Sean Carol made some interesting observations on this. He suggested that we are thinking about physics the wrong way round, his take was we need to see the physical / material world as erupting from the quantum fields and manifesting particles (the macro environment we experience). If we look at conciseness the same way, it becomes clear that conciseness too is manifest in the quantum fields and expresses itself in/through the brain. I think we will see more research in future that will show that conciseness is not a function of the brain, but that conciseness experiences / filters the material world through the brain. Making the brain a portal between conciseness existing at the quantum field level, and our bodies experience of life at the macro/material level. This posses some very serious philosophical questions about the nature of our existence, and the very nature of the Universe we inhabit.

@spiralsun1

2 жыл бұрын

Awesome comment thanks! 🥰👍🏻

@UHFStation1

Жыл бұрын

Consciousness?

@PurnamadaPurnamidam

Жыл бұрын

Great comment here, I would like to add if you dont mind that consiouness is mainly defined after human has had THE experience of meditation otherwise it would be so called awareness just like robots. Now J.Krishnamurti pointed out the question of the Observer ond the Observed which now is questionable through the quantum fields.

@philthompson22

Жыл бұрын

i agree that our material world is kind of an illusion because we are seeing these emergent effects of quantum behavior at such a large scale. that means our consciousness is not “physical” either. another way to think of it is a living, conscious, normal brain versus a recently deceased brain. the only difference is the flow of electrons - in other words the flow of information.

Thank you so much for having Max back he actually has very reasonable observations and theories👌🏾

Teg's definitely out there, but so is the true nature of things.

@account1307

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah exactly :)

I really appreciate the scientists actually listening to the other even when he doesn't agree. It shows the ability to have an open mind, especially when it comes to science.

Max is a superb physicist. I love his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

Heheh I chuckled when Max said, “are you calling me a zombie?” 😄

@FromFame

3 жыл бұрын

One actively enlarges understanding of the universe while the other interviews. Both falsify, but to argue the interviewer falsifies the universe more than a scientist (specially max), doesn't convince me. Therefore, by probability, if anyone was a zombie it's the interviewer.

@briancarroll3541

3 жыл бұрын

even a zombie is conscious of zem's deep hungering for brain meat! me tired of all cliches and racist stereotyping! zombie need safe space to ride out next few years until zombie golden age comes and all those over-sized physicist and sciencey-interviewer-type-guys' brains are just lying around everywhere, rotting on the ground. zombie good!

Interesting and worthwhile video.

The Vedas written thousands of years ago have spoken about the big bang and consciousness. At one point physicists have to come to study these ancient Indian scriptures. The explanation is lucid

Max is an animal of another caliber. True inspiration

@Jay-xh9dl

3 жыл бұрын

I just discovered him and I'm falling in love, lol.

"This is how information must feel when being processed"... I like that

@Epoch11

3 жыл бұрын

If that were true then a computer must feel because it processes information and all the little Gates must have sensations

@danielm5161

3 жыл бұрын

I love Max's take but it isn't unreasonable to think that phenomenon of "Consciousness" is limited to biology. To have a stomach ache I may actually need a stomach that is churning and pulsing for example. It isn't clear that a "Stomach Ache" can be programmed or instantiated in a digital system in principle. We are only ever of "Conscious" of the chemical firings in our brain and body after all.

@Prettypeachy1

3 жыл бұрын

Being on the same page as Joscha Bach can't go wrong.

I mean, self is just the categorization of inputs, right? When you hear sounds, you not only hear the whir of your computer or the bird calling outside your window, you also hear the rhythmic pulse of your own heart and the gentle swish of air passing through your nostrils. When you feel, not only do you notice the press of clothes upon your skin or the firmness of the floor under your feet, you also notice the brush of your fingers against each other, the tousle of hair upon your head, and the stickiness of your eyelids. You see the cup of coffee but also your hand that holds it, you smell it’s earthy aroma but also your own feral scent, you taste the bitter-sweetness of a warm and comforting liquid that is promptly chased down your gullet by the slippery, congealed enzymes in your spittle. Consciousness is the active categorization of inputs that delineates you and not you. It’s far simpler than people make it out to be. You only become aware of this when the need arises to take some action in relation to your environment. You hold in memory a construct of yourself while categorizing inputs, mostly disregarding the “you” category so that you can organize, evaluate, and plan how to deal with “not you.” Or maybe that’s all rubbish.

@bladimirkroutska3707

3 жыл бұрын

You should be a poet...

@habarigani8118

3 жыл бұрын

Hello AI Tortugas, no I don't think that what you say is rubbish. one could try another access with the help of deduction. just imagine a very poor entity with a brain like ours, in principle. also imagine, that this being has absolutely no senses, no inputs , I. e. no eyes, no ears, no taste or smell, no sense of touch, no kind of inner perception and so on. this would be a being without any kind of inputs. can such an entity own something like consciousness? I don't think so. This being haven't got any thoughts, it cannot think, because it doesn't know words or pictures, also nothing like pain or any other inner condition. in other words, it is a normal brain with neurons and dendrites, but without any upcoming information. for sure, there would be much less connectivity between the neurons. One conclusion could be, that senses or inputs are a necessity for consciousness. that's why in my opinion consciousness is an emerging phenomenon. evolving from the billions of connections of the different types of inputs reaching our brain, combined with the ability of storing. What do you think?

“We’ve tried avoid talking about what an observer is even though physics is supposed to be the subject of observation.”

There is no difference between Subjective Experience and Experience. The "Subject" word is injected to make it seem more inaccessible. We should start to call this so-called problem The Soft Problem, since the brain is soft, even if the head is hard. This is not a physics problem; it's a biological problem and therefore requires an evolutionary explanation. Philosophers like to call it the hard problem, because if they were in fact really interested in understanding rather than in argument, they would be out of business.

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your service.

Thank you for another interesting discussion. I love these discussions on consciousness. Here's my question. Is it a "hard problem" that animals in motion can see where they're going? Or does it only become a hard problem when we can remember and think about and report what we've seen? If we assume that consciousness is a thing of an incomprehensible substance, and a cause that works in mysterious ways, haven't we made it already into a "hard problem"? It's clearly not a hard problem for Nature, because animals do see where they're going and adjust their paths, and I can remember and report on and use language to describe and to think about what I've seen. That's not a hard problem for self awareness (accessing memory, using language to describe, etc.) - it's a hard problem for a consciousness that's a thing which operates as a cause. That is a hard problem, I suggest, only because it doesn't exist.

Could energy be a common observer of relativity and quantum mechanics? Is the equation E = m * c-squared (Einstein) useful for both relativity and quantum mechanics?

@juliat9211

Жыл бұрын

I think more along these lines that consciousness is energy- or some form of it or related somehow.

"Why does this quark blob have a subjective experience" is an amazing sentence...

Thank you Robert for pin-pointing The Hard Problem here, especially asking about what “seems like a category mistake”. Actually many years ago I wrote to Max Tegmark, asking - after reading his fabulous book Our Mathematical Universe. I used the metaphor, that if the world is like the information on a (vast) cd, what then is the mathematical process of “playing” it? Thanks to you I now got closer to the truth here, where he answers you that his guess is that it is ”is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways” Some years ago I had a brief talk with a great danish physicist that said that his opinion is this: With sufficient knowledge, we will be able to explain consciousness as the complex but purely physical phenomenon, that it is. I would be happy to hear your opinion as a doctor of neuro science about that - being a psychologist myself.

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

Krishna solved HP of consciousness in three verses of Bhagavad Gita 13.21 - 13.23

Amazing!

There are endless books, papers, and conversations about consciousness, but no matter how many one reads or hears, still, no one can quite define it. We all wish they could define it, but I'm not holding my breath. It is a lot like defining "good Art". We cannot quite explain it, but "we know it when we see it". [At least, those of us well trained in the field of Fine Art will know it].

In General Relativity, spacetime is personal. In Quantum mechanics, observer makes impact.

With particles having information from quantum wave function, physical brain processing information of particles; some particles of physical brain may be turning sensed particles back into quantum wave function (recoherence), reversing decoherence of particle from quantum wave function.

Perception requires quantum computation. Because a combinatorial explosion occurs in the alternatives of organizing way. I think the state of consciousness is a quantum entangled state.

@abeautifuldayful

2 жыл бұрын

Then the universe is conscious. We are tiny particles processing its mind.

As Christof Koch puts it: "Consciousness is really physics from the inside. Seen from the inside, it's experience. Seen from the outside, it's what we know as physics, chemistry and biology."

@Mastermindyoung14

3 жыл бұрын

IIT seems to be gaining traction

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

ok this duality confilct goes on forever... but solution is third factor which is rarely considered and its beyon classical subject vs object but in fact is so elegant and trivial

Dr. Hameroff points out that the cerebellum is "notoriously unconscious." It does information processing, doesn't it?

@Newtube_Channel

3 жыл бұрын

"notoriously unconscious"

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@Newtube_Channel Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist; it's kinda in his wheelhouse, as they say.

@unpopular_opinion8615

2 жыл бұрын

@@Newtube_Channel " people who don't know what they're on about" yeah says a guy on internet about the people who literally have "nobel for physics" hameroff and sir Roger Penrose came up with a theory "orch-or" on consciousness

Kudos !!!!

but doesn't all the physics involving observation assume interaction/entanglement between the measurement device and whatever is observed, in order to have a rigorous definition of observation? So that allows for all the effects (collapse or whatever) when observation happens. So where is consciousness needed in that paradigm?

Consciousness is beyond material view. It's purely field. We are at most fundamental level field excitation of consciousness

A deeper underestanding of conciousness could be found in relation to knowing more about the heart. Perhaps making some investigations into people who have had heart transplants done, would help to explain some insight into conciousness, as a relationship to the heart centre prerequisite to the function of brain, mind.

Might physical information produce an experience of energy, perhaps using equation E = m * c-squared (Einstein)?

While your body may be made of electrons and quirks none of those things constitute your identity. The statement " I am this body " translates too, " I am aware of this body " so it is your awareness that allows you to know identity and is therefore your actual identity. If the material body were awareness itself the differing natures that the body and self have that makes them distinct from one another would not be known.

Read Our Mathematical Universe by Dr Tegmark. It's very good.

@Jay-xh9dl

3 жыл бұрын

How is it for a non-physics major? (but well read with a degree in literature) I just downloaded the kindle version!

Good

The Glasgow coma scale used in medical practice could be a path to the equation.

Particles of physical brain have conscious awareness of matter from quantum wave function (free will).

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

QM only operates over minute time spans,so would not impact on Consciousness! Freewill probably is a Myth! We only have Will!

Would like to see a conversation/debate between Max, Robert, and Sam Harris regarding consciousness.

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe throw in a little Dr Steven Pinkerton just to keep it real :)

Clearly there is something different about the human being consciousness comparatively. I would think that the intellect encompassing all knowledge & wisdom of the subjective experience is of importance for the “blob quark.” However, there is a palette of feelings & emotions that experience the subjective as well, and seem to blend perfectly with knowledge and create the overall wisdom when they are in a harmoniousness nature. And this seems to bring/advance the subjective experience of love, one of the most valuable feelings of the many there are and improving/creating the wisdom of the subjective experience. You would not be where you are with your subjective intellectual consciousness and as well these feelings to one shade, tone or contrast of another continually in the positive nature of the subjective... but there is another view to the negative.

Max is maximally cool and one of the coolest Swedes ever. This was not his best moment though. But then again, what can you do in four minutes.

Hello closer to truth, I'm not a cientiste or someone with reputation, I'm just a random person and I have my own opinion about conscious, well argumented, different from the ones you have listen to, where can I share my opinion?

@jareknowak8712

3 жыл бұрын

Leave it here, in the comments.

I'll be impressed if mathematicians and physicists can mathematically describe conscious intentions! For example, a mathematical equation would be able to mathematically describe why both Max Tegmark and Robert Kuhn are intentionally discussing "The Physics of Consciousness". Could they be having this conversation if they were not first consciously 'intentionally bonded' to discuss this subject?

@nazann

3 жыл бұрын

That's what scares me about this kind of equation. What would it mean for the conscious experience if you could calculate free will?

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@nazann It would mean greater understanding. Some sacred cows might get trampled, as always happens every time understanding improves.

It is more and more revealed that conciousness is entangled states of gravity and antigravity. I will prove it sooner or later.

@patbl61

2 жыл бұрын

Right…..

The thalamus?

How come human beings can talk to themselves without the need to use their tongues.. or are tongues just for taste only..

Physics of possibilities.

what if consciousness is as described in the vedas/upanishads; best allegorized by beams of light from our sun. then, instead of looking for formulas to distinguish between an on/off, yes/no, if/then, we might do better to search for points along a spectrum of consciousness, the apex (knowable) of which is represented by the human being-at least, according to Schopenhauer. incidentally, there's a huge tell towards the end of the interview where M.T. says something like: "...instead of just a philosophical discussion, [it could be used for] something useful." he then goes on to describe a potential medical devise for determining human consciousness, etc., making his strictly materialist, hyper-rationalist humanist bias unequivocal. imo, it is precisely this myopic limitation that prevents human cognitive development towards solutions to problems such as the unifying theory. further, i believe this seemingly self-imposed limitation reflects an agenda which sacrifices inspiration and open-mindedness to the one-sided, all-holy principle of falsification, this in the face of a commonly accepted probabilistic universe. based on that universe's universal principle of exploitation, we must assume that all entities suppress one another for an advantage, and therefore should reasonably assume humankind to be no different. immediate tendency to debunk=denial=falsification. that the human mind carries the potential for non-local function and perception is part of the basis for the same medical tech. which M.T. himself alludes to as an apparent pinnacle of scientific achievement, ie, placebo affect=35-40% of all drug efficacy (vaccines included). C.G. Jung, nearly a century ago, stated that anyone still in doubt of human prescient ability is simply ignorant of science. could it be that all our technology has actually been unwittingly designed to make humankind more ignorant, in the literal sense, more prone to disregard certain potential pathways of discovery and enlightenment which have historically bore fruits such as the secret to the atomic structure of carbon? and that's just one we know about. couldn't it also be that there is someone or something out there that doesn't want humans breaking the boundaries of understanding space time?

If able to use any ideas from my comments to develop theories or anything else for Nobel prize, would like to be included.

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah you might get a mention at someone's Nobel speech! That would be sweet.

Being an objective observer is different from a theoretical objective observer. The correlation with the subjective consciousness "feels" as a unnecessary determination. Isn't there a simpler principle? Say "all organic sensory observations are in principal unconscious, but the organism becomes aware (concious) of a set of observations when attention of the organism is required?" Quantum physics doesn't need to be observed, it is. Only the introduction of the subjective observer requires a form of awareness. The theoretical observer doesn't. It is our organic inability to passively observe the quantum that makes this proposed determination a conundrum.

simple- there is no physical or 'physics' understanding of consciousness. As Sir Roger Penrose wisely says, a new physics will need to be invented

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

maybe problem is that people always try to invent something instead of accepting ancient Vedic teachings

@FromFame

3 жыл бұрын

be wary of people who use the term "simple"

Mark says "Consciousness is what information processing feels like". But the question still persists, who is the one that feels this information processing?

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

Personal identity is a bit of an illusion. You are a colony organism, with lots of cooperation and communication, and specialized functions in various regions - like the nervous system and brain. You are a swarm. The swarm has a name and an identity, but it's an abstraction, and always in flux.

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

@@bozo5632 so if such small swarm can experience identity are you accepting that whole swarm, everything that exists ,can experience identity?

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@MarpLG It's a swarm of living cells. They have individual functions and distributed functions. Your body does stuff. A swarm of dust is just dust. Cells are made of the same dust. It's not the atoms, it's the arrangements.its the functioning.

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

@@bozo5632 so? similiary civilization is just swarm of living people..

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@MarpLG And those living people are themselves networks of functioning systems. You can build a society out of people, but not out of sand.

How come no one ever brings up Evan Harris Walker...

He said 'how information feels' which would make 'information' a thing, the thing that feels..

My favorite untested theory is Gaia - is there a collective "life field" around the earth that enables life to function as we know it. If so that field could change over time, so if you could travel back in time 100 million years, you body may not be adapted to the field as it existed then, and things might go wrong with you. Similarly if you go to the Moon or Mars for extended periods of time, we actually can't know whether your body will keep functioning. We can't go back in time, but soon we may be able to go to Mars. I understand modern science will deny any such field, which means the worry is irrational, but until we actually try, we don't know. Matt Damon grew potatoes on Mars in "The Martian", but will they really grow? Maybe we should find out BEFORE we send humans!

Max is a brilliant bloke but confused in this instance IMO. He acknowledges the "hard problem" which essentially is that there is NO way to map the "quantities" of physics(mass, charge, spin etc.) to the "qualities" of experience(red, love, toothache etc.) in a "nonarbitrary" way, EVEN in principle. Yet he conflates the map with the territory, or at the very least, thinks ripples can be separated from water. When in fact, there is nothing to ripples but water. & even IF this "complete 1 to 1 mapping"(ALL the NCC's yet to be discovered) did exist(which it does not), we'd still need a theory explaining how that particular map is the correct one Vs. some other. Panpsychism is "on the right track" at least in as far as C being fundamental but it is just as flawed as materialism in that it needs to appeal to complexity & suffers the same combination issues. But, if C is not just an "additional property" of matter but rather matter's properties are circumscribed by C, then we may at least have a chance. I think a straight up modern analytical Idealism such as "Bernardo Kastrup's Alters" is the best game currently on the table, & by FAR. & IMO such concepts can easily encompass digital physics/VR models as well, though that is not at all what BK does. Just get him on here already !

@ramaraksha01

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe you didn't watch the full video before commenting?

I really liked him in Full House.

You are the centre of reality what is light (seeing) is what we observe. You see a 2D picture of universe hanging in front of you and that's where you do the experiment.Thats the ground of experiment and experience that's the underlying ground yet to be pointed by any equation. You being inside a universe is exactly the same as you universe being inside you . There is no way this can be every verified because there won't be an experiment without an observer and observed.

DOH !

Consciousness programs mind from the physical brain which is designed and develops from DNA. The particles of physical brain which are from and have free will from quantum wave function have conscious awareness when the free will from quantum wave function interacts with conscious programming of brain. Best can come up with so far.

Why don't you talk about your criticism of Roger Penrose's quantum theory of consciousness, which has spent two decades recovering from the damage you did to it in a 2000 paper, that you were proven wrong about, but the criticism of which you never retracted, Max?

Why Why Why does Max believe it's an embarrassment that we can't unify the theory of the big (relativity) and the theory of the minute (quantum mechanics)???? Whoever said that was necessary?

Is it just me or does Max Tegmark look just like Greg Kinnear in this video?

Sounds strange that as conscious beings we can explain physics but not the converse. Physics is actually a natural emergent phenomenon from our biology. The basis for folk physics is time or our sense of past present future. Time emerges as a sense from eventfulness. Physical movement of our body muscles is linked to our bicameral nervous systems which elegantly evolved in mammals before we added the hack of language. Human time sense at the small and large essentially breaks so physics breaks at these levels. The two are physically linked but not explanatorily linked by the mathematical language of physics.

When pushed by the host, Max made the usual error. Asked if the "equation" is the same as the "inner experience", Max replied that "consciousness is what information 'feels' like when being processed". Nope. Not so. Using "feeling" to define "consciousness" is circular logic. It's a common mistake almost everyone eventually makes. A similar mistake is to declare consciousness an emerging phenomenon (meaning, I have no idea) and to go on to use the analogy of "collection of water molecules giving rise to the notion of wetness". Same mistake. "Wetness" is how the mind perceives water. "Wetness" is a feeling. The physical description is viscosity, not wetness. Invoking inner experience, to define inner experience, is erroneous. Not cool.

@williamburts5495

3 жыл бұрын

Max said, " consciousness is what information feels like when being processed " information is something stored in something and used by something else that is already existent that interprets the information. So whatever is using it is exploiting it to achieve some purpose the information is meant to achieve. So whatever is using and exploiting the information would seem to possess some intelligence, but intelligence transcends information and consciousness transcends intelligence.

Maybe watch Blade Runner?

Is Max dressed as Marty from BTTF2???

I have some big issues with the argument he makes. I'll confine my remarks to his repeated use of the word "objective" - he does not define the term but presumably he means the term originating from the 16th century meaning "like an object". As far as I know all life is subjective all living things are the subject of their own lives with their own unique presence in the world - point of view. The scientific method, to the extent it tries to rid us of the properties of the living and put us in the realm of inert objects is a misguided and incomplete understanding of the world of which we are a part. The observer is both living and a part of the world observed not a tiny vanishing point of inertness.

@vroomik

3 жыл бұрын

I do like Tegmark, but I think he's oversimplifying things. If I could take the output of said magnetoencephalography scanner and somehow put it in someone else's brain - would it show the world how I see it or not? I hear sounds/music different than you or the bird. Does the bird hear music of the trees in the wind? And so on...

@babyl-on9761

3 жыл бұрын

@@vroomik A sound, for example, is caused by vibrations of the atmosphere reaching an ear. Whatever the unique point of view of an individual is, it perceives the vibrations. The idea that the consciousnesses of each person is entirely separate from every other person's is under serious scrutiny by the discovery of mirror neurons and the work of Antonio Damasio.

@vroomik

3 жыл бұрын

@@babyl-on9761 Yes, I know about mirror neurons, even read V. S. Ramachandran book, but partly it's the effect of our brains developing stronger social bonds I would say (need to read Damasio though). For me uniqueness of perception or Qualia, that is facinating...

Or Consciousness of physics?

Ok...so, Tegmark was obliquely mentioning Integrated Information Theory as if it was HIS idea!!!!!

Based on numerous documented NDE experiences, we know that consciousness exists outside the physical body. For example, some people were clinically dead, but were able to see events both inside and outside the operating room. Without consciousness, there is no experience. And without experience, there is no physics. Insofar as advanced AI is concerned, if it is sufficiently advanced, then consciousness may elect to inhabit that AI, the same as a human body. Then the AI would be "living."

Confirmation bias makes us blind.

It is disappointing to see Max leave the notion of "Observer" as it relates to quantum mechanics intentionally or inadvertently ambiguous. Brian Green, Sean Carroll have many times clarified that the "observer" does not have to be a conscious entity. Of course a macroscopic, conscious entity can be the "observer", not because it is conscious but because it is a macroscopic entity that interacted with the fragile quantum state of the experiment under observation. An inanimate video camera is a perfectly good observer in quantum experiment. It appears that there is a confusion between the two distinct event of the recording of the actual measurement and the event of some conscious entity becoming aware of that measurement at some later point in time. The occurrences of second event can happen many number of times when a distinct conscious entity becomes aware of the measurement. Sure. But this can happen a wildly separated time intervals far away from the moment of the first event of measurement.

Conscius and unconcius understand phisics process not solve misterious brain why he not explains where or how it in brains works. Star are in my mind or are in sky that is really questions mister Max.

Important not to let philosophers undermine motivation to do scientific research.

When the blind talk about colors

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

99.999999% nowdays.. even so called spiritualists

@johnnytass2111

3 жыл бұрын

Or even light.

Physics cannot define consciousness! Consciousness defines Physics!

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

well said. consciousness is fundamental and is non-local. the brain does NOT produce it.

@Mastermindyoung14

3 жыл бұрын

That's a claim..

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mastermindyoung14 not the evidence is growing. it is not merely "a claim".

Quantum Physics tells you the observer is not quantum mechanical ⚙️in nature. You need an entirely new branch of physics to describe consciousness.

Max is starting with a wrong assumption, that the brain generates consciousness. All he will EVER find are correlations between consciousness and the laws of physicis. His materialist paradigm has failed, and will always fail. The correct assumption to start with is to reject materialism, and assume that consciousness is primary, and is responsible for generating the brain. This is what the father of quantum physics, Max Planck, believed.

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

well put! the materialist argument for consciousness died long ago. i quote "trying to find consciousness in the brain is like trying to find music in the radio". end of discussion.

@st.mephisto8564

2 жыл бұрын

If that is the case where is a resounding refutation of illusionists like Daniel Dennet. Why are they considered mainstream view and views of people like Donald Hoffman is considered fringe?

Haha, there is an organizing principal that could distinguish between that which is conscious and that which is not. Only living things are conscious, so first figure out the physics of life.

Maybe the concept of "consciousness" should be taken out of physics, and placed in more macro realms, such as biology, AI, or principles of computation. It seems like Max was going in that direction, later in the interview, than the beginning. The issues pertaining to the "observer" (misleading word), is really the "measurement problem". It is highly dependent upon experimental apparatus setup. It has very little to do with how I, a particular observer, perceive things. This is true whether it's the double slit experiment, delayed choice experiment, or whatever. There's still a lot about quantum physics, simply at the physical level, that we don't understand. It defies our classical sensibilities. One can turn to a kind of "informational-ism". That is, if there's a way to determine the "which way" information, it's a "particle". Else it's a "wave". But this mechanical consistency, at an "informational" level, is hardly "consciousness". One can say the "universe" is "conscious", and doing the "observing". At this point, one is playing with words. Or asserting a kind of metaphysics, with the implication that this "universe" is "conscious", in the same sense as we are (only bigger and better).

@michaelfried3123

3 жыл бұрын

Max is one of the dumbest smart people I've ever seen. I like him until he's asked about this subject...in fact, I like all of his peers until they are asked a question like this in which they all turn into philosophers all of a sudden who step on their own scientific toes doing a funky, ridiculous dance.

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

the brain is not a computer and consciousness is not a product of that computer. look up roger penrose and his argument against brain as computer. humans are NOT robots. we are not merely electricity, neurons and synapses and our unique self is not created and formed by brain. merely the brain is the receiver of awareness. a bit like a TV. you have a picture but the actual essence of that is not within the TV.it is external. another good term to look up is non-local consciousness. and evidence is mounting for this.

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard yes you are right... Vedic seers and saints now that for long time.. but this scientists just have taste in usless speculating

@SpamMouse

Жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard Indeed, many people use the analogy with "computer" without understanding anything about a computer beyond the screen and keyboard that they touch.

@SpamMouse

Жыл бұрын

I disagree. Consciousness deserves to be studied and understood, physics has a good track record for a few hundred years, many other sciences are still "learning".

Sounds like a guy that wants something to be true just because he wants it to be true.

The mind is only a small part of what the brain does, and consciousness is only a small part of the mind. Consciousness is one means of steering animals toward food and away from not-food. That's what it is, that's where it comes from. The rest is superstition.

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

consciousness is SO much more than that. consciousness is the very foundation of the universe. it pre-dates life. it is fundamental. the brain is merely the receiver of consciousness.

They will come kicking and screaming into eastern philosophy

Scientists should start a new way of looking and thinking of reality. We should get away with the concept of physical forces. The four fundamental interactions - strong, electro-weak, coulomb's em and gravity - forces should be looked as information communication means/processes in their own respective system and at their own respective level. Now adding to those physical ( and chemical too) systems we have various levels biological systems - living things systems - from the non-intelligent levels to the higher intelligent human level information communication systems. Each is involved 'consciousness agent' but of course each at different level with different capacity with or without subjective level. In human intelligent informational communication system language and subjectivity are obviously the prominent "forces".

@nathb3315

3 жыл бұрын

i agree

Love hearing High IQ Humans contemplating Existence 🙂✌

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

What did you learn from this video -- that you can take and apply to your life for betterment of self and/or the environment? I question iq -- what it means, how substantial its importance. I think of iq as a fast car compared to slower -- what good is a fast car without a driver that is full of spirit, divinity, agency, conviction, direction; quality. What defines high iq; what trials taken so to see results which display genuine iq. With all the psychology information today, why the increase in mental health issues; with all the science & technology today, merely pushing buttons to make things happen, why the depression and disconnection in spirit, nature, peoples -- why the confliction & corruption; with the vast potientals of humanity, why no true & divine leadership of spiritual direction -- why are we push overs, weaklings, easily influenced, obedient, stand for nothing, identify with the worldly ways..? High iq may only be one side of a coin

It's borderline "big bang theory" , i was waiting to see Penny entering the room ...

The brain may be a transceiver

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

non-local consciousness :)

@aporist

3 жыл бұрын

Transmitter

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

Then the signals should be detectable outside of the brain. So go test your (imho silly) theory.

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

@@bozo5632 it has been tested. but in a different way. such as the out of body state. consciousness is not the "signal"..consciousness is not a detectable thing..it is what comes through the signal..and it cannot be detected by scientific methods.

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard It seems strangely important to your theory that the signal cannot be detected by "scientific" means. Maybe you can guess what that looks like to someone who isn't already a believer?

The error here is believing the hype that there _is_ a hard problem of consciousness when there really _isn't._ How can I be so sure? Well for one thing no one can say what this 'consciousness' thing even *is* beyond brain function & that's because it isn't anything more than that so yes it's something: brain function & as I'm a functioning brain & so are you as functions which have evolved a sense of a 'self' beyond the nuts & bolts of neuronal interactions these functions flatly refuse to believe that that's all there is going on & assumes there has to be more when there doesn't. If that were the case how come no one can say what consciousness might be beyond _'What it's like to be you'?_ They _can't_ in any meaningful sense & that's because there is no 'you' beyond brain function _in & of itself_ as the philosopher Daniel Dennett perfectly explains in the following video so how can we find something if it doesn't _exist?_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/maylusazfdmdedI.html

@BugRib

3 жыл бұрын

To deny your own existence as an experiencer having an experience is utter insanity. Unless you're a philosophical zombie, in which case it would make sense for you to say such things.

@jareknowak8712

3 жыл бұрын

True!

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

utter nonsense. consciousness is NOT the product of matter. brain matter does not give rise to unique awareness and evidence is growing for this. non -local consciousness is a good start. read dr pim van lommel's book consciousness beyond life. paul brocklehurst is spewing out the typical materialist reductionist computational theory of consciousness.that consciousness is only brain and nothing more. oh how naive and dumb this guy is.

@DeterministicOne

3 жыл бұрын

We are not brains. Brains are objects. We are not objects, we are subjects.

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

@@DeterministicOne SPOT ON.

It's a monopoly on free money to study and incorporate sociopathology, arrogance and misanthropy.

Unless we consider consciousness to be dimension by itself we will never be able to explain emergence.

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

Pish.

Physics does no consciousness. The consciousness system which our „player“ is part from does all the physics ( because just ruleset) the avatar ( ergo our body) and the virtual cosmos. Our body is just a physical constraint of this VR. Without it our decisions would have no impact. We are here to make good decisions thats our evolutionary goal. But the rules are not to be believed. They can be worked out in the frame of our player, by ourself in Meditation state. Believing the ruleset is not an evolutionary goal. You cant work on your ego/fear and beliefs (entropy) intellectually. This virtual Reality is an ongoing entropy reduction trainer for the consciousness system which we are part from. Our success is the success of the system. As consciousness is an information system it has to work against information entropy ( fear/ego standing for „chaos“) towards selflessness = love“ = „order“ Love = One of the most misunderstood metaphors right after „son of god“ (did i mention that we are all are part of the system) its not a privilege as religious people still believe blindly. Love has nothing to do with desire. Unconditional love = being of service without ego. Thats why we can learn to love everyone, not just our partners. PS: Consciousness = nonlocal (and nothing between our virtual ears) thats why we make no progress in consciousness research. Our model of reality is wrong, fundamentally. As long Newton’s aged approach on reality is still dogmatically believed there will be no real progress in science.

Purely physical explanations of consciousness don't explain it properly. You have to look properly at NDE's and question how consciousness changes in unexpected ways, approaching death, for instance Alzheimer's patients recovering their mental faculties and able to talk to relatives again. Consciousness is non local. Also NDE experiencers report very similar accounts on the other side, when they return.

Consciousness is nothing more than the processing of sensory information by a biological entity that senses the limits of its boundaries. The more sensory information that the entity is capable of simultaneously receive and process, the higher the level of consciousness it possesses. The cell possesses the lowest level of consciousness, humans have the highest level because of their brain capacity to process and store information. Artificial intelligence will have consciousness once it meets all requirements. The universe does not meet these requirements 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.

Why is the table not conscious? There is no difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. Yet again imposing our own biases about what's conscious and what's not. Need to throw the book out on all of mechanics. Equations aren't going to give solutions to anything. Much of everything is an approximation anyway. Physics isn't a hard science. If we want to do equations then look to engineering where only the hard figures count.

I'm thinking of a strawberry and a chair. Now what?

@Mastermindyoung14

3 жыл бұрын

Run for president?

We are made to be United with God. But so glad all these folks are considering all this information. Hope God will be part of the conversation

Life and Consciousness, can't be created, Life and Consciousness is Eternal, Life and Consciousness is 100 % Immaterial. So, Consciousness can't be created, it can only be developed and renewed, Through Thinking, Thoughts is the finest existing Stuff. That't how Alll Stuff is made/shaped. (Motion)

Is consciousness actually real, and if so can we use any form of math to measure it? I don't think so... Again, more philosophy masquerading as science, which is a theme of this channel it seems. These questions don't seem to take me any "closer to truth" really...truth is not subjective, truth has to be quantifiable by using maths, or so I believe so.

@kafkaten

3 жыл бұрын

If you believe that truth is only quantifiable with mathematics, this might not be the channel for you.

@michaelfried3123

3 жыл бұрын

@@kafkaten if you assume consciousness is real perhaps this isn't the channel for you either....

@jareknowak8712

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelfried3123 whats Your definition of consiousness?

@michaelfried3123

3 жыл бұрын

@@jareknowak8712 I am. Therefore I exist (although I cannot in any meaningful way prove that to anyone but myself and vice versa). Any attempt to define it in any other way cannot exist and is not quantifiable because of its subjective nature.

The brilliant question to any individual the USA DEFICIT IS TWENTY SEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT AND WOULD U ASK THE CONSCIOUSNESS ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND WOULD THE CONSCIOUSNESS ACCOMPLISHING SOLVING THE PROBLEM BY SELLING 80000 SHARES FOR THE ASKING PRICES OF $800,000,000 PER SHARES NOW ASK UR CONSCIOUSNESS WHAT WAS DEFICIT OF TWENTY SEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR WHEN THIS SELLS.

I have a theory...consciousness is the key to everything. Consciousness pre-dates the universe. It is fundamental and non-local. Perhaps Consciousness IS the "designer" so to speak or (god). From consciousness emerged the fine-tuning..which in turn triggered evolution of both universe(s) and life itself. Consciousness has ALWAYS existed and continues to exist after death and certainly the NDE or OBE strongly suggests consciousness is MORE than brain.

@MarpLG

3 жыл бұрын

hello, u are clever but if you really want to experience consciousness just chant Hare Krishna maha-mantra

He wants he theory be true but fail no suficient explanations.

“If physics applies to everything….” Huh? It clearly does not

@xodyx7706

2 жыл бұрын

What are proofs against it?

@deanodebo

2 жыл бұрын

@@xodyx7706 How does physics apply to morality, logic, math, numbers, aesthetics, ….?

@RootinrPootine

Жыл бұрын

@@deanodebodon’t you get it dummy? Those things are all nonsense or trivial or illusions. Why? They aren’t “real”. Why? Because anything physics can’t explain isn’t real [a claim that is pure dogma, unquestioned, not scientifically probable 😂]. See the rules? They made em up!

The physics of consciousness is an absurd concept. Consciousness is not physical. Physical things are detailed concepts, and consciousness is abstract and interacts with concepts with varying degrees of detail.

@ryomichael

3 жыл бұрын

Paul, try inhaling a mix of 20℅ O2/ 80℅ Xenon and tell yourself the cessation of your conciousness is not about physics.

@PatrickRyan147

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryomichael Reincarnation and quantum immortality beg to differ..

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

quite right. consciousness is not physical. trying to find consciousness in the brain is like trying to find music in the radio. i rest my case.

@Dion_Mustard

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryomichael "cessation of consciousness"...there is no evidence consciousness dissolves or dies. none what so ever. but plenty of evidence consciousness is independent of brain namely the NDE or OBE.

@ryomichael

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard I was talking abou t anesthesia, not death. You become unconscious every time you enter a state of dreamless sleep. Also, there is no EVIDENCE that I know of that conciousness SURVIVES death.