Max Tegmark - Physics of Consciousness
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 02. 2021
- How to explain our inner awareness that is at once most common and most mysterious? Traditional explanations focus at the level of neuron and neuronal circuits in the brain. But little real progress has motivated some to look much deeper, into the laws of physics - information theory, quantum mechanics, even postulating new laws of physics.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on understanding consciousness: bit.ly/37m3N4b
Max Tegmark is Professor of Physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He holds a BS in Physics and a BA in Economics from the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. He also earned a MA and PhD in physics from University of California, Berkeley.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth 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.
Sean Carol made some interesting observations on this. He suggested that we are thinking about physics the wrong way round, his take was we need to see the physical / material world as erupting from the quantum fields and manifesting particles (the macro environment we experience). If we look at conciseness the same way, it becomes clear that conciseness too is manifest in the quantum fields and expresses itself in/through the brain. I think we will see more research in future that will show that conciseness is not a function of the brain, but that conciseness experiences / filters the material world through the brain. Making the brain a portal between conciseness existing at the quantum field level, and our bodies experience of life at the macro/material level. This posses some very serious philosophical questions about the nature of our existence, and the very nature of the Universe we inhabit.
Max is a superb physicist. I love his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
Thank you so much for having Max back he actually has very reasonable observations and theories👌🏾
Teg's definitely out there, but so is the true nature of things.
Heheh I chuckled when Max said, “are you calling me a zombie?” 😄
I really appreciate the scientists actually listening to the other even when he doesn't agree. It shows the ability to have an open mind, especially when it comes to science.
Interesting and worthwhile video.
Max is an animal of another caliber. True inspiration
The Vedas written thousands of years ago have spoken about the big bang and consciousness. At one point physicists have to come to study these ancient Indian scriptures. The explanation is lucid
Thank you for another interesting discussion. I love these discussions on consciousness. Here's my question. Is it a "hard problem" that animals in motion can see where they're going? Or does it only become a hard problem when we can remember and think about and report what we've seen? If we assume that consciousness is a thing of an incomprehensible substance, and a cause that works in mysterious ways, haven't we made it already into a "hard problem"? It's clearly not a hard problem for Nature, because animals do see where they're going and adjust their paths, and I can remember and report on and use language to describe and to think about what I've seen. That's not a hard problem for self awareness (accessing memory, using language to describe, etc.) - it's a hard problem for a consciousness that's a thing which operates as a cause. That is a hard problem, I suggest, only because it doesn't exist.
Amazing!
Thank you Robert for pin-pointing The Hard Problem here, especially asking about what “seems like a category mistake”.
"This is how information must feel when being processed"... I like that
I mean, self is just the categorization of inputs, right? When you hear sounds, you not only hear the whir of your computer or the bird calling outside your window, you also hear the rhythmic pulse of your own heart and the gentle swish of air passing through your nostrils. When you feel, not only do you notice the press of clothes upon your skin or the firmness of the floor under your feet, you also notice the brush of your fingers against each other, the tousle of hair upon your head, and the stickiness of your eyelids. You see the cup of coffee but also your hand that holds it, you smell it’s earthy aroma but also your own feral scent, you taste the bitter-sweetness of a warm and comforting liquid that is promptly chased down your gullet by the slippery, congealed enzymes in your spittle. Consciousness is the active categorization of inputs that delineates you and not you. It’s far simpler than people make it out to be.
“We’ve tried avoid talking about what an observer is even though physics is supposed to be the subject of observation.”
There are endless books, papers, and conversations about consciousness, but no matter how many one reads or hears, still, no one can quite define it. We all wish they could define it, but I'm not holding my breath. It is a lot like defining "good Art". We cannot quite explain it, but "we know it when we see it". [At least, those of us well trained in the field of Fine Art will know it].
Could energy be a common observer of relativity and quantum mechanics? Is the equation E = m * c-squared (Einstein) useful for both relativity and quantum mechanics?
In General Relativity, spacetime is personal.
With particles having information from quantum wave function, physical brain processing information of particles; some particles of physical brain may be turning sensed particles back into quantum wave function (recoherence), reversing decoherence of particle from quantum wave function.
"Why does this quark blob have a subjective experience" is an amazing sentence...