More and more physicists and other leading scientific thinkers seem to be endorsing the idea of some kind of "metaphysical" mechanisms, however tenuously, mostly linked to the ideas of Quantum Theory. For me this is very heartening.

@brucesmith1544

3 ай бұрын

Like who?

@MYOB990

3 ай бұрын

@@brucesmith1544 Roger Penrose for one. have you not been watching the other videos?

@johnswoodgadgets9819

3 ай бұрын

It is at least encouraging. We are approaching the limits of physics, and I fear it has become so institutionalized that further enlightenment beyond physics will be bogged down in protective doctrine.

@brucesmith1544

3 ай бұрын

@@MYOB990 a few...thanks

@peterrauth118

3 ай бұрын

@@MYOB990 Yes. And Penrose asserts that consciouness is not algorithmic. I guess that it is a statement that can only be disproved, rather than proved.

consciousness is above all awareness of the self, when a child begins to say "I", he begins to become aware of his person and then the anxiety of his finitude seizes him. he then feels desperately lost in the face of the absurdity of his own existence. then comes into play the tales and legends, the entertainment, all the crutches necessary for him to continue walking to the grave.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

There is chocolate and getting laid in compensation.

@jackwarren8152

3 ай бұрын

ponder the fact of existence rather than non existence and you will find love, joy and glory

@johnswoodgadgets9819

3 ай бұрын

Ok, I'll bite. With all those negatives, why become aware of self in the first place? Evolutionarily speaking, we have developed instincts that preclude us from participating in our certain demise. Inherent wariness of heights, loud noises, etc. Why would 'awareness of self' be the exception? So great of an exception that simultaneous to that realization, (which has no basis in reality anyway) the concept and efforts to abate the concept developed universally. Could it be that 'self' is an inherent condition and we merely react to it and have evolved coping methods just as we have other environmental conditions over which we have no control? After all, other creatures have evolved automatic defenses against demise. Sense of self is not only not required, but also from a pristine perspective detrimental.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

3 ай бұрын

@@johnswoodgadgets9819 Imagine civilization to be humanity's phenotypic carapace that co-evolved to protect us from nature red in tooth and claw. Easy to see that the complexities of multi million member civilizations requires us to be conscious in the way we are. Hard to imagine any civilization co-evolving with any organism that is simply reactive and/or instinct driven. See Julian Jaynes' great book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" for the theory on which these thoughts are based.

@user-se2xm5yp6u

3 ай бұрын

I think that you could be a good person to know

This is superb. As a research scientist and a deeply spiritual person this aligns with my thoughts so well. Please do more with Bernard Marr

@stringX90

6 ай бұрын

Agreed. I kept saying YES to myself over and over as the questions continued. Awesome convo

@sven888

6 ай бұрын

🙏

@klasgroup

6 ай бұрын

Sounds good 😊. If you are not already familiar with Advaita or Nonduality, you may find it interesting to know more.

@sven888

6 ай бұрын

My or yours, quantumphysically speaking?@@Pardis-og3tb

@kentwilbourne996

5 ай бұрын

What do you think of my comment above? John 3:16

''It is clear consciousness did emerge.'' Only if you think it emerged with brains which is'nt establish. Bergson made the point that digestion existed much prior to the evolution of specialised digestive organs and so in the same manner the function of consciousness may preceded the emergence of brain which are concentrated nervous systems. Many in fact argued that consciousness is central to all lifes and some argued that organic life is'nt the only forms of life and that the Universe is alive and conscious and in that case consciousness of the Universe in its most primitive form would exist and everything would emerge from it and not the other way around.

Bernard Carr is absolutely wonderful! Such a great scientist and a wonderful human being! ❤

Excellent discussion. Would love to see CTT conversations with Federico Faggin and Edward Frenkel.

We need honest physicists like this guest. He tells it as he sees it. Those who try to keep science in the shackle of absolute physicalism are doing a great disservice to the field of science and humanity at large.

@markb3786

6 ай бұрын

The problem is that whenever you accidentally drive on to the shoulder of pseudoscience or science that can't be falsified, you get a whole bunch of Christian god of the gaps nonsense. And it is creeping into the school at least in America.

@peweegangloku6428

6 ай бұрын

@@markb3786 Hmmmm, which one is the "Christian god of the gap nonsense"?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

@@markb3786 *"The problem is that whenever you accidentally drive on to the shoulder of pseudoscience or science that can't be falsified, you get a whole bunch of Christian god of the gaps nonsense."* ... So, some other ideology you don't subscribe to is *preventing you* from exploring other possibilities regarding our existence? And why? Because it may lean toward theism? That's like choosing to not eat pancakes because it reminds you of "Flat Earth Theory."

@taragnor

6 ай бұрын

The core of science in experimentation, observability and repeatability. The problem with dealing with consciousness is that it's not observable. You can never really be sure if others are conscious in same way as you are. In many ways, it can be shown that different people process things differently, like some with aphantasia are unable to picture things in their mind. Is this a sign of less (or even no consciousness). Is a dog conscious? Maybe you are the only actually conscious person and everyone else is just faking it? You never really know and science can't really help you prove it, because it doesn't even have the basest building blocks of consciousness. Ultimately the only way science can analyze consciousness is to try to tie it to some materialist lens, like interactions between electrons or something, but at that point it could just be missing the entire point of what consciousness is in a desperate effort to fit it into a measurable physicalist box. Of course if it's not a physical thing, then it becomes essentially impossible to measure. Personally I think consciousness is just beyond science right now, we should focus on trying to create life from unlife, as that will tell us the most. If we are unable to do it, then it may hint at there being something special about the state of life beyond just the material. If we can do it, then the materialist viewpoint gains a lot more credibility that life is simply an organization of matter.

@peweegangloku6428

6 ай бұрын

​@@taragnorI agree with your concluding paragraph but I disagree with the others. You said consciousness is not observable. I think that statement is most incorrect. If anything, consciousness is the most observable because it is an inner experience. At every awakened moment of our existence we innerly feel, experience and understand what it is to be conscious. Secondly, that you may be the only conscious person among all others and that the others may be faking consciousness is a baseless idea and self deceptive. How can someone fake something if they are not conscious? How could humans work together as a team if only one of them is conscious? That view of consciousness doesn't make sense.

I find it very strange how we talk about consciousness without having a definition of consciousness. Step 1: What is consciousness?

Fabulous interview. A brave man reporting what he sees.

@sven888

6 ай бұрын

I love you brother.

Excellent! Glad to hear of open-minded researchers like Bernard Carr! Ancient India’s Samkhya viewpoint is that Consciousness with a big “C” and Ether with a big “E” are the fundamental structure of the Cosmos whether in ‘disturbance’-mode or in ‘quiescence-mode'. A Time/Space in the Universe when/where Purusha-Prakriti are absent is inconceivable. As inconceivable as emergence of the 12 fundamental numbers. Neither Consciousness nor Ether emerge. We in our complexity emerge into and out of them, not the other way around. The great mystery is the ‘something third’ -hence Sam.khya-the force in-between Siva & Shakti. From the Preface of my book, I quote -"we live using feeble light reflected in the moon of our thinking mind, oblivious to the sun’s radiance reflected in our heart-mind. The light of the thinking mind is but the reflection of a reflection in a corridor of mirrors.”

@cocoarecords

4 ай бұрын

No 1 will read such long chatgpty answer

@johnswoodgadgets9819

3 ай бұрын

Well, I read it, cocoarecords notwithstanding. I am old school and do not believe everything can be grasped in 280 characters. If it could be it would have been. Moving on: This is as close to the concept I have come to believe as anything I have found in the historical record. I have come to believe, based on research and anecdotal evidence, that which we call self is an isolated portion of a universal environment of consciousness. I believe one function of the brain is to communicate with that conscious environment within the limits of that isolation. I have come to define consciousness as awareness of space time demonstrated by deliberate arbitrary action based on that awareness. That is why the mouse tries to eat the cheese, rather than try to eat the trap itself, but some mice do indeed chew on your socks, if they can get into the dresser. Lowly as they seem, mice too are conscious entities taking deliberate arbitrary action. That is among the things I have seen in the corridor of mirrors.

@brucesmith1544

3 ай бұрын

@@johnswoodgadgets9819 "That is why the mouse tries to eat the cheese, rather than try to eat the trap itself, but some mice do indeed chew on your socks, if they can get into the dresser." - Ross Perot, 1992

@johnswoodgadgets9819

3 ай бұрын

@@brucesmith1544 Hehe!

@impmoviechannel3052

3 ай бұрын

Please listen to this man again. He isn't "open minded" at all, simply filling in blanks he doesn't understand and sounding very close to mythological religious ideology.

Some prominent theories include the Global Workspace Theory, the Integrated Information Theory, the Attention Schema Theory, and the Emotional Signal Theory. It is likely that consciousness is a complex phenomenon that cannot be explained by any single theory, and it may be the result of a combination of factors, including the brain's structure and function, our evolutionary history, and our environment. While the mystery of consciousness remains unsolved, the study of this fascinating phenomenon continues to advance, and we may one day be able to unlock the secrets of consciousness and understand its true nature.

@willasacco9898

6 ай бұрын

That is an excellent summary , with which I agree. As Neil de Grasse Tyson once said; the fact that so many books have been written about consciousness shows that is fundamentally complex and we are nowhere near understanding it.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

@@willasacco9898 I understand it and I'm not alone but many have trouble getting to the epiphany. Getting there requires a rich understanding of the nature of abstraction and of the relationship between abstraction and neural activity. Julian Jaynes' great book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" is extremely helpful to the seeker (as is an introduction to neural function and "Gödel, Escher, Bach" doesn't hurt).

Interesting discussion and reminds me of Buddhist philosophy on our consciousness as arising from our sense organs (e.g. eyes, ears, body, etc.) and sensory perceptions (e.g. sight, hearing, touch, etc.). In this dialogue, the [Little “C”] and [Big “C”] reminds me of the concept of Two Truths that the 2nd Century AD Buddhist scholar Nagarjuna expounded in his work [The Mulamadhyamakakarika or The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way]. The Little C mentioned in this video is the “Conventional Truth” that Nagarjuna pointed out is a synthesis of the physical world, our sensory perceptions, and the causes and conditions that trained our mind to perceive - and the Big C is the “Ultimate Truth” that “is what it is” (aka “Suchness”) that is independent of the physical world, our sensory perceptions, and the causes and conditions that trained our mind to perceive. Neuroscientists, psychologists, behavioral scientists, etc. are concerned with the Little C because these fields are anchored in the human mind/self/ego, while physicists are concerned with the Big C because they’re looking at the universe beyond the human mind/self/ego. My understanding of both Buddhist philosophy and quantum physics is extremely rudimentary, but this discussion did spark this connection between the two fields.

Exploring the Nature of Consciousness and Medical Anesthesia I've been pondering the concept of consciousness lately, especially in the context of medical procedures where doctors use medications to induce partial or complete unconsciousness. It makes me wonder - did we create medications that truly affect consciousness, or are we more accurately dulling the senses while incorrectly using the term "consciousness"? Consider this analogy with the small sea of consciousness during medical operations. It raises questions about how we understand and manipulate consciousness. But then, how about the vast sea of consciousness in the Earth, universe, quantum world, etc.? Do we have any "methods" or "medications" to dull or alter the consciousness of nature on a grand scale? It's intriguing to think about. What are your thoughts on this? Can the consciousness of nature be influenced or altered, or is it beyond our grasp? Looking forward to hearing your perspectives! My perspective - Obviously if conciousness is fundamental in nature then it cannot be influenced or altered, if it has originated at a later point of time then maybe it can be altered, because what gets created can be destroyed as well. Cheers!

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

Ponder long and hard the fact that sometimes you are conscious and sometimes you are not. Have you noticed that your self ceases to exist when you are not conscious? Should you one day fall into a permanent deep and dreamless slumber, how would you be able to recognize the onset of your death? Does knowing that you are sometimes not conscious shade your estimation that being conscious might be 'fundamental'?

@avi2125

5 ай бұрын

Once again, being-conscious is not equated with having Consciousness. The anesthesia induced unconscious state does not wipe out self-consciousness.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

@@avi2125 I AM Conscious. Consciousness is not a 'something' that I have. You ARE Conscious. Consciousness is not a 'something' that you have. We ARE Conscious. Consciousness is not a 'something' that we have. There is no such 'thing' as 'consciousness'. Being conscious is a process of the body so that when the body ceases to run the process, being conscious ceases. If an anesthetic interferes with the process sufficiently then one will not be conscious. If LSD interferes with the process then experience is altered.

@MrSudesh1992

5 ай бұрын

Hey @@REDPUMPERNICKEL Thank you for sharing your opinion. But still deep in thought about consciousness, when we're under anesthesia - not consciously aware, yet our subconscious memory and the fundamental functions keeps going like breathing, heart pumping blood, etc. It's like being in a state of induced sub-consciousness. Drawing a parallel with fundamentals: water flows due to gravity, but remove gravity, and water molecules/particles form a sphere. The concept of consciousness in itself can have different understanding from different perspectives, shaped by diverse experiences. My perspective: Consciousness seems like an "experience" difficult to be expressed in words, involving intricate processes like perception (input-output or action-reaction). Just as water molecules/particles respond to gravity, our organs which are collections of different conscious molecules/particles, form a conscious body with a brain, these bodies are collectively part of a conscious group of people, which are part of the conscious beings, and conscious surrounding/nature/universe - acting harmoniously. Self-consciousness, the "Me," arises-an experience exploring the fundamentals but bound by nature's rules. It seems like pixels on a TV creating a moving picture-an illusion mimicking reality. Similarly, the "Me" is an intangible concept, linked to neurons and reactions governed by fundamental rules. Love, emotions, understanding of consciousness, all tied to that intangible "Me." Would love to hear your thoughts on this analogy and your perceptions of the interplay between consciousness, "Me" and the fundamental aspects of existence. Cheers.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

Hello @@MrSudesh1992 I'll write my corresponding understandings under quotes of what you wrote... "when we're under anesthesia - not consciously aware, yet our subconscious memory and the fundamental functions keeps going like breathing, heart pumping blood, etc. It's like being in a state of induced sub-consciousness" Even while an anesthetic prevents one's self-being-conscious-process from running or while the process is naturally halted as in a deep and dreamless slumber, the trillions of other bodily process instances persist, including the neural processes responsible for maintaining one's memories. "Consciousness seems like an "experience" difficult to be expressed in words, involving intricate processes like perception (input-output or action-reaction). Just as water molecules/particles respond to gravity, our organs which are collections of different conscious molecules/particles, form a conscious body with a brain, these bodies are collectively part of a conscious group of people, which are part of the conscious beings, and conscious surrounding/nature/universe - acting harmoniously". Molecules and atoms are mechanically and chemically reactive and their interactions are understood and described quite well by physicists, chemists, biologists, etc. Molecules and atoms exist and react but 'reactivity' is *not* what we mean by 'conscious'. Billiard balls react to impacts but who would insist they are conscious of such events? Only those who cannot distinguish between reactivity and conscious. Nevertheless, molecules and atoms, although individually not conscious, do constitute a level in the hierarchy of necessary substrates which underlie the self-being-conscious-process (in a way perfectly analogous to the way matter must exist if there is to be movement). The thoughts impressed on human apes by their co-evolved cultures are ultimately responsible for making humans conscious in the unique way that we are. "Self-consciousness, the "Me," arises-an experience exploring the fundamentals but bound by nature's rules. It seems like pixels on a TV creating a moving picture-an illusion mimicking reality. Similarly, the "Me" is an intangible concept, linked to neurons and reactions governed by fundamental rules. Love, emotions, understanding of consciousness, all tied to that intangible "Me."" A self is conscious of thoughts only. These thoughts represent things like trees and peaches. A pain represents something wrong with the system. A pleasure represents something that induces repetition. The self is a complex thought or more accurately, a thought complex. The self thought is unique in that it represents its self, all other thoughts representing something that is not the self. The self thought is the central feature of the self-being-conscious-process. Other thoughts modulating the self thought is to what the word conscious is referring. Of course what's going on is extremely complex and indeed, words struggle to do the process justice.

Great interview with Bernard Carr on an important topic. At 6:24 Carr says he doesn't go so far as to say that rocks are conscious. Good. The simplistic suggestion by some panpsychists that rocks, thermostats, spoons, etc, are "proto-conscious" is problematic in its ignorance of phenomenological considerations. At 8:53 "What we really want is a more fundamental picture..." This relates to the *properties* of consciousness. To this end, CS Peirce provides a starting-point with his categories, where motivation, association & habituation can be considered fundamental to cognitive processes. The Feynman diagrams, for example, seem to suggest semiotic processes, such as association.

I don't know why (cosmic) consciousness emerged. It's like asking "why did God emerge" or "why did Self emerge". Maybe the better question to ask is what is the underlying reason for the big bang or fluctuations in the early universe, or, why is there biodiversity? Why does the sea create waves? I am Catholic so for me it's simple. It's all about love baby. It is not good for the Man to be alone (Gen 2:18). Thank you. Bless you. Grateful you are here. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. ❤

Just because consciousness is mysterious and quantum is mysterious that doesn't mean you can use one to explain the other

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

And collapsing probability waves happen only in the abstract realm. And who would be surprised to learn that the abstract is the only realm in which consciousness can flit about.

@_boraprogramar

4 ай бұрын

Stars that are much more simplier than the human brain and consciousness need the quantum mechanics quantum tunneling effect to exist and to be explained, why the brain the most complex object that we "know" in the universe (excluding the universe) can't have quantum effects?

@_boraprogramar

4 ай бұрын

Probably we can't explain today or never will but probably has some quantum effects in the brain, using the complexity logic

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

4 ай бұрын

@@_boraprogramar Have you considered the possibility that the brain's approximately 90,000,000,000 neurons interconnected by their 1,720,000,000,000,000 analog multi input logic gates called synapses might alone be enough to constitute the being conscious process?

@_boraprogramar

4 ай бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I Don´t think it is enough, if it was the way you say we should already have some machine that simulate consciussness, probably we never will

Consciousness evolved as a mechanism to enable life forms to have ideas. An organism that can have ideas contributed greatly to the survival the various species. Consciousness is therefore a conduit for ideas in the first instance. Consciousness is not necessary for us to breathe or the heart to beat, it is an attribute for survival. Why is that so hard to see?

@johnswoodgadgets9819

3 ай бұрын

What attribute? Ideas are arbitrary, untried in the 'idea state', and arguably are more of a detriment to survival than they are an attribute. What exactly is the evolutionary advantage in having ideas? The most successful organisms have no ideas at all.

@christopherblanchard2099

3 ай бұрын

Nonsense. The epiphenomenon of consciousness could not exist at all and we could have still evolved with all the complex brain processing we have now to lead to complex behaviour that could allow our genomes to thrive and reproduce.

Bill Hicks is the first person I’ve ever heard speaking about we are the universe experiencing itself. He said this during on of his comedy bits back in the early 1990’s. I’ve thought a lot about this over the decades since I heard that and it brings me a peace of sorts knowing that maybe I will transcend this mortal shell and live on. If nothing else I return to the void from which I came.

@windypup8845

5 ай бұрын

We all return to the void, become part of the whole but without consciousness, like a nail cutting or removed body part.

@ihatespam2

4 ай бұрын

That’s a 3000 year old religious idea

The part about the observer effecting the wave function has kept me up at night before. Throught the process of evolution, animal brains have the ability to affect the quantum world - at least able to affect the (local?) calculations of the layer below the atom. At most it means that the universe can be forced by sentient beings to create particle matter, rather than stay in its preffered wave state. I guess imagine if you tried to swim in the ocean, but any part of the water you look at turns to ice. Keeping you from being to examine the depths.

@javiej

6 ай бұрын

Well in case it helps you to sleep better that idea is just a philosophical interpretation. It is not what Quantum Mechanics says. Contrary to popular believe no formulation of QM contains the word "consciousness" or even "observer" on it. What QM defines is only the concept of "measurement" (just search about "the measurement problem.."), but "measurement" not as a conscious action but defined as "an orthogonal transformation between two quantum systems". Everything else comes from the imagination of journalists and philosophers, but it is not science and there is zero experimental evidence to support those ideas. Good night.

@specialbeamcharlie7250

5 ай бұрын

@@javiej I agree that the truth may not be as fun as we are all thinking. But it does pose a question about measurement - until it is proven that a measurement can be made by a non-sentient measure...rer (I.E can a rock collapse a wave function?)

@javiej

5 ай бұрын

@@specialbeamcharlie7250 Yes in principle it can. In QM if a rock is in the path of a wave and collides with it then this event counts as a "measurement". As long as the information about the collision event is available nobody needs to look at it to collapse the wave function. But logically that only happens if there is a "collapse" in the first place, as in some QM interpretation (Pilot Waves, Many Worlds,...) there is no collapse at all. But in any case please note that "QM interpretations" are ideas that you chose to "believe", they are not part of the QM theory.

@ihatespam2

4 ай бұрын

That’s just a thought, no evidence

@bradsmith9189

4 ай бұрын

Will you people please stop with this “evolution” nonsense. Macro evolution has for quite some time now been debunked. Darwinism is long gone.

I highly recommend listening to the album 'Still Life' by the band Opeth. It's a masterpiece in 🧠 music

That was a great snippet from Bernard Carr!

Under the suggested conjecture, the definition provided of big-C conscience is equivalent to the concept of Tao, and akin to a quantum Field (existent everywhere, everytime)… and the little-c conscience is equivalent to the individual as a conscious person (possibly as a result of the confluence of evolvitionary complexity to a point or threshold that enables to interact with the big-C, generating as a result the small-c), and akin to the Particle in the Field (a quantum but discrete manifestation at a precise level of energy in that Field). There seems to be some paralelism (or symmetry, if we were able to quantify it) with the structure we know thus far of quantum physics (and the ancient Chinese philosophers had intuition about in Taoism).

As I accept that strong emergence exists, must I then also accept that all the patternings that instantiate the strong emergence events, including consciousness, are fundamental to this universe? The laws of physics seem to be entirely clear but how can we treat emergence? To say that there is a patterning that can draw forth consciousness from the appropriate environments appears to agree with the Theory of Adjacent Possible.

I found his openness refreshing. Scientists like David Chalmers have called for non-traditional theories to deal with the 'hard problem' of consciousness.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Chalmers came up with phrase “the hard problem of consciousness” and was never able to do a thing with it. Nor was anyone else. There was a period when research in this area could have flourished-if any sound, valid or even just interesting research resulted at all. It didn’t. Not from Chalmers, not from anyone else. Now if you never want to get published or a position in a Universe anywhere, tell them you’re interested in the hard problem of consciousness. Total dead end. I bet Chalmers knows it too.

@waynehilbornTSS

6 ай бұрын

A rock is consciousness because it is simultaneously elsewhere and it can sense (void of brain - memory = consciousness) that it isn't part of the mountain anymore.. A rock thinks the hard problem of consciousness is silly. Simultaneous time accounts for all of your memories.. in all of your lifetimes.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 One cannot describe an abstract notion using only physics concepts. Explaining 'consciousness' is only hard if one is so restricted.

I just stumbled onto Bernard watching him in discussion with Sadhguru. What an open minded, thoughtful and genuine seeker of knowledge he is.

@paulyap2k

5 ай бұрын

took the same path, shared your view

@extraorchidinary6347

5 ай бұрын

Sadhguru the fraud?

@ihatespam2

4 ай бұрын

Open mind is easy, speculation is easy. Actually, arriving at the reality of it is hard. Sad guru is a con.

@lillili77

4 ай бұрын

I agree that speculation is easy. But open mind is easy? I think people THINK that they are open minded but don't realise how many strong beliefs they actually hold about everything. For example the belief in what happens after death. The religious might believe in heaven, the atheist might believe there is nothing. But do they realise that both of these are beliefs, not reality? Neither one has actually experienced after death to know what the reality is.

@cspace1234nz

3 ай бұрын

@@lillili77….you seem to think death is real, as if birth happened in the first place

I had a similar thought a few months back, that Consciousnesses is an emergent property that happens when neurons are densely packed together in the right way. I need to learn more about this Observer Effect. I think we may be confusing observation collapsing a wave function with the fact that we always exist in The Now. However, I don't understand the observer effect well enough

@fredulrich6770

2 ай бұрын

It's not the human observation that collapses the wave function. Rather, it is the photons of the instruments that collapse the wave function. It could be read and analysed without human observation.

@BardovBacchus

2 ай бұрын

That's the part I don't fully get @@fredulrich6770; How can the detectors detect things differently? In both cases, the detector at the back registers the photon, but in one case it behaves differently from the other case. What changed? I know it's not human dependent, so where is the difference happening? We need some human made and human readable device to record the observation. What counts as "observation"..?

Any aim to extend our knowledge with mainstream scientific paradigm (which is information), will in my opinion reveal that the knowledge of the microcosmos as well as the macro cosmos are fractal in nature. I think most scientists would rather see it as reaching for the asymptote of information, whilst possibly, there's no asymptote to start with. I think that is a result of the limitation of our senses and intelligent capacity. We might see ourselves as intelligent, but I think we are not capable of even grasping the very fundament of it all. I find Carr's view on things (and he's not alone) the most logical and consistent.

That was a chat from consciousness to consciousness.

In the quantum realm, the uncertainty principle introduces inherent unpredictability, leaving a void or unknown state until observation. The transition from this initial uncertainty to a definite state, observed after measurement, can be seen as moving from a singularity to a form of duality. Before measurement, the quantum system exists in a superposition of potential states, exhibiting both wave-like and particle-like characteristics. The emergent entity role comes into play when interactions among these particles lead to higher-level properties or behaviors, marking the system's evolution from a simpler, more uniform state to a more complex, emergent state with coexisting and contrasting features.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

I liked your comment…. 👍🏻But Before measurement the quantum system doesn’t exhibit wave AND particle characteristics. It’s wave-like until it collapses then becomes a particle. But I know what you are saying. Generally. You’re on the right path, same road I traveled a few years back. All particles emerge/collapse from their respective quantum fields. They form atoms-molecules-then larger groups of matter. Things emerge from the quantum field. All things are reducible to the quantum field. Consciousness is explainable by physics. People who can’t understand consciousness would call it a hard problem; like a 3 year old would think 2x5 is a hard problem. But to those who know what consciousness is, knows is not a hard problem. The only thing hard about it is explaining it to people unable or unwilling to grasp it. C = memory x sensory experience

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker 'The self' is an abstract entity yet it is the self that is conscious. Physics is entirely unsuited to exploring the existential nature of those kinds of abstract notions. Biochemistry comes closer but it also suffers an explanatory chasm between neural activity and thought. As far as I know there is no science of the abstract though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that linguistics is it.

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

Consider the observations expressed by wave/particle duality… when compared to the simultaneity of the body and soul?

I think there is no need of a conscious observation to "collapse a wave function". Any interaction can do that. Am I wrong?

Excellent.

We always need to find bigger, noble, religious spiritual notions. Why can't we just admit there is a physical object (the brain) generating through whatever complex mechanism a conscious experience? No no, there has to be some universal foundamental consciousness (a.k.a. God) that is "observing" itself. Whatever that means 🤷🏻‍♂️

@VolodymyrPankov

2 ай бұрын

Underrated comment ❤

Consciousness holds the Properties of what energy is...described😊😊😊

Thanks!

Nailed it!

very interesting to listen to

I agree with him. I'm glad to see people thinking outside the box like this.

Brilliant - early words but the universe being conscious and us beginning to understand the bigger beauty of what that means - great - we'll find the words sooner or later i.e the thinking thoughts and philosophy to grapple towards it

The lone and lonely instance of an assertion with support from the real world here is his statement that his notions are not popular among most physicists. The remainder of his assertions have no known support of any kind. In fact the very word consciousness is to some extent distorted and even vandalized in the way he uses it, as it means an ongoing and changing awareness through time of the self in some relation to parts of the external world.

So we would have something to think about.

Loaded question😨

@charlytaylor1748

5 ай бұрын

Especially the first word

Close and pay attendance

Excellent video. There is an ancient Hindu text that has a specific verses dedicated to remove confusion about the word "consciousness" as it it used an a wide variety of ways. Here is a translation from the original Sanskrit. "Not internal consciousness, not external consciousness, not in between consciousness (i.e. the state between waking and dream), not a cloud of consciousness (i.e. thoughts, ideas, etc.), not consciousness (i.e. knowledge of everything simultaneously), nor unconsciousness, beyond perception, beyond transaction, beyond grasp (formless), beyond designation, beyond thinking (i.e. beyond objectification), beyond description, the one whose essence is proof of a single Self (Atma/Consciousness), the cessation of the world (of the cycles of birth and death), tranquil, auspicious, non-dual, is considered the Fourth. That (is) the Self (i.e. Atma/Consciousness). That (Self, Atma/Consciousness) is to be known." Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 7

@stringX90

6 ай бұрын

I'm sad to say I was only terribly confused by that passage 😕

@sven888

6 ай бұрын

Yes... Ekam Sat.

@picksalot1

6 ай бұрын

@@stringX90 The point is Consciousness isn't what you think it is. It is what you are. It is not an object. It is the very nature of you, the subject.

@stringX90

6 ай бұрын

@@picksalot1 Thanks, yes, that I understand 😄✌️

@picksalot1

6 ай бұрын

@@stringX90 Glad that helped. These old verses are all meant to explained so they can be understood correctly. 😉

Thank you, you are absolutely right in my humble opinion. The paradigm shift you mention will force us to give up our unconscious obsession with 1st person perspective (egoic mind) or the local aspect of our consciousness, how ever you want to call it and embrace the non-local aspect of consciousness, that which we all share. Both Penrose and Goswami show in their own ways that the brain is able to function both locally (in space-time) and non-locally (outside of space-time, or instantly). The task at hand for humanity is that we have to get over ourselves (the importance of our instantiated minds) and start to "think bigger". I'm certain that nature has a built-in safety switch of some sort. If a species cannot make that evolutionary step of overcoming the erroneous identification with the local aspect of their mind, they will self destruct. Let's hope we get 100 monkeys together to turn the ship around. Fingers crosssed.

@glens18account

5 ай бұрын

how exactly do you think consciousnes can function outside of spacetime?

@autisticalchemist

5 ай бұрын

If I knew, I wouldn't be sitting here, watching videos... If "spacetime is just a headset" (donald hoffman) and consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe (bernardo kastrup) and if we de-couple consciousness from our fixed concept of it always having to be paired with an entity and/or agent, then why couldn't it?

@glens18account

5 ай бұрын

@@autisticalchemist explain it to me in your own way, I want your opinion.

@autisticalchemist

5 ай бұрын

@@glens18account kzread.info/head/PLMGkKcfLvqZIbbZxi7sYtF9bBCxfDM5SL&si=XFcsqAGZ4VkoTA64

@autisticalchemist

5 ай бұрын

@@glens18account kzread.info/dash/bejne/dnZpy5KqhsiXj9I.html

Even in within a classical interpretation of the Universe, consciousness is inevitable due to the vastness of the forum.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

Comment improved imho by adding 'and that the natures of its constituent particles enable them to dance together as they do'. (Size alone being only distantly relevant to the manifestation of the conscious).

@yessroman

5 ай бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL - Certainly an improvent, in a very valid sense. I do however, attribute importance to the vastness (a redundant term for an infinitely large [in my estimation] stage) of the Tapestry, because its ‘boundlessness’ enables, nay, FORCES, everything, E V E R Y T H I N G, to occur, an infinite number of times.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

@@yessroman There are some thoughts I cannot think to my satisfaction. Infinite is one and absolute nothing is another. I suspect this is because evolution made representation the fundamental nature of all thoughts so that the unrepresentable become unthinkable except at arms length via labels.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Transcendental Meditation technique claimed already back in the 1980's that the Unified Field described by Quantum Physics and Consciousness, was the same. But it is a non-object and therefore not measurable in time and space. MMY claimed Consciousness is existence itself and that we can experience it all the time as our inner Self Awareness (the knowing that we exist). So according to MMY's theories the subtlest quantum levels of the universe and human Awareness, is the same.

Sir Roger Penrose believes that the understanding aspect of consciousness comes from the effect of quantum gravity collapsing the wave function in microtubules. This may, or may not be correct. However, if it is, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics means we can stick with materalism and free will.

@aletheia161

5 ай бұрын

​@Pardis-og3tb who Penrose?

Exactly🔥🔥🔥

Evidence comes from latin 'obvious to the eye or mind'. So, no evidence without 'eye or mind'. Since science is suposed to be based (or relies) on evidence, we have to conclude that there can't be physical reality without 'eye or mind'. Just try to imagine any physical reality or universe without evidence ('eye or mind', consciousness, awareness...); it's entirely impossible, nonsensical...

3:25 he’s talking about the repetition in shapes and connections and mirroring principals and all that. The reason is because the patterns that came before shaped this by cause and effect and we shape the next and so on so the patterns reflect while growing in different ways. God is a prediction in potentials and all potentials exist but not all potentials are known or can be realized naturally. We only view a portion of reality and think certain rules are fundamental when it’s the pieces that connect to make those even when not fully realized so the patterns emerge and connect like a kaleidoscope. Evolution is our patterns creating these things and we transmute and transfer and transport our similarities and differences all over to all the things we’ve created with words and locations. It’s wild.

According to Mr. Carr’s Wikipedia page: “He has interests outside physics, including psychic research.[2] He has been a member of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) for thirty years, serving as its education officer and the chairman of its research activities committee for various periods. He was president of the SPR from 2000 to 2004. He is currently president of Scientific and Medical Network (SMN) in the UK. “He has been the co-holder of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation for a project entitled Fundamental Physics and the Problem of our Existence. He is the editor of a book based on a series of conferences funded by the Foundation, entitled Universe or Multiverse? Bernard Carr also made an appearance in the documentary film The Trouble with Atheism, where he discussed these concepts, and also appeared in the science documentary film Target...Earth? (1980).”

People have been projecting consciousness onto the universe since there have been conscious people and while we have countless examples of the misattribution of consciousness, so far no one has been able to demonstrate that this is the case.

@pickyourswitchoriginal

4 ай бұрын

Ironically, that projection is an indicator of the small"c". Would that science will someday get to a way to experiment. Won't happen for a long time imho, so for now it's relegated to an interesting topic of discussion.

@brad5621

4 ай бұрын

What do yo mean "no one has been able to demonstrate"? you simply overlook Buddhism, Zen, and all mystics who suggest YOU take up the appropriate PRACTICES or tools of investigation to have these "ideas" Bernard Carr is talking about be clearly demonstrated. You have provided a pure materialistic conception that you project onto our reality -- I'm not buying it at all for you leave out too much counter-evidence.

Rather : « Why consciousness neither comes or goes” Because consciousness is the only “thing” which is” The only “thing” you’ll ever know because everything perception is perceived at 0 distance from consciousness included this conversation about consciousness… ❤

Isn't consciousness what is already existing and therefore no need for 'emerging' as such ?

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

6 ай бұрын

No

@heinzditer7286

6 ай бұрын

Yes

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

Somewhere in between

@charlytaylor1748

5 ай бұрын

Maybe

@0NeverEver

3 ай бұрын

Emergence is a non-sense word, it's Just a gap filler Word for "I don"t know how that happend".

Consciousness is a feedback system of 5 senses. Comparing new sense to older senses is the mechanism of evolution. One can say consciousness is 6th sense. Newborn does not have consciousness, however as baby grows with data collected through 5 senses and feedback comparison, consciousness emerges. Entire perception of the universe that we humans have is evolution of energy in each of us.

But how can we define or identify or separate or extract what it is that is the fundamental part of consciousness from nature. What defines it apart from just the stuff of nature?

Carr's approach to Consciousness is such a refreshing deviation from the arrogant approach taken by the majority of materialistic physicalists who operate on the premise that anything which cannot be explained in material terms is nonsense. The evolutionary process of discovery as Carr expresses it clearly demonstrates that there has always been more to discover than has been discovered. The evolving brain continues to discover new correlations and revelations within and about the universe within which it operates. Viewing the brain, and the physical senses that inform it, as a translator of experience rather than a generator of experience would seem to be a much more effective way to appreciate existence as a whole.

I just think as humans we are too dumb to make full sense of the universe, it might be pure accidental or beyond even consciousness, something we cant understand.. Consciousness is something we know so we think of it as superior

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I don’t understand the big mystery with consciousness. Everything that has a brain is conscious to some degree, the more a brain ‘thinks’ the more conscious it is. My dog is conscious that if he does a certain thing he will get a treat in return. He can’t contemplate the Big Bang because he has no language to do so. I have learned a very complex language so I can contemplate all manner of things by having a conversation in my own head about it. For me consciousness is just a brain thinking to greater or lesser degrees

@ChrisClark0

6 ай бұрын

It's not the thinking, it's the experiencing. I thought the same, consciousness is not a big deal, until I watched a lot of Closer to Truth videos over the past few years. When talking with friends, I boil it down to this. Look at something colored red, where does that red in itself exist, where does that experience of the red color come from? It's just a certain wavelength of light, but the frequency doesn't create red itself. You, by observing red in the first person point of view and seeing the bright color, is consciousness. And there is no explanation for where that experience comes from or is created. To use your example, a computer can learn a very complex language. But you contemplate all manner of things by having a 'conversation in your head'. You are observing a train of thought, a voice, or images. Where does the experience of sound come from? The images you can imagine? That's the consciousness part.

@luismoref

6 ай бұрын

​@@ChrisClark0you explained it so well, very nice

@gallinho7268

6 ай бұрын

@@ChrisClark0 If I experience the colour red, is it not just my eyes seeing the light wave and then my brain receiving the information and processing it? If I had my eyes closed I wouldn’t experience the colour red but if I open them I do. A computer isn’t biological and isn’t a brain connected to an entire biological structure with senses so I think real consciousness in AI will be hard to achieve. It seems to me that the brain is the real mystery, even the origins of multi cellular life and consciousness comes along with it. Again I am sorry, I know there’s something I’m missing that I’m not wrapping my head around.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@gallinho7268you are close. How does a city’s roads influence the behavior of the city? New York is vastly different than Reno. I could argue a person is a product of their environment (roads) and a city’s roads are the product of the people. It works both ways. You know what red is because you have wired your brain to decipher red since birth. When you experienced your first event, your brain started laying the roads. Over time, some roads were reinforced : major moral compass, beliefs, and so on. At times, some roads were rerouted and some are destroyed completely: Abandoned beliefs and forgotten memories. It’s not the individual brick pavers of small paths and neighborhood back streets, it’s the pattern of the massive highway which determine your self awareness. It’s the Shape of your brain that counts where self awareness is concerned. Neurological pathways comprise memories as certain external stimulation is processed thru the major highways. Reinformemt - The more you experience (or visualize)a thing, the stronger the road’s foundation becomes. This is called “plasticity.” A familiar face is processed through neuro paths that were laid out by past exposures to the person from your past. The larger the path, the more the recollection.-ex. Lady Gaga triggers more memories than Billie joe Jim Bob. I could break it all down for you, but only if you’re interested. Otherwise, I’ll just leave it here. Consciousness is easy to explain in physical terms. I have it figured out to about 99 percent. I’m looking for someone to challenge me, but so far all I get is the same dualist gibberish. The mind is an emergent process of the physical world. Reflex, inspiration, influence, motivation, and sub conscious are all words that describe the same thing. Physicality. As such, the mind is reducible to physical properties. Self awareness (consciousness) is the sum of present experience, plus all experience since birth and the memories of those experiences. Experience. Physical processes effect on the CNS. -red light hits specific cones in your retina. Close your eyes and try imagining red. The best you get is a memory of something red. You’re routing electrical impulse down “red street.” Memory. Default states of neuro pathways ..the way your brain was sculpted by physicality. Your physical brain is a sculpture. - if red is your favorite color, you must have spent a lot more time developing “red street.” Those electrical impulses which comprise red, mixed with some other memory (cross street) you made with your first love. The association/context might make your brain feel better as electrical impulses trigger endorphins. Everyone like those, because they feel good and make you happy. Red reminds you of Jessica in a hot Red bikini. Meanwhile, sage green reminds you of stale celery a bully made you eat. Dualists argue that self awareness emerges from the brain and is a different thing than the brain. While emergence may be half true, it does not mean consciousness is separate and fundamental. Consciousness is an extension to the physical brain. It’s like music that comes from grooves of a record. The music is physical--sound wave vibrations in air. Music is reducible by removing the air, speakers, wires, magnets and cartridge, needle, grooves, and record. Remove any one, and the music’s over. But the brain is also a transducer in that energy comes in, gets processed and converted, then sent to out in the form of physical action. Your brain mirrors the physical world. - running across a basketball court versus sauntering down a frozen driveway. OR speaking in a quiet baby nursery or shouting at a wrestling match. You actions mirror the world you experience. Even if you decided to yell in a nursery, you would have a reason. The reason could be obvious like “fire!” Or subtle like, “oh, I didn’t realize I was yelling. I had my head phones on.” I could go on all day. I’m writing a book actually. But the bottom line is this…. All things in the universe are reducible to the quantum fields. Like and I’ll fill you in with more details. I have many “common sense” principles I could share. I hope it helps. Thanks for reading this far!

@nickpetralifis4844

6 ай бұрын

It's just all speculation this man is arguing, there's no proof to any of this. The universe doesn't need consciousness or is designed to produce it. It just emerged, consciousness isn't fundamental

Is there a full video of this?

Consciousness evolved as a predictive mechanism, an extension of cognition and memory that enables populations to anticipate future events according to what has happened in the past, thus promoting survival and reproductive success. We humans have developed such complex consciousness that we sometimes become entangled in our own fantasies.

@cameronmckenzie7049

6 ай бұрын

I think I agree with you but not sure. Dennett would agree also. it aligns with my own (throat clear) simple theory - consciousness is "story"

@maxpower252

6 ай бұрын

That doesn’t answer the question.

@adisvara2900

6 ай бұрын

Did consciousness evolve out of matter or matter evolved to certain state where it could channel consciousness that is always there.

@desmondgroves6998

6 ай бұрын

If only it were that simple !

@logikgr

6 ай бұрын

@@adisvara2900Is there a consciousness particle? Consciousness feels like the playful child peeking behind the curtain, amazed with what it sees.

Paradigm Shift in the fundamental concept of Consciousness ("C") helping and supporting Science to take a leap to the next level in this eternal and infinite journey of Time and Space

Nonsense....

Being conscious of time.. Looking for a rationalized answer to the question of whether time created God or God time, or even whether God and time are ultimately one and the same, what seems to prevail most for a common human mind (the one which I think I have) is probably the last one.. Isn't "time" with its limitless properties the one we ultimately deified? So while time seems to be a prerequisite for the existence of everything, material and immaterial, nevertheless, the form of thought that probably still prevails on the planet, perceives time, more as a part of space and not the opposite.

What seems more special than consciousness is the force behind consciousness. The powerful, strong force for self-preservation that exists in living beings. The force seems unintuitive from a scientific or mathematical standpoint.

@sven888

6 ай бұрын

Ludus Amoris...

Maybe it’s an emergent property of integrations that help regulate functions at the top most level of systems. It’s probably inherent in all integrations.

Is consciousness the same as self awareness or can a creature or plant be conscious but not self aware?🤔

I think KZread thinks im smarter than i am when it suggested this video. I need to find out what wave function is for starters! Anyway, perhaps duality will help here, maybe consciousness is how we mentality absorb information just as our body absorbs information using the senses. All of it from both mental and physical then gets processed by the ego. Ok im out of my depth now 😁

Desire

Questions seeking answers to Why, are metaphysical, rather like Aristotle's Final Cause. Scientists are in the business of questioning in the How, What, Where and When realms. In this piece there is a belated attempt to retreat to this ground when - What caused consciousness to emerge? is posed. In my view we need to be alert to the sloppy use of language, and Why questions need to be treated with great care, and if possible avoided.

The physical 4D SpaceTime as we know it emerges from the consciousness of the Infinite Scource. Everything has a spiritual component ,rocks,trees ,fish etc. Entanglement works because the two entangled particles are connected in the fifth dimension of the Consciousness. Touch one entangled particle, you have actually instantiously touched both.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

They look like two particles but in actuality they are one thing. Our understanding of dimension is pure intuition. Entanglement tells us that our intuition fails to accurately reflect the actuality.

Mysticism begins where science ends. But a lot of modern science would have sounded mystical to earlier scientists. The point is, if you want to expand the scope of the subject matter of science, you don’t do it by using words - use experimentation and maths. Science does not deal in some mystical ‘pure’ truth (such a view of truth breaks down necessarily into incoherence or tautology) - it progresses according to a coherence theory of truth: the more that new ideas can be convincingly connected to existing, established, demonstrable patterns of interconnection, the more credible they are considered to be. It isn’t difficult to step outside of scientific perspectives, look towards the edges of current scientifically demonstrable knowledge, and then posit, using the imprecise medium of words, some other version of ‘real reality’. But if you have some kind of intuition like that, don’t waste your time discussing it, instead look for ways of gathering testable evidence of types of phenomena that point in the direction of your hypothesis. Paradigm shifts don’t occur via conversations - Einstein demonstrated his ideas in scientific papers. Don’t talk, get to work.

Oga Bernard is a black Nigerian Igbo man with exceptional intuition.

He sounds like he believes in "Mother Nature." I think maybe, more realistically, he may be referring to a 'Consciousness Field'; from which a 'Consciousness Particle' can experience acceleration, develop mass & can emerge from or disappear back, into...

I agree with Betnard Carr

It seems helpful to recognize, real world, that conscious "per se", that is, intrinsically in and of itself in like say the form of some kind of an isolated, invisible and insubstantial cloud of pure being, does not actually exist because there is only "consciousness of". This means that consciousness arises only when there is a sensed object (this can include thoughts) of which we are conscious. A good parallel is sight. Sight is just a mind-manufactured concept because, again real world, there is only the process of seeing of an object. So to say that sight exists independently in the eye or the visual cortex is erroneous. Similarly, being conscious of something is a process, while claiming consciousness per se exists independently is an error.

@0NeverEver

3 ай бұрын

Taken the example of halucinations under sense deprivation consciousness does not necessarily seem to rely in external Inputs.

As a neurobiologist, I believe this gentleman ideas are near Descartes… not to the 21st century…also I don’t know why he evokes physics when we are strictly talking about biology and neuroscience which allows cognition and hence, consciousness. So the key word is biology.

@0NeverEver

3 ай бұрын

I never saw a science as quack as neurology. The gap between what they actually measure versus what they think that proofs is outragous. Does anyone in this fields ever had an introduction to Basic Logic? How to construct a proof? I dont mean this as a Joke. I guess AS soon AS the Public understands what the brain really does versus what neurology claimed IT does the world will loose all Trust in science.

make sense SIR!!!

I'll got out on a limb here, and based on experimental electronics with the creation of very simple artificial neurons quite some years ago, that since "emergent behavior' (self generated signals were noted when a certain level of complexity was reached); that anything constructed in that kind of massively parallel way, and sufficiently complex will achieve a " consciousness" of some sort. if software can do the same, I'd expect the same behavior. Time will tell...

@waynehilbornTSS

6 ай бұрын

First.. Computers can ONLY compare variables.. your computer shall NEVER think of a random number between one and five,,. NEVER EVER. Second.. consciousness is outside the body because consciousness is memory which is actually simultaneous actual events.. occurring now and tomorrow.

Exactly @

We are absolutely surrounded by differnent fields of energy. As new technology advances we discover more. I have this idea that conciousness is another field like gravity or electro-magnetism and everything that we consider to be alive is able to tap into this energy; like your cell on wifi. When we die, we permanently lose that connection. I also believe in levels of conciousness because I dont think the world is often black or white. The more complex a system is, the more conciousness it has. That's what make sense to me anyways.

@ReddAngry

5 ай бұрын

@@abectv I was speaking in very general terms but the Higs-boson particle was confirmed using a particle accelerator. That's pretty interesting.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

5 ай бұрын

You are conscious of things because you see them. What point in having eyes if you can be conscious of things without them?

@ReddAngry

5 ай бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I dont agree with your first statement but to answer your question; visual info is just another way to collect info about our environment. Any one person or entity for that matter, can have more or less sensory information about its environment. More through technology and communication, less through hampering its senses some way.

Why do elementary particles exist? Why do the Laws of Nature exist? Both have existed for an infinite period of space-time. Elementary particles following the Laws of Nature (both of which require the other to exist) are conscious at the most simple basic levels through all intermediate levels to the most complex levels... So, consciousness began with elementary particles following the Laws of Nature which began an infinite distance in space-time ago. Why is that? How can that possibly be answered? Maybe some questions cannot be answered.

I thought quantum pre-dated consciousness; why does this collapse the wave function? This still doesn't make sense to me. The observer is gravity maybe? Or some other fundamental force.

Consciousness is a survival tool. Without a certain level of consciousness, it becomes almost impossible to survive.

Are we at the stage when we find out that the beautiful music coming out of the radio set isn’t in fact a tiny orchestra within the set but rather something far greater the set ,beyond our imagination and understanding.

@kevinmusinga8428

4 ай бұрын

Amazing and interesting analogy. I believe we are simply part of something more beautiful and grandiose than we could ever imagine.

Relativity itself demands an observer in order to exist - that's like using binary while refusing to acknowledge the 1's Consciousness is a necessary component of the universe - it's required to ensure the laws of thermodynamics are upheld through the passage of time.

One may hear many learned thoughts on the nature of consciousness, but it is important to remember that we are ALL creations of God. (No matter how one envisages God to be). God is the all embracing (loving) essence of consciousness; in all its manifestations.

The question is based on a faulty premise... Consciousness is primary. The question is how our consciousness makes physical matter appear to exist.

Doesn’t asking ‘why’ did consciousness emerge imply a previous consciousness was responsible?

Consciousness results from electro-chemical synaptic excitations that utilize visual and aural memory. It's as though a loop tape is playing and that tape is constantly updating, both with our actual "real time" audio-visual experience, and the plethora of memories that are fed in and out of the consciousness loop. It is astounding how many snippets of memory can come and go as we experience consciousness. I put "real time" in quotes, because even that is necessarily a read of memory. There is no actual "current time" because each 1/infinity moment slips instantly into the past, and that immediate past appears to us as current. Consciousness provides creatures a vital set of inputs necessary for survival. The level of complexity of consciousness is relative to a creature's brain mass to body ratio. The human brain weighs about 3 pounds, and a very small amount of that mass processes consciousness. An ant's brain, proportional to her weight, is about 7 times the size of the human brain. A young ant learns at an astounding rate by tagging along with an older ant. An ant doesn't bother with spending 1/4 to 1/3 of her life being "educated" because she learns the essentials of life within a few minutes and then she devotes her life to the well-being of the colony. Her exponential rate of learning is accomplished by way of her proportionally enormous brain size. And her level of consciousness provides her with internal affirmation regarding the importance of her contribution. Her work is her play, and she sees her fellow worker/players enjoying the highly cooperative fulfillment to the well-being of the colony.

@Ofinfinitejest

5 ай бұрын

Your first paragraph is exactly correct, and reflects the idea of consciousness as "multiple drafts" of a story that keeps changing slightly, and briefly examined before continuous subsequent drafts. On the ant example I would suggest what is missing is the component of an examination of a perspective on the ant's own activities. I might guess second level happens with larger and more complex brains only.

@kunalnichani1

4 ай бұрын

The Universe is not a random coincedence. The Universe has a story which is unfolding as time passes. Its a long story. Existence was the first episode. Life was second. And consciousness like the one we humans possess now is the next chapter unfolding itself. May be Robotics and AI will help us explore the next chapter to expand our limits. The 'Story' of the Universe is the Higher Consciousness itself. It 'Knows' what its doing. Its following a plan. Just like a seed has all the information about how it will turn into a plant, and eventually a gigantic fruit bearing tree. The same way the Universe already had all the ingredients that were needed for this story to unfold. It cant just go back and say ohh I need one new element to make certain progress happen. It cant. It was all predecided, pre written. But are there any possiblities for miracles? Ofcourse :) Can the things go wrong? Ofcourse :) I mean even a plant has the risk of drying out, or getting cut or may be develop imperfections due to lack of nutrition. Or it can get the best resources out there and grow up to be the best version of itself. Thats just Fate. Backed by Faith :) Who wrote this story? I am quite sure there is a super human like God who wrote this story. But then ofcourse 'someone' created God and they were less human and more nature. And 'something' created those someone and so on. It all came from Nothing. We just have to accept that. I believe the biggest miracle is Existence itself. There could have been just nothing. Emptiness. Nonexistence. But there is Existence! Miraculously evolving into something so complex, unique, beautiful as well as scary at the same time. I am Awe struck. Thats Awe-some at times, Awe-ful at others. These are two sides of the same coin. We have to appreciate and accept both of them. I just wish science zooms out and develops the ability to look at the big picture. It carries the same ego that religion once carried. Greed for for fame, recongition, superiority, power. Those are just addictions. Happens automatically over a period of time. We need to shake it off. That voice inside us knows whats right. We need courage and strength to listen to it again and change our ways. Doesnt happen overnight though. I do wish Science finds the simplest explainations of our existence at the highest level.. which cant be proved in labs ofcourse.. just common sense and observation are enough. And then use those understandings to fill in the gaps backed by faith and sense of service towards humanity. Thats when answers come. Thats when they always come.

@sanathansatya1667

4 ай бұрын

Very interesting and profound. Is the ant more conscious than human.?? By virtue of its proportionately larger brain.

@sanathansatya1667

4 ай бұрын

​@@kunalnichani1 Interesting idea. I have to read it again and again because language is a poor tool to express truth. I have to be honest without imposing my prejudices before attempting to look into your ideas.

@sanathansatya1667

4 ай бұрын

​@@Ofinfinitejest Your opinion regarding the Ant example added a different and interesting perspective.

The point of this whole vid is analogous to asking 'Do we have free will?' ...a wrong question that, rather than being accesable to being solved, requires dissolution. In other words, nonsense. (Embarrassing! A conclusion in search of a formulation of a question seeking to justify the question). That said, it raises some good points.

Consciousness, i.e., awareness, is experienced by many living beings, including, if you believe, scientists, Honey Bees. The real issue for Human Beings is meta-consciousness, i.e., the awareness of being aware, knowing what we know, and having knowledge of impending future events, like our eventual demise.

I’ve always thought that “a theory of everything” is supremely hubristic.

Consciousness didn't "emerge", it was always there...everywhere

@ihatespam2

4 ай бұрын

Prove it.

@davidbrisbane7206

4 ай бұрын

Even before life emerged?

@ihatespam2

4 ай бұрын

These people won’t let go of their dream to be above the physical. @@davidbrisbane7206

just how do you know you are conscious?

@taragnor

6 ай бұрын

It's really the only thing you can be certain of. The entire world could be an illusion, but you are certain that you're consciously experiencing something because it's really as simple as the "I think therefore I am" kind of thing. The problem is you can't prove consciousness in anyone other than yourself.

Consciousness is beyond physical (and logical) universe, we should not try to explain it using physics of matter and energy. He raises one good point at 5:25, which is what upanishads and vedanta says too.

Don’t know

The universe is consciousness but beyond our comprehension, we (our consciousness) are a subset of that which attains self consciousness. Consciousness enters the matter form after the form is prepared, that it enters at all would logically suggest that It already existed elsewhere in another form.