I like the approach. Instead of chasing an elusive reductionism, or simply declaring it true, he accepts conscious experience as what it is and tries to figure out how it interacts with brain.

@piehound

6 ай бұрын

You took the words right out of my mouth. Thumbs up.

@james6401

6 ай бұрын

He might end up with reductionism all the same though?

@simesaid

6 ай бұрын

_Cogito ergo rex._

I have no idea what he’s talking about but you have to love his passion

Probably the most interesting conversation in the channel until now.

Appreciate Christof Koch for being open minded about consciousness. He is getting closer to truth, that's for sure! The ancient philosopher-scientists inferred the existence of soul precisely because they experienced such realisations. The discovery of soul is actually the product of *knowledge* regarding the brain, not ignorance. Modern day writers influenced by materialist ideas have made a horrific mistake in assessing the views of the ancient intellectuals. They were actually geniuses who let their intellect proceed towards the truth unfettered by agenda. Now, gradually, the neuroscientist of the modern period is also coming to the same conclusion! That something extra-neuronal is necessary in order to complete the picture of subjective experience. In reality there is an entity conscious *by nature* attached to the brain which is merely the organ of its (transcendental) mental faculty. This is the only model that can solve the hard problem. It explains both the observed neural correlates and conscious experience.

@thomassoliton1482

6 ай бұрын

Where is this “entity Consciousness” (EC)? I would like to speak with it. How is it attached - does it live in the 4th dimension that I cannot access? What if it dies? Do I die? Did it exist before I was born? How many EC’s are there? Could there ever be more people than EC’s? Would that person be a zombie? I could go on, but this idea is just plain unnecessary and a waste of time because you can rationalize anything but thinking something doesn’t make it true.

@aryangoswami7512

6 ай бұрын

आपतो सनातनी लगते हैं कृपया मुझे बताएं की ये वैज्ञानिक चेतना के बारे में क्या बता रहा है क्या चेतना जो हमारे शास्त्रों में लिखा है वैसे ही है मूलभूत तत्व ?

@Arunava_Gupta

6 ай бұрын

@@aryangoswami7512 क्रिस्टोफ़ कोच अब मानते हैं कि ब्रह्मांड की मूलभूत विशेषता के रूप में "अनुभव" नामक चीज़ की आवश्यकता है। बस इतना ही मेरी समझ में आया है.

@aryangoswami7512

6 ай бұрын

@@Arunava_Gupta धन्यवाद

It's beyond comprehension that some people will postulate that no progress can be made with regards to understanding consciousness. What an embarrassment.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

I totally agree. The peer reviewed papers published on conscious are probably near or in the hundreds of thousands by now. We know a heck of a lot about consciousness.

@landbeforetimeee

6 ай бұрын

​@longcastle4863 We know it correlates to activity in various regions in the brain. As far as the process by which that generates subjective experience, it's anyone's guess.

@blijebij

6 ай бұрын

Maybe it is a human trait to be impatient. Our lifes are short. Some people however will truly believe what you stated.

@ProjectMoff

6 ай бұрын

How can subjective experience view itself and study itself as an object when it is not an object? Consciousness can never be understood, all theories happen after the fact of awareness, within awareness, no observation can happen outside of observation. The only way to know consciousness is by being it and then anything said about it is the content of consciousness. Those who think consciousness can be explained by scientific study don’t seem to even be aware that they are aware, studying the brain may help you understand behaviour but never will it help you understand the observer, because the observer isn’t there. Awareness never looks at itself it IS the looking, you can’t look at looking, you can only look at the content of awareness, you only know you are aware because you are it, no one will ever see your awareness and we will never know if an AI has awareness either, because you can’t see seeing. This should be obvious and THAT is the embarrassment. That’s not to say that the study of consciousness is pointless but you won’t get anything better than what ancient Buddhists and Vedic’s have said thousands of years ago, the subjective is to be studied subjectively, and what you will learn is not what awareness is, but instead how the content of it is not as it seems, it’s nothing but a painting.

@optimusprimevil1646

6 ай бұрын

it's not all that ridiculous considering we don't know what an explanation to the hard problem could even look like.

Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.

That shirt he's wearing has consciousness and can't be explained scientifically.

I wish you would ask What about intuition.

'experience is fundamental and irreducible' wait,.....what !!???

Koch is just having fun, he’s a hard determinist.

great conversation! would really like to hear Christof talk about the conscious experience of sighted vs non-sighted persons, both having always been such. how do they differ in "seeing red" or describing an ambulance with siren blaring passing by, or falling in love, etc.. and, what that looks like in the brain/neurons, especially when remembering the experience. is a non-sighted person always "dreaming" or never dreams to all the input.

One last query, if space is flat and time is bendy, is spacetime curvature (gravity) a kind of memory? Space has measurable properties like magnetic permeability and electric permittivity, what about capacitance in farads? Protons and electrons appear to remember their charges like capacitive near-perfect spheres, one negative charge equal and opposite to every positive one, though they have mass, size and momentum etc. asymmetries, with some perpetual gradient action going on? They are older than the CMB and kinda act like Wilczek time crystal spheres?

Very good nice

Haha, while watching another video on this channel I got the idea if I could find something new from Mr. Koch. So I stopped the previous video and started searching on KZread. I found this video from eleven days ago! Thanks for the good work! Great!

Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness - sounds like an excellent rabbit hole to go down.

@InnerLuminosity

6 ай бұрын

Or anthropic principal 😊

Finally! It took Koch a long time to come around! I'm happy for him

It's strange, he posits our ability to identify gender, ethnicity etc such characteristics from an image as exemplifying our conscious abilities via integrated information. Yet our computers already do that today via inference algorithms. But no one would claim that they are conscious entities.

"Conscious experience is "linked to the substrate but is not the same as the substrate". Absolutely. Nature is fundamentally about interaction ( change). Patterns of changes manifest as what we call nature. Likewise, it is the interaction between the input to the substrate and the substrate itself, that manifests as what we experience as conscious awareness. The nature of the interaction is key.

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

no, what youre describing is a property of the substrate. the exact thing he is explaining is distinct fundamentally in nature. listen better.

Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?

If I get shot through the heart my mind goes away but my brain is largely unchanged. The mind emerges from the body, mostly the brain, not just the brain.

Operative statement, 6:41’ - “You still need to postulate “experience” (I.e. 1st person) as something fundamental.” Fundamental as in the laws of physics. Koch: “Yes, I do believe that is necessary, correct.” And that’s after acknowledging tremendous advances in understanding consciousness over the last 20 years.

The Theory of Adjacent Possible was created to explain the increasing complexity of biological structures. Briefly summarized, it states that near-future outcomes of developmental process are driven by the structures that already exists. It seems reasonable to postulate a parallel in the mental processes; consciousness emerges/develops with the continued experience of reality. Consciousness is the resonance of experiences in the mind. All sensory experiences are mediated to create the mental representations that form thoughts/memories. This mediation allows the mind to recall the memorized image (one of the mental representations) of a friend. Recall of the MR triggers the physical mediation structure, the brain, and the mind can, in effect, see the friend as a virtual visual experience.

My interpretation of what he is saying is that there is a mathematical space into which all neural networks can be mapped. This doesn't seem unreasonable. Moreover, there exists some measure on that space which gauges the 'level' of conscience of each of these networks. Such a measure need not map to a 1-dimensional space. That is, some neural networks may be less inclined to 'emotions' but extremely adept at calculation and vice versa. So ranking the levels of conscience may not be possible. Again, all this still seems reasonable. However, whether or not there is a fundamental and real aspect of the universe in which this mathematical space resides seems questionable and thus, in a sense, simply transforms the mind / body problem into a similarly intractable problem. If one could detect interactions between said space and other fundamental objects within the universe, then this would be something truly worth considering. Alternately, in Max Tegmark's mathematical universe, in which there is no 'real' space or particles or anything else, then such an approach to the mind / body problem may have a sound footing. Should such a fundamental aspect to the universe really exist, then it begs the question; what other fundamental aspects of the universe exist that we cannot possibly fathom? For example, is there a fundamental part of the universe where divinities and angels or ghosts and mythological creatures exist? As an aetheist, I doubt it, but...

@garychartrand7378

6 ай бұрын

Don't worry about it. As an ATHEIST, your base assumption is wrong thereby making EVERYTHING Based on it WRONG. I can declare this with ultimate confidence. In January 2008 God gave me a job description that says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear, to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to Show Love to ALL men" . God has performed miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. For 17 years now, I have been interacting daily with God. NOBODY can tell me that there is no God - NOBODY! From my perspective you need to change your base assumption in order to get the Truth. 🙏❤️✌️👍

Best channel XD

The importance of not being important

I wonder if Kuhn has ever interviewed Paul Churchland.

Каким образом нам все это ответит на вопросы квалиа и интенциональности и как материя из порождает

I think this is it.

Brain is the physical part, mind is the functions.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

No. The whole conversation went completely over your head. What Koch said is precisely the rejection of functionalism, and why it doesn't work.

@CesarClouds

6 ай бұрын

​@plafar7887 My statement is not a summary of the conversation. It's my view. Unfortunately, the speaker blended mind with consciousness, they're not the same thing.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

@@CesarClouds In the fields of Neuroscience, Psychology and Philosophy of the Mind, Consciouness and Mind are often synonymous.

@CesarClouds

6 ай бұрын

@plafar7887 I have never read them to be synonymous in 30 years of reading related subjects.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@CesarClouds 😆that plafar guy's running around telling everyone the conversation went over their head, while our posts are going over his. Although I disagree with your post, I can tell you were just expressing your opinion.

Nonsense, we just don't understand it yet. Like with all other phenomena we don't didn't understand in the past and used the divine, we do the same with consciousness. Eventually we will find the laws that govern it. It will just take time

Is Radio and Music the same thing, Mr. Kuhn, how old are You ?

My boy RLK! 😎👍

Depth of inference, how to measure it, how to calibrate it? I think that's where you'll find consciousness

@NWLee

6 ай бұрын

What is the unit of measure for consciousness?

Obviously, consciousness exists in living systems, they need to respond to their environment to live. I think consciousness is fundamental and only expressed as the matter it is associated with, is capable. But now what about the unconscious mind?

He's figured it out..

How about the mind and brain are secondary in aspect to the heart and it's field...where conciousness is.

@NWLee

6 ай бұрын

Do you feel your consciousness is centered in your heart? My perceived center of consciousness is often behind my eyes, but sometimes it seems only aware of the experience, with less centeredness. This might indicate some quality of (my) consciousness. I have practiced meditation where I become aware of apparent energy centers.

@wendyg8536

6 ай бұрын

@@NWLee I getting a bit suspicious that they ignore the heart field..and the silver thread.. in relation to conciousness. Love.. is through the heart..not illusory mind..and no not the brain. ...and love is central to expanded conciousness and awareness....and source of what may be called god... ' all encompassing' ...and God is through the heart..not the mind or brain. Is there afoot, a scientific focus on the mind brain..is it as a point to cancel the true seat of God ?

What he described is how he thinks consciousness emerges from brain activity. That contradicts his earlier statement that he thinks consciousness is fundamental. Something that’s fundamental exists in its own right and isn’t contingent on anything else. So while I think IIT is interesting and he gave a strong account of it, I think he’s confused about what something being fundamental means.

@user-kf3yc1hc4m

6 ай бұрын

as a scientist he should say so. If something is primarily intangible, it is impossible to verify

@user-kf3yc1hc4m

6 ай бұрын

and secondly, how he is going to prove it with his theory. that matter gives rise to mind and qualia and, for example, is not a conductor of consciousness. No way

@Carbonarars

6 ай бұрын

Nobody can verify. We can only describe. Brain i think we should see Like a Modem. Mind/ conciousness is comming from God

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

its hilarious to think he doesnt understand what an emergent property is as in, thats a borderline psychotic kind of suggestion. try something else.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

*"I think he’s confused about what something being fundamental means."* ... Let's say for the moment that "electricity" is fundamental and that it's been around since the beginning. Now, I create a device that can generate electricity. Is electricity no longer considered "fundamental" just because I made something that can generate it?

I think therefore … you know what, just forget it

brain is the phsyical matter mind is what goes on in the brain

Even if you could examine a complex system in perfect detail, it won't tell you anything about what that system is actually doing, only how the different parts seem to interact (and theories about that are likely to be wrong because you don't know what drives an action, only that there are patterns).

@sdmarlow3926

Ай бұрын

IIT is stupid. He just said that the phone has no idea what all those bits represent, and it's just as true when we look at brain activity. Is that firing pattern a representation of a thought about what you had for dinner, or are you talking with an old friend? He then says that the eyes are not where "red" comes from in the mind, which is the other ding against IIT, in that our sense organs are the source of patterns that we build our minds around (embodiment). A brain grown in a jar might have more connections between neurons than an adult of the same age, but won't be conscious in any way.

2:37 how does utilization of physical properties gives rise to free will 🤔

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Could you give your definition of free will? Because to me free will is just the ability to make choices from the various options the environment opens up to one. Something, at the very least, we see animals higher up on the phylogenetic tree able to do.

@r2c3

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 "ability to make choices" sounds good to me... and in addition, this 'ability' is usually associated with complex biological structures as distinguished from less complex inorganic compounds/molecules that seem to lack such functionality... somewhere in between, an interposal or lack of understanding the underlying mechanics could be possible...

@wendyg8536

6 ай бұрын

I recon..you can't have a concept of free will without a corresponding concept of destiny. One is pulling the other pushing..so to speak.

@r2c3

6 ай бұрын

@@wendyg8536 very interesting indeed :) maybe our choices and those of the people around us (family/friends/society) somehow affect each individual experience, along the way to our destinies... so, an active role in our communities could be an opportunity to shape our experiences in many different possibilities...

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

There is no free will.

If mind is fundamentally different from brain, the question becomes where is it from, or what is its narrative source if it is not even made of matter as the brain is? The closest narrative source science conceives of is energy. Is mind fundamentally energy? Which is circuit bracketed by certain material forms such as crystals or brains or vats of liquids or other chemical structures. Does the type of chemical structure affect mind? Affect the sequential expression of experience? If so which structures most effect this synchronicity, and can they be overcome in such a way as to arrive at a parallel synchronicity? Can the brain be altered to cognitively transfer between one synchronicity and another without going insane? Or can the mind be trained to do so without altering the brain? In other words can we perceive multiple conscious states, multiple worlds 🌎, or are we trapped by brain to perceive only the time dependent reality which is proscribed by science?

@nickpetralifis4844

6 ай бұрын

If fundamental where was it before the mind evolved in the universe?

@kallianpublico7517

6 ай бұрын

@@nickpetralifis4844 Where was knowledge of dinosaurs before man found fossils? The mental conception of planets before the invention of telescopes. Meaning and it's expanding reconsideration of understanding is matter dependent? The matter in the universe decides what we understand? Our intention to question and search for more doesn't matter? If it does where does it come from? If there is other life in the universe would they too posess our curiousity? If they did not would you accept that mind is beyond brain. If they too posessed an understanding, why would it be different from ours? Different brains 🧠 or different minds?

Basically. Just as consciousness, causality and free will are practically, tactically, scientifically, and existentially the same concepts approached from different metacognitive perspectives.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

I think the same about consciousness and free will (the ability to make choices) and consider them part of the whole package that arrives with life, but I don’t see how causality fits in there.

We don't call space or time fundamental because we don't know what they are, we call them fundamental because everything seems to be built off them. Calling consciosness fundamental because we arent happy with the neural story is simply a fallacious argument from incredulity. You can critisize emergence for not being able to explain how, but calling consciousness fundamental doesn't explain how either, and now you've postulated a fundamental component in reality that cant be measured.

are piano and song the same thing

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

No but you can’t have a song without a piano. Therefore the song is reducible Can’t have a city without the constituents of a city. Therefore a city is reducible.

Evan Thompson needs to get on this show

@cam553

6 ай бұрын

Robert Sapolsky.

How can conciousness be anything but brain activity? Is digestion anything other than digestive tract activity? Is it "reductionist" to say that we're just another big ape? Did Neanderthals with whom we mated have souls? One cannot discuss consciousness without discussing its contents, which are mostly trivial and often negative - regerts, fear, worry. Every night we flee from consciousness into sleep. Consciousness is a golden box filled with newspaper clippings. The fact that we understand each other suggests we're not that complex.

mind reacts ability coordinated with brain and remains as seperate unless stimulated at times proven to be awareness

In the traditional Acupuncture medical science which is believed to be atleast 5000 years old , brain is referred as "seat of mind".

One of my favorite CTT. So interesting that ITT was labeled pseudoscience. Do Koch’s crystalline states have some correlation with Jungian archetypes?

I would disagree that computers can not differentiate whats in a picture or if a note was written in regards to an event. As an Ai developer and user I can firmly confirm that Ai can do all of that and even better than our mind. If that’s the case then consciences is more complex than our minds can logically understand. I personally believe that conciseness is a universal force that works based off quantum mechanics, it’s present in every state of time, form and universe.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

you state AI is better than the mind. but you lost me with the 'present in every state of time, etc.'

@uninspired3583

6 ай бұрын

What is it about quantum physics that you think is related to consciousness? I don't see it.

The brain is a modem, mind is a totally different thing

@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist

6 ай бұрын

Agree.

@eryksylvan801

6 ай бұрын

Mine has always been dialup - but it always had great aspirations for the newest fiber optics

@matswessling6600

6 ай бұрын

modems doesnt affect the contents of the contents. The brain does. Lose a part of the brain and your personality changes.

@Carbonarars

6 ай бұрын

There is nothing such as a memory molecule found, and they never will find it, consciousness is located in the field. If the connection to the field is broken, you have the problem you wrote about

@matswessling6600

6 ай бұрын

@@Carbonarars no. there is no such "field" where you are. why would the actors change personality in the strem you are watchingχ, if the error is in the router? You are the workings of your brain.

Do you think a newborn baby is conscious? It has no experience other than the womb, no understanding of the outside world, cannot communicate except by innate gestures - crying, reaching, - and yet you know when it is hungry, feeling pain, or even “happy”. Smiling, for example, is an innate expression they exhibit when “content”. You learn to communicate and identify with a baby by smiling back - and they innately (that word again) recognize that - and smile back! Of course they are conscious! In fact, there are individuals with absolutely no cortex in the brain, and yet they exhibit pleasure pain, discomfort, fear, etc., just like you do. So they also are conscious. Conclusion: the ability to feel is the only thing an organism needs to be conscious. You only need higher brain functions that enable thought if you want to spend your life trying to solve the “hard problem”. Now for that you need a cortex and experience and memory to compare and create life/death, love/hate, good/bad, space/time, mind/body. They are all just symbolic tools you use to manipulate reality.

The mind brain identity doesnt strictly that the brain and the mind are identical. It can posit that brain events are identical to mental events and these events can be assigned specific functions. Mind and the Universe are not emergent

Without Expansion Theory relying on Standard Theory/Model is a non- starter. Arguing from ignorance.” The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner/ Landstreicher translation.

The concept of experience (the hard problem) is impenetrable from a scientific perspective. Even most neuroscientists know this because they don’t even attempt to study it beyond it’s neural correlates.

@AndersHansgaard

6 ай бұрын

It'll certainly be impenetrable if you've defined it as such beforehand - which is laughable from a scientific perspective. As for what neuroscientists study and know... It might surprise you to find that they deal a lot with neurons.

@mesplin3

6 ай бұрын

If some unit called experience is a fundamental assumption about reality, then this implies experience cannot be expressed in units of physics such as mass or charge. That would be very difficult to prove.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Imo, the “hard problem of consciousness” was a red herring. Even Chalmers could do nothing with it.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

I disagree. It’s not impenetrable, just impractical. Measuring the computing power of the internet and every computer on Earth is theoretically possible. Just not practical.

Causality TransCludes Correlation 'Mind' TransCludes 'Brain' ?

Are there lessons in these levels of evolution. We evolve to build and develop a new mechanical AI. This new form has abilities that go beyond our own but also is limited or doesn’t have some parts we do like emotion. In the future what’s does the mechanical AI create? What will this new life form do better than the mechanical AI and what will it not? Also, if we look back on our creation. What parts of us are better than our creator and what do we not have that our creator has. I think there’s lessons with each stage of the evolutions.

Obviously no. Mind is to brain as digestion is to stomach. Digestion and stomach are not the same thing.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

No, that's functionalism, which is an untenable position, and which Koch is rejecting here, as well as explaining why it's untenable.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

digestion is a verb, and mind is a noun.

@ormonde2007

6 ай бұрын

​@@dr_shrinker where is it an adjective?

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@ormonde2007 “It” is not an adjective.

@SandipChitale

6 ай бұрын

@dr_shrinker That is a potential cause of confusion. Mind is a shorthand name for the process of thinking and feeling. Just like in some sense, digestion could also be thought of as a noun. Actually, digestion is a noun, digest is a verb.

If at some point consciousness can be precisely described, then any individual consciousness can be replicated. That will be an interesting day.

@haydenwalton2766

6 ай бұрын

Indeed, be careful what you wish for

@thomassoliton1482

6 ай бұрын

Consciousness need not be a “thing” that can be replicated. How about the thrill you experience during a roller-coaster ride - certainly you are conscious during something like that. But do you think you can replicate that? Possibly by stimulating a specific part of the brain. So then what have you done: have you replicated the activity associated with “thrill”, or have you replicated “consciousness”? Most if not all feelings are associated with consciousness. Is consciousness the same for all feelings?

@CodyAdams-pf9un

6 ай бұрын

Just because we know how something works doesn't mean our universe allows us to replicate it. Even if we perfectly understood the big bang, we cannot replicate it. And that's just the boom, to replicate the details of our universe is a whole other level

Please define the word "experience" at a low level. Could you have "internal" experience" like schizophrenia, or illusions we are all stuck in? I bumped into and talked to a christian fundamentalist who was doing proselytism in the street. And he told me, since I'm no more schizophrenic, I see and converse with Jesus. How could you describe that type of experience? In the end we experience through our bodies, because all our sensors are in our bodies and not in our brains (CNS). That means that all experiences (inside or outside/real) needs a body. Isn't it the same for emotions? Could it means that experiences are just about emotions?

the mind is the final conclusion, the brain gives the conclusion..

I think then i dont exist

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

It happens to all. That and taxes. Unless you’re a billionaire 😅

5:52 "A brain that is or is not conscious..." - so consciousness is tied to the brain?? I think there is confusion over small 'c' consciousness and big 'C' Consciousness...big time

He says "When I'm conscious of you I cannot apprehend only the left part of you, or only the right part of you". What about people that have had strokes?

THOSE BUG TOYS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

It doesn't seem to make sense to say something that is emergent is fundamental until one realizes how difficult it is to find something that really is fundamental. Our reality appears to be made up of nothing but things that are emergent.

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

more importantly he also says its distinct from the the substrate ie. not a property of it. likely he still hangs on to the emergent property assertion so his peers dont think hes gone completely insane, since that is how the colossal groupthink sits. after all there he has no empirical proof yet that any appearance can arise without some brain activity. he really needs to catch up on the work by neuroscientists studying tukdam which is showing just that.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

Exactly. Everything is reducible to the fundamentals of QFT. Even physical constants are reducible. Emergent properties are not independent of its components. Panschyism is pseudoscience, and reality operates just fine without it. I do agree, everything is emergent besides the Quantum Fields that define Space-time.

The brain is a medium or a conductor that connects two separate states. The first state is the input through the body from the outside world. The second is the experience and desire of the mind. The order in which the two different states manifest does not matter. The mind is the state of the electromagnetic field of the body.

@InnerLuminosity

6 ай бұрын

🤛

I say no

4:20 ... at least we have no idea so consciousness is not part of the foundational equation of physics it's not part of general relativity quantum mechanics it's not to be found in the periodic table of chemistry it's not to be found atg gcc chatters of our genes 4:33 but it somehow emerges out of that I mean taht's true but in order to have a complete view of the universe we have ot explain how it emerges and righ now it's utterly unclear how it ermerges I believe until you postulate something fundamental you see certain types of system in addition to having all their usual physical properties they have this conscious experience my brain and your brain being two exmples of that. 【 What we know is so little about the universal structure, therefore, we should not say too many yes or no, e.g. it is possible according to we all experiences dreams that all physical, chemical and biological laws works on consciousness which is 3d tangible things resulted from certain wavefunction collapses though there is another universal speed limit instead of light speed. Peace. 】 4:56

you've got to have one to have the other,and the other to have one.😂

Brain is filtering a larger consciousness. Hence the telepathy between mother and her child and all the other "esoteric" stuff.

Why not ask if legs and walking are the same thing? The brain (along with the sensory perceptual apparatuses that are attached to it) is simply the part of the body most involved in giving us the ability to be aware of (or conscious of) both our external surroundings and various important internal stimuli as well (such as our needs, wants, preferences, goals, hopes, fears, memories, etc).

@jackarmstrong5645

6 ай бұрын

When you say giving "us" you are talking about something beyond a brain or an experience. "Us" is the thing that has the experience.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

@@jackarmstrong5645 Good catch. When I say us, I mean the animal that has the brain. So perhaps that was a mistaken way of saying it, because I think it’s almost certain that if a creature has a brain, then they almost certainly have some level of mind or consciousness as well. Just my opinion.

@jackarmstrong5645

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I don't think you were mistaken at all. There is the brain and there is experience, like color and sound, and there is the thing that has the experience. The thing we call the "mind". Three distinct things. So if the brain is responsible it must not only create all the experiences it must create the ever present thing, at least when awake and sober, that has the experiences. And that thing is shapeless and invisible and it is not the brain but some outcome of brain activity.

@wendyg8536

6 ай бұрын

@@jackarmstrong5645 why, then..is that ecperience not through the heart and its electromagnetic field...?? ..which then is crystalised in the brain...yet conciousness is in the field.

@jackarmstrong5645

6 ай бұрын

@@wendyg8536 If something is experienced it is experienced with the mind, in the mind. The mind is that which experiences. Not the brain and not the heart.

The mind is the brain plus memes. The brain is like a building, the nature of the building informs everything that happens inside of it but does not tell the whole story or indeed the most interesting part of the story, at least to me.

My impression is that following the neuro scentist we'll never progressing in the understanding of the mind'body problem. He is particularly confunsing about mind to be emergent and fundamental in the same time. Brain could be only a device that links perceptions to actions while the mind in on another level (non my idea but by Henri Bergson philosopher)

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

whats more likely, that the guy in charge of locating the NCC for the emergence of consciousness doesnt understand emergence, or that hes forced to still use that manner of speech for some MYSTERIOUS reason while dismantling the notion that consciousness is identical to the substrate?

@garychartrand7378

6 ай бұрын

If he is confused it is because he is aware of the " theory" of emergence AND the idea that consciousness (or Mind) is fundamental. He started his journey with emergence but I have a strong suspicion that he is going to entertain fundamentalism in the future. Science does not know EVERYTHING about the brain (yet). My model of the brain is that it is actually a very sophisticated computer/transceiver. Science is yet to find the redundant (both halves of the brain) circuitry that allows for the two way communication with consciousness (Mind). It could take a while because materialist Atheists will fight against this to the end. It's ironic that they say that they want the Truth and yet their close minded attitude is what is preventing the Truth.✌️🙏❤️

This is old, AI is doing what he's talking about at 8:18

Finally, a scientist who is willing to state and accept what is obvious to ordinary people.... Consciousness (experience) is Everything and the Only thing...

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Lol. Really? Ordinary people believe consciousness is everything and the only thingy? I’d like to see the poll results on that.

@Lolux1701

6 ай бұрын

He did not say that though

@InnerLuminosity

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 consciousness is fundamental

@tomazflegar

6 ай бұрын

Consciousness and conscious experience is not the same thing. They are two quite unrelated, except that conscious experience is experienced in consciousness

The day logic start to walk like a pregnant first time mother then you are allowed to think of your ludicrous ideas that lacks basics.

My gf gives great mind so I’d say yeah

@91722854

6 ай бұрын

what's a mushroom without the moist wall

@ghostgate82

6 ай бұрын

My gf gives great firmament, so I can relate.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

*"My gf gives great mind so I’d say yeah"* ... I've had better.

@InnerLuminosity

6 ай бұрын

Blow jobs?

Ah i like the german accent!:)

We are in a self simulation and or mind / dream of God Spacetime is Doomed Consciousness is fundamental

@CesarClouds

6 ай бұрын

That's similar to the philosopher Bishop Berkeley's view.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

God is dreaming some pretty kinky stuff, then. Maybe we are the stuff of God’s wet dream… Too gross?

@InnerLuminosity

6 ай бұрын

@@CesarClouds also check out Bernardo Kastrup, and Donald Hoffman and Tom Cambell😁☺️

@CesarClouds

5 ай бұрын

@@InnerLuminosity Thanks.

Make sense, i always thought about that, because if we not have experiences, like the education, we grow like animals, with limited conscious, or none.

Wait, is Koch coming around? I’ve never heard him espouse the idea that consciousness is fundamental.

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

its like a 20yo clip. youre a little slow on the ball.

@Ockersvin

6 ай бұрын

@@5piles 20yo🤯

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

@@Ockersvin yes almost everything here is recycled content pre-2010 at the latest

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

Had the same reaction, and even used the same wording you used in my comment before I read yours! I had never heard Koch saying it like this. I'm surprised this is 20 years old.

Are digestion and alimentary canals the same thing? Are running and runners the same thing?

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

You’re relying on consciousness being a verb. It’s not a verb. We don’t “consciousness” things.

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

no but when observing one the other is necessarily observed. that is what it means to be an emergent property. and that is is precisely what isnt observed upon observing even the simplest fully mapped out brains and any of their neural correlates.

@TestMeatDollSteak

6 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker “We” are the result of brain activity. Consciousness is what the brain _does._

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

@@TestMeatDollSteak your religious faith is admirable, but your ex bishop koch now states otherwise. are you going to return back to reciting your prayers?

@TestMeatDollSteak

6 ай бұрын

@@5piles Projection

I don't like phylosophical concepts where you have to beleive in something. I am scientists and i like to beleive .... Hmmmm

Mind is more than the brain. But as long as a person is alive, the mind needs the brain to interact with world, and any injury to the brain will affect that interaction. When the brain finally dies, the mind becomes disembodied as consciousness in another realm.

@matswessling6600

6 ай бұрын

And how you know this?

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Yes, isn’t it pretty to think so.

@matswessling6600

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 pretty, but not true.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

@@matswessling6600 Exactly!

Last night I played "Tomb Raider" on my computer. I know Lara Croft doesn't really exist. Nevertheless, I love her.

Consciousness is produced in the brain by the brain and only the brain. All known evidence supports it. Anything else is superfluous banter.?

Consciousness emerges from the processing of sensory information by a biological entity that can sense its boundaries. The more sensory information that the entity is capable of simultaneously processing, the higher level of consciousness it possesses. The cell possesses the lowest level of consciousness, humans have the highest level because of its brain capacity to process and store information. Artificial intelligence will have consciousness once it meets all requirements. The universe has no boundaries or capability to process information so there is not a conscious universe (sorry Deepak Chopra). Consciousness does not survive after the end of the entity because consciousness is an attribute of the entity.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

If scientists are able to create consciousness in the lab, it will be like how they developed flight. It will not be the same consciousness as animals do, because that took millions of years of evolution, but it will no doubt be useful to humankind, just like our jets and planes and helicopters are… I wonder, though, about possible ethical dilemmas… can we create consciousness without creating life? That’s why my money is on the abiogenesis folks to be the first to create consciousness in the lab. It will probably come along when they create life-if they do create it.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

Why is the lowest level of Consciousness found in cells? How do you know that? Why not the nucleus? Why not DNA? Why not proteins? Why not molecules and atoms? Why not protons, electrons and neutrons?

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

@@plafar7887 I was recently listening to a couple of lectures by a biologist and medical researcher, Michael Levin (he has video interviews and lectures all over KZread-absolutely fascinating stuff), who studies life forms and how they repair damages and injuries to their physical make up. Much of his research is at the cellular level of organisms and one of the things he notes is that each cell is itself a living independent operator capable of making independent choices, but which do tend to usually operate together with companion cells for the benefit of the whole organism. That being said, it’s an interesting question, I think, whether the structures inside the cell also have some level of conscious autonomy.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I know Michael Levin, but my objection is deeper. I think functionalism is nonsensical. One cannot infer Consciousness from function. My take on it is that Consciouness has to exist as a fundamental property. Anything else leads to contradictions or extremely convoluted theories.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

⁠@@plafar7887What can be less convoluted than the idea that consciousness arose either in or with biological life as a product of Evolution and Natural Selection? And continued to be selected for with increasing complexity over time because of the help it provide the species that had it in adapting to and surviving in their environments? What seems convoluted to me is having, in your idea, to come up with some place where or some way that consciousness exists outside of biological life. And then on top of that having to come up with some mechanism by which particular consciousnesses are picked for certain animal bodies and then some mechanism by which the consciousness is then inserted into or somehow paired with the animal body. And, really, this is just the beginning of how convoluted the whole “consciousness is an independently existing fundamental thing” can get when you actually start trying to get into the details.

Rambling gibberich. Neurosience keep out How show brains complex and consciousness so far. Guys shows existence of Brain and consciousness needs verification neurosience proceendings. He are replacing neuros proceendings though wortheless neurosience.

No, they are not the same thing. If they were, then in a dead body, you'd be able to measure the activity of the mind for as long as the brain was present. Let's say I have a lump of clay, and shape it into a cup. Space did not "emerge" from the cup. The already existent Space can now be used in the quantized form of a cup. If I pour water into that cup, it can now be used to reflect the illuminated World. In a similar way, the brain, mind, and the all pervasive Space-like Consciousness.

@garychartrand7378

6 ай бұрын

Not quite.

Only Consciousness IS fundamental. Whatever you experience, understand, do …. are all IN Consciousness. No way it can be objectified. It is g Ty he f sad object 😊

tldr the guy in charge of finding the NCC with francis crick now no longer believes in physicalism. and he isnt even one of the neuroscientists currently studying tukdam phenomena, which completely dismantles modern biology medicine physics physicalism etc.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

Lol. What pseudoscience/religious ritual are you talking about? Asking as a former Buddhist. Start with proper grammar.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Except that all these technologies, medicines and medical procedures coming out of science work. So dismantle that.

Sort of like asking "Is the rectum the same as your farts?" Well, no!....Farts just pass through the rectum. They're not made by the rectum!

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

its nothing like that. Are you saying farts are fundamental and irreducible?

@Corteum

6 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Nope. Consciousness observes both the farts and the rectum! It's consciousness that's fundamental. Without consciousness, you wouldnt know about your farts or your rectum! 😂

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

Of all the analogies in all the world, that is the one you settled on… Made me laugh! 😅

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@Corteum everything is reducible - even quarks. And consciousness doesn’t observe anything. Sensory organs observe and the brain processes. Consciousness is the processing of observation and memory association. Both are reducible to physical processes. Also, farts exist whether observed or not. I can enter the room and know that a sleeping person farted, even if they didn’t observe it themselves.

@Corteum

6 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Nope. Without consciousness, sensory information doesnt register anywhere and cannot be known or experienced.

The brain is the engine where the sometimes original and wonderful mind comes out from.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

And sometimes the perversions of the serial killer. Just to be a downer about it : /

@Vimana11

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Sure. But then we have to dive into the whole emotional dimension of it. Which pretty much translates to pure psychosis in killers/madmen.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

So, you don't understand Koch's argument?

@ormonde2007

6 ай бұрын

Depth of inference, how to measure it, how to calibrate it? I think that's where you'll find consciousness?

@InnerLuminosity

6 ай бұрын

Consciousness projects a 🧠

An orange grows according to the size of it hologram energy field A man 6 ft tall has a greater hologram energy field then a man that is only 5 ft tall. Example a boy that has a father that is 6 ft tall will grow to be taller or exactly 6 ft tall A boy that has a father that's 5 ft tall will grow to be less or the excite height. Also based on the mother energy field as well.

No. The brain is the container and filter of the Central Mind (God).

@91722854

6 ай бұрын

sauce?

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

how could physicality contain immaterial objects such as colors and sounds. illusionism is at least logically consistent unlike epiphenomenalism and panpsychism.

@ghostgate82

6 ай бұрын

@@5piles Both sounds and colors are spiritual (electromagnetic) phenomena. Nothing I’ve said is inconsistent.

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

@@ghostgate82 atoms etc at least could be argued to possess colors. there is nothing about electromagnetism that has the possibility of possessing a color.

I can read the mind but not the brain.

@quantumkath

6 ай бұрын

Wrong. We can read the brain, but you cannot read my mind!

The brain and the mind are not the same thing. Mind emerges with quantum events. It is material and is part of manifest nature as are the other elements. Consciousness has no motion, does not vibrate, therefore is other than anything else in material creation which emerges with quantum events and are in constant flux and motion. Consciousness is NOT sensory experience. It expresses through the senses but is not dependent on them or part of them as is the mind; the sixth sense. Mind is throughout the body and is activated through the brain. Consciousness is not material and can never be studied objectively as it is subjective and fundamental to what is objective and to all that exists.

1:31 “My consciousness won’t be impaired?’ - Your consciousness would be impaired if you couldn’t dance. You wouldn’t be able to experience “dancing.” If you cannot experience “dancing or climbing” then physical conditions of the universe have greatly affected your consciousnes in the same way blindness would affect your ability as a visual artist. 3:11 Emergence of a thing is not separate of a thing. There is no evidence to suggest the essence of an orange is independent of an orange. There is no evidence that New York City exists outside of a bunch of bricks in a geographical location. 4:24 “consciousness is not a part of foundation of physics” - yes it is. Neuroscience is part of physics as chemistry is part of physics. Saying consciousness is not part of Relativity means you never tried reading Shakespeare after crossing the event horizon of a black hole. 😮

@5piles

6 ай бұрын

oh boy.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

The whole conversation went completely over your head. The essence of an orange is an abstraction. Conscious experience is not.

@plafar7887

6 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker It is not suggested that Consciousness resides in the brain. Consciouness is suggested to be a fundamental property of reality. Materialism does not and cannot account for conscious experience.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@plafar7887 your right about one thing…. Consciousness is not abstract. It is the result of physical objectivity.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@plafar7887 Sure it can. Place your hand on hot coals and tell me how materialism is independent of conscious experience. If consciousness doesn't reside in the brain, then why does Alzheimer's reduce a persons consciousness? Consciousness is not fundamental, and aside from the obvious fact that there is no proof it is, it is untestable and forever associated with mysticism -- a lot like religion and pseudoscience.