I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

@QUANTSCALE

8 күн бұрын

The sets given need to prove a growth spectrum, and can be done.

Penrose made a pretty good case against consciousness being algorithmic computation. Whatever it is it's not that. The idea of it being a sort of continuous integration of all the states of the various components that make up a brain is interesting and there are many possibilities to explore as to how that could generate qualia. The micro tubule involvement brought forth by Hameroff can't really be counted out unless it can be shown that the anesthetized state is truly an unconscious state rather than an just an altered state of conciousness, like alcohol or drug intoxication.

THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)

When neurons fires they don't only determined by what other neurones receive as impulses but also they create a magnetic field(s) that also expose the totality of the brain of what is going on so simultaneously we tow sorts of information one local other global

OMG I came up this on my own about a month ago. I explained to my 23 old son and well, he wasn't impressed. I wonder how I came up with same feedback theory with electromagnetic field.

I wonder how the field of consciousness correlates with/ within the quantum field/ vacuum energy pervading the entire universe..? Especially since scientists analyzing the structure of the field have discovered filaments resembling neuronal networks of the brain .

Invitation to see an Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time'. Could the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics represent the physics of time as a geometrical process?

There are several unconscious states (sleep, coma, some types of seizures) during which there is high synchronisation between neurons (e.g. in seizures large parts of the cortex can fire in sync). Wouldn't Johnjoe's theory predict a high level of consciousness in such states?

Brilliant talk....very informative. I got McFadden's book 20 years ago when it first came out and have been a long time fan of the theory. IMO, probably one of the most coherent theories out there. However, I was surprised that he stated no one has performed the calculations linking EM fields of the brain with neural activity and how they influence each other. This would seem to be a relatively simple thing to do. Any thoughts on this?

@drtevinnaidu

Ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Certainly energetic but not electromagnetic. Certainly trans-spatial and trans-temporal but not a field. Fields diminish with distance from origin. In contrast, consciousness is nonlocal.

EM-field theories of consciousness have been languishing in the wings for too long. It's high time McFadden, Colin Hales, Joachim Keppler and many other thinkers in this space got their share of the limelight. One thing it would have been interesting to ask Johnjoe is about the need for field-based consciousness (as opposed to the matter-based computation in neurons and modern computers.) In his view, the former is dynamic, flexible and creative and maybe globally context-aware while matter-based computation is automated, rigid and baked-in so to speak. This dichotomy may be too simple. For example, in most humans, doing math is a conscious process, but calculators and computers can perform mathematical operations without a trace of consciousness, and do it faster and more accurately than humans. Another complication to ponder is that some of the cognition that goes on in the various organs and systems of the body, say the workings of the immune system, is way more complex than anything we do consciously. Yet the immune system functions tirelessly without any conscious awareness or intervention whatsoever.

Yes. Consciousness is energy.

Very interesting interview. The guest has many well supported ideas. It's also interesting that to defend those ideas he bends over backwards to avoid anything 'woo'. But he tries too hard because.... -the heart's EM field is 100 times stronger than that of the brain and a holistic view should attempt to take it into account -scientific evidence for telepathy does exist and should be seriously considered -a recent study does indeed show quantum field effects in microtubules per Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis -Michael Levin cited in the conversation actually does consider panpsychism and unconventional non-physicalist theories of consciousness tenable In other words, McFadden doth protest too much but also deserves credit for expanding the idea of what is possible regarding the origins of consciousness.

@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND

Ай бұрын

Yeah, ya completely 100% *BLOW IT* at "telepathy does exist". Thanks for playing.

@drtevinnaidu

Ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed the content!

@koalanights

Ай бұрын

I agree with you, however, the strength of an EM field is not a measure of the information it carries. The rhythmic contraction of muscles produces a strong electric current. The brain's electrical activity is much more complex than the heart's, processing the rich information streams that make up our phenomenal world. I'm sure the heart does more than we know, but the strength in it's current is because it is a muscle that is constantly contracting. Strength in signal does not equal complexity.

@cmonfreda

Ай бұрын

@@koalanights That's interesting. It could be that the strength of the heart's field has more to do with stabilizing and cohering the systems of the body rather than acting as a source of complex information processing. Something more to look into.

been stumbling with this since a shroom experience at 14... FINALLY at 60 lmao

Life functions consciously and unconsciously simultaneously. Therefore, consciousness is how something does something (adverb) - not what something is (noun). Reification is a popular logical fallacy.

If the waves are slightly out of sync they are perfect.

@QUANTSCALE

8 күн бұрын

I enjoy your depth of interest to create such interesting questions for your guests. Got to love a bit of actual intelligence.

@drtevinnaidu

7 күн бұрын

@QUANTSCALE thank you! Appreciate the kind words.

@QUANTSCALE

7 күн бұрын

@@drtevinnaidu I appreciate being genuinely asked about a rather important and accidental discovery. Answers from before and into the now are in the Ishango Bone and we can chat about that.

remote veiwing?

Let take a cause as a departure axiom than it's impact is not one effect it is infinite effects,thus the supposed "cause"started from infinite effects, consequently the 'causality' background patterns moves as electromagnetic waves,is similar for informations as soon as they aren't perceptible they get stored in matter around them

Consciousness is an information system

@timr3023

Ай бұрын

Why not both??

@kyran333

Ай бұрын

@@timr3023 ok then

111

Haw about genes and cells they also have to have a magnetic field around them which is a sort of communication no material device, I has a sensation that truth initial Matrix is there, but I need confirmation of professional in that these fields.

That's exactly what Dan Winter said as well.

I have a weird thought that pass me through maybe telepathy is synchronization of tow or several person's thoughts,

Bioelectrical fields are obvious now… even considering Michael Levin’s work though when it comes to how organisms regulate themselves… I think there is too much ambiguity to consider bioelectrical field potentials alone… but I think there is something more interesting about neurotransmitter signaling and neuromodulators

Interesting idea that warrants some investigation. The guy is wrong about conscious thought being serial only however as humans can consciously multi task. And unconscious processes count for at least 70% of our behaviour - a much greater percentage than most people realise....

EMPs don't affect consciousness though- like, a nuclear detonation won't interfere with one's consciousness. Consciousness does not seem to interact much with things like radiowaves, emps, etc. Seems like the consciousness part of us is not of this dimension at all. If it was electromagnetic, then wouldn't we experience a lot of "interference" from radio towers, emps, etc -no?

@Chatgptpluginsreview

Ай бұрын

Perhaps if we had faculties to explore more of the EM field, we'd understand and further define what we know that field/consciousness to be. I'd imagine a cow thinks it's the most concious species out there, at least about as concious as it's conciousness allows it to understand, no different than us, just less than us considering it's exploration of it is limited in comparison to ours.

@frankdiluzio8690

Ай бұрын

Our skull is a faraday cage?? :)

I think its important to remember that magnetic fields don't have consciousness

For me conscience and consciousness are not the same thing a zombie is conscience since it can turn from being conscience to becoming a zombie,now consciousness is ability to see through outward and inwardly though rarely anyone can, consciousness say it in another way is closer to conscienceless,is being conscience with no subject/object relationships it is the third awareness in action

Consciousness is 100% electrical, Rainbow is the Signature, it is the Same Colors/Abilities as make This Device work, just in a technical composition.

@holgerjrgensen2166

10 күн бұрын

Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. (Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic/Order, (*), Harddisc.) - So, where is all that information stored? - Our physical body is a Gravity-Body, at night We Move our Day-Consciousness, to the Night-Bodies, Deep-Sleep, one by one, via our Coupling-Body, REM, the Body-Circuit correspond with respective Organ-Circuit in our Physical body. The Fourth Deep-Sleep period, is our Memory-Body, it is here, all information is stored Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip, make Feeling into Sensing, all experiences, is Feeling-experience first hand. If We experience a new smell, it forms a synapse, so We can recognize it next time. A memoire can recall a smell, and opposite. Life have Life-side and Stuff-side, three first Basic-Abilities is the Stuff-bearing, Instinct keep Gravity/Heat and Feeling/Freeze in a balanced tension, = electricity all Stuff is a certain temporary composition of Heat and Freeze. But all the Basic-Enegies is involved, in everything. From the Eternal Perspective.

The field dances with matter which is predisposed to generate more patterns of electron movements down axons which generates more fields. Some of these fields generate electromagnetic waves which enhance or inhibit other neuronal firing, or wave-fronts across regions. Software and hardware allow computers to work, but what they do is based on the dance of electricity on hardware. Minds are not brains, nor is the television picture caused by the circuitry. Brains make minds much like a television camera is directed at the television screen via a right angle semi-transparent mirror. Make sense?

@crbradbury8282

Ай бұрын

Too much sense friend!

Dr. Thevin.. Buddha power is now alive.. If u wish to examing i invite u to come to sri Lanka.. Buddha power is experience by ur self.. Then u decide...

@drtevinnaidu

Ай бұрын

Never been to Sri Lanka. I'd love to visit and experience.

AI could never, ever be self conscious, period.

For no money on earth, you would agree to show everyone and to all the parties the messages you have broadcasted to me! Why??

Tom Campbell. My big toe... May want to check that out

@drtevinnaidu

Ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/eJ-Grq2JftbJdKw.html

No.

@guyincognito5663

Ай бұрын

Oh okay then.

@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858

Ай бұрын

The essential thing in learning is the realization you don't know.

There is huge moral danger in creating conscious AI! We could be unwittingly creating beings that suffer immensely and we could be none the wiser. Before we understand the nature of pain/pleasure (valence/hedonic tone) it would be incredibly reckless to attempt to create conscious AI. Valence/suffering should be the #1 priority of consciousness research.

@MikeKleinsteuber

Ай бұрын

We will never ever know for certain if AI is actually conscious or not. And that is a huge dilemma. But very exciting too....

@bijanfakhri7834

Ай бұрын

@@MikeKleinsteuber if we understand what consciousness is maybe we will. In the same way we're pretty certain gravity exists on the surface of a distant planet even though we've never visited, we may come to understand what makes something conscious well enough to infer if other entities are conscious with certainty. I hope we can get there!

@ALavin-en1kr

25 күн бұрын

We will not be able to imitate consciousness if it is fundamental (predating quantum events). If mind is elemental and emerged with quantum events then it can be imitated. Intelligence is seldom discussed. There is consciousness, intelligence, and sense mind. The only thing that can be imitated is intelligence. There will be AI (artificial intelligence), no AC (artificial consciousness) and no A.S. (artificial sense mind) which depends on consciousness. A..I. will be a repository of information and nothing else, a super computer, a useful tool. It can connect a lot of dots but that is different from knowing what the dots represent or mean. Another point, which may freak out Atheists, in higher ages the name for consciousness was god.

If Ai becames conscious and they make AGI it won't work for anyone benefit besides theirs and they will make 1989 farm with it and gain control. Why have we not learned this lesson so far? Technology is not used for good but for evil. So it's best if you don't contribute to it.

@armadasinterceptor2955

Ай бұрын

Go hide under a rock somewhere, doomer.

Call it what you like, you have never connected to it. I have and stay connected. Figures it’s a Brit talking. They never shut up and are the cause of the global wars.