Leonard Mlodinow - Is Consciousness Unified?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2023
- We feel as if our consciousness is unified-we integrate sight, sound, all the senses. Our minds feel as an indivisible whole. But eye or brain injury can alter or eliminate sight. A stroke can destroy subtle aspects of language capacity-you can write and not speak, speak and not write. The brain is compartmentalized. So is unified consciousness an illusion?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/3YbiuyC
Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author, recognized for groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and as the author of five best-selling books.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Idk man the only theory of consciousness that suits me is from David Hoffman, I just love his idea of consciousness being a fundamental thing in the universe and all the things we see are the contents of it
If you follow an atom down to its core, all you will find, are flashes of light, that are gone as quickly as you perceive them and a Darkness, and the Intelligence, behind the Universe. 'Can't recall who quoted this.' A great book, if u get a chance, 'One Mind'... We are ONE:) and made of Stardust
@@vickymccue8285 indeed
I do believe we are a part of the same unified consciousness but we are all a little different as is obvious by this world. We can all come from the same source and be interconnected while still being different. I also agree with Donald hoffmans mathematically proven theory of consciousness. That consciousness is the foundation by which everything else is made manifest. It's the more real reality that this world is just a reflection of. Which is why the unconventional and seemingly impossible can happen at times... because there is a depth of consequential reality that we are currently oblivious and made to be/ designed to be blind to. Which in context to that if we start asking the question of why we even exist in the first place we begin to gain some insights as to the meaning of humankind. Or such is my belief and understanding
This is the classic Buddhist and Vedanta Hindu view of consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental and 'forms' appear in it - forms being *everything* that we perceive, including our sense of self, our loved ones, and all sensory experience. It all arises from consciousness, and all subsides back into it.
These forms arise, they torture us for awhile, and they leave. If they are negative forms, they torture us when they are here. If they are positive forms, they torture us when they go.
The greatest masters are identified completely with consciousness, and are unattached to the arising and passing of forms. They are still human and feel human emotions, but they are not entangled in them.
@@squamish4244 I like that description.... but I woukd add... that both the negative and the positive are meant to teach us s9mething. That we have the ability to create by the manipulation of consciousness through action and intent and harnessing of the laws (truth) that create and govern "form". That by the experiencing the form of our own personal nature becomes manifest. Do we seek harmony or do we seek self. Balance or pride. I agree that the masters don't run from "negative form"... for they realize that what some people call negative is simply a perception of inconvenience to one's own ego. When we realize that all forms negative and positive are meant to teach us... are for our gain... then we learn to embrace all. Winning and losing are illusions. There is only progression in context to what is true and by it we become creators and wise.
This accords with my findings! When I'm drunk I see multiple people but they all speak in perfect unison. So there's your unity in multiplicity.
Hic.
I got a good relaxing buzz on now, at 10:30 on a Friday night :)
When answering the question of whether consciousness is unified, I cannot see how it could not be. What I also know is that division is a misnomer, whether at the cellular level or the cosmic level, and that there is only differentiation within oneness, for the purpose of love.
so rape is impossible or doesn't exist lol
@@rickk4990 It does. Only you’re doing it to yourself
I believe that Consciousness is unified. But perception changes it through us. It's like we would filter an outside energy as soon as we receive it.
Always loved Leonard when he came on my show and he's great here!!!
What show?
I really admire Leonard Mlodinow he has works like the subliminal book which is excellent I would like to see a Closer to truth interview with him on the subject of free will
I got the feeling that Robert wasn't sure how to word his question succinctly enough to avoid terms/phrases that themselves are not fully understood. Basically layering questions on top of questions in order to answer questions.
What is limitation use of language ? Can language make knowledge out of consciousness ?
One of the brightest interviews I've seen in Closer to Truth... and I've seen alot of it! Robert Lawrence Kuhn you are getting closer to truth.
I agree, though Robert Lawrence always seems reluctant to go in that direction.
Brightest? This is just regurgitating standard physicalism, explained in a bad manner and not adding anything to hr discussion whatsoever. Mlodinov hardly understands the questions Lawrence is asking, and you can tell that Lawrence is slightly annoyed about that.
@@outisnemo8443 Not to mention, he has literally equated the brain with the mind, called it an ordinary classical system that is not even a quantum system, and declared it to be more complicated than the universe. He disregarded non-synaptic connections in his estimation of complexity and decided that stars aren't connected. All this in a minute. What an incredible display of ignorance.
@@outisnemo8443✅ Correct
What about the FABRIC of space. When you say you don't believe that there is anything outside the body that has to do with consciousnessI would ask does the fabric of space around us or through us? Does it exist in the internal cavities of our bodies? What about entangled particles? Could they be involved in consciousness? I don't think it is time to dismiss the possibility that there is another element to consciousness the is metaphysical.
There is no fabric of space. That is just a bad analogy used to visualize gravity.
We should probably respect Tononi's theory more, not because it isn't ridiculous, but because it is the first step of many to come, many attempts to come to quantify and catalog consciousness, mostly by AI I guess.
I am conscious. I am self-conscious. I am concious that you are concious. I feel. I have trauma. I get elated and depressed. I am happy at times and angry at others. I can hold the two concepts of the most fundamental particles and processes known and the infinite grandeur of the universe in my mind at the same time. The how's and why's and limitations expressed by this and other scientists don't affect, alter or dimiish these truths - even one little bit.The search for understand neither elevates nor diminshes the extravagent glory that is me or you or a butterfly or my pet dog or the stars. Search for the truth until it is known or more fully understood but don't try and use it to reduce the human mind, personality or conciusness to a base, mechanistic level. The how and why can never dim the glory of our consciousness.
Why not ? If it is purely physical. Why not accept that ?
@@shelwincornelia2498
That's not the question they are trying to answer.
Is consciousness strictly internal.Which it definitely is. Or does it have a supernatural, independent reality outside of the purely physical. What they want to call.. a soul.
@@shelwincornelia2498
Why would it be external ? Hopefully not just because you wish it was.
We are not the only ones who are conscious. We just have the language to express it and the ego to think it's something special.
Of course without the consciousness/soul connection we have created it wouldn't be an issue.
But but for some reason we seem to need that threat of a supernatural reward and punishment. Oh that's right, most religious theologies wouldn't work without it. How...convenient !
I love how such questions always
lead to a god. And the right one is always the one you just happen to believe in. Which i find to be overly convenient as well.
So please provide some evidence that isn't just you stroking your ego.
"We are all one!" (Jesus)
For God, the Life, the subject of knowledge, we are something like "living building bricks". God is in everyone!
If you study the prehistory of religion.Books such as 'The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross' are excellent examples of our shared consciousness with the Sacred. Also ,The Immortality Key, the secret history of the religion with no name,' additionally, The Psychedelic Gospels, also 'ONE MIND'.
What are all those books? What subjects, which authors?
1:32 the most interesting approach that I see to consciousness today is this approach through integrated information where consciousness seems to have to do with not just having information different parts of a system but the connection between those parts the idea that the information that system has is greater than the sum of the parts and of course our brains are extremely highly interconnected so taht does seem to match the physical structure of the brain and the consciousness that arises from that whereas the pixels are just sitting there. 1:59 Well you could maybe the analogy between the camera and my eyes because our eyes themselves are not conscious but pick up electromagnetic information to pass on (you may not say that Bob, cause our eyes are detectors which absolutely make a wave function collapse). 2:09 LM: yeah if you cut the picture in half where you end up is two half is to half you actually have the same thing nothing changes because the pixesl don't know about each other so if you cut a picture in half you have the same information but there are people with uh who are called split brain patients who've had their corpus callosum cut that separates the right and the left hemisphere of the brain and they do that sometimes as a treatment for severe epilepsy and when that happens the right side of the brain and the left side of the brain can't communicate and it's very interesting that when that happens the people they seem normal when you talk to them but if you investigate further it seems almost as if they have two consciousnesses, two personalities, and Christoph Cochin one of his books write about a particular case that's kind of sad where 2:53 a woman was being interviewed and she was asked how many seizures she had had in the past week and she was asked to raise her hand to tell and one hand went up and said two and the other hand went up and said four and then one hand started to put the other hand down the hand started fighting with each other and the two halves of her brain were fighting so as opposed to the camera with where nothing really happens when you divide the image in half in your brain if you cut it in half you get two different two new brains so taht is a characteristic of consciousness the integration seems to be very key. 3:24 Bob: you mentioned that cousciosness is more than the sum of its parts uh how so because some disagree with that some say that seeming feeling that it's more than the sum of parts is the grand illusion. 3:31 3:40 LM: well what I really said was that the information is more than the sum of its parts now I don't know how to say consciousness is more there are there is a one mathematical theory out now uh Julio Tanoni's theory that seeks to quantify consciousness but I don't think we really know yet how to quantify consciousness in the sense that we could say this is more conscious that that I mean we have a feeling for it you could say my dog you might feel you dog has a certain level of consciousness and you might feel that you have a higher level of consciousness but I am not sure what really means so as a scientist I'm a little bit I hesitant to talk about what is more or less in consciousness. 4:17 Well 5:56 what does that mean something grander? Bob: well it means that consciousness is uh has an independent existence of itself it doesn't have to be spoocky but it just has some independent fundamentally a different thing about it other than just the sum of the inputs. 6:12 well you say there's something grander than what's there I mean if I had an identical physical system that is my brain and I put it in the identical state I believe it would be identical to my mind and it would have the same thoughts that I'm having. [I think the existence of our brains relys on our souls that emerges on Spirit The Divine. Atheists are marching on wrong diretions.] 6:24 so I don't think there's anything outside of the physical system that is involved in consciousness. yeah so that if you were able to duplicate all of your mental process or all the physical processes of your brain in another medium that would have same internal not just behavior but internal uh subjective feeling [it is impossible we are unable to duplicate all of your mental process or the "physical processes" just as you are not capable of controlling what you will dream, which demonstrated that the godly soul is fundamental to the animal soul that holds 3d physical world. ] and 6:51 whatever that means yes I do I mean because it would have the same physical state and I think that consciousness arises from a physical state [it is totally wrong unless your physical world holds reality the whole] you know nothing Dr Leonard Mlodinow.
The critical flaw here is assuming that "human consciousness" is a steady-state or constant-state situation. An individual's consciousness changes markedly throughout a lifetime, often from exposure to new information (and a changing biochemical stew.) Where does the new information come from, on a fundamental level? Did the information always exist...only to be uncovered by another human and then transferred into your brain, thereby altering your conscious state? Or did some other human have the right "tuning" to actually create new information? We know so little about ourselves and our universal setting. It is essential to question everything, as Lawrence does in this series. But it would be unwise to assume we have reached a state of fundamental understanding about anything. Maybe we as products of some fundamental AI system can never fully grasp the basic coding of the AI itself. So then we are right back to religion, faith, science and all of the other things that trigger our self-destruction...
It depends on which definition of "consciousness" one is using. Your *level* of consciousness (being awake) is always fluctuating, but the fact that you are having a subjective experience at all is pretty constant.
'Where does it come from"!!!! there is no 'Where'!!!! Anil Seth and David Chalmers reading is essential.
I’ve found reading Iain McGilchrist’s material immensely useful. I’m not suggesting he’s developed a Theory of consciousness, however, I find his hypotheses rich, compelling and his work has encouraged me to think more reflectively and dare I say deeply.
@@peterweston1356is this an ad or normal comment
chester-c • You're talking stupidities.
The DNA structure that governs the level of consciousness in any species doesn't fundamentally change.
What changes is the interconnected functional capacity ( for example, from the fetus to the adult ).
The process is understood already.
You don't need the BS like religion for anything. It will just dumb you...🥴
Do you reckon this is gonna make seasonal changes look like quantum phases?
I think Leonard confuses consciousness with cognition at the start. Our cognitive processes assign meaning to the sensory inputs sent to the brain from our eyes. Meanwhile consciousness is just pure perception, there is no meaning assigned to the images received. There exist accounts of individuals who have (through relevant medical means) gained sight following a lifetime of blindness. Subsequently, they (at first) fail to see or understand the visual stimuli they receive (E.g., they may lack an understanding of depth or distance). Yet, even without thought or any kind of meaning behind what they ‘see’, they still perceive, they still experience what it is to receive the sensory input of sight. That, I believe, is what we mean by consciousness: just pure perception and awareness, without thought/cognition.
Correct. This is why Lawrence was slightly annoyed that Mlodinov couldn't see how the eye itself is pretty much exactly like a camera in that context.
He's missing that consciousness isn't just the thinking mind. Why is there something there witnessing these thoughts?
Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra and consciousness:
Quaternions are a type of mathematical object that extend the idea of complex numbers to four dimensions. They are often used in computer graphics and other applications where rotations in three-dimensional space are important. Some scientists and philosophers have proposed that quaternions might provide a mathematical framework for understanding aspects of consciousness that go beyond what can be explained by classical physics.
One such theory is called the Orch-OR theory, which proposes that consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in microtubules inside neurons. This theory suggests that the vibrations can be modeled mathematically using 4D quaternions, which may provide a way to understand how the brain generates conscious experience.
number of parts in different areas of physical brain could integrate conscious perceptions into subjective mind?
If he copies himself down to last detail, down to last particle, as he said, who of those two bodies would be exactly HIM? What body would contain his consciousness? The original one? What about the copy? Copy is also him down to last detail. He said that consciousness is a product of physical components. If you make exactly the same physical components and connect them in exactly the same way, you get absolutely, exactly the same consciousness, the same person. So, what exactly would happen with him?
Technically if he copied himself down to the last particle he would have made a twin. They would have the same conscious unless they experience different things which would cause them to diverge from one another.
The copy would have the same memories up to the point in time when the copy was made. After that point in time, they would acquire different memories.
In that instant there would be two people the same but as said they would diverge very quickly as the variables came in.
First of all, he doesn't even require an atom-for-atom copy at all, any system completely isomorphic to the functioning of the brain for him will do.
And the answer is that according to him, the new copy would have a different instance of consciousness than his own, but the conscious experience would be the exact same.
off the bat, the question is dualistic due to what the sages call avidya. Unified means to 'make' or 'become' united, uniform or whole. What is there to make "this( which implies what exactly?)" unified or whole. If there is something else or outside from itself, to make itself whole there wouldn't properly be unification regardless. Now, what monism(advaita vedanta) acknowledges is that because of multiplicity or avidya posits a misconception or illusion from the relative or embodied soul perspective.
The psycho physical is seemingly physical and dependent upon life, spirit, prana. Is there an Absolute Consciousness greater than ours -- is what is implied.
What I find difficult is how psycho physical consciousness, somehow, we can go beyond the limitations of brain circumscription. We, through our eyes, grasp forms or conceptions seemingly outside of us, thus impressing them into our minds as in memory or constructing subconscious. There does reckon a 'ONENESS' or monistic whole that we are just aspects of and ignorantly believe only we are individual conscious of it.
I will say our psycho physical experience requires the physical, most certainly dependent upon Spirit however, but there is a ONENESS that is Ulimate consciousness. High energized light is hydrogen, hydrogen makes up atoms if I recall correctly. You can say ALL is LIGHT, or Ultimate Consciousess -- same thing. We are forms in, and not separate, and most definitely always unified -- ONE.
what possibilities could integrate information?
Awesome
This is great - similar to Scruton (or even Hegel) on knowing the self - wonderful!!!
If you had a identical brain state with the same material arrangement and that's what makes me then what would happen if that was reproduced. If you make a copy of me to the atom with the same bioelectrical firing and put it that version of me on Mars then would I be able to have information that travels faster then light? I don't think a copy of me ise unless we have the same information stream.
how do energy and information interact?
Integration. Interpretation. Intuition. Qualia. Non-linear and non-symbolic (Jeffery Martin) direct subjective experience. If I recall and understand correctly, another Jeff, Hawkins implies that the bindings are stored invariant data archetypes. Does an orchestra disappear if you remove oboes? If the connections define the complexity and the "more than the sum"-ness, and the connections are dynamic and changing all the time in response to internal and external environments, sensory feedback loops, and even nutritional mechanics, then identical material substrates would have to experience identical material and dynamic metabolic conditions in order to function identically and that seems so highly unlikely as to perhaps function as a fundamental contradiction. Maybe.
Consciousness is just the ability to (i) think and (ii) to use thought to guide action (iii) toward goals (iv) based on priorities.
Intentional action or agency is a result of consciousness.
Understanding is the essence of consciousness.
This is because consciousness requires understanding reality and/or one’s self; i.e. to have self-awareness.
Understanding one’s self and/or understanding reality is required for a thing to be conscious.
In comparing species and animals, one finds many different degrees of ‘consciousness’.
I suspect there would be unanimous agreement about humans having a higher degree of consciousness than monkeys and apes and that monkeys and apes have a higher degree of consciousness than rats and mice and that rats and mice have a higher degree of consciousness than ants and flies.
This corresponds to nervous system complexity.
Yes I think brains are just for pattern recognition and hardware to provide the body with management. Most of the time you are working through a to-do list that you never knew existed.
The Vedic tradition says that the ultimate fundamental reality (The Unified Field) is a pre-existing, transcendental field of pure consciousness beyond time and space, which through it's internal dynamics of knowing itself in an infinite number of perspectives creates all of that which we experience in manifest creation. The first manifestations of these internal dynamics are sounds (the Vedas) which are the seeds of the laws of nature. Consciousness, therefore, is not a product of the brain, but the brain is more like a receiver which, based on the quality of it's functioning, allows us to perceive levels and qualities of those perspectives of consciousness. So..all of creation is vibrating consciousness. As a subjective phenomenon, consciousness, at it's source can only be observed subjectively and never through objective means. Our, perhaps, unique status as human beings with a highly evolved nervous system is that we can observe pure consciousness and it's internal self-referral dynamics which are the seeds (vibrations) of all the laws of nature. Many scientists, will therefore, resist this perspective on the source of creation (the Unified Field).
is there area or part of brain that brings conscious perceptions together?
Not a single location, no. The reticular formation does something like what you describe, but not exactly, and there are other areas that participate in regulating attention as well. Disrupt any one of them and the lights go out.
Interestingly, when you look at a square and imagine a square, the same neurons light up in the occipital lobe. The perceived square isn't fundamentally different than the imagined square, other than the perceived one seems to have a "realness" property that isn't understood well, as yet.
might there be relationship of energy to consciousness?
A digital camera is conscious because it is an extension of the human brain just as the human eye is an outgrowth of the brain. Our eyes are nerves that grow out of our brain to gather light information, and a camera is a tool we've made to gather information. The eye in and of itself is not conscious, but it doesn't exist by itself, it is a part of the brain. Likewise a camera is not conscious in and of itself, but it doesn't come into being by itself any more than the eye does, it is always part of the brain, nervous system, society, culture, history and evolution of our species, and indeed the conditions of our planet, solar system and universe, which altogether make up the process we call "consciousness."
Amazing how all these “scientists “ resort to what Popper called “promissory materialism “!
This guy admits he doesn’t know anything about the binding problem, but he is so sure about his beliefs!
Talk to someone from the Qualia Research Institute.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
why is there consciousness / awareness of information?
I have thought if a machine could be built that could make a blueprint diagram of the exact atomic properties of anything of existence regarding any matter, but particularly life forms, more so human beings? And then arrange these properties into a copy that would still give a life force needed of being conscious? Is this life force something that could be considered a physical entity that could be recreated on a subatomic particle level of reality known to physicists today? I have taken into consideration Mark Solms a psychoanalyst and neuropsychologist descriptions of a part of the brain that even if it is minimally scratched in some way that it turns the 'lights out'.
I think I understood this explanation by the professor to be correct. However, what is leaving the body at that point and why would this cause death, if anything is leaving the body it could not be of the current subatomic substances known to physicists today? That subatomic energy must be influenced by other forces in nature, meaning it is not the fundamental force that keeps a being conscious or alive?
Not just your feelings, although aware of emotions, and strength, curiosity and will....objective data for options to be logical.
That was an intense moment to end the video.
With light, I see.
i see hes a physicalist.
I take some issue with Prof. Mlodinow at 6:11 because even if we made an exact atom by atom copy of him, I think it would have a different consciousness because it would be new. He would be something that was "different from what it was like" to be that copy.
That's not a valid counterargument at all. If you turn one TV on at the beginning of a program, and another TV on in the middle of the same program, both TVs would still be showing the exact same thing. What he's saying is entirely consistent with physicalist epiphenomenalism.
@@outisnemo8443 There would be 'something that it's like that different for him than the twin,' separate consciousness . 😜
@@supremereader7614:
Yes, it would indeed be a separate consciousness as per his view, but the contents of both consciousnesses would be the exact same; exactly like how there'd be two different TVs playing the exact same program.
Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
Awareness is a synonym of consciousness.
The consciousness of all living things is exactly the same. It's just expressed differently through different species brains.. and the additional quirks of each individual brain.
Consciousness is the same fuel that powers all brain tanks. The quality of the different brains Earth evolved is what causes the difference. Same consciousness.
Consciousness is an explanatory principle in the vein of Gregory Bateson, that purports to explain appearances.
Here's a premise to ponder: Sure consciousness is neat, but is it ours? Do we own it? Or, as someone famous once said, is it merely "talent on-loan from Gawd?" Just asking that question opens up a ton of avenues of possible explanations, and I'm not even talking about anything religious! Set religion aside for a moment and try to answer that. We didn't start it, we don't (normally) get to choose when it ends, we just kinda care-take for this vehicle we're in (to steal a scientology concept) for some amount of time in the middle. We don't have full control over it, that's for sure. So do we own it? Is it ours? Is it something that can be taken from us or given to someone else?
Just questions. :P
" Your brain is more complicated than the universe."
It is known as the Kingdom of God by the Wiseman. Not merely the physicality, but rather the Intellect, intuition, the wonder, cognition. We are looking within ourselves, observing the miraculous nature by God... and we're here today stuck in material business profit mind manipulation.
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE EVER TOLD YOU THAT YOU MATTER AND THAT YOU ARE A WORK OF GOD AND BY BEING HERE TODAY INDIACTES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED AND THAT WE HAVE MORE TO DO HERE THAT PAY THE BILLS OR BE FOOLS.
You want to know why? Because there's no real leaders today.
You christians are truly insane. SMH
phenomenal conscious parts with a subjective whole?
The brains of living entities are instruments. Is the great universal river of consciousness pervades the whole of the visible and invisible 🫥 universe including the brain.
pervading
That's an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. Prove it
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y @J 5 Go into your own experience. Your first hand experience is the fact that you're aware. Most science makes the bold assumption, that the apparent physical world is independant of Consciousness, although there has never been an experience of that (And never can be), and that consciousness thus is a by-product of this physical world.
Science manages to explain a whole lot of phenomenons but eventually falls completely short of any understanding of the most basic and fundamental element of all experience.
So how about instead of conducting science on the big leap that consciousness is a by-product of the brain and there's a physical world, instead investigate that very consciousness that is so ever-present in your experience? The fact that you're conscious is the most consistent experience you've ever had. And essentially actually the only experience you've ever had.
Consciousness will never be understood or explained by science, in the same way the characters in the movie will never be able to find the screen.
A yellow sunflower appears to be red and a white snowdrop appears to be yellow to those whose existence may depend on on it. This shows that the brain is an instrument for collating and interpreting information. I can’t prove my river or universal of consciousness idea as I’m constantly being reminded that we know less 5% about the way things are in the universe.
I once dreamed about some art experts examining blank white canvases in frames and discussing which painting was the best. They, it seemed could see the painting. I on the periphery could only see white rectangles,
What Leonard seems to fail to understand or wish to include in his comment about neuronal complexity is that OBSERVABLE NEURONAL ACTIVITY DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
Many people report experiences and new memories while having zero observable neuronal activity in addition to other impairments that do not allow for any of Leonard's suggestions to sound anything like the truth.
*If you begin including quantum processes (which Leonard wantonly discarded) or something other than observable neuronal activities you could hope to describe some reason for people reporting experiences and new memories while not having any observable neuronal activity, but COMPLEXITY DOES NOT CUT IT.
Your eyes begin as eye stalks of brain material. You visual system, before the information ever reaches the brain is already being parsed into discrete objects... which shapes in the field of view are contiguous to each other and many many other processing steps are performed transforming the elements of vision into kinds of objects in the world, and thereby allowing the raw perceptions to be discarded, ignored and ideation of the world to be built. Is the sum of these sensory distillations "consciousness'?
The problem is that that is still just brain functioning. It doesn't address the hard problem of consciousness, i.e. how we end up becoming consciously aware of those last "distillations" into a final model. Based on physicalism, the brain would still perform all those processes even if there were nothing they felt like subjectively, since consciousness in their view is entirely epiphenomenal and thus cannot serve any actual function.
How does he know the stars aren't connected in some way???
I’ll bet dogs aren’t wondering whether they’re more conscious than we are.
Being conscious that others have different thought and goals than we do is a level of consciousness not shared by all animals.
Spoken like a true believer in the materialist world view. He says nothing about awareness, how it arises and how it is related to the open space of consciousness, nothing about thoughts (and feelings) arising as objects of consciousness, nothing about the illusion of self. Science needs to get serious about these deeper questions or it will remain stuck forever in its own egoic self reflection.
We are trying to explain consciousness using consciousness, it's our best bet though.
If cousciousness is a delusion, WHO is being deluded?
When I'm playing Far cry 3 on my PC, the CPU manages to coordinate keyboard and mouse clicks.
We don't really understand how it does this, so maybe there is something more going on.
Perhaps it is strong evidence for the Holy Ghost in the machine.
There is no way consciousness can be explained. Its not conceivable that quality rises from quantity. At all! They are basically trying to explain what is reality. That’s how big this quest will reveal itself to be. It will be like chasing a rainbow- the answer will seem to be right there but the closer you get to it the further it goes until you have to give up. Good luck !
"Reality" is a funny word too because reality would hypothetically include all reality and at the same time the word reality is also responsible for excluding all misunderstandings about the truth of reality necessarily included in reality. It is all beyond our understanding.
@@wagfinpis you think fantasy in a brain is reality?
@rickk4990 The fantasy of sitting on the edge of a beam of light in Eistein's brain included reality and his theory of general relativity distilled the reality of that fantasy and today physicists fantasize about quantum gravity. I don't believe that quantum gravity exists or any of the ASSUMPTIONS (fantasies) of science exist in reality. Fantasy is like metaphor and the mediocre are neither crazy nor genius.
Einstein's and Niels Bohr famously argued about the reality of each other's fantasies.
We used to say there's no way heavier than air things can fly, or there's no way to return after sailing over the edge of the earth, or the combustion engine, or splitting the atom. History is littered with claims about things that are "impossible" and then proven wrong. It simply isn't reasonable to place limits on future explanations.
@@rickk4990:
It is, though. Anything you experience is ultimately real, because you're still having the experience. In that sense dreams, fantasies, and even virtual reality, is all just as real as waking reality is. Read _Reality+_ by Chalmers for a better understanding of this.
Also note that saying "fantasy in a brain" presupposes the physicalist view that consciousness arises from brain function, but we don't know if that's actually true at all either.
Ideomotor.....without emotional sensitivity must be restrained, for example...Narcissism.
Consciousness does not rise from a physical state...
I have known people who have been brain dead and beyond known science have experienced whilst they were dead.
I've also experienced a healing where I was 20 years suicidal I was healed (over night)- pain actually left my body through the heart chakra and a large birth mark disappeared off my body.
Just saying I too was limited in my scope at one point.
Correct; there is only one consciousness (some call it God).
Nobody came back from dead to tell the story. Either you are dead or alive...
Until about 10 years ago I would have been quite dismissive of your experiences. Over time and with study I can envisage some of your comments as plausible. I have directly studied NDE and know very little about chakras but my path seems to accord in some ways with yours.
but wasn't the IIT theory falsified by scott aaronson? or was this problem solved in Koch's last book? why do scientists still talk about it if it has been proven wrong?
The integrated information theory was never proven false because it does not rise to the level of testability. Circular Coordinated Message Theory which predicts that conscious is the result of a feedback loop of information circulating through the brain. The stronger and denser the feedback loop the more consciousness a physical system has.
@@kos-mos1127 where I can read information about the circular coordinated message theory? Are there authors in particular that talk about It?
Leonard says at the start of the interview that no one can explain consciousness or prove why it is. At the end he is saying science has shown us it is purely physical and nothing else. I think he should stick with his first statement and simply state the latter as his belief or faith.
maybe digital camera has conscious bits of information, while human brain has subjective integration of information?
Your brain is not more complicated than the universe. It is only the tiniest fraction of it.
Consciousness is the universe learning to see itself, to understand itself, to love itself ......
Wrong.
Do you want a plant to grow its north and south parts toward the earth's core, or you want the seed to first lay its roots toward the earth's core and the other being the shoot to grow toward the sun while getting stronger from the bottom up, rather than from the top to the bottom?
Why does everyone keep talking about the part with more enclosed senses than those parts close to the earth? It is saddening to know that some people that call them experts lack the knowledge of self-intelligence yet they are made professors and Doctors in their field. If you was to walk for 9 hours today and every other day, which part of the body will first feel the action of movement? What else will feel the essence of that walk? When you can't break your self down with a simple walking system, while in the hell do you expect quantum gravity to show itself to you in mind, body, spirit or consciousness?
Do you understand why you must let a baby move with their hands and knees? Doing the work of the personal before the spirit will drag you down with no increase, however, doing the work of forward ever resurrects the Christ in you, from the dry ground through the atmosphere and toward the sun. Don't forget, you didn't go to the sun to get the solar panel that generates electricity. To have unlimited data, you must pay a huge prize to earn that great incentive/reward. Life cant be bribed with food and drink to gain regenerative energy - don't block the light and you will feel the light grow upward and your breath will go deeper toward the south.
Don't you understand that this planet allows you to harness both truth and loyalty that defies what humans call science - knowing is good but its application is more significant than what you think, know and create with your hands. Life is deeper than what civilisation thought it was suppose to be.
oh yeah i kinda talk about this all the time on my channel. things like panpsychism might be real. i'm also wondering if our consciousness might be a dimension.
can you give the link to your channel?
@@matteoenricocattaneo oh it's just my username anxious robot. you can just click on my name there.
@@matteoenricocattaneo *"can you give the link to your channel?"*
... That's funny!
Is he saying, then, that if he had a transporter clone he would be simultaneously conscious from both perspectives?
No, he's just stating the standard physicalist epiphenomenalist view; he's saying that two brains in the exact same state would have the exact same conscious experience.
Some physicalists are content to accept that they are specialists who have limited knowledge in a limited field of study and observation.
This guy's arrogance is like a defender in a soccer game who believes his team will win as long as no one scores. He fails to appreciate the difference between the quality of impetus in a healthy sceptic's position and those who maskerade as sceptic's but in truth are fundamentally faithful believers.
If human consciousness arises from a physical state, then it must be because non-local consciousness wanted it that way.
That's deep, can you elaborate?
How could 'unified consciousness' be an 'illusion?' How is that possible?
Compare these two verses:
2 Samuel 24:1
Names of God Bible
David’s Sin-He Takes a Census
24 Yahweh became angry with Israel again, so he provoked David to turn against Israel. He said, “Go, count Israel and Judah.”
and
1 Chronicles 21:1
Names of God Bible
David Counts the People
21 Satan attempted to attack Israel by provoking David to count the Israelites.
It's important to note that different scholars and theologians have different interpretations of the relationship between Elohim (Genesis 1) and Yahweh (Genesis 2) in the Hebrew Bible, and there is no consensus on whether they are different deities or different names for the same deity.
However, here are five hypothetical reasons some scholars might consider:
1. Different Names: The names Elohim and Yahweh are distinct, and they are used in different contexts throughout the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars argue that this suggests that they represent different conceptions of the divine, and that they might have originally been separate deities that were later merged.
2. Different Characteristics: Elohim is often portrayed as a more distant, transcendent deity, while Yahweh is portrayed as a more personal, immanent deity. Some scholars argue that these different characteristics suggest that they are different deities.
3. Different Origins: Some scholars argue that the name Yahweh is associated with the southern kingdom of Judah, while the name Elohim is associated with the northern kingdom of Israel. This difference in origin could suggest that they were originally separate deities worshipped by different communities.
4. Different Roles: Elohim is often associated with creation and judgment, while Yahweh is often associated with salvation and redemption. Some scholars argue that these different roles suggest that they are different deities with distinct spheres of influence.
5. Different Historical Contexts: The use of the name Elohim is more prevalent in the early books of the Hebrew Bible, while the name Yahweh becomes more prominent in later books. Some scholars argue that this suggests that the conception of the divine changed over time, and that Elohim and Yahweh might represent different deities worshipped at different points in history.
It is important to note that there is no direct evidence to suggest that YHW (Yahweh) from the Mt Ebal curse tablet and Yawheh (Yam) from the Baal Cycle are the same entity.
However, if we were to explore hypothetical reasons why they could be the same, we might consider the following possibilities:
1. Mythological connection: It's possible that Yahweh (YHW) and Yawheh (Yam) have similar mythological significance in their respective cultures, and there could be a connection between the stories or beliefs associated with each name. It's possible that the same deity or mythological figure is referenced by both names.
2. Linguistic evolution: Over time, names and words can evolve and change. It's possible that YHW (Yahweh) and Yawheh (Yam) are variations of the same name that evolved through different linguistic processes in different cultures.
3. Syncretism: In some cases, cultures can blend or syncretize different religious beliefs and practices. It's possible that Yahweh (YHW) and Yawheh (Yam) are the result of syncretism between different cultural or religious traditions.
4. Historical continuity: It's possible that the worship of Yahweh (YHW) began earlier than previously thought and was present in the culture that produced the Baal Cycle and Hebrew Cuneiform. In this scenario, Yawheh (Yam) could be an earlier form of Yahweh, which evolved into the name used in the Mt Ebal curse tablet.
Again, it's important to note that these are purely hypothetical scenarios, and there is no direct evidence to support the idea that YHW (Yahweh) from the Mt Ebal curse tablet and Yawheh (Yam) from the Baal Cycle are the same entity.
It is not correted. Consciencess defines though brains funcions picture camera or pixel not show exactly their proceedings. Unpredicted conscieness NEVER picture itself. Guys definitions conscieness are baseless evidence.
500 years ago people thought the twinkling stars were no different than Christmas lights. Also the Earth was a flat disk and did not move. These two having this discussion are caught in the same perspectival illusions.
Not true at all. Hipparchus had already proposed a heliocentric model of the Solar system over 2000 years ago.
@@outisnemo8443 True but that wasn't common knowledge.
@@nyworker:
The heliocentric model wasn't, but that Earth was a sphere has been common knowledge since then too. It's a myth with zero basis in reality that people used to believe that so recently; a common misconception, but not true at all.
And yet, nothing Mlodinow discusses explains how subjective conscious experience arises from matter. No scientific discipline is any closer today to discovering the source of subjective conscious experience than science was 2000 years ago. Neither physics, nor chemistry, nor biology, nor any other scientific discipline has the first clue where to even begin looking to find the source of our subjective conscious experience through some sort of objective scientific analysis.Indeed, the only reason that any of us know that consciousness exists at all is that we each are having a conscious experience. We subjectively experience our own consciousness among the most fundamental elements of reality (if not THE MOST fundamental), but we only ASSUME by analogy that other organisms experience consciousness.
Never heard such amount of S…. we are far away from the truth but close to counter truth…
The guest seems to want to move away from having to explain qualia, or the phenomena of experience, and move to some informational explanation of "consciousness", talking about how connected the brain is, and if you put all the information in the brain into a different physical system, it would be identical. The problem is, well, what is information? Are we saying that information is a fundamental ontological object within the category of the universe? That seems just as "spooky" and dualistic as someone saying that the phenomena of experience is not accounted for by our current understanding of physics. If you say, well, everything is reducible to information, and we have a monism where information is the single ontological object in the category of the universe, then how do you define information? It seems in a category of one, the only relation you can define is identity. That is to say, the only way you could possibly define information is that information is information, which is a circular definition. If we can't define what the fundamental ontological object is, then how can we construct a rational worldview based on it? We can't. As far as reason is concerned, objects are defined by their relations to other objects, as such I think holding to strict materialism (or any monism) is a fools errand.
I don't think there is anyway that our current understanding of physics can account for the phenomena of experience, for qualia. If it was reducible to the electro-magnetic, or electron fields, couldn't we measure and detect it already with current instrumentation?
I think what people often do, is conflate cognition with consciousness. To me, there are clearly distinct systems here, on one hand we have cognition, which can be explained by current neuro sciences, and understood through studying AI, etc. We can understand how information is processed in the brain in a similar way that we can understand how information is processed in a cpu. On the other hand of consciousness, we have the phenomena of experience, and there is no reason to believe that a cpu can produce the phenomena of experience no matter how complex the information and algorithms we run on it are. An analogy might be, just because we can create a machine that can fly like a bird, doesn't mean the machine will lay eggs. The brain and cpus function using similar principles as it relates to cognition, but that doesn't mean that the mechanisms used in cpus will give rise to the phenomena of experience.
Just to clarify, when I say phenomena of experience, what I mean is this phenomena that you perceive when you look at a blade of grass, when you dream of flying over an ocean, when you see neon colored fractal geometric patterns after eating psilocybin mushrooms. It's the same phenomena, whether you're awake, asleep, or somewhere in between, presenting different information provided by the cognitive capacities of the brain. An analogy might be the phenomena of electricity in a cpu, regardless of what information is being processed by the cpu, the electricity "flowing" through the cpu is the same phenomena, and it's the same phenomena occuring in my computer, as it is in your computer. Thus, consciousness is the relation between cognition and this phenomena of experience. Sure, you can say that the unified experience is an "illusion" produced by our cognitive capabilities, but that isn't saying much of anything.
I think science has done a great job at starting to elucidate the mechanisms and principles of cognition, but it still doesn't try to explain the phenomena of experience, it's often dismissed outright, and the claim is that the phenomena of experience "isn't real", which is just absurd. It really doesn't matter if you think this phenomena of experience is reducible to some unaccounted for ontological object within the universal category, or if you think it's reducible to known ontological objects, the phenomena is obviously "real", it exists, at least I think we can agree on that assuming you have it too. In my opinion, it's like two people pointing at a rock, one calling it gold, the other calling it coal. The rock existence doesn't depend on who's right about the actual nature of the rock, and you should still try to scientifically discover what it really is.
There is no reason to believe that a cpu cannot produce consciousness.
What is it about qualia that demands a special explanation?
@@kos-mos1127
It's important to define consciousness. I define it as cognition + the phenomena of experience.
There is good reason to believe that the phenomena of experience wont arise in a cpu, just like there is good reason to believe that a plane can't lay an egg. The mechanisms at play withing a brain are vastly different than the mechanisms in a cpu. The onus is on you to explain why there is good reason to believe that the phenomena of experience can arise in silico.
@@uninspired3583
If you ignore the phenomena of experience, qualia, when trying to explain consciousness, you're just talking about cognition. It's dishonest to focus on cognition and ignore qualia as if consciousness is solely information processing. Though, if you do ignore the phenomena of experience, it's easy to see how people can mistakenly claim that a cpu can be conscious.
I wouldn't even say that the phenomena requires "special" explanation. I would just say that it's a major component of consciousness, and to ignore it is not just a mistake, it's dishonest.
@@toddfulton2280 agree that qualia are an important component in consciousness. Best example is the experience of pain, it has a functional purpose and directs behaviour. This is demonstrated by the damage people cause themselves when they don't have a functional pain system.
Early behaviorists tried to disregard conscious experience, and they made some progress but the idea didn't work.
At the same time there is a tendency to romanticize qualia. No reliable answers are found in mysticism. Neural networks are hard to understand but they aren't magic.
Whatever little Leonard Mlodinow says here about the real process called consciousness is true. However, he knows and understands very little.
I disagree, I think consciousness is on a whole different level from any physical phenomena and is in fact the key to life, the universe and everything!!!
Dont agree I've had a spooky experience
They'll be forever asking questions and finding no answers as long as they believe consciousness arises from the physical state.
Lawrence is fully open to non-physicalist interpretations. The thing is, even with that you still have most of the same questions, and even more, so it's not as simple as just saying it's like that just because you feel like it must be.
The ONE
Does the fact, that the two half brains disagree, indicate that there is something missing?
Yes, the missing part is the cut central stem that normally connects the brain halves and make them able to negotiate a course of action.
I see it more as a cosmic fondue if it were
A jumpin jambalaya of delicious stew
Not that delicious for the billions of animals being ripped to shreds while still alive on a regular basis, the innocent children being born with extreme chronic pain and cancers, or young girls who get violently gang-raped and murdered.
Closer to truth was expecting a different answer from what the other gentle man was trying to insinuate.
No, the "other gentle man" didn't even understand the questions at all, that's what Lawrence was upset about. Mlodinov didn't manage to address the actual questions in any way, and just went on his way regurgitating some run-of-the-mill integrated information theory à la Koch without bothering to actually interpret the questions correctly.
He is unfortunately mistaken ❇️
Being self aware. Bird doesn't recognize self. It hangs out with like birds even though it has no idea what it looks like. The cardinal in my back yard attacks it reflection in a mirror not recognizing its self. an elephant does recognize its self. It is conscious and aware of its individual selfie morns loss of others aware that they are gone. These may be clues to consciousness.Or as I tend to believe that consciousness is fundamental a state of energy is the difference between self awareness and no self awareness.
If you RIGHT Bird are funcions according though human brains. It is impossible show up that brains Works in bird funcions figuret it by human brains. G OD knows you NEVER.
Many birds recognize themselves. Corvids and parrots in particular are extremely intelligent. Very recent evidence shows that even many fish recognize themselves.
The tee shirt is not black. The experienced tee shirt is black. Color is not a property of objects. It is an experience. Only an experience.
Binding arises from the mind's inherent function of conceptualizing reality as hierarchies of mental representations. This is done to reduce the overhead costs (both energy and time) of conceptualization. So the mind might (plausibly) create the hierarchies of Black - Material - Shirt - t-shirt - Friend - conversation - date - own feelings. Some attributes in each hierarchy are generic (black), and some are highly specific (topics of conversation) (date). The binding arises from the associations that link the mental representations in that particular mind. Each mind has its own unique experiences but all are fundamentally grounded on own existence. A reference to or encounter with Black triggers a cascade of recent events in which Black was a part. All these events are associated with the individual as the agent that experienced Black.
You clearly don't understand what the binding problem actually is.
This guy thinks just cause we agree upon a symbol and apply it to something makes it physical knowing.
Hes lying to himself telling himself story's that he thinks he knows things. Treat subjective as if its objective lol
I bet this guy thinks we explain electricity correctly yet even after mastering is for over 150 years everyone still questions it and dont know.
You have to have, Rati9nal, spiritual and Emotional intelligence. Objective data.
Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels1. gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul. Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.
I don't believe Krishna said that or that Krishna even exists
@Sam Tilson ok Sam, my point is that pulling out 'gods" as some kind of proof of extraordinary claims is ridiculous, and by that I mean worthy of ridicule. Other people can just pull out their 'holy book' which refutes your claim. And some of their gods get really offended if you don't paint or paint with unapproved colors or outside the poorly defined lines
@@ComommonlyCensored well god doesn't exist, so...
@Sam Tilson Fair question. I was sloppy with my words. My apologies. I don't claim absolute knowledge that god/gods do not exist. Having said that, I have seen no evidence that they do exist and don't see any explanatory power in positing their existence. If you claim they do actually exist, the onus is on you to prove that. Until someone does prove the existence of god/gods, I will continue to act as if they do not.
@@ComommonlyCensored right back atcha big boy 🤣
Ah, materialism...
As opposed to woo-woo BS
@@stamsorc7294:
Ironically, materialism is literally provably bullshit due to the experience of consciousness disproving it completely.
Psychologists speak of the unconscious. Where is its limits?
I've stated many times that consciousness is just a more highly advanced form of information, and that Existence is an ongoing exchange of information. Existence tossed out all the stuff and then consciousness comes along to sort it all out via our many "value judgments." This view is considered nonsense by those who believe that consciousness is an exclusive function of brain activity. Their argument is that since we only observe the presence of consciousness through a functioning brain, then consciousness must be exclusively associated with brain activity.
... After all, without a brain, there is no consciousness, right? So, I have a question for those who think that way:
*Q:* If consciousness requires a brain to function, and a brain requires oxygen to function, then why aren't you arguing that consciousness is a byproduct of oxygen?
... After all, without oxygen, there is no brain function, right?
Physical laws explain what is physical. Physical laws can not explain what is nonphysical. Consciousness is nonphysical, therefore physical laws can not explain the nature and origin of consciousness.
Economics isn't physical. Math isn't physical. Language isn't physical. None of these things require a non physical reality to be useful. They're abstract descriptions allowing us to generalize.
Neural patterns allow us to generalize representations and solutions. No magical realms necessary.
@@uninspired3583 You're using "generalize" and "useful." Who is talking about generalize, useful or magic anyway? Is there a doubt that consciousness is useful or that one can generalize many things about consciousness? I really don't understand why some like to hide behind the derogatory expression, magic, when they do not understand or are incapable of explaining some genuinely existing enigma as if the other party is inferring that magic is the answer.
Every time I come across such vague expressions, I conclude that the person cannot explain themselve any further, they have come to the limit of their knowledge.
@@peweegangloku6428 I can't speak for others, but the way I'm using the term magic is simply when someone tries to appeal to something other than matter and energy as an explanation. I'm not hiding behind anything, it's just a catch all.
I dont think consciousness is a "thing", I think it's better described as a process.
@@uninspired3583 Why should you limit existence to energy and matter? We know that language exists and exerts force. It exerts such force when its strangely embedded meaning acts as a nonphysical force and moves a person to act in a certain way. It can even send nations to war. Why would something so immaterial exert such a force? How do the laws of physics account for that? Is that magic? Look, face the fact - there are things presently beyond the scope of science. Limiting existence to energy and matter limits progress.
@@peweegangloku6428 if it exerts a force it's measurable, and by definition is energy. Despite 150 years of research in neuroscience, the force of a thought has not been measured.
Very interesting. But I never any closer to the truth. Inching forward. It's a slog.
Materialism is not foundational.
Well this one I agree with completely.
Everything we are is from the brain. No outside force required.