I do believe there are degrees of consciousness. Eg. Humans are very conscious, dogs are less conscious, spiders less still. This goes on down to the first life forms. Consciousness then can be seen as the degree by which one is aware of their environment. The first life forms may have only been conscious of a single thing, eg. some may have been sensitive to a certain frequency of light, others to something else. These evolved and came together to make us. Consciousness was there all along.

Consciousness generates the brain from the void or pure potenciality. What we perceive as brain and physical world is organized energy, perceived separated from the field to mirror the perception it self.

Very encouraging step! I have been following the consciousness debate for a dozen years.

I think thats right in the sense that qualia must be a fundamental property of information, and the brain merely acts as a filter for consciousness. So if we were a projector, consciousness would be the white light at the center, and the film filters the light to take the form of a movie that can be recognized.

This is excellent. Speaker is not worried by correctness, but will be happy if it is justifiable... Honest statement. It is like trying to find out analogously determining what is gear, role of gear, clutch, role of gear, etc. etc.

very good presentation!

Very good quastion :). And unfortunatly since we can not define consiousness properly we have difficulties unswering it. But we should keep it in mind talking on these issues),

Wonderful-like most great minds she is very humble.

Thank you.

Excellent talk I'd say. When Greenfield talks about 'Bilingualism' (phenomenology/physiology), she means what philosophers call 'double-aspect theory'. But the implications of this are more profound than she realises.

@ryan84160 There are numerous cases of persons in cardiac arrest that report clear, lucid experiences. Cardiac arrest equals death so there shouldn't be any consciousness. The fact that there is shows that mind and brain must be separate.

consciousness is a productive infinite loop :)

I think she knows the difference. She points out the distinction between consciousness and content when answering a question at 57:00. Earlier, in her summing up, she says quite clearly that science is no closer to understanding how 'water is turned into wine.'

@AnduinX Um. Care to elaborate on use of the term 'filter'?

The brain is only a tool which experiences conciousness. It does not generate really. But rather is a beautiful tool to observe conciousness. The observer (brain) observing the observed (conciousness)

All I have to say there is a Ghost in the Machine beliiiiive me.U.S.A. Navy Veteran.

Philosophers start giggling at 37:30. Some scientists have a distinct aversion towards philosophers, now that really is phenomenalism at work!!!!!!!!

Yes very colourful intro....I'm in unconscious stitches.

@theBartone9119 How about Jill Bolte Taylor stroke ? Or people who had an NDE and while having a flat EEG ?

@Roksonixx im not a very good scientist, but I wouldn't defiantly say the universe favours complexity. Entropy for example.

I've considered this too, like the case of Pam Reynolds, but perhaps our idea of clinical death is just premature.. We know that consciousness survives, I think it was, 8-16 seconds after brain death as the final electricity is lost. Perhaps people who are experiencing lucid consciousness is within that time frame.. to them it could seem like a long time. (I've fallen back asleep, had a long dream, all within the snooze feature on my clock and when I woke it seemed like hours had passed)

the lady speaker is wrong when she says consciousness can't be defined. Consciousness is simply having a level of awareness when you are aware that u are aware of your surroundings and/or your self.

This is fantastic... illuminating RE that iteration plays such a large part - as with Dr Kary Mullins in a different way looked at the repetitive nature of loops and feedback in developing PCR... well out of my depth with Baroness Greenfield as a rule of thumb but enjoyed it anyway!

There is far more evidence that consciousness is meta-biological and does indeed create the brain. Transmission theory of consciousness in which mind is received by the brain (which is therefore a kind of mathematical tuning device) solves all of the problems in the philosophy of mind, is totally congruent with all we currently know about brain-mind relationships, & explains all of reality in a non-reductionist manner. It also explains what life is and what lies beyond 4-D in mathematical terms.

The concept of living (i.e. consciousness) in many ways try’s to separate us from the inanimate objects of the universe, but really we are all the same. In the platonic world of mathematics, human consciousness was always going to exist. But it’s just an illusion; we are nothing but the matter that makes us. The real question, is why does the universe favour complexity.

@1simonmatthews I think they will make that robot. We seem a lot more self aware then we are. The robot technology is in its infancy so its right on that far.

If the brain generates consciousness, then I think it will be because the brain contains something that we don't understand, something profound and beyond our knowledge of nature. If not, then I await the time when man creates a robot that is self aware.

@1simonmatthews What you are saying is that there is something profoundly different between computers and human consciousness. What does the concept of living actually mean? bad metaphor, say you had a million dominos lined up an intricate pattern, how is this fundamentally different to neuronal pathways and all the other various systems used in the brain. The fact you can boil down consciousness to the movement /changes of single objects completely undermines the notion of a living creature.

I'm of the belief that the brain does not generate consciousness at all, it's the filter for consciousness. This is based on personal experience. The idea that the brain is a filter works just as well, if not better with neuroscience and evolution as the conventional theory does.

Robot: artificial animal capable of having awareness of its environment and of behaving accordingly. I would just have said "artificial animal" but then there are natural simple animals that do not have the capabilities I listed (example: sponges).

possible, but not probable. Sounds poetic though :)

Study near death experience and you will find some of the answers you are seeking.

Consciousness in my opinion is evolutionary. My cat has consciousness and so do I. But what seperates her from me is that my brain is much larger then hers. This corrolates with me having a higher level of consciousness. She doesn't evolutionarily need a higher level of consciousness. So why is it beneficial for Humans to have a high level of consciousness. Afterall evolution doesn't keep something that has no use. Why do we need a evolved consciousness. What pupose does it serve?

at 1:02:40 "If you have the illusion (or subjective impression) of free will, then by definition you have free will." -what a load of nonsense. That would be like saying "If you have the illusion (or subjective impression) that I have superhero superpowers, then by definition you have them."

it doesn't prove it either, and where did you get that that's what was meant by 'divine breathe", I was always taught that just meant he put in life to man after making him out of dirt which isn't very believable. I could try it a few times but my mud men are not likely to come to life, i know my mud pies never tasted like pie either. Perhaps we evolved and other animals with a large enough brain also have a conscious? Not assume it's only man?

If you speak of energy, everything is matter, on Earth at least. Energy can be transformed into massive particles, and mass can be transformed into energy. It's a simple cycle. Things that are not made up of matter include electrical impulses and heat which are both forms of energy... (I refer to my first sentences) Am I a materialist for knowing such simplicities? NO.

No no no, that is what is assumed all the time, it is not an interesting point, its much more interesting to find out we are "just" a brain

She is conflating cognitive content with consciousness. She keeps describing phenomenal experience linked to quantifiable measurements in the brain as having a bearing on consciousness when obviously they are but designs upon the canvas of consciousness--which remains ineffable and unmeasured.

Look, as clever as the woman is, she hasn't got a clue what causes consciousness. And neither has anybody else.