons vibratory rate exceeds the speed of light leading to the immediate re-emergence of matter and spacetime. At the exact moment when everything becomes photons and spacetime ceases, photons unify and exceed the speed of light, creating a state of infinite simultaneity where the end of the universe overlaps with its beginning. The universe’s fabric collapses into a singular quantum state, where the cessation of spacetime is indistinguishable from its rebirth through pair production. This unified state of everything is consciousness. - Physics falls apart This hypothesis challenges the traditional limits of physics, suggesting that without spacetime, the universe can transcend its normal physical laws. The super position state of the unified photon, enabled by quantum entanglement and tunneling, allows for behavior beyond conventional speed limits and dimensional constraints. - The Paradox The unified photon state’s ability to exceed the speed of light in the absence of spacetime leads to a condition where all events and locations are superimposed. The instantaneous reintroduction of matter via pair production ensures that the universe does not remain in this state. Instead, it transitions back to a state with spacetime, creating a loop where the cessation and existence of spacetime are one and the same. - Paradox The cessation of spacetime, combined with the unified photon state’s super position behavior and quantum properties, creates a paradoxical infinity where the universe’s physical and non-physical states coexist. The concept of time does not pass between these two states, creating a moment that is both an end and a beginning, a state of infinite simultaneity and unified existence.
The discussion is awesome and although there are different views they smile and are very polite. The bright analytical intellect, how Bernardo summarizes, is unparalleled and gives goosebumps. But there is always confusion between participants , also in many other discussions, how consciousness is defined. Some understand it as mind others as absolute consciousness. Nisargadatta brings in here awareness as the primordial which is the matrix of every experience. May I share: Nisargadatta Maharaj: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness? Nisargadatta: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy….., Sorry for the excursion. Best regards from Vienna 🤗
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Forget consciousness, I find it complicated in just trying to explain how is it that a flower is beautiful. However much I try I cannot give a complete description of what is it that makes a flower beautiful? Any amount of description remains insufficient and incomplete.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838I bet you have also reflected why things take on a dual structure, if so please elaborate on that topic hyperduality. There are many types of dualities but are you aware of the duality they all pertain to, the duality of duality? And although categories certainly are dual to sets it is not true that syntax is exclusive to the former and semantics to the latter, the most generalised syntax for instance is doubtlessly containment which pertains far more directly to sets than to categories.
Categories are in mathematics what analytic predicates were for Kant, while sets are in mathematics what synthetic predicates were for Kant. Syntax is necessary everywhere where we are dealing with composites of distinct things, synergy, synthetic, synapse, syndicate, syntactic, they have one thing in common in addition to their morphology and etymology itself reveals it so we don't even need to theorise about it. Things are coming together without being already the same every time it starts with "syn".
@@user-dt4qr7kb9y Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, Functors or dual basis. Riemann geometry is actually dual so curvature or gravitation is dual as there is a dual basis hiding in Riemann geometry, upper indices are dual to lower indices -- Tensors. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration - Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality. Time is dual. Likewise space must be dual:- Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry or space duality. Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points where the points are the boundaries in topology (homology) -- space duality. All lines or distances are non null homotopic -- space duality. Space duality is dual to time duality -- duality within duality or hyperduality. Thesis (the future) is dual to anti-thesis (the past) creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis (the present) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The present is the synthesis of the past and future according to the Hegelian dialectic. Time is a dual concept and space is a dual concept -- space is dual to time -- Einstein.
@@user-dt4qr7kb9y Energy is also dual, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy or gravitational energy is dual. Everything in physics is made out of energy or duality. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem. Hence there is a 5th law of thermodynamics as duality (energy) is being conserved -- Generalized Duality. Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual. If forces are dual then energy must be dual:- Energy = Force * distance -- simple physics. Gluons are force carriers as they attract and repel quarks. The proton would collapse in on itself if there was no repulsion between quarks likewise two quarks attract each other via gluons otherwise the proton would not be stable. Gluons or force carriers are dual. Energy is duality, duality is energy!
I don't understand the argument that free will exists, in fact I've never heard a logical argument that it exists so I'm surprised to hear it stated as an axiom in this discussion. The consciousness discussion is fascinating although I'm persuaded by the possibility that we will never understand consciousness as it's not possible to study it objectively. We may have to embrace uncertainty.
That was incredible and almost surreal, I think if Penrose were a peer of Kastrup, Hoffman et al he would be in total agreement, but he provides the wall so to speak that new theories must vault over.
To be honest, all scientists should do a proper Ego Death before they start theorising about anything, as this is fundamental to a better understanding of spiritual states and consciousness. It's very hard to maintain a materialist world view after you've experienced one. Only Faggin here has done that (I think), though his experience was a spontaneous one. I get the feeling materialists are afraid of these states because experiencing them would shatter their limited world view. So instead of being curious about these states, they just dismiss them outright. Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
In what way is "spiritual" ontological to the idea of consciousness, especially through the eyes of science? I haven't seen one shred of evidence for any spiritual or successor for consciousness. Everything points to consciousness deriving from matter and energy. Perhaps those with deep Minds Eye fall for the illusionary trap of the state of being. I can't possibly articulate such discussions in a CZcams discussion without an exorbitant amount of paragraphs. In the simplest form: What I believe philosophically, the existence of that which I can't originate is infinite. Matter and Energy come from a singularity, before the singularity is without origin therefore infinite. A spatial plane is possible before, possibly another universe yet the origin point is infinite. Consciousness doesn't need philosophical spiritualism for its existence. Humanity tends to feel the need that their essence is unique and that beyond death is the captured embodiment of ones experiences preserved. I despise this why do people not see the beauty of existence without an eternal soul or spirit. We are the universe. That's the only answer, we are existence it's self. I believe there is chaos a deep imbued nature of infinite. Patterns emerge from infinite chaos. Universes are born and complexity increases. People feel the need to put things in an order in time. Because that's how we as humans experience life through a scale of time. Time at a certain affixed rate in which we can survive. Lifeforms exist within a certain (time rate & length of time). Isn't that fascinating? The rate of which particles move within a certain affixed time is actually meaningless to anything that doesn't perceive! Because the rate at which particles move is only relevant to the (time rate & length of time) of which lifeforms evolved to exist within! Meaning to a rock the universe has already died. Nothing I see points to our existence being anything of where the universe cares because the universe and the existence of everything cares not for our existence. We are but the universe experiencing it's self. Not in a unified consciousness but an individualistic spontaneous existence of consciousness from biological lifeforms.
13:40 The collapse is the _expression_ of a field that has consciousness and free will. Brilliant. The consciousness is the field part, and the observation/measurement is the free will part.
Collapse = Rectification. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@scriabinismydog2439 Free will is a postulate here of an ontological primitive. So there is no "how". But it has the sense and benefit of being directly validated in each person's own experience. You experience it right at this moment, for example.
It seems to me as though Sir Roger Penrose has a wonderful balance of both critical thinking and the "intuitive", which simply put, is a powerful connection to the ability to sense what is right, and what is wrong, without having to explain why.
Right is dual to wrong. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
20:20 it seems that sir Roger has not yet noticed the moment before cognition occurs. There is the _expanse_ of the unknown and then a "collapse" into a known. This transition does not happen materially, but it most certainly happens phenomenologically, and this is what is captured by QM.
No, "collapse" does not correspond to any sort of physical process. The wave function doesn't even actually exist in physical space. It really exists in a "space of possible measurement outcomes. People get confused about this because so often the example that is considered is the POSITION measurement of a single particle. That space of possible results is a three-dimensional space of, well, POSITIONS, so it's easy to squint and let yourself think you're talking about physical space, but you actually are not. And in more complicated situations the space may not even be three-dimensional, so it's CERTAINLY not physical space. Quantum theory is not a theory about "what happens in the world" the way classical physics is. Quantum theory is about WHAT WE EXPECT THE RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS TO BE. Therefore, you can't even get rolling until you specify what it is you're going to measure and how you're going to measure it. And when the pre-measurement quantum state becomes the post-measurement quantum state, there is no "physical" that steers that process. It's just an action we take as part of the problem solving procedure. We LOOK AT THE MEASUREMENT RESULT, determine the eigenstate of the measurement operator that corresponds to that result, and MANUALLY shove it in, as a step in our problem solving process. It's not physics at all. Just to be clear, I don't mean for the above to contradict anything in this video. I agree with these guys by and large. All I mean is that collapse isn't something that happens physically IN THE CONTEXT OF MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I don't mean to say it doesn't represent anything at all happening. Just nothing that we can capture in our physical models. My argument DOES address Penrose's objections to quantum theory. It does indeed leave out an explanation of what collapse is. But that's just because collapse has to do with stuff that's not included in the physical model at all - our minds, consciousness, and so on. There's no way it can be explained within the confines of ordinary physics.
'Not about "what happens in the world"' except it can give the answers which are applicable (and useful) in macroscopic world - our everyday life. Chemistry, metallurgy, electronics - nowadays these are based on specific solutions of the Schrodinger's equation. I think we have similar intuition: QM is about outcomes of measurements, not about the reality itself. You can reverse-engineer a structure of a car by using photons or electrons (microscopy) to see all details, but if you could only crash two cars and measure distribution of remains, what could you learn about mechanics? But perhaps the collapse of WF is corresponding to the process of interaction between quantum fields, which is the same as the process of quantum measurement (we have to let something observable to interact with the quantum entity we want to get the eigenstate of)?
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 What I meant by that is that classical physics gives you a complete picture of the evolution of "the world" (or the part of it you're studying, at least). For example, if a golf ball is whizzing by, we can measure it's position and velocity at one instant and then calculate a complete trrajectory. We get a much bigger picture than just the result of the measurement. Quantum theory doesn't do that - we get the measurement result, and that is all. Of course, the theory gives us a full picture of the evolution of the wave function, in periods we are not measuring, but we can't really observe the wave function so that's not the same thing at all. So, we can measure a particle at time A and learn something about it, and measure again at time B and learn something about it, but we don't get any info on observable properties in between those two times.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 Waves are not converted to particles by diodes. That's nonsense. Current waveforms simply have their negative going excursions suppressed. What's left is still a waveform - just a different one. That's if the diode is ideal, of course - a real diode only "approaches" such behavior. I think you're just throwing around words that you t hink sound profound. Trying to sound like you know more than you do.
Bless his heart - Sir Roger is having a really hard time with this. I think he's just not prepared to step out of the mainstream model enough to get what the other guys are saying. It seems simple to me, though. Stop trying to show how consciousness "emerges from physical process," because it doesn't. The consciousness is just there - as an initial assumption. That gives you a WAY for physics to be incomplete. Physics models physical reality, which is the PERCEPTIONS of consciousness. The consciousness is outside of that, and therefore you will never explain it as being "inside." An analogy is a group of spectators in a theater watching a movie. The images on the screen turn out to follow very nice rules which we have been able to figure out. So we can make predictions about what's going to happen on-screen. But... that tells you NOTHING about the spectators. You wouldn't be able to show how the processes on screen "gave rise" to the spectators. This analogy is incomplete, because spectators in a theater can't influence the images on the screen. In the case of consciousness and the physical world, though, we can. We have free will and can have certain limited influences on the unfolding of the physical world, which we then perceive. No laws of physics are violated, though, because this influence is contained within the flexibility of uncertain quantum outcomes. The structures in our brains and bodies "amplify" these tiny effects up to the scale of macroscopic actions. There is nothing wrong with this idea. But mainstream science apparently just can't bear to consider the possibility that anything exists "outside of the scientific model." And sure - it would be great to have a bigger model that includes the consciousness as well, but I doubt we'll ever be able to have one.
I have the same opinion as penrose, I can't see an argument for WHY consciousness needs freewill. Or whatever your individual interpretation of freewill is.
Bernardo has the most open mind. He is at the forefront for me, he has so much respect for everyone but more importantly he knows his experiences are coming from somewhere else.
Also worthwhile looking up work by Geoff Penington on black holes information, which shows similar features. It's apparently possible in principle to recover information back out of a black hole - if would could build a massive blackhole sized quantum computer beside the black hole. But what Penington unexpectedly found, was that the maths showed that the quantum computer emulating the black hole itself, was connected to the interior of the black hole by worm holes.
Note that Roger keeps his language very concrete, while the others throw around philosophical lingo private to their in-group. Even if you're unfamiliar with the topic (math, physics), that should be a clue as to which side here is more pragmatic.
Any intelligent person understands that religion, science, philosophy, and math have their own language and can speak through that domain. . . A cat can't bark like a dog when wanting food.
I see some analogous to what Donald Hoffman proposes and what Faggin is claiming. Would be interesting to see them talk about their theories. Awesome channel! Top Quality guests! I sure hope dear Roger is around for a lot longer. What a joy to listen to him speak, whether you agree with him or not.
Yes , cells have microtubules, and buildings have trusses. Do trusses confer the property of "computation" to buildings? No, right? So, why would a structural support mechanism confer cells with any "information processing" property?
Maybe because your presupposition that microtubules are just structural support is wrong. Which it is, cause microtubules are also used for transporting chemicals to different parts of the cell.
Language is symbolic so it’s use to precisely describe reality inevitably bifurcates the one reality into subject and object. I see Penrose using very precise descriptions so it’s no surprise he bifurcates reality into quantum (subjective) and classical (objective). Although, Faggin and Kastrup clearly appreciate and can articulate the dichotomy or duality of explicit reality, they also exquisitely and somewhat poetically gesture towards wholeness by describing implicit reality as a universal field of consciousness or subjectivity (Kastrup’s terminology). Penrose’s explanation of the inevitability of wave-function collapse without conscious intervention doesn’t deny the catalytic power of agent-directed consciousness (attention and intention, free will) to speed up the process. Doesn’t our modern world exemplify the power of human consciousness to profoundly and exponentially reshape reality? I appreciate the nuanced discussion around free will and acknowledge the difference between deterministic, self-identified agency and agent-directed attention (reflective consciousness) in creatively participating in manifesting the world or explicit reality. The more humans consciously cultivate and recursively integrate the dual aspects of attention (right-brain openness and left brain closure) the more coherent will be the relations between inner and outer reality, between subject and object, between us and them, between me and you.
I am deeply appreciative of this gathering and discussion. Yet, with that said, I cannot help but to consider that it remains beyond tragic that the West, by and far, continues to act as though the East has no history of deeply examining both consciousness and free will, as if their history doesn't have a great deal of value to add to the West's conception and understanding of these subjects that can provide for a more robust understanding of ultimate reality. Though, thankfully, there is a generation of thinkers like Kastrup, Vervaeke, Sheldrake, and the like, who are breaking new ground in challenging the West's present cul-de-sac of thinking, which appears to be showing gtrat signs for the future.
Faggin has my vote. Penrose is still essentially a materialist. And Kastrup has the most compelling Direct Path notion as he just follows 'Nature' ... and knows that he is doing it. Love that!!!
Faggin is opening up for debate an area that deserves serious academic study. Start with the postulate, forget the spiritual and religious connotations as that’s what seems to push people away (sadly). Just take it as a possible reality and create some experiment and theory to consider it a serious possibility. Science was never broken to push it into new eras without going against the commonly held beliefs of the day.
Penrose is definitely not a materialist, I don't think he thinks that mathematics is fundamental to all of reality, he just hasn't reconciled the dualism between math and consciousness and assumes that it can be done in a way that equals them out with a third understanding as opposed to positing that mathematics cannot exist without consciousness. The way I see it, in order to count something you must have a single perception that contains evidently differentiatable objects, but to perceive the coherent differentiation is to bely the a-priori perception that gave rise to the items. In that sense I am on Kastrup's side: everybody only has ever known oneness, inside of which everythingness exists. It reminds me of Lao Tzu: "From the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, from the three comes the ten thousand things." In other words, being=the field of consciousness (one) divides reality into polarities (two), but the two ends of the polarities still imply the existence of the original conscious perception, which, being not limited to having to perceive polarity in order to exist is thus separate from the pole as the watcher (which implies three: the two ends of the pole + the awareness), upon which all individual objects of cognition (including tokens/symbols) arise epiphenomenonally (the ten thousand things). But none of it could conceivably exist without the single field of consciousness. It's all so intuitive and obvious (and I don't mean that patronizingly); people just aren't comfortable with the pan-psychism implicit in idealism because they are racist against rocks and minerals (that's a joke) and obviously humans are naturally anthropocentric. Side note: undifferentiated beingness without even QUALIA can be experienced, paradoxically, on high doses of psychedelics. 5-MEO dmt is quite good at reliably doing this if you can let go of egomind and pop through the vortex. Anyone who has experienced this will know exactly what I'm talking about, and anyone who hasn't naturally won't believe it's possible, just like a person blind since birth wouldn't believe color is possible (and even if they did conceptually, it would not replace the actual experience). In closing, Krishnamurti: "The description is not the described."
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@IntuitArt-rb4br Perhap not materialist so much as metaphysical realist i.e. there’s a real, mind-independent state of affairs that science ought to disclose, not contingent upon the observer.
I loverd this. It is just so beautiful how well this went. Intelegent, polite, respectful. An absolute honor to get to see these people interact so effectively.
My reasoning and intuition tells me consciousness must be fundamental. I have listened to Hoffman and Kastrup extensively and they have convinced me. (I am just now starting to listen to Faggin more) Still fully absorbing it, yet I'm sure they are on the right path. It only makes sense to me that we are immortal beings of consciousness as opposed to just material. It seems very obvious to me that we are part of one consciousness. It's obvious because where do we come from if not consciousness itself. This is an experience the consciousness is having through us! that seems obvious to me. Yes we are dissociative now, but not after death. What is mental cannot be lost as it;s connected to the interweb of consiciousness. I did magic mushrooms once, phillosopher stones... i swear to god i heard voices in the universe. I felt a sensation that hte universe was conscious. It's exactly as they're describing that everything mental is all around us.
I'm wondering how exactly are we the same (one) consciousness. It's impossible we do experiencing simultaneously since now I don't have yours experience. Do you live your live from second person (my) perspective? Or are we manifested sequentially and after my death I eventually become you. Other idea is we can live in sequential game. Once you fall asleep all other players take their turns
@@herzhory you can image this like that - every brain just probing a small portion of 'whole' consciouses. Becose it can be like fractal it work, at the same time for everyone.
@@herzhory To wrap your head around this concept picture our individual minds as a subset of whole consciousness. This subset is defined via the boundaries instilled through our ego. Our ego is a kind of illusion that makes our current conscious experience "feel" distinct, unique and "ours". You can see the boundaries of our ego as something that blocks the view beyond and into the collective consciousness thus preventing us from realizing the interconnectedness of all consciousness. By blocking this view, we are in a way blind and metaphorically amnesiac; as a result we must indulge in deep introspection of our own minds to realize this Truth. Understanding this also makes it easier to understand why people who undergo a psychedelic experience report attaining this intuitive Truth: that we are all oneness and united under some unifying substrate (spoiler: the substrate is consciousness). This intuitive Truth is a product of the psychedelic sub-experience, Ego Death, such that by having your ego dissolve into nothingness you can see beyond the once in-place barriers and realize this Truth via pure subjective experience.
Fabulous conversation and people here! I don’t understand if Penrose is deliberately not entertaining the idea of consciousness as a fundamental concept in the fabric of reality. Gaggin and Kastrup are being crystal clear about their counter proposal. Quantum physical observations appear the way they do as a result of our conscious mind and its properties. Penrose, brilliant though he is, keeps going around it.
If Sir Roger cracks the code to quantizing consciousness, it’s possible he’ll go down as the most brilliant man to ever live, from a conscious A.I perspective.
Kastrup makes sense at 1:02:02-1:04:00 but he is describing Spinoza’s panpsychist view, not idealism. When you realize consciousness can’t be derived from physical variables, throwing out the physical world completely is throwing out the baby with the bath water! Panpsychism is the solution to the Hard Problem, and the ontological unity of quantum states is the solution to the binding/combination problem AND the epiphenomenalism problem. Penrose’s objective collapse is the solution to the “miracle” that we can tap into absolute truth even though we’re just primates-because the collapse mechanism taps into fundamental global-eternal nonlocal properties of the universe (cf a string field theory quantum gravity collapse mechanism by Nanopoulos).
Communication, all biological cells communicate with each other. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@MikeWiest NIne? You have lost me hear. Messages in a communication system are predicted into existence using probability in Shannon's information theory -- a syntropic process. teleological. Biological cells such as neurons are predicting messages into existence hence they are using syntropy! All messages have syntax or form and semantics or substance (meaning) hence they are using duality. Your brain/mind therefore uses syntropy to create reality -- neural communication. "Through imagination and reason we turn experience into foresight (prediction)" -- Spinoza describing syntropy. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Mathematicians create new ideas or concepts all the time from their perceptions or observations -- a syntropic process, teleological. Hence there is a dual process to that of increasing entropy namely syntropy and there must be a 4th law of thermodynamics. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality.
I generally agree strongly with most of what Penrose says, but there is one point on which we take very different views. He said consciousness must have causal power since otherwise it would not have evolved. It would take me far too long to justify this here, but I am all but convinced that consciousness has virtually nothing to do with evolution. I believe that there really is no caudal power behind the observer, it is purely a passive awareness of things which are happening and which the perceiver cannot influence. I believe that occurrence and experience are two faces of a coin, they "arise mutually" so to speak. Lifeforms evolve intelligence and cognition for obvious reasons but the associated conscious experience is purely inadvertent. Simply everything which happens has an associated perception of it having happened. The human brain is just one of those things which happen, but happens to be very complex, taking in information from a large volume and combining it, contrasting, comparing, storing and replaying. All this gives rise to a rich conscious experience. But crucially, the brain does not generate awareness, rather the awareness was already there, the brain simply produces the objects of awareness.
Penrose is not being dogmatic. He says it is worse than Einstein's polite response that it is incomplete; he says there is no reason to believe it because there is no valid proof; it's just an unanswered void.
Sir Roger is clearly brilliant when it comes to the physics of the 'headset' (to use Don Hoffman's term) but, also clearly, he will never get beyond the physicalist ontology.
One can't get outside of one's experience. One is stuck trying to understand one's experience from within it. Nima"s work on the boundary of experience - scattering amplitudes - is a way forward. In 2020 he revealed a diagram of what the mathematical kinematic structure of his theory would look like within spacetime. Nima claims the relationships of that structure, results in everything else, right up to cosmological scales. I'd expect to find a similar structure within our experience of us, as it is us, who are apparently having the experience.
Incredible discussion. I’m grad degree in philosophy 1979, and I’m usually with Bernardo, especially since he encompasses Schopenhauer, in my experience.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 All of which is empiricism, and has nothing to do with ontology, which is the issue at hand. In my experience many do not understand ontology. Syntax, information, mathematics, semantics, etc., do not deal with ontology. They describe qualities, quantities, appearance, behaviors, relationships.
Have u noticed the vintage 8bit era computers at the back ? One is the little known casio fx 9000p from 1981 with a z80 cpu. What is the other to its left ?
Absolutely great - I love that you got Roger Penrose - these ideas have to be refined and put through the philosophical and experimental rigor otherwise it’s just new age wishful thinking - I’d trust Penrose’s intuition but I also feel like I’d personally love for Bernardo’s world view to be real because it explains so many things - still wishing for something is not enough we must follow scientific principles in our metaphysics as much as is reasonably possible
You’re already experiencing the world that Bernardo speaks of my friend. And your wishful thinking is the confirmation of that, the cat is alive if you believe it to be alive.
The problem I see with Faggin's theory is that it would mean that all quantum systems are conscious, and all quantum systems express their outcomes intentionally, what he calls "a decision of the field as to what to manifest". Because I his view outcomes are derived upwards from the quantum field level, there's no account of how or why particular systems like us manifest intentional behaviour while other systems like atmospheric gasses, blobs of oil or whatever else do not. There's nothing in his account that would prevent them from doing so, the quantum fields could just collapse in such a way that a blob of oil would wander off looking for it's friends, or whatever. Maybe I misunderstand his account, but I wish they'd addressed this issue.
If he would at least specify how one of the "Q-weirdness" is explained by his approach. Should give a brief overview since "explanation" is a very broad category
@@herzhoryI think he/she is just using Donald Hoffman's terming, and he's pretty mathematically rigorous. Meditation does help for clearer cognition and awareness in any case; that has been demonstrated empirically
@@JJBerthume thanks for clarifying! As I understand headset is kind of synonym to interface or consciousness in accordance with natural selection. I agree science is inside, I'm wondering if anyone have access to outside by other means
@@herzhory There is no outside. Consciousness is not a local thing or a temporal event. I make this claim based on my immediate experience. You can verify this statement by looking around you, and trying to see a thing (like a table) or an event (like French revolution) which is consciousness. There is no such thing. Consciousness is not anything, it's empty and non-existent in this sense that it doesn't have these spacio-temporal properties. One can deepen his connection with this fact (trough meditation and other such methods), and gain access to truths about the nature of consciousness like oneness, love, emptiness, and so on. These are essentially first-person truths, and cannot be grasped through thought or models, and thus not trough science of any kind. And by science I mean the idea that humans can describe reality exhaustively, so that we can have a complete picture of reality. These truths are simply outside any way of forming scientific knowledge about them.
One thing I will never, ever be able to understand is how can someone be excited about materialism? Materialism assumes we are only the brain, which in further assumes our consciousness dies after death. I believe that while there are "compelling and obvious" reasons for which that might be the case, we also have phenomena that suggests otherwise. Knowing that our consciousness could survive death is the biggest and most important thing you could possibly ask for, yet people reject it and embrace void as death not only as a "more plausible" explanation, but even better. Michio Kaku or Sabrine say that it's a hotter concept to copy your entire brain and upload it in a computer? Uhm, that's not you, that's a simulation that won't live and that won't be you. So why is this idea compelling? I think NDEs are the strongest indicator for an afterlife and a loving creator (the "being of light"). Charles Tart says that that the scientific method is so dogmatic and absurd, that we all come to deny the most straight aspect of life : the subjective experience of existing that we all have. A computer can be prepared with tons of sensors and perform algorithms of comparison to determine the best course of action, without being aware of it's existence. So if we are meat computers, we wouldn't need consciousness/awareness. The "Visual binding problem" is an argument that suggests consciousness/awareness doesn't reside in the brain because the perception of seeing (qualia) wasn't yet located in the brain.
Inspiring, revelatory, mind-expanding. Thank you so much Hans and Essentia Foundation - your content may be changing the course of my life, and certainly my interpretation of it.
I’m so excited to watch this! I’ve commenting about this on almost every Brian Greene video on CZcams! I’m just a heavy equipment mechanic and I paid attention in chemistry class and watched Brian Greene’s Daily Equations. I’m just so excited! 😅
I watched the program with great interest. I'm not a physicist and I'm far from understanding quantum physics, function collapsing, etc., but I notice that there are three people directly in the room, and the fourth one participates in the discussion, using an internet connection and a laptop, on equal rights, although he is far from the others. It tells me that everyone is equally consciously involved in the discussion, and to me that means that consciousness is something beyond this world of matter and biological life, that it is something that is a property of spirit. And here on earth it only expands his knowledge of feelings through the experiences of earthly life. So far, physics has no instruments to study the spiritual world, and therefore consciousness in this area.
I enjoy how the T.O.E. podcast also brings together the great minds we have. Seems it should be a common occurrence, to have as many of them gather at a time.. and all help plug one another's holes or smooth out each others thinking.
Although Sir Roger Penrose is a Nobel Prize winner and is obviously a very intelligent person with proven track records in the field of theoretical physics, Federico Faggin, in my opinion, is more brilliant than Sir Roger Penrose. And he is not just a theoretician. In practice, he is a scientist, an engineer, not just a university theoretician who lives in the library. He has proven his genius. And he had a spiritual experience that challenged him to investigate what consciousness is and what human beings and life in general are. Despite being 83 years old, he has a vitality, a poise, a calmness, a joy, which is a demonstration of what he thinks and feels. Sir Roger Penrose was no longer up to this type of debate and was playing defense. He never managed to get to where Federico got to in the field of philosophy of mind and in understanding quantum mechanics. Sir Roger Penrose also has a more inflated ego, which is an impediment to studying the area of consciousness, which involves self-observation. But he is an admirable, respectable and very intelligent man. And for 93 years old, he is not bad at all. This debate was a very interesting initiative. Now we need Miguel Nicolelis, who is more like Faggin because he is not just a theoretician. He is not an idealist, but he understands a lot about the brain. What Elon Musk presents as new, Nicolelis, at Duke University, discovered a long time ago. And he can contribute a lot to the debate on the philosophy of mind. The interviewer who led the debate did an excellent job. It's already usual..
The collapse of the wave function is simple and easy to understand. It is our observational pathway that collapses the waves by the time they get to our consciousness.
I think he needs to be true to himself. If you feel an urge to convert others to your way of thinking, then that's an indication that your way of thinking has become religion. It's a belief system intertwined with your sense of identity (ego) which needs to be defended. The desire to convert others comes when we are insecure and unsure of our own beliefs. Better to use Bayesian inference when thinking about such subjects to avoid getting entrenched in a black and white dogmatic belief system. No 'final step' towards idealism required.
Or the other way around? The Ultimate Reality is conscious? The ultimate reality is THE Consciousness (of which our consciousness if a mere reflection). That consciousness that is ultimate reality is (causally) prior to the consciousness that you (and I and Sir Roger) have. Welcome to theism!
For me, it’s obvious that we can’t know today, or possibly ever, and so epistemological humility is the best way to go. Kastrup turned me from a physicalist, to something more neutral. Let’s not be too certain, it’s just more stories for the brain that needs a story
Duality. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Free will is not free. Your will is always limited by your physiology. Both the actions you can perform, and the decisions you can make are all constrained by physical phenomenon. You cannot will a spoon to bend using only your mind, just as you cannot will yourself to enjoy something which is unenjoyable. Nothing about free will is free, neither in scope nor in quality. So I believe that the only place in which GENUINE free will can exist is in the mind of "little g" god. The rest of us are all stuck with limited will.
Please do not use 25 FPS for your videos! It causes stutter for the majority of viewers, since most run multiples of 59.94 hz screen refresh rate. YT "24" (23.976) or "30" (29.97) are way better as they divide cleanly
This is the type of conversation I'm looking for. As an unimportant curious low frequency human person.. thank you so much for making this possible. Subscribed.
It really does sound to me like both sides are saying in fact the same thing, in the sense that the confirmation bit (true/false) is the one bit "visible" across quantum barrier.
I think there is very little free will. It is like the choice to be in synchrony with the will of universe. It is something like: the amount of tears, fears, laughs are determined, yet the choice of where they will be spent is gifted.
My understanding is that Fagin postulates that consciousness cannot emerge from unconscious matter. If this represents his position, then he really needs to engage with the work on complex adaptive systems, where consciousness is an emergency phenomenon of sufficiently complex systems, and the "quality" of that consciousness is a function of the degree of complexity.
My issue with this argument is that it explains the emergence of consciousness simply by a vague postulation that increased complexity, somehow, inexplicably, suddenly creates consciousness. It is basically a non-argument. I do know about emergent properties, but explaining emergence just by positing the cause as increased complexity, doesnt make sense to me. To just attribute it to increased complexity...
I appreciate your position on the relationship between complexity and consciousness. While it's true that simply attributing the emergence of consciousness to increased complexity can seem vague, there is substantial literature that explores this phenomenon in more depth. Specifically, complex adaptive systems theory offers a framework for understanding how consciousness might emerge. In such systems, consciousness is not merely a byproduct of complexity but an emergent phenomenon arising from the intricate interplay of numerous components within a system. These systems are characterised by non-linear interactions, feedback loops, and a high degree of interdependence among their parts. The idea isn't that complexity itself directly causes consciousness, but rather that certain types of complex systems-when they reach a threshold of organisational intricacy-can exhibit properties, such as consciousness, that are qualitatively distinct from the sum of their individual components. Related to this is the work of biologists Maturana and Varela in the 1970s, who proposed that living systems are autopoietic, i.e., self-producing and self-maintaining. This theory coincides with that of complex adaptive systems, which share similar properties. In particular, Varela’s enactivist tradition can be extended to suggest that consciousness, among other properties of the system, arises from dynamic interactions within a system that is not only complex but also self-organising and capable of maintaining a coherent identity over time. This perspective implies that consciousness provides a functional advantage by enhancing a system's ability to adapt, self-organise, and respond to its environment, thereby improving its potential for viability in a changing environment. Moreover, from an evolutionary perspective, consciousness could be seen as an adaptive trait that evolved to enable complex systems to navigate intricate environments more effectively. It facilitates reflective decision-making, strategic planning, and the simulation of different future scenarios-abilities that offer significant survival advantages. So, to respond to your doubt, it is not that complexity necessarily leads to consciousness, but rather that under certain conditions the organisational dynamics of complex systems can give rise to emergent properties like consciousness, which play crucial functional roles in the survival and evolution of these systems.
@@mauriceyolles7016 thanks for the elobarate reply! Hard to find people to discuss this with. However, even though, as you explained consciousness is not just an emergent property of solely increased complexity, it is also about how such a complex system is configured wrt to all its subordinate parts, I do not think that this argument accounts for any change in the qualitatie difference coherently. Kastrup himself has also considered this complexity argument, might be interesting to look into. Anyways, since all parts of the complex system (i.e. the human, with the emergent property being consciousness here) are a priori stated to be purely material (meaning without any degree of the subjective in the perfect sense), it logically cannot allow for a sudden 'subjective' experience, since all components are purely material. I think what is being conflated slightly in your argument is that, yes, from an outsider perspective something can seem qualitatively different (such as the patters flocks of bird make which cannot be purely determined by studying the movements and behaviour a bird on its own), I do not see how an experience of something, meaning the experience itself, can emerge from pure material forms of organization, no matter how complex or how specifically configured it is. Do you see the argument? It is not as much the qualitative observation of something, which can be qualitaitvely different on the differing emergent levels, but rather the qualitative experience that I dont see how logically can emerge from its material building blocks (components) which are strictly defined as being without experience. I do get your argument though that the emergence of consciousness is evolutionary desirable since adaptive systems are better capable with dealing with its perhaps unknown environment, so in that sense, the emergence of consciousness is indeed logical. However, it doesnt explain to me how a subjective experience can emerge from something that is defined as purely material, no matter its complexity or its specifci configuration, or the reason for a emergent property to exist (consciousness is beneficial for survival). I hope you understand the argument! Because I do not see any way around it.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. As you suggest, a core problem lies in understanding how subjective experience, or qualia, can emerge from purely material components. This is often referred to as the "hard problem" of consciousness, and it's a deeply challenging question. One way of responding to this is to consider that subjectivity is a function of the way in which information is processed within a complex adaptive system. One of the key properties of such systems is their autonomy-the ability to self-organise and adapt based on internal and external inputs. For instance, two autonomous systems receiving the same environmental input may undertake information processing that involves computational distinctions, resulting in different outcomes. But this is not the only requirement. Subjectivity is a function of identity, also an emergent property from cognition-the way a system processes information and assimilates experiences. Ultimately a sense of self may emerge from cognition through a dynamic interplay of information integration, self-representation, memory, self-awareness, narrative construction, and reflexivity. These processes work together to create a coherent sense of identity and self that is continually shaped and refined by cognitive activities and experiences. When this emergent identity is coupled with affective abilities, such as the capacity for awareness, it can give rise to subjectivity. In this view, subjectivity isn't just about processing information; it's about how this information is integrated into a coherent sense of self. The emergent identity, shaped by ongoing cognitive and affective processes, creates a unique internal perspective, or subjectivity, that is distinct for each individual. So, while each material component is devoid of subjective experience on its own, the specific configuration and integration of these components within a complex adaptive system can give rise to what we perceive as subjective experience. This isn't just a qualitative observation from an outsider's perspective; it's the actual emergence of a new property-subjectivity-within the system.
Heres a fascinating idea! Training octopuses to interpret and communicate the results of a quantum experiment could be an intriguing way to explore the intersection of consciousness and quantum mechanics. Here are some considerations and potential steps for such an experiment: Training the Octopus: Octopuses are highly intelligent and capable of learning complex tasks. You could train them using positive reinforcement techniques to recognize and respond to specific patterns or signals. For example, you might train them to distinguish between different light patterns or shapes that represent different outcomes of the experiment. Designing the Experiment: The double-slit experiment could be adapted to include visual cues that the octopus can observe. For instance, you could use a screen that displays the interference pattern or particle pattern, and train the octopus to indicate which pattern it sees. Testing for Consciousness: The key challenge would be to determine if the octopus’s response is due to conscious observation or simply a learned behavior. This would involve designing controls and variations in the experiment to rule out simple conditioning. For example, you could introduce random elements or changes in the setup to see if the octopus can adapt and still correctly identify the patterns. Interpreting Results: If the octopus consistently identifies the correct patterns, it could suggest a level of awareness or understanding. However, interpreting these results would be complex and would require careful consideration of alternative explanations, such as instinctual behavior or advanced pattern recognition. Ethical Considerations: It’s important to ensure that the experiment is conducted ethically, with the well-being of the octopus as a priority. This includes providing a stimulating and enriching environment and avoiding any harm or distress. While this experiment wouldn’t directly prove the role of consciousness in wave function collapse, it could provide valuable insights into the cognitive abilities of octopuses and their potential for understanding complex phenomena. It could also spark further research into the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Disaggree with BK on this : "Collapse is epistemic" may be right, but not because "superposition is epistemic". Superposition is not epistemic in a classic sense of theoretical construction, it is real, and proven by interferences between states, even for one quantum and one time. Feynmann path integrals have also been made to solve the many-path reality into one experiment. That is why, collapse can be ontologic. And when due to decoherence, it is ontologic too. Also, Parallel quantum computing is impossible if superposition is just "epistemic". Remind also than circular polarisation of light is a superposition of two electromagnetic fieds, even for only one photon.
To have Sir Roger Penrose, Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup in one meeting to share their views on consciousness and reality is something we will be ever so grateful for! Hans, you have navigated the map and territory so skillfully and respectfully. Deepest thanks for making this happen.
How many phat of the land are there behaving like pharaohs, quite a few? Science appears to have pharmed babies for exploitation by the many and whilst brazenly formulating the cerebrally narcissist streak to not believe it embarrassing?
Got to wonder on these people who consider themselves sweets stolen from babies; it looks very ‘dancer in the dark’ meets ‘walk the line’.
Sir Roger Penrose is 93 and only I can say Wow What a mind! He is already a legend
hawkings and his books are awesome
He is so clear even at this age!
A word treasure.
I disagree. He seems pretty ignorant to me.
@@MostConscious let me know when you win a Nobel Prize
I’ve come to expect a lot from Essentia, but can’t say I expected THIS. Hats off to Bernardo and his team, they continue to raise the bar for interviews on the frontier of physics and philosophy and it’s a privilege and a pleasure to watch it unfold!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
But don't you find it annoying when uploaders ask you to give a thumbs-up _before_ you see the video? How about giving hotels 5 Stars the week before you stay there, right?
@@hyperduality2838 Cobblers!
@9:49 Penrose explains the most profound aspect of Godel's Theorem: That moment when you work through the proof yourself, and suddenly understand WHY Godel's Theorem must be true, you are experiencing a thought process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
Which is like the unconscious mind. We compute a flying ball hit by someone to us into lef t field with such precision with practice or hit moguls with precision coming down a snow-covered hill at 40mphs. The computational skills it takes to do these things in real time are cazy. I think the brain does have a quantum computational process to it.
What about beings without brains? How do they react quickly to their environment without a biological quantum computer? I'm not convinced the brain is quantum as you say (aside from the universal quantum laws it follows). Because if a quantum brain is the reason we can react with such speed and precision in real time, you'd have to find a reason for life forms being able to live and react without brains.@@esad-ij5ie
but that is not true. The goedel theorem is proved in such a way that a computer algorithm can prove it and thus also internalise and understand it. There is nothing i the proof that requires you to represent non-representable truths.
@@matswessling6600 A computer algorithm "understands" nothing. It can manipulate arbitrary symbols, but it takes human insight to recognize what makes those symbols meaningful.
@@QuicksilverSG "insight" isnt myserious, is just that the brain created shortcuts in the associations for that subject. The mind doesnt do what you think it does. The mind is no computer. the brain is in a way a sort of computer, but the mind isnt, its more like running software. our minds are not a "complete formal system" and thus is not needed to follow Gödels theorem.
What an incredible discussion. I’ll never be able to see the world, life, my own mind the same after watching this. My late fiancé and I had these talks for years by e-mail before we met in person. He’d love this.
@@jenmdawg That's amazing! It's life changing 🙂
Heartfelt condolences💔🤗What a special couple🌌
@@jenmdawg strange. I didn't think much of it. Everyone was tiptoeing around Sir Roger not wanting to offend his British sensibilities by suggesting the Hindus had figured out better than Einstein.
@@user-fj2zc9iz5uDid they? really? Educate me 😅!
@@user-fj2zc9iz5uyou don't know your history either.
The moderation at 16:35 or so blew my mind. What a thoughtful moderator to reframe the subject perfectly while two juggernauts have just laid out huge theories and allow them to move forward in a direction that is fruitful.
Yes, he did an amazing job. Often politely reframing a slightly missed question here and there. He carried on a beautiful conversation. This was a very special video, glad it's been recorded.
Experiments favorable is supportive. Penrose is a skeptical and thorough scientist. A Giant
I am so grateful for the opportunity to see and hear these very interesting and knowledgeable guys speak. This is groundbreaking new media that is allowing us to understand the best minds and their specialisms.
❤❤❤
One thing scientists (which also I am) should use from eastern mystics is that the core consciousness is “the witness” the one “who is there”. If you remove all senses, memory or even thoughts, will there be somebody ? Yes, that is consciousness
There was a Brian greene documentary exploring this idea. And also explore the fractal nature of consciousness within biological beings. That consciousness is inherent in the universe.
@@kronoscamron7412
Then what causes psychopathic abominable crimes? Is that the universe itself acting up? 😅
@@burakgozluklu what if the deep meditative state enables the experience of the most basic level of awareness as the ability of the brain to be aware of its own existence and not some deeper reality?
Which of course doesn't exclude the possibility of such...
@@Littleprinceleonit can be even if very few can attain a level of meditation that opens the door to such possibilities. The main intention of my statement is to point to the hardship of defining consciousness, even the hard problem of concentration doesnt do the job. People still talk about “things” like color, smell etc but not the awareness which is witnessing it.
Yes and I think what hints at this is: how are we all conscious of the same things? If there was a red coat left on a table a monitor would pick up the red coat and report it found and the person who thought they lost it would show up. That shows that something beyond physical, in the human mind, identifies the red coat. Many human minds are detecting the red coat. So that’s maybe not seeing things as they really are, but it points to a universal consciousness that perceives the same thing. It may not be reality but it hints that we all are together and can witness reality together too because perhaps we are all the Mind of God perceiving Itself as we look to this Egotistic, One Ego & Mind.
There cant be a better discussion and the team of debate than these 3 people
Add Don Hoffman, and I would agree.
Correct 👍🏼
After having a few LSD trips, anyone can become a real expert.
Just take a look at Kastrup, he used to be just a high level engineer, but now he is an expert on combining words and sentences that collectively create an illusion of knowledge.
@@ezbody Oh my! Is that why Penrose is holding his forehead?🤣
Wow, so good - Sir Roger Penrose - I dearly wish that minds and personhoods like his could go on forever. 🍂🍃🌈
What a pleasure. Thank you all so much.
This is the first video ive seem by you. I LOVE this format, where you slice up the conversation and provide context. This makes these topics so much more digestible. Thank you and keep it up!
My problem with Roger Penrose point of view is this: if its true: A) that consciousness can't be explain by a matematicaly computable formal way (with the invocation of the Godel's incompleteness theorem) B) the collapse of the wave function indicates that the QM theory is not complete (or correct in his own words). Then if we reach a point in the future that QM in complete (something that Penrose says it needs to be done) and its able to mathematically and formally explain the collapse of the wave function then it can't explain consciousness because that can't be explain formaly (and we're back to Godel incompleteness theorem).
So in my view if consciousness is not an emerging property of the formal laws of physics then it really needs to be fundamental and for that the explanation presented by Faggin makes more sense.
Can something not be unexplainable?
@@danielm978@danielm978 yes, as Kant says, the thing in itself can't be explained or known as it's beyond the limits of our knowledge.
@@danielm978 Penrose seems too sure everything can be measured as if he thinks the world is just how it looks at face value, i expected more from him.. If this isnt a computer simulation and is truly analog reality then surely analog cannot always be reduced to a digital scale no?
Like when people say something is physically impossible they are the science version of a religious nut because science must change to accept reality, reality doesnt have "laws" humanity has just lost its way and transformed a system of studying our environment into a belief system.. Teaching kids theories are facts to keep them dumb.. Since the 50s nobody will be allowed to accidentally advance research that may affect Fission based weapons, its been made sure of by totally changing how mainstream science sees itself and ensuring anyone who questions the status quo never becomes an expert and challenges the system..
History science medicine/drugs news it is all being controlled or discoveries covered up to ensure nato and the current global trade economy stays intact because it started for peace but now its just too inconvenient for the richest 1% to allow those old agreements to fail regardless of what the people want, anyone you are allowed to vote for is part of the magic show, whichever card you pick the result will always be the same. Its the illusion of choice to keep the majority docile, if people think they have some sort of control they are much less likely to try take back power for themselves in a more difficult manner as they believe in the system changing if they ask nicely which weakens and divides the masses.. Lots needs to change we are living in a system designed by dead people who never passed on the secret to the plan so its on autopilot now and being used to ensure the richest stay rich free of risk while making us all victims of data harvesting and surveillance.. We have much to fix the kids who arent old enough to remember before 2000 sadly dont realise whats happened. The frogs nearly boiled hopefully we free human progress from this corruption before its too late.. ✌❤️
thers a 3h eric weinstein vid very recently who sums it all up very well he knows the score..
Apart from science becoming a new form of religion historical sites like gobekli tepe been buried, grand canyon cave city was all concreted and barred shut with armed guards for 'peoples safety' too! but rock climbing sky diving cave exploring all legal, thers so much blatant interference. We the people deserve truth regardless of the effect on religions or alliances or rich institutions based on lies or mistaken history, those things are so much less important than truth. These things buried and lost from living memory is just unacceptable in my opinion.. The truth fragments still remain but ai will probably change that eventually i guess.. Stay free✌❤️
Go to 56:02. Penrose says that the qualia of another’s conscious experience is something that simply can’t be known. He also says that quantum reality can only be confirmed, not ascertained. Perhaps these have some connection.
I am only 45 minutes into this conversation, but the phenomenon of personalities dancing around each other trying not to offend the others is very palpable. It's as if Gaggin, Kastrup and the moderator have agreed upon a very tentative conversational strategy up front. And Penrose is simply not biting and not sufficiently enticed to reason outside of his materialist world view. Having said this, it"s easy for me to say, obviously, and I respect the effort.
😂😂 Wow! This sounds like a typical sample of my inner dialogue as i watch such presentations.
True
Yes, it's fascinating to watch and also a little painful, as one witnesses the challenge of opening an old mind to a new idea, and one knows of course that we all have the same problem as Sir Roger.
@@Seeker2043 I ❤ you.
Yes, nice…Penrose is a materialist. He refers to two realities, one quantum, the other classical…No, Classical is the reality decided by the quantum world, which is not a reality but an infinite collection of possibilities put to consciousness.
Consciousness remains a mystery. Conversation about it remains conversation.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Nope
I mostly agree, except for the mystery. It is just simpler than they can admit.
perfectly said. in a thousand years we will be no less closer to "solving the problem of consciousness". our tech will be way cooler though.
Actually, consciousness is the one thing that isn't a mystery. Everything else is a mystery, because consciousness is the only thing that has ever been experienced. There is no hard problem of consciousness. There is only a hard problem of matter.
We love you SO dearly Roger. Thanks for staying engaged in this work and thanks for your theory. Watching a session or seminar with you is like opening a bottle of the finest wine, a delirious pleasure for the intellect.
These are GIANTS of humanity.
Thanks for sharing this magnificent talk !! Sir Roger Penros is an amazing scientist to listen to. I admire his intellectual humility and compassion. Consciousness is fundamental posing serious challenge to scientific materialism.
Wow! The concept of conciousness being a postulate, or an axiom is something incredible. Never explicitly stated, but this implys that the "universe" is "conscious, and quantum physics reflects the "free will" of the universe in the collapse of the wave function. I'm with Penrose on this being metaphysics, and creating more questions than it answers. Indeed, how can conciousness be seperated from a mind?
This isn't a new finding...the yogic science's are way beyond these guys.. journey onwards and outwards and escape the imaginary finite world of the mind and experience the infinite truth of of reality of what we truly are.
Dont say wow and get overexited by simple stuff my friend, what will you do when you understand that you are me, and that this comment you are reading right now is written by yourself?
@@masticloxpoker1006 or maybe get excited and fall hopelessly in love with the wowness of everything...wahe guru 😋
Nothing & Everything:
Several hypothesis and theories propose that at some point in time, all matter and mass in the universe will be swallowed by black holes, then all of the information about the matter is evaporated as hawking radiation and becomes photons. Roger Penrose has a very strong hypothesis called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology that I highly recommend studying.
In this scenario, spacetime ceases to exist because photons do not experience time or space. In the absence of spacetime, all photons become a single, unified photon capable of exceeding the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement. This leads to an infinite overlap of all points in the universe, creating a paradox where the universe simultaneously ends and begins. The exact moment everything becomes a photon is the exact moment everything becomes matter again, demonstrating a paradox where GR and QM overlap, and the universe exists in a state of both physical and non-physical infinity.
This is an extreme scenario where all matter in the universe converts to photons, resulting in a universe composed entirely of massless, virtual particles. Given that photons travel at the speed of light and do not experience time or space. This conversion of matter into energy leads to the cessation of spacetime. Due to quantum tunneling, entanglement, and the absence of spacetime constraints, all photons unify into a single photon capable of exceeding the speed of light, leading to the simultaneous end and rebirth of spacetime. This is where E=mc², and m=E/c² come into play. c² is the square of the speed of light, which only happens when there is no vacuum.
1. What we know about Photons
- Photons are massless particles that always travel at the speed of light. According to special relativity, photons do not experience time or space; there is no interval between their point of emission and absorption in their frame of reference. If the universe becomes a unified photon, spacetime, as traditionally understood, ceases to exist.
- The cessation of spacetime means that the conventional dimensions of time and space lose their meaning because there is no mass to curve spacetime, and photons themselves do not require spacetime to exist in the conventional sense.
2. The Singularity Illusion
- In a photon-only universe, without the usual constraints of spacetime, all photons can be considered as part of a single, unified quantum state. This unified state implies that all photons are entangled with each other, sharing the same quantum properties and existing as a singular entity, resulting in a super position.
- Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous correlations between particles regardless of distance. In the absence of spacetime, the distance and time separation between entangled photons becomes meaningless, allowing them to behave as a single, unified photon.
3. c²
- With spacetime ceasing to exist, the unified photon state is not constrained by the speed of light limit. In a spacetime-less state, photons can "tunnel" across the entirety of what would be considered the universe without restriction. This process is known as quantum tunneling.
- This unified photon state also allows quantum entanglement to exist simultaneously across all points, effectively exceeding the speed of light. The photon’s wave function would encompass the entire universe instantaneously, creating a state where all spatial and temporal coordinates overlap, and the moment the wave function collapses is the moment the physical universe is created.
4. Endless cycle of Birth, Death, & Rebirth
- In this state where all photons are unified and spacetime has ceased, photons can interact through quantum fluctuations and collisions, leading to pair production. This process would spontaneously generate particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electrons and positrons), reintroducing mass into the universe.
- The moment mass is reintroduced, spacetime is reinstated. The paradox arises because the exact moment spacetime ceases is also the moment it begins again. The absence of spacetime allows the unified photon to exceed conventional limits, while its interactions simultaneously recreate matter, restoring spacetime. Time is the measurement of matter as it moves in space.
In a universe where all matter converts into photons, the cessation of spacetime allows for the formation of a single, unified photon state. This state enables photons to exceed the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement, resulting in an infinite overlap of all points and moments in the universe. The universe reaches a paradoxical state where its end and rebirth occur simultaneously. The instant spacetime ceases due to the lack of mass, the unified photons vibratory rate exceeds the speed of light leading to the immediate re-emergence of matter and spacetime.
At the exact moment when everything becomes photons and spacetime ceases, photons unify and exceed the speed of light, creating a state of infinite simultaneity where the end of the universe overlaps with its beginning. The universe’s fabric collapses into a singular quantum state, where the cessation of spacetime is indistinguishable from its rebirth through pair production. This unified state of everything is consciousness.
- Physics falls apart
This hypothesis challenges the traditional limits of physics, suggesting that without spacetime, the universe can transcend its normal physical laws. The super position state of the unified photon, enabled by quantum entanglement and tunneling, allows for behavior beyond conventional speed limits and dimensional constraints.
- The Paradox
The unified photon state’s ability to exceed the speed of light in the absence of spacetime leads to a condition where all events and locations are superimposed. The instantaneous reintroduction of matter via pair production ensures that the universe does not remain in this state. Instead, it transitions back to a state with spacetime, creating a loop where the cessation and existence of spacetime are one and the same.
- Paradox
The cessation of spacetime, combined with the unified photon state’s super position behavior and quantum properties, creates a paradoxical infinity where the universe’s physical and non-physical states coexist. The concept of time does not pass between these two states, creating a moment that is both an end and a beginning, a state of infinite simultaneity and unified existence.
Let’s add the physics Tom Campbell with his MBT theory of everything in this discussion. Thank you great discussion 🙏🏽
The discussion is awesome and although there are different views they smile and are very polite. The bright analytical intellect, how Bernardo summarizes, is unparalleled and gives goosebumps. But there is always confusion between participants , also in many other discussions, how consciousness is defined. Some understand it as mind others as absolute consciousness. Nisargadatta brings in here awareness as the primordial which is the matrix of every experience. May I share:
Nisargadatta Maharaj: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.
Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness?
Nisargadatta: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy…..,
Sorry for the excursion. Best regards from Vienna 🤗
YES, Nisargadata is an important voice to consider ....read:. I AM THAT.
What a huge privilege to be "a fly on the wall" while this amazing discussion, between these extraordinary humans, takes place. Deep thanks!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Forget consciousness, I find it complicated in just trying to explain how is it that a flower is beautiful. However much I try I cannot give a complete description of what is it that makes a flower beautiful? Any amount of description remains insufficient and incomplete.
Everything is a claim that I am not convinced by, Penrose is the only who has the skepticism I would trust.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838I bet you have also reflected why things take on a dual structure, if so please elaborate on that topic hyperduality.
There are many types of dualities but are you aware of the duality they all pertain to, the duality of duality?
And although categories certainly are dual to sets it is not true that syntax is exclusive to the former and semantics to the latter, the most generalised syntax for instance is doubtlessly containment which pertains far more directly to sets than to categories.
Categories are in mathematics what analytic predicates were for Kant, while sets are in mathematics what synthetic predicates were for Kant. Syntax is necessary everywhere where we are dealing with composites of distinct things, synergy, synthetic, synapse, syndicate, syntactic, they have one thing in common in addition to their morphology and etymology itself reveals it so we don't even need to theorise about it. Things are coming together without being already the same every time it starts with "syn".
@@user-dt4qr7kb9y Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, Functors or dual basis.
Riemann geometry is actually dual so curvature or gravitation is dual as there is a dual basis hiding in Riemann geometry, upper indices are dual to lower indices -- Tensors.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration - Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
The future is dual to the past -- time duality.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality.
Time is dual.
Likewise space must be dual:-
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry or space duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points where the points are the boundaries in topology (homology) -- space duality.
All lines or distances are non null homotopic -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality -- duality within duality or hyperduality.
Thesis (the future) is dual to anti-thesis (the past) creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis (the present) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The present is the synthesis of the past and future according to the Hegelian dialectic.
Time is a dual concept and space is a dual concept -- space is dual to time -- Einstein.
@@user-dt4qr7kb9y Energy is also dual, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy or gravitational energy is dual.
Everything in physics is made out of energy or duality.
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.
Hence there is a 5th law of thermodynamics as duality (energy) is being conserved -- Generalized Duality.
Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force.
Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.
If forces are dual then energy must be dual:-
Energy = Force * distance -- simple physics.
Gluons are force carriers as they attract and repel quarks.
The proton would collapse in on itself if there was no repulsion between quarks likewise two quarks attract each other via gluons otherwise the proton would not be stable. Gluons or force carriers are dual.
Energy is duality, duality is energy!
I don't understand the argument that free will exists, in fact I've never heard a logical argument that it exists so I'm surprised to hear it stated as an axiom in this discussion.
The consciousness discussion is fascinating although I'm persuaded by the possibility that we will never understand consciousness as it's not possible to study it objectively.
We may have to embrace uncertainty.
That was incredible and almost surreal, I think if Penrose were a peer of Kastrup, Hoffman et al he would be in total agreement, but he provides the wall so to speak that new theories must vault over.
To be honest, all scientists should do a proper Ego Death before they start theorising about anything, as this is fundamental to a better understanding of spiritual states and consciousness. It's very hard to maintain a materialist world view after you've experienced one. Only Faggin here has done that (I think), though his experience was a spontaneous one. I get the feeling materialists are afraid of these states because experiencing them would shatter their limited world view. So instead of being curious about these states, they just dismiss them outright. Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Cosa intende per " stati spirituali e della coscienza."
In what way is "spiritual" ontological to the idea of consciousness, especially through the eyes of science? I haven't seen one shred of evidence for any spiritual or successor for consciousness. Everything points to consciousness deriving from matter and energy. Perhaps those with deep Minds Eye fall for the illusionary trap of the state of being. I can't possibly articulate such discussions in a CZcams discussion without an exorbitant amount of paragraphs.
In the simplest form:
What I believe philosophically, the existence of that which I can't originate is infinite.
Matter and Energy come from a singularity, before the singularity is without origin therefore infinite. A spatial plane is possible before, possibly another universe yet the origin point is infinite.
Consciousness doesn't need philosophical spiritualism for its existence. Humanity tends to feel the need that their essence is unique and that beyond death is the captured embodiment of ones experiences preserved. I despise this why do people not see the beauty of existence without an eternal soul or spirit.
We are the universe. That's the only answer, we are existence it's self. I believe there is chaos a deep imbued nature of infinite. Patterns emerge from infinite chaos. Universes are born and complexity increases.
People feel the need to put things in an order in time. Because that's how we as humans experience life through a scale of time. Time at a certain affixed rate in which we can survive. Lifeforms exist within a certain (time rate & length of time). Isn't that fascinating? The rate of which particles move within a certain affixed time is actually meaningless to anything that doesn't perceive! Because the rate at which particles move is only relevant to the (time rate & length of time) of which lifeforms evolved to exist within! Meaning to a rock the universe has already died.
Nothing I see points to our existence being anything of where the universe cares because the universe and the existence of everything cares not for our existence.
We are but the universe experiencing it's self. Not in a unified consciousness but an individualistic spontaneous existence of consciousness from biological lifeforms.
What a wonderful constructive argument - and a very thoughtful moderation ! Was a joy and pleasure to follow a very mind heavy topic!❤
13:40 The collapse is the _expression_ of a field that has consciousness and free will. Brilliant. The consciousness is the field part, and the observation/measurement is the free will part.
Collapse = Rectification.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838you definitely live up to your username 😂
Free will? How?
@@scriabinismydog2439 Free will is a postulate here of an ontological primitive. So there is no "how". But it has the sense and benefit of being directly validated in each person's own experience. You experience it right at this moment, for example.
@@hyperduality2838 Interesting, thank you. It seems that the primal duality is found in the Heart Sutra.
It seems to me as though Sir Roger Penrose has a wonderful balance of both critical thinking and the "intuitive", which simply put, is a powerful connection to the ability to sense what is right, and what is wrong, without having to explain why.
"Very" sophisticated of you
Right is dual to wrong.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
20:20 it seems that sir Roger has not yet noticed the moment before cognition occurs. There is the _expanse_ of the unknown and then a "collapse" into a known. This transition does not happen materially, but it most certainly happens phenomenologically, and this is what is captured by QM.
Subscribed. Thank you! The Bernardo-Federico duo is awesome!
No, "collapse" does not correspond to any sort of physical process. The wave function doesn't even actually exist in physical space. It really exists in a "space of possible measurement outcomes. People get confused about this because so often the example that is considered is the POSITION measurement of a single particle. That space of possible results is a three-dimensional space of, well, POSITIONS, so it's easy to squint and let yourself think you're talking about physical space, but you actually are not. And in more complicated situations the space may not even be three-dimensional, so it's CERTAINLY not physical space.
Quantum theory is not a theory about "what happens in the world" the way classical physics is. Quantum theory is about WHAT WE EXPECT THE RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS TO BE. Therefore, you can't even get rolling until you specify what it is you're going to measure and how you're going to measure it. And when the pre-measurement quantum state becomes the post-measurement quantum state, there is no "physical" that steers that process. It's just an action we take as part of the problem solving procedure. We LOOK AT THE MEASUREMENT RESULT, determine the eigenstate of the measurement operator that corresponds to that result, and MANUALLY shove it in, as a step in our problem solving process. It's not physics at all.
Just to be clear, I don't mean for the above to contradict anything in this video. I agree with these guys by and large. All I mean is that collapse isn't something that happens physically IN THE CONTEXT OF MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I don't mean to say it doesn't represent anything at all happening. Just nothing that we can capture in our physical models.
My argument DOES address Penrose's objections to quantum theory. It does indeed leave out an explanation of what collapse is. But that's just because collapse has to do with stuff that's not included in the physical model at all - our minds, consciousness, and so on. There's no way it can be explained within the confines of ordinary physics.
'Not about "what happens in the world"' except it can give the answers which are applicable (and useful) in macroscopic world - our everyday life. Chemistry, metallurgy, electronics - nowadays these are based on specific solutions of the Schrodinger's equation.
I think we have similar intuition: QM is about outcomes of measurements, not about the reality itself.
You can reverse-engineer a structure of a car by using photons or electrons (microscopy) to see all details, but if you could only crash two cars and measure distribution of remains, what could you learn about mechanics?
But perhaps the collapse of WF is corresponding to the process of interaction between quantum fields, which is the same as the process of quantum measurement (we have to let something observable to interact with the quantum entity we want to get the eigenstate of)?
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 What I meant by that is that classical physics gives you a complete picture of the evolution of "the world" (or the part of it you're studying, at least). For example, if a golf ball is whizzing by, we can measure it's position and velocity at one instant and then calculate a complete trrajectory. We get a much bigger picture than just the result of the measurement. Quantum theory doesn't do that - we get the measurement result, and that is all. Of course, the theory gives us a full picture of the evolution of the wave function, in periods we are not measuring, but we can't really observe the wave function so that's not the same thing at all.
So, we can measure a particle at time A and learn something about it, and measure again at time B and learn something about it, but we don't get any info on observable properties in between those two times.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 Waves are not converted to particles by diodes. That's nonsense. Current waveforms simply have their negative going excursions suppressed. What's left is still a waveform - just a different one. That's if the diode is ideal, of course - a real diode only "approaches" such behavior.
I think you're just throwing around words that you t hink sound profound. Trying to sound like you know more than you do.
Ah yes, the "experts" on youtube are at it again,
Bless his heart - Sir Roger is having a really hard time with this. I think he's just not prepared to step out of the mainstream model enough to get what the other guys are saying. It seems simple to me, though. Stop trying to show how consciousness "emerges from physical process," because it doesn't. The consciousness is just there - as an initial assumption. That gives you a WAY for physics to be incomplete. Physics models physical reality, which is the PERCEPTIONS of consciousness. The consciousness is outside of that, and therefore you will never explain it as being "inside."
An analogy is a group of spectators in a theater watching a movie. The images on the screen turn out to follow very nice rules which we have been able to figure out. So we can make predictions about what's going to happen on-screen. But... that tells you NOTHING about the spectators. You wouldn't be able to show how the processes on screen "gave rise" to the spectators.
This analogy is incomplete, because spectators in a theater can't influence the images on the screen. In the case of consciousness and the physical world, though, we can. We have free will and can have certain limited influences on the unfolding of the physical world, which we then perceive. No laws of physics are violated, though, because this influence is contained within the flexibility of uncertain quantum outcomes. The structures in our brains and bodies "amplify" these tiny effects up to the scale of macroscopic actions.
There is nothing wrong with this idea. But mainstream science apparently just can't bear to consider the possibility that anything exists "outside of the scientific model." And sure - it would be great to have a bigger model that includes the consciousness as well, but I doubt we'll ever be able to have one.
I think you have an inflated mind. You have a hard time understanding genius.
I have the same opinion as penrose, I can't see an argument for WHY consciousness needs freewill. Or whatever your individual interpretation of freewill is.
Bernardo has the most open mind.
He is at the forefront for me, he has so much respect for everyone but more importantly he knows his experiences are coming from somewhere else.
Also worthwhile looking up work by Geoff Penington on black holes information, which shows similar features. It's apparently possible in principle to recover information back out of a black hole - if would could build a massive blackhole sized quantum computer beside the black hole. But what Penington unexpectedly found, was that the maths showed that the quantum computer emulating the black hole itself, was connected to the interior of the black hole by worm holes.
Note that Roger keeps his language very concrete, while the others throw around philosophical lingo private to their in-group. Even if you're unfamiliar with the topic (math, physics), that should be a clue as to which side here is more pragmatic.
Pragmatism isn’t under explicit or implicit discussion here.
That's because they are trying to explain something that can't be explained by materialism.
آفرین...nice point to consider
Any intelligent person understands that religion, science, philosophy, and math have their own language and can speak through that domain. . . A cat can't bark like a dog when wanting food.
I see some analogous to what Donald Hoffman proposes and what Faggin is claiming. Would be interesting to see them talk about their theories.
Awesome channel! Top Quality guests! I sure hope dear Roger is around for a lot longer. What a joy to listen to him speak, whether you agree with him or not.
Yes , cells have microtubules, and buildings have trusses. Do trusses confer the property of "computation" to buildings? No, right? So, why would a structural support mechanism confer cells with any "information processing"
property?
Maybe because your presupposition that microtubules are just structural support is wrong. Which it is, cause microtubules are also used for transporting chemicals to different parts of the cell.
@@user-ik6ds4ql7z Any comment about "information processing" would be helpful.
Language is symbolic so it’s use to precisely describe reality inevitably bifurcates the one reality into subject and object. I see Penrose using very precise descriptions so it’s no surprise he bifurcates reality into quantum (subjective) and classical (objective). Although, Faggin and Kastrup clearly appreciate and can articulate the dichotomy or duality of explicit reality, they also exquisitely and somewhat poetically gesture towards wholeness by describing implicit reality as a universal field of consciousness or subjectivity (Kastrup’s terminology).
Penrose’s explanation of the inevitability of wave-function collapse without conscious intervention doesn’t deny the catalytic power of agent-directed consciousness (attention and intention, free will) to speed up the process. Doesn’t our modern world exemplify the power of human consciousness to profoundly and exponentially reshape reality?
I appreciate the nuanced discussion around free will and acknowledge the difference between deterministic, self-identified agency and agent-directed attention (reflective consciousness) in creatively participating in manifesting the world or explicit reality.
The more humans consciously cultivate and recursively integrate the dual aspects of attention (right-brain openness and left brain closure) the more coherent will be the relations between inner and outer reality, between subject and object, between us and them, between me and you.
I am deeply appreciative of this gathering and discussion. Yet, with that said, I cannot help but to consider that it remains beyond tragic that the West, by and far, continues to act as though the East has no history of deeply examining both consciousness and free will, as if their history doesn't have a great deal of value to add to the West's conception and understanding of these subjects that can provide for a more robust understanding of ultimate reality. Though, thankfully, there is a generation of thinkers like Kastrup, Vervaeke, Sheldrake, and the like, who are breaking new ground in challenging the West's present cul-de-sac of thinking, which appears to be showing gtrat signs for the future.
Faggin has it. No collapse. It just appears that way to some. I enjoy listening to all but Faggin has it on this one. Keep the dialogue. It’s great!
Faggin has my vote. Penrose is still essentially a materialist. And Kastrup has the most compelling Direct Path notion as he just follows 'Nature' ... and knows that he is doing it. Love that!!!
Penrose has indicated platonic idealism multiple times - unsure where you are getting your information from
Faggin is opening up for debate an area that deserves serious academic study. Start with the postulate, forget the spiritual and religious connotations as that’s what seems to push people away (sadly). Just take it as a possible reality and create some experiment and theory to consider it a serious possibility. Science was never broken to push it into new eras without going against the commonly held beliefs of the day.
Penrose is definitely not a materialist, I don't think he thinks that mathematics is fundamental to all of reality, he just hasn't reconciled the dualism between math and consciousness and assumes that it can be done in a way that equals them out with a third understanding as opposed to positing that mathematics cannot exist without consciousness. The way I see it, in order to count something you must have a single perception that contains evidently differentiatable objects, but to perceive the coherent differentiation is to bely the a-priori perception that gave rise to the items. In that sense I am on Kastrup's side: everybody only has ever known oneness, inside of which everythingness exists. It reminds me of Lao Tzu: "From the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, from the three comes the ten thousand things." In other words, being=the field of consciousness (one) divides reality into polarities (two), but the two ends of the polarities still imply the existence of the original conscious perception, which, being not limited to having to perceive polarity in order to exist is thus separate from the pole as the watcher (which implies three: the two ends of the pole + the awareness), upon which all individual objects of cognition (including tokens/symbols) arise epiphenomenonally (the ten thousand things). But none of it could conceivably exist without the single field of consciousness. It's all so intuitive and obvious (and I don't mean that patronizingly); people just aren't comfortable with the pan-psychism implicit in idealism because they are racist against rocks and minerals (that's a joke) and obviously humans are naturally anthropocentric. Side note: undifferentiated beingness without even QUALIA can be experienced, paradoxically, on high doses of psychedelics. 5-MEO dmt is quite good at reliably doing this if you can let go of egomind and pop through the vortex. Anyone who has experienced this will know exactly what I'm talking about, and anyone who hasn't naturally won't believe it's possible, just like a person blind since birth wouldn't believe color is possible (and even if they did conceptually, it would not replace the actual experience). In closing, Krishnamurti: "The description is not the described."
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@IntuitArt-rb4br Perhap not materialist so much as metaphysical realist i.e. there’s a real, mind-independent state of affairs that science ought to disclose, not contingent upon the observer.
I loverd this. It is just so beautiful how well this went. Intelegent, polite, respectful. An absolute honor to get to see these people interact so effectively.
My reasoning and intuition tells me consciousness must be fundamental. I have listened to Hoffman and Kastrup extensively and they have convinced me. (I am just now starting to listen to Faggin more) Still fully absorbing it, yet I'm sure they are on the right path. It only makes sense to me that we are immortal beings of consciousness as opposed to just material. It seems very obvious to me that we are part of one consciousness. It's obvious because where do we come from if not consciousness itself. This is an experience the consciousness is having through us! that seems obvious to me. Yes we are dissociative now, but not after death. What is mental cannot be lost as it;s connected to the interweb of consiciousness. I did magic mushrooms once, phillosopher stones... i swear to god i heard voices in the universe. I felt a sensation that hte universe was conscious. It's exactly as they're describing that everything mental is all around us.
Totally agree!
I'm wondering how exactly are we the same (one) consciousness. It's impossible we do experiencing simultaneously since now I don't have yours experience. Do you live your live from second person (my) perspective? Or are we manifested sequentially and after my death I eventually become you. Other idea is we can live in sequential game. Once you fall asleep all other players take their turns
@@herzhory you can image this like that - every brain just probing a small portion of 'whole' consciouses. Becose it can be like fractal it work, at the same time for everyone.
Weird I have been getting the same exact intuition
@@herzhory To wrap your head around this concept picture our individual minds as a subset of whole consciousness. This subset is defined via the boundaries instilled through our ego. Our ego is a kind of illusion that makes our current conscious experience "feel" distinct, unique and "ours". You can see the boundaries of our ego as something that blocks the view beyond and into the collective consciousness thus preventing us from realizing the interconnectedness of all consciousness. By blocking this view, we are in a way blind and metaphorically amnesiac; as a result we must indulge in deep introspection of our own minds to realize this Truth.
Understanding this also makes it easier to understand why people who undergo a psychedelic experience report attaining this intuitive Truth: that we are all oneness and united under some unifying substrate (spoiler: the substrate is consciousness). This intuitive Truth is a product of the psychedelic sub-experience, Ego Death, such that by having your ego dissolve into nothingness you can see beyond the once in-place barriers and realize this Truth via pure subjective experience.
Fabulous conversation and people here! I don’t understand if Penrose is deliberately not entertaining the idea of consciousness as a fundamental concept in the fabric of reality. Gaggin and Kastrup are being crystal clear about their counter proposal. Quantum physical observations appear the way they do as a result of our conscious mind and its properties. Penrose, brilliant though he is, keeps going around it.
Glad I wasn’t the only one feeling the same
At one point he said something like “philosophers and physicists care about different things”.
I would never bet against Sir Roger Penrose, that is a gut feeling not a intellectual one
If Sir Roger cracks the code to quantizing consciousness, it’s possible he’ll go down as the most brilliant man to ever live, from a conscious A.I perspective.
Kastrup makes sense at 1:02:02-1:04:00 but he is describing Spinoza’s panpsychist view, not idealism. When you realize consciousness can’t be derived from physical variables, throwing out the physical world completely is throwing out the baby with the bath water! Panpsychism is the solution to the Hard Problem, and the ontological unity of quantum states is the solution to the binding/combination problem AND the epiphenomenalism problem. Penrose’s objective collapse is the solution to the “miracle” that we can tap into absolute truth even though we’re just primates-because the collapse mechanism taps into fundamental global-eternal nonlocal properties of the universe (cf a string field theory quantum gravity collapse mechanism by Nanopoulos).
Err, err,, ah hah, ....
Anesthetics that work on us also work on single cells. What do we have in common? Microtubules, baby! 👍
Communication, all biological cells communicate with each other.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 I counted nine but I hear you.
@@MikeWiest NIne? You have lost me hear.
Messages in a communication system are predicted into existence using probability in Shannon's information theory -- a syntropic process. teleological.
Biological cells such as neurons are predicting messages into existence hence they are using syntropy!
All messages have syntax or form and semantics or substance (meaning) hence they are using duality.
Your brain/mind therefore uses syntropy to create reality -- neural communication.
"Through imagination and reason we turn experience into foresight (prediction)" -- Spinoza describing syntropy.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Mathematicians create new ideas or concepts all the time from their perceptions or observations -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Hence there is a dual process to that of increasing entropy namely syntropy and there must be a 4th law of thermodynamics.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Duality creates reality.
Essentia has a new video. I stop everything I was doing...
No need to stop what you were doing, you would have done so either way :p
@jekonimus sorry, you forgot the r in your name after the e.
Sir Roger is the only one here who made sense to me.
I generally agree strongly with most of what Penrose says, but there is one point on which we take very different views. He said consciousness must have causal power since otherwise it would not have evolved. It would take me far too long to justify this here, but I am all but convinced that consciousness has virtually nothing to do with evolution. I believe that there really is no caudal power behind the observer, it is purely a passive awareness of things which are happening and which the perceiver cannot influence. I believe that occurrence and experience are two faces of a coin, they "arise mutually" so to speak. Lifeforms evolve intelligence and cognition for obvious reasons but the associated conscious experience is purely inadvertent. Simply everything which happens has an associated perception of it having happened. The human brain is just one of those things which happen, but happens to be very complex, taking in information from a large volume and combining it, contrasting, comparing, storing and replaying. All this gives rise to a rich conscious experience. But crucially, the brain does not generate awareness, rather the awareness was already there, the brain simply produces the objects of awareness.
You might like the work of the presocratic philosopher Paramandia, who famously kicked off this philosophical argument.
Thanks for great discussion. I am voting for Federico on this one
Faggin is brilliant! So is Penrose but he doesn’t want to give up the classical physics. Of course, we love Bernardo 😘🧿❤️
Penrose is not being dogmatic. He says it is worse than Einstein's polite response that it is incomplete; he says there is no reason to believe it because there is no valid proof; it's just an unanswered void.
This was such a delightfully rich and well spoke debate. Much gratitude!
Sir Roger is clearly brilliant when it comes to the physics of the 'headset' (to use Don Hoffman's term) but, also clearly, he will never get beyond the physicalist ontology.
One can't get outside of one's experience. One is stuck trying to understand one's experience from within it. Nima"s work on the boundary of experience - scattering amplitudes - is a way forward. In 2020 he revealed a diagram of what the mathematical kinematic structure of his theory would look like within spacetime. Nima claims the relationships of that structure, results in everything else, right up to cosmological scales. I'd expect to find a similar structure within our experience of us, as it is us, who are apparently having the experience.
Incredible discussion. I’m grad degree in philosophy 1979, and I’m usually with Bernardo, especially since he encompasses Schopenhauer, in my experience.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 All of which is empiricism, and has nothing to do with ontology, which is the issue at hand. In my experience many do not understand ontology. Syntax, information, mathematics, semantics, etc., do not deal with ontology. They describe qualities, quantities, appearance, behaviors, relationships.
Have u noticed the vintage 8bit era computers at the back ? One is the little known casio fx 9000p from 1981 with a z80 cpu. What is the other to its left ?
Absolutely great - I love that you got Roger Penrose - these ideas have to be refined and put through the philosophical and experimental rigor otherwise it’s just new age wishful thinking - I’d trust Penrose’s intuition but I also feel like I’d personally love for Bernardo’s world view to be real because it explains so many things - still wishing for something is not enough we must follow scientific principles in our metaphysics as much as is reasonably possible
You’re already experiencing the world that Bernardo speaks of my friend. And your wishful thinking is the confirmation of that, the cat is alive if you believe it to be alive.
The problem I see with Faggin's theory is that it would mean that all quantum systems are conscious, and all quantum systems express their outcomes intentionally, what he calls "a decision of the field as to what to manifest".
Because I his view outcomes are derived upwards from the quantum field level, there's no account of how or why particular systems like us manifest intentional behaviour while other systems like atmospheric gasses, blobs of oil or whatever else do not. There's nothing in his account that would prevent them from doing so, the quantum fields could just collapse in such a way that a blob of oil would wander off looking for it's friends, or whatever. Maybe I misunderstand his account, but I wish they'd addressed this issue.
If he would at least specify how one of the "Q-weirdness" is explained by his approach. Should give a brief overview since "explanation" is a very broad category
@@simonhibbs887
Faggin postulate
Consciousness produces reality
One wants to know itself
Just a simulation
All via quantum information
What else?
Science is literally stuck inside the Headset. They hit a brick wall inside the Headset.
Science built the headset (I'll include religion as the old science)
Let me guess, you escaped or transcended Headset by stilling your mind?
@@herzhoryI think he/she is just using Donald Hoffman's terming, and he's pretty mathematically rigorous. Meditation does help for clearer cognition and awareness in any case; that has been demonstrated empirically
@@JJBerthume thanks for clarifying! As I understand headset is kind of synonym to interface or consciousness in accordance with natural selection. I agree science is inside, I'm wondering if anyone have access to outside by other means
@@herzhory There is no outside. Consciousness is not a local thing or a temporal event. I make this claim based on my immediate experience. You can verify this statement by looking around you, and trying to see a thing (like a table) or an event (like French revolution) which is consciousness. There is no such thing. Consciousness is not anything, it's empty and non-existent in this sense that it doesn't have these spacio-temporal properties. One can deepen his connection with this fact (trough meditation and other such methods), and gain access to truths about the nature of consciousness like oneness, love, emptiness, and so on. These are essentially first-person truths, and cannot be grasped through thought or models, and thus not trough science of any kind. And by science I mean the idea that humans can describe reality exhaustively, so that we can have a complete picture of reality. These truths are simply outside any way of forming scientific knowledge about them.
Love sir Roger penrose but I'm with bernardo on this subject
And so what?
@@Littleprinceleon I believe its called a 'comments section'
Yes, it is a comment
@@altvibr and so what? 🤫
Great HOST! Really enjoyed the video. Host did a great good of summarizing and clarifying some comments from the panelists🌼
One thing I will never, ever be able to understand is how can someone be excited about materialism?
Materialism assumes we are only the brain, which in further assumes our consciousness dies after death.
I believe that while there are "compelling and obvious" reasons for which that might be the case, we also have phenomena that suggests otherwise.
Knowing that our consciousness could survive death is the biggest and most important thing you could possibly ask for, yet people reject it and embrace void as death not only as a "more plausible" explanation, but even better.
Michio Kaku or Sabrine say that it's a hotter concept to copy your entire brain and upload it in a computer?
Uhm, that's not you, that's a simulation that won't live and that won't be you. So why is this idea compelling?
I think NDEs are the strongest indicator for an afterlife and a loving creator (the "being of light"). Charles Tart says that that the scientific method is so dogmatic and absurd, that we all come to deny the most straight aspect of life : the subjective experience of existing that we all have.
A computer can be prepared with tons of sensors and perform algorithms of comparison to determine the best course of action, without being aware of it's existence. So if we are meat computers, we wouldn't need consciousness/awareness. The "Visual binding problem" is an argument that suggests consciousness/awareness doesn't reside in the brain because the perception of seeing (qualia) wasn't yet located in the brain.
Inspiring, revelatory, mind-expanding. Thank you so much Hans and Essentia Foundation - your content may be changing the course of my life, and certainly my interpretation of it.
I’m so excited to watch this! I’ve commenting about this on almost every Brian Greene video on CZcams! I’m just a heavy equipment mechanic and I paid attention in chemistry class and watched Brian Greene’s Daily Equations. I’m just so excited! 😅
I watched the program with great interest. I'm not a physicist and I'm far from understanding quantum physics, function collapsing, etc., but I notice that there are three people directly in the room, and the fourth one participates in the discussion, using an internet connection and a laptop, on equal rights, although he is far from the others. It tells me that everyone is equally consciously involved in the discussion, and to me that means that consciousness is something beyond this world of matter and biological life, that it is something that is a property of spirit. And here on earth it only expands his knowledge of feelings through the experiences of earthly life. So far, physics has no instruments to study the spiritual world, and therefore consciousness in this area.
I enjoy how the T.O.E. podcast also brings together the great minds we have. Seems it should be a common occurrence, to have as many of them gather at a time.. and all help plug one another's holes or smooth out each others thinking.
Although Sir Roger Penrose is a Nobel Prize winner and is obviously a very intelligent person with proven track records in the field of theoretical physics, Federico Faggin, in my opinion, is more brilliant than Sir Roger Penrose. And he is not just a theoretician. In practice, he is a scientist, an engineer, not just a university theoretician who lives in the library. He has proven his genius. And he had a spiritual experience that challenged him to investigate what consciousness is and what human beings and life in general are. Despite being 83 years old, he has a vitality, a poise, a calmness, a joy, which is a demonstration of what he thinks and feels. Sir Roger Penrose was no longer up to this type of debate and was playing defense. He never managed to get to where Federico got to in the field of philosophy of mind and in understanding quantum mechanics. Sir Roger Penrose also has a more inflated ego, which is an impediment to studying the area of consciousness, which involves self-observation. But he is an admirable, respectable and very intelligent man. And for 93 years old, he is not bad at all. This debate was a very interesting initiative. Now we need Miguel Nicolelis, who is more like Faggin because he is not just a theoretician. He is not an idealist, but he understands a lot about the brain. What Elon Musk presents as new, Nicolelis, at Duke University, discovered a long time ago. And he can contribute a lot to the debate on the philosophy of mind. The interviewer who led the debate did an excellent job. It's already usual..
Penrose gets it, imho
Thank you very much for this debate
The collapse of the wave function is simple and easy to understand. It is our observational pathway that collapses the waves by the time they get to our consciousness.
Do you think free will is crafting a path through the foam, ultimately crystalising a real conscious experience?
Just three actual experts respecting each others different ideas. Refreshing.
I think the problem is nobody takes into account that the whole universe is conscious.
Proof?
Does that actually mean something?
That was absolutely wonderful! What an incredible conversation, thank you :)
Kastrup, Hoffman and Faggin are right. Penrose just needs to take that final step towards idealism. Consciousness is the ultimate reality.
I think he needs to be true to himself. If you feel an urge to convert others to your way of thinking, then that's an indication that your way of thinking has become religion. It's a belief system intertwined with your sense of identity (ego) which needs to be defended. The desire to convert others comes when we are insecure and unsure of our own beliefs. Better to use Bayesian inference when thinking about such subjects to avoid getting entrenched in a black and white dogmatic belief system. No 'final step' towards idealism required.
Or the other way around? The Ultimate Reality is conscious? The ultimate reality is THE Consciousness (of which our consciousness if a mere reflection). That consciousness that is ultimate reality is (causally) prior to the consciousness that you (and I and Sir Roger) have. Welcome to theism!
@@stephensmith7995absolutely agree we cannot let analytic idealism become another religion
Perfectly stated.
For me, it’s obvious that we can’t know today, or possibly ever, and so epistemological humility is the best way to go. Kastrup turned me from a physicalist, to something more neutral. Let’s not be too certain, it’s just more stories for the brain that needs a story
Thank you EF for this discussion, kudos to Hans the moderator, great job sir !!! 🙏
it takes two to tango sometimes
Duality.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Babe please send all participants a microphone ! a precious video need excellent audio ! otherwise we both waste our time ! Excellent conversation!
Free will is not free. Your will is always limited by your physiology. Both the actions you can perform, and the decisions you can make are all constrained by physical phenomenon. You cannot will a spoon to bend using only your mind, just as you cannot will yourself to enjoy something which is unenjoyable. Nothing about free will is free, neither in scope nor in quality.
So I believe that the only place in which GENUINE free will can exist is in the mind of "little g" god. The rest of us are all stuck with limited will.
Please do not use 25 FPS for your videos! It causes stutter for the majority of viewers, since most run multiples of 59.94 hz screen refresh rate. YT "24" (23.976) or "30" (29.97) are way better as they divide cleanly
This is the type of conversation I'm looking for. As an unimportant curious low frequency human person.. thank you so much for making this possible. Subscribed.
It really does sound to me like both sides are saying in fact the same thing, in the sense that the confirmation bit (true/false) is the one bit "visible" across quantum barrier.
Words is the same as physics
They are limited
Great conversation
Loved the debate and the tone and respect of all participants and the great moderator. More like this please 😊.
I think there is very little free will. It is like the choice to be in synchrony with the will of universe. It is something like: the amount of tears, fears, laughs are determined, yet the choice of where they will be spent is gifted.
my quantum state wishes to express gratitude for being able to eavesdrop such a deep, wonderful, special conversation.
My understanding is that Fagin postulates that consciousness cannot emerge from unconscious matter. If this represents his position, then he really needs to engage with the work on complex adaptive systems, where consciousness is an emergency phenomenon of sufficiently complex systems, and the "quality" of that consciousness is a function of the degree of complexity.
My issue with this argument is that it explains the emergence of consciousness simply by a vague postulation that increased complexity, somehow, inexplicably, suddenly creates consciousness. It is basically a non-argument. I do know about emergent properties, but explaining emergence just by positing the cause as increased complexity, doesnt make sense to me. To just attribute it to increased complexity...
I appreciate your position on the relationship between complexity and consciousness. While it's true that simply attributing the emergence of consciousness to increased complexity can seem vague, there is substantial literature that explores this phenomenon in more depth. Specifically, complex adaptive systems theory offers a framework for understanding how consciousness might emerge.
In such systems, consciousness is not merely a byproduct of complexity but an emergent phenomenon arising from the intricate interplay of numerous components within a system. These systems are characterised by non-linear interactions, feedback loops, and a high degree of interdependence among their parts. The idea isn't that complexity itself directly causes consciousness, but rather that certain types of complex systems-when they reach a threshold of organisational intricacy-can exhibit properties, such as consciousness, that are qualitatively distinct from the sum of their individual components.
Related to this is the work of biologists Maturana and Varela in the 1970s, who proposed that living systems are autopoietic, i.e., self-producing and self-maintaining. This theory coincides with that of complex adaptive systems, which share similar properties. In particular, Varela’s enactivist tradition can be extended to suggest that consciousness, among other properties of the system, arises from dynamic interactions within a system that is not only complex but also self-organising and capable of maintaining a coherent identity over time. This perspective implies that consciousness provides a functional advantage by enhancing a system's ability to adapt, self-organise, and respond to its environment, thereby improving its potential for viability in a changing environment.
Moreover, from an evolutionary perspective, consciousness could be seen as an adaptive trait that evolved to enable complex systems to navigate intricate environments more effectively. It facilitates reflective decision-making, strategic planning, and the simulation of different future scenarios-abilities that offer significant survival advantages. So, to respond to your doubt, it is not that complexity necessarily leads to consciousness, but rather that under certain conditions the organisational dynamics of complex systems can give rise to emergent properties like consciousness, which play crucial functional roles in the survival and evolution of these systems.
@@mauriceyolles7016 thanks for the elobarate reply! Hard to find people to discuss this with.
However, even though, as you explained consciousness is not just an emergent property of solely increased complexity, it is also about how such a complex system is configured wrt to all its subordinate parts, I do not think that this argument accounts for any change in the qualitatie difference coherently. Kastrup himself has also considered this complexity argument, might be interesting to look into. Anyways, since all parts of the complex system (i.e. the human, with the emergent property being consciousness here) are a priori stated to be purely material (meaning without any degree of the subjective in the perfect sense), it logically cannot allow for a sudden 'subjective' experience, since all components are purely material. I think what is being conflated slightly in your argument is that, yes, from an outsider perspective something can seem qualitatively different (such as the patters flocks of bird make which cannot be purely determined by studying the movements and behaviour a bird on its own), I do not see how an experience of something, meaning the experience itself, can emerge from pure material forms of organization, no matter how complex or how specifically configured it is.
Do you see the argument? It is not as much the qualitative observation of something, which can be qualitaitvely different on the differing emergent levels, but rather the qualitative experience that I dont see how logically can emerge from its material building blocks (components) which are strictly defined as being without experience.
I do get your argument though that the emergence of consciousness is evolutionary desirable since adaptive systems are better capable with dealing with its perhaps unknown environment, so in that sense, the emergence of consciousness is indeed logical. However, it doesnt explain to me how a subjective experience can emerge from something that is defined as purely material, no matter its complexity or its specifci configuration, or the reason for a emergent property to exist (consciousness is beneficial for survival).
I hope you understand the argument! Because I do not see any way around it.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. As you suggest, a core problem lies in understanding how subjective experience, or qualia, can emerge from purely material components. This is often referred to as the "hard problem" of consciousness, and it's a deeply challenging question.
One way of responding to this is to consider that subjectivity is a function of the way in which information is processed within a complex adaptive system. One of the key properties of such systems is their autonomy-the ability to self-organise and adapt based on internal and external inputs. For instance, two autonomous systems receiving the same environmental input may undertake information processing that involves computational distinctions, resulting in different outcomes. But this is not the only requirement. Subjectivity is a function of identity, also an emergent property from cognition-the way a system processes information and assimilates experiences. Ultimately a sense of self may emerge from cognition through a dynamic interplay of information integration, self-representation, memory, self-awareness, narrative construction, and reflexivity. These processes work together to create a coherent sense of identity and self that is continually shaped and refined by cognitive activities and experiences. When this emergent identity is coupled with affective abilities, such as the capacity for awareness, it can give rise to subjectivity. In this view, subjectivity isn't just about processing information; it's about how this information is integrated into a coherent sense of self. The emergent identity, shaped by ongoing cognitive and affective processes, creates a unique internal perspective, or subjectivity, that is distinct for each individual. So, while each material component is devoid of subjective experience on its own, the specific configuration and integration of these components within a complex adaptive system can give rise to what we perceive as subjective experience. This isn't just a qualitative observation from an outsider's perspective; it's the actual emergence of a new property-subjectivity-within the system.
It is physical process and oservatiom avsorbing energy and emeting energy that is what i think it is what create consiuness
Heres a fascinating idea! Training octopuses to interpret and communicate the results of a quantum experiment could be an intriguing way to explore the intersection of consciousness and quantum mechanics. Here are some considerations and potential steps for such an experiment:
Training the Octopus: Octopuses are highly intelligent and capable of learning complex tasks. You could train them using positive reinforcement techniques to recognize and respond to specific patterns or signals. For example, you might train them to distinguish between different light patterns or shapes that represent different outcomes of the experiment.
Designing the Experiment: The double-slit experiment could be adapted to include visual cues that the octopus can observe. For instance, you could use a screen that displays the interference pattern or particle pattern, and train the octopus to indicate which pattern it sees.
Testing for Consciousness: The key challenge would be to determine if the octopus’s response is due to conscious observation or simply a learned behavior. This would involve designing controls and variations in the experiment to rule out simple conditioning. For example, you could introduce random elements or changes in the setup to see if the octopus can adapt and still correctly identify the patterns.
Interpreting Results: If the octopus consistently identifies the correct patterns, it could suggest a level of awareness or understanding. However, interpreting these results would be complex and would require careful consideration of alternative explanations, such as instinctual behavior or advanced pattern recognition.
Ethical Considerations: It’s important to ensure that the experiment is conducted ethically, with the well-being of the octopus as a priority. This includes providing a stimulating and enriching environment and avoiding any harm or distress.
While this experiment wouldn’t directly prove the role of consciousness in wave function collapse, it could provide valuable insights into the cognitive abilities of octopuses and their potential for understanding complex phenomena. It could also spark further research into the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world.
Thank you very much! The best conversation on this topic of the year! Looking for more of this!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
i think rendering exists via observation, and anything can "observe", so if you want to call that the wave function collapsing that's fine.
Disaggree with BK on this : "Collapse is epistemic" may be right, but not because "superposition is epistemic". Superposition is not epistemic in a classic sense of theoretical construction, it is real, and proven by interferences between states, even for one quantum and one time. Feynmann path integrals have also been made to solve the many-path reality into one experiment. That is why, collapse can be ontologic. And when due to decoherence, it is ontologic too. Also, Parallel quantum computing is impossible if superposition is just "epistemic". Remind also than circular polarisation of light is a superposition of two electromagnetic fieds, even for only one photon.
What an episode!!! Even though it is 131mins it took me nearly 2 hours to finish it. Thank you...
Oh joy! To see these three wonderful people around a table. Congratulations to Essentia for making this happen