To have Sir Roger Penrose, Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup in one meeting to share their views on consciousness and reality is something we will be ever so grateful for! Hans, you have navigated the map and territory so skillfully and respectfully. Deepest thanks for making this happen.
How many phat of the land are there behaving like pharaohs, quite a few? Science appears to have pharmed babies for exploitation by the many and whilst brazenly formulating the cerebrally narcissist streak to not believe it embarrassing? Got to wonder on these people who consider themselves sweets stolen from babies; it looks very ‘dancer in the dark’ meets ‘walk the line’.
@@dltooleyyeah, relation is tech head and autism, tells her parents what you mean when they get it wrong. She can watch the Eminem voiceover of finding Alaska via children’s internet cartoon for 3 hours straight withought getting a headache though. I did say she’s a lot like my mother. My mother however, gets annoyed if I read the film sub content like a mind map, if she can’t see it. Since our mind maps aren’t the same, she feels like she should be able to view everything my mind views, even though I can’t see what she views. The youths mind appears to be of similar lines, but the parents are putting words in her mouth to give away information about ‘an enemies situational disadvantages via popular choice of dissociation, except by less wealthy, less famous twin(s)’; ie: a flat or a room in someone else’s house, not a house or a large house itself, a supermarket or factory assembly line, not a large salary on the mintel demographic pyramid, put simply.’
It’s funny how that light on the tv on the right, looks like the photographs of the boy from the sixth sense, with a ghost or spiritual presence in every picture. Although it doesn’t feature the mind to mind communication experiments logos featured by some RUclips scientific research practitioners, since it isn’t a paid role. Collapse caused by limit of spiritual traffic to mind can’t be measured via one to one contact by reality, because invisible psychological traffic isn’t a quantifiable anomaly which is easily measured, defined & categorised by conscious countability and support. Since hostility doesn’t appear something which anybody wants to be honest about and cultural purity isn’t a scientific question. However, having to talk about oneself in the third person, due to popular mass hostility, is I’d say a real sign of an amount of psychological aggravate motivated by self-entitlement and assumed superior status with the intent of deliberated damage. Thus said, although damaged, there appears to be no visible chain of psychologies…I guess such phenomena is deemed fixable via the Rossman fold narrative…although somebody would have to relinquish control over an army of memed psychologies used as a weapon of abuse & oppression? There’s no mention of such persons, processes & motives?
Looks like they want to say GOD is manipulating particles but they have not enough humility to do so and not enough humility to take Bible to their hands and put quantum mechanics in the corner.. "No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (Lord Jesus Christ)
I’ve come to expect a lot from Essentia, but can’t say I expected THIS. Hats off to Bernardo and his team, they continue to raise the bar for interviews on the frontier of physics and philosophy and it’s a privilege and a pleasure to watch it unfold!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
But don't you find it annoying when uploaders ask you to give a thumbs-up _before_ you see the video? How about giving hotels 5 Stars the week before you stay there, right?
We love you SO dearly Roger. Thanks for staying engaged in this work and thanks for your theory. Watching a session or seminar with you is like opening a bottle of the finest wine, a delirious pleasure for the intellect.
@9:49 Penrose explains the most profound aspect of Godel's Theorem: That moment when you work through the proof yourself, and suddenly understand WHY Godel's Theorem must be true, you are experiencing a thought process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
Which is like the unconscious mind. We compute a flying ball hit by someone to us into lef t field with such precision with practice or hit moguls with precision coming down a snow-covered hill at 40mphs. The computational skills it takes to do these things in real time are cazy. I think the brain does have a quantum computational process to it.
What about beings without brains? How do they react quickly to their environment without a biological quantum computer? I'm not convinced the brain is quantum as you say (aside from the universal quantum laws it follows). Because if a quantum brain is the reason we can react with such speed and precision in real time, you'd have to find a reason for life forms being able to live and react without brains.@@esad-ij5ie
but that is not true. The goedel theorem is proved in such a way that a computer algorithm can prove it and thus also internalise and understand it. There is nothing i the proof that requires you to represent non-representable truths.
@@matswessling6600 A computer algorithm "understands" nothing. It can manipulate arbitrary symbols, but it takes human insight to recognize what makes those symbols meaningful.
@@QuicksilverSG "insight" isnt myserious, is just that the brain created shortcuts in the associations for that subject. The mind doesnt do what you think it does. The mind is no computer. the brain is in a way a sort of computer, but the mind isnt, its more like running software. our minds are not a "complete formal system" and thus is not needed to follow Gödels theorem.
The moderation at 16:35 or so blew my mind. What a thoughtful moderator to reframe the subject perfectly while two juggernauts have just laid out huge theories and allow them to move forward in a direction that is fruitful.
Yes, he did an amazing job. Often politely reframing a slightly missed question here and there. He carried on a beautiful conversation. This was a very special video, glad it's been recorded.
What an incredible discussion. I’ll never be able to see the world, life, my own mind the same after watching this. My late fiancé and I had these talks for years by e-mail before we met in person. He’d love this.
@@jenmdawg strange. I didn't think much of it. Everyone was tiptoeing around Sir Roger not wanting to offend his British sensibilities by suggesting the Hindus had figured out better than Einstein.
@@ChaLy-r4d Exactly! He is stuck in the view that the world is real and Donald Hoffman and the Hindus can tell us it isn't. It's maya. But very impressiv for a man this old!
I am so grateful for the opportunity to see and hear these very interesting and knowledgeable guys speak. This is groundbreaking new media that is allowing us to understand the best minds and their specialisms. ❤❤❤
Bernardo has the most open mind. He is at the forefront for me, he has so much respect for everyone but more importantly he knows his experiences are coming from somewhere else.
This is the first video ive seem by you. I LOVE this format, where you slice up the conversation and provide context. This makes these topics so much more digestible. Thank you and keep it up!
I am happy to follow Roger Penrose since Convey's book for high school that dedlscribed his tiles in one chapter. Then in early 90s I have read the emerors mind and was totally fascinated by the ideas. Last time I have seen Roger was in Fairbanks Alaska when he visited UAF. I was shocked by the huge crowd of Alaskans tried to fit into the auditorium where Sir Roger used simple hand written slides and talked about physics. I don't know a deeper thinker currently alive than Sir Roger. Thank you for bringing this conversation online.
That was incredible and almost surreal, I think if Penrose were a peer of Kastrup, Hoffman et al he would be in total agreement, but he provides the wall so to speak that new theories must vault over.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
You neglect narrator Point of View, Tense and the Active Voice. Consider this claim: Reality is arguably an Eternal Now, for it can only be verified in Nature when it is observable, ie. when it exists. You cannot observe the Future from this analog, and the Past is a matter of remove from the observer, its witness.
I am only 45 minutes into this conversation, but the phenomenon of personalities dancing around each other trying not to offend the others is very palpable. It's as if Gaggin, Kastrup and the moderator have agreed upon a very tentative conversational strategy up front. And Penrose is simply not biting and not sufficiently enticed to reason outside of his materialist world view. Having said this, it"s easy for me to say, obviously, and I respect the effort.
Yes, it's fascinating to watch and also a little painful, as one witnesses the challenge of opening an old mind to a new idea, and one knows of course that we all have the same problem as Sir Roger.
Yes, nice…Penrose is a materialist. He refers to two realities, one quantum, the other classical…No, Classical is the reality decided by the quantum world, which is not a reality but an infinite collection of possibilities put to consciousness.
Go to 56:02. Penrose says that the qualia of another’s conscious experience is something that simply can’t be known. He also says that quantum reality can only be confirmed, not ascertained. Perhaps these have some connection.
Very grateful ! It was indeed a privilege to have access to such a brilliant discussion from the comfort of my bed, in the middle of the night. Simply sublime.
Thanks for sharing this magnificent talk !! Sir Roger Penros is an amazing scientist to listen to. I admire his intellectual humility and compassion. Consciousness is fundamental posing serious challenge to scientific materialism.
After having a few LSD trips, anyone can become a real expert. Just take a look at Kastrup, he used to be just a high level engineer, but now he is an expert on combining words and sentences that collectively create an illusion of knowledge.
Sorry I’m a realist. Anytime someone mention qualia and how it’s something self evident - the same as considering consciousness and free will as postulates - I’m immediately let down by anyone proposing this. Saying that something unexplainable (consciousness and free will) explains another unexplainable thing (quantum mechanics) is like giving up on both.
Language is symbolic so it’s use to precisely describe reality inevitably bifurcates the one reality into subject and object. I see Penrose using very precise descriptions so it’s no surprise he bifurcates reality into quantum (subjective) and classical (objective). Although, Faggin and Kastrup clearly appreciate and can articulate the dichotomy or duality of explicit reality, they also exquisitely and somewhat poetically gesture towards wholeness by describing implicit reality as a universal field of consciousness or subjectivity (Kastrup’s terminology). Penrose’s explanation of the inevitability of wave-function collapse without conscious intervention doesn’t deny the catalytic power of agent-directed consciousness (attention and intention, free will) to speed up the process. Doesn’t our modern world exemplify the power of human consciousness to profoundly and exponentially reshape reality? I appreciate the nuanced discussion around free will and acknowledge the difference between deterministic, self-identified agency and agent-directed attention (reflective consciousness) in creatively participating in manifesting the world or explicit reality. The more humans consciously cultivate and recursively integrate the dual aspects of attention (right-brain openness and left brain closure) the more coherent will be the relations between inner and outer reality, between subject and object, between us and them, between me and you.
What a lovely discussion. A great example of the power of internet-mediated free speech, and well-moderated mutually respectful dialogue. Thank you for bringing it to us.
13:40 The collapse is the _expression_ of a field that has consciousness and free will. Brilliant. The consciousness is the field part, and the observation/measurement is the free will part.
Collapse = Rectification. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@scriabinismydog2439 Free will is a postulate here of an ontological primitive. So there is no "how". But it has the sense and benefit of being directly validated in each person's own experience. You experience it right at this moment, for example.
I am deeply appreciative of this gathering and discussion. Yet, with that said, I cannot help but to consider that it remains beyond tragic that the West, by and far, continues to act as though the East has no history of deeply examining both consciousness and free will, as if their history doesn't have a great deal of value to add to the West's conception and understanding of these subjects that can provide for a more robust understanding of ultimate reality. Though, thankfully, there is a generation of thinkers like Kastrup, Vervaeke, Sheldrake, and the like, who are breaking new ground in challenging the West's present cul-de-sac of thinking, which appears to be showing gtrat signs for the future.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Actually, consciousness is the one thing that isn't a mystery. Everything else is a mystery, because consciousness is the only thing that has ever been experienced. There is no hard problem of consciousness. There is only a hard problem of matter.
I don't understand the argument that free will exists, in fact I've never heard a logical argument that it exists so I'm surprised to hear it stated as an axiom in this discussion. The consciousness discussion is fascinating although I'm persuaded by the possibility that we will never understand consciousness as it's not possible to study it objectively. We may have to embrace uncertainty.
You don't to search for a logical/physucal argument tha ' that free will exist' so for consciousness...these exist! It is evudent by itself, that what Federico Faggin says
I see some analogous to what Donald Hoffman proposes and what Faggin is claiming. Would be interesting to see them talk about their theories. Awesome channel! Top Quality guests! I sure hope dear Roger is around for a lot longer. What a joy to listen to him speak, whether you agree with him or not.
Have u noticed the vintage 8bit era computers at the back ? One is the little known casio fx 9000p from 1981 with a z80 cpu. What is the other to its left ?
One thing scientists (which also I am) should use from eastern mystics is that the core consciousness is “the witness” the one “who is there”. If you remove all senses, memory or even thoughts, will there be somebody ? Yes, that is consciousness
There was a Brian greene documentary exploring this idea. And also explore the fractal nature of consciousness within biological beings. That consciousness is inherent in the universe.
@@Megozkarub what if the deep meditative state enables the experience of the most basic level of awareness as the ability of the brain to be aware of its own existence and not some deeper reality? Which of course doesn't exclude the possibility of such...
@@Littleprinceleonit can be even if very few can attain a level of meditation that opens the door to such possibilities. The main intention of my statement is to point to the hardship of defining consciousness, even the hard problem of concentration doesnt do the job. People still talk about “things” like color, smell etc but not the awareness which is witnessing it.
Yes and I think what hints at this is: how are we all conscious of the same things? If there was a red coat left on a table a monitor would pick up the red coat and report it found and the person who thought they lost it would show up. That shows that something beyond physical, in the human mind, identifies the red coat. Many human minds are detecting the red coat. So that’s maybe not seeing things as they really are, but it points to a universal consciousness that perceives the same thing. It may not be reality but it hints that we all are together and can witness reality together too because perhaps we are all the Mind of God perceiving Itself as we look to this Egotistic, One Ego & Mind.
Forget consciousness, I find it complicated in just trying to explain how is it that a flower is beautiful. However much I try I cannot give a complete description of what is it that makes a flower beautiful? Any amount of description remains insufficient and incomplete.
Fabulous conversation and people here! I don’t understand if Penrose is deliberately not entertaining the idea of consciousness as a fundamental concept in the fabric of reality. Gaggin and Kastrup are being crystal clear about their counter proposal. Quantum physical observations appear the way they do as a result of our conscious mind and its properties. Penrose, brilliant though he is, keeps going around it.
Inspiring, revelatory, mind-expanding. Thank you so much Hans and Essentia Foundation - your content may be changing the course of my life, and certainly my interpretation of it.
40:08 Sir Roger is still old-school and insists on the subjective-objective world. This is a philoshical view that dogs many that is caught in this presupposition. Faggin on the other hand believes that the whole of reality is subjective and merely mirrors a fundamental consciousness both individually and collectively. I side with Faggin There is a story of two monks arguing. One insists that the wind is moving the tree. The other insists that the tree is moving the wind. The master arrives and tells them:"you are both.wrong,it is your minds that.are moving" .
Penrose doesn’t like to jump to assumptions or conclusions without a compelling understanding. Thanks for keeping it real, need more philosophers and physicists like him
Absolutely great - I love that you got Roger Penrose - these ideas have to be refined and put through the philosophical and experimental rigor otherwise it’s just new age wishful thinking - I’d trust Penrose’s intuition but I also feel like I’d personally love for Bernardo’s world view to be real because it explains so many things - still wishing for something is not enough we must follow scientific principles in our metaphysics as much as is reasonably possible
You’re already experiencing the world that Bernardo speaks of my friend. And your wishful thinking is the confirmation of that, the cat is alive if you believe it to be alive.
How fascinating is this discussion?! I have no idea what any of this means, yet I am so completely transfixed I can't stop watching. 😅 I wish more teachers were this inspiring.💗📚
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838I bet you have also reflected why things take on a dual structure, if so please elaborate on that topic hyperduality. There are many types of dualities but are you aware of the duality they all pertain to, the duality of duality? And although categories certainly are dual to sets it is not true that syntax is exclusive to the former and semantics to the latter, the most generalised syntax for instance is doubtlessly containment which pertains far more directly to sets than to categories.
Categories are in mathematics what analytic predicates were for Kant, while sets are in mathematics what synthetic predicates were for Kant. Syntax is necessary everywhere where we are dealing with composites of distinct things, synergy, synthetic, synapse, syndicate, syntactic, they have one thing in common in addition to their morphology and etymology itself reveals it so we don't even need to theorise about it. Things are coming together without being already the same every time it starts with "syn".
@@julianfloa Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, Functors or dual basis. Riemann geometry is actually dual so curvature or gravitation is dual as there is a dual basis hiding in Riemann geometry, upper indices are dual to lower indices -- Tensors. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration - Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality. My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality. Time is dual. Likewise space must be dual:- Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry or space duality. Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points where the points are the boundaries in topology (homology) -- space duality. All lines or distances are non null homotopic -- space duality. Space duality is dual to time duality -- duality within duality or hyperduality. Thesis (the future) is dual to anti-thesis (the past) creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis (the present) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The present is the synthesis of the past and future according to the Hegelian dialectic. Time is a dual concept and space is a dual concept -- space is dual to time -- Einstein.
@@julianfloa Energy is also dual, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy or gravitational energy is dual. Everything in physics is made out of energy or duality. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem. Hence there is a 5th law of thermodynamics as duality (energy) is being conserved -- Generalized Duality. Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual. If forces are dual then energy must be dual:- Energy = Force * distance -- simple physics. Gluons are force carriers as they attract and repel quarks. The proton would collapse in on itself if there was no repulsion between quarks likewise two quarks attract each other via gluons otherwise the proton would not be stable. Gluons or force carriers are dual. Energy is duality, duality is energy!
No, "collapse" does not correspond to any sort of physical process. The wave function doesn't even actually exist in physical space. It really exists in a "space of possible measurement outcomes. People get confused about this because so often the example that is considered is the POSITION measurement of a single particle. That space of possible results is a three-dimensional space of, well, POSITIONS, so it's easy to squint and let yourself think you're talking about physical space, but you actually are not. And in more complicated situations the space may not even be three-dimensional, so it's CERTAINLY not physical space. Quantum theory is not a theory about "what happens in the world" the way classical physics is. Quantum theory is about WHAT WE EXPECT THE RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS TO BE. Therefore, you can't even get rolling until you specify what it is you're going to measure and how you're going to measure it. And when the pre-measurement quantum state becomes the post-measurement quantum state, there is no "physical" that steers that process. It's just an action we take as part of the problem solving procedure. We LOOK AT THE MEASUREMENT RESULT, determine the eigenstate of the measurement operator that corresponds to that result, and MANUALLY shove it in, as a step in our problem solving process. It's not physics at all. Just to be clear, I don't mean for the above to contradict anything in this video. I agree with these guys by and large. All I mean is that collapse isn't something that happens physically IN THE CONTEXT OF MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I don't mean to say it doesn't represent anything at all happening. Just nothing that we can capture in our physical models. My argument DOES address Penrose's objections to quantum theory. It does indeed leave out an explanation of what collapse is. But that's just because collapse has to do with stuff that's not included in the physical model at all - our minds, consciousness, and so on. There's no way it can be explained within the confines of ordinary physics.
'Not about "what happens in the world"' except it can give the answers which are applicable (and useful) in macroscopic world - our everyday life. Chemistry, metallurgy, electronics - nowadays these are based on specific solutions of the Schrodinger's equation. I think we have similar intuition: QM is about outcomes of measurements, not about the reality itself. You can reverse-engineer a structure of a car by using photons or electrons (microscopy) to see all details, but if you could only crash two cars and measure distribution of remains, what could you learn about mechanics? But perhaps the collapse of WF is corresponding to the process of interaction between quantum fields, which is the same as the process of quantum measurement (we have to let something observable to interact with the quantum entity we want to get the eigenstate of)?
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 What I meant by that is that classical physics gives you a complete picture of the evolution of "the world" (or the part of it you're studying, at least). For example, if a golf ball is whizzing by, we can measure it's position and velocity at one instant and then calculate a complete trrajectory. We get a much bigger picture than just the result of the measurement. Quantum theory doesn't do that - we get the measurement result, and that is all. Of course, the theory gives us a full picture of the evolution of the wave function, in periods we are not measuring, but we can't really observe the wave function so that's not the same thing at all. So, we can measure a particle at time A and learn something about it, and measure again at time B and learn something about it, but we don't get any info on observable properties in between those two times.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 Waves are not converted to particles by diodes. That's nonsense. Current waveforms simply have their negative going excursions suppressed. What's left is still a waveform - just a different one. That's if the diode is ideal, of course - a real diode only "approaches" such behavior. I think you're just throwing around words that you t hink sound profound. Trying to sound like you know more than you do.
Disaggree with BK on this : "Collapse is epistemic" may be right, but not because "superposition is epistemic". Superposition is not epistemic in a classic sense of theoretical construction, it is real, and proven by interferences between states, even for one quantum and one time. Feynmann path integrals have also been made to solve the many-path reality into one experiment. That is why, collapse can be ontologic. And when due to decoherence, it is ontologic too. Also, Parallel quantum computing is impossible if superposition is just "epistemic". Remind also than circular polarisation of light is a superposition of two electromagnetic fieds, even for only one photon.
Yes , cells have microtubules, and buildings have trusses. Do trusses confer the property of "computation" to buildings? No, right? So, why would a structural support mechanism confer cells with any "information processing" property?
Maybe because your presupposition that microtubules are just structural support is wrong. Which it is, cause microtubules are also used for transporting chemicals to different parts of the cell.
After an NDE in 2002, I have been very focused on this very subject of consciousness and as a direct result i received answers to my questions. I'd like to share something on this important question. The brain is the engine room of the physical form we occupy. The mind is in every cell and doesn't have original thought but rather operates from experience, external and internal events, what we learn, hear, taste and observe. All creative thought comes from the field beyond our physical form, what seems to be separate but through Quantum Physics we discover is a part of us. Everything IS consciousness and everything comes from consciousness. 💥
This is not an answer. You have to correctly formulate how physical laws emerges from your proposed conciousness. On the other hand, in order to say everything is conciousness, what causal relationships and symmetries and properties conciousness has, that governs its behaviour apart from randomness, needs to be defined first.
@@kriszSTNX0 ah! Kris, you're into the physical form and what we have to do. You must be living in a closet, Kris. What if everything you believe is real was actually an illusion? Take Time and Soace. Do you think Time and Space is real? Einstein's theory of SpaceTime is beautiful, GPS and everything else is based on it. But the very mathematics that proves his theory also shows its limits. Time ceases to have any meaning at 10 - 43 seconds and Space at 10 - 33 cm. In other words we have discovered that Time is a single moment NOW and Space/Distance is a single location HERE. Time is not linear and Space isn't real, both are an illusion. So Kris you'll have to rethink your THINKING. You believe reality is the physical universe but you are not who you believe you are. "Time" to wake up. ❤️
Wow! The concept of conciousness being a postulate, or an axiom is something incredible. Never explicitly stated, but this implys that the "universe" is "conscious, and quantum physics reflects the "free will" of the universe in the collapse of the wave function. I'm with Penrose on this being metaphysics, and creating more questions than it answers. Indeed, how can conciousness be seperated from a mind?
This isn't a new finding...the yogic science's are way beyond these guys.. journey onwards and outwards and escape the imaginary finite world of the mind and experience the infinite truth of of reality of what we truly are.
Dont say wow and get overexited by simple stuff my friend, what will you do when you understand that you are me, and that this comment you are reading right now is written by yourself?
My reasoning and intuition tells me consciousness must be fundamental. I have listened to Hoffman and Kastrup extensively and they have convinced me. (I am just now starting to listen to Faggin more) Still fully absorbing it, yet I'm sure they are on the right path. It only makes sense to me that we are immortal beings of consciousness as opposed to just material. It seems very obvious to me that we are part of one consciousness. It's obvious because where do we come from if not consciousness itself. This is an experience the consciousness is having through us! that seems obvious to me. Yes we are dissociative now, but not after death. What is mental cannot be lost as it;s connected to the interweb of consiciousness. I did magic mushrooms once, phillosopher stones... i swear to god i heard voices in the universe. I felt a sensation that hte universe was conscious. It's exactly as they're describing that everything mental is all around us.
I'm wondering how exactly are we the same (one) consciousness. It's impossible we do experiencing simultaneously since now I don't have yours experience. Do you live your live from second person (my) perspective? Or are we manifested sequentially and after my death I eventually become you. Other idea is we can live in sequential game. Once you fall asleep all other players take their turns
@@herzhory you can image this like that - every brain just probing a small portion of 'whole' consciouses. Becose it can be like fractal it work, at the same time for everyone.
@@herzhory To wrap your head around this concept picture our individual minds as a subset of whole consciousness. This subset is defined via the boundaries instilled through our ego. Our ego is a kind of illusion that makes our current conscious experience "feel" distinct, unique and "ours". You can see the boundaries of our ego as something that blocks the view beyond and into the collective consciousness thus preventing us from realizing the interconnectedness of all consciousness. By blocking this view, we are in a way blind and metaphorically amnesiac; as a result we must indulge in deep introspection of our own minds to realize this Truth. Understanding this also makes it easier to understand why people who undergo a psychedelic experience report attaining this intuitive Truth: that we are all oneness and united under some unifying substrate (spoiler: the substrate is consciousness). This intuitive Truth is a product of the psychedelic sub-experience, Ego Death, such that by having your ego dissolve into nothingness you can see beyond the once in-place barriers and realize this Truth via pure subjective experience.
Incredible discussion. I’m grad degree in philosophy 1979, and I’m usually with Bernardo, especially since he encompasses Schopenhauer, in my experience.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 All of which is empiricism, and has nothing to do with ontology, which is the issue at hand. In my experience many do not understand ontology. Syntax, information, mathematics, semantics, etc., do not deal with ontology. They describe qualities, quantities, appearance, behaviors, relationships.
I loverd this. It is just so beautiful how well this went. Intelegent, polite, respectful. An absolute honor to get to see these people interact so effectively.
Faggin has my vote. Penrose is still essentially a materialist. And Kastrup has the most compelling Direct Path notion as he just follows 'Nature' ... and knows that he is doing it. Love that!!!
Faggin is opening up for debate an area that deserves serious academic study. Start with the postulate, forget the spiritual and religious connotations as that’s what seems to push people away (sadly). Just take it as a possible reality and create some experiment and theory to consider it a serious possibility. Science was never broken to push it into new eras without going against the commonly held beliefs of the day.
Penrose is definitely not a materialist, I don't think he thinks that mathematics is fundamental to all of reality, he just hasn't reconciled the dualism between math and consciousness and assumes that it can be done in a way that equals them out with a third understanding as opposed to positing that mathematics cannot exist without consciousness. The way I see it, in order to count something you must have a single perception that contains evidently differentiatable objects, but to perceive the coherent differentiation is to bely the a-priori perception that gave rise to the items. In that sense I am on Kastrup's side: everybody only has ever known oneness, inside of which everythingness exists. It reminds me of Lao Tzu: "From the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, from the three comes the ten thousand things." In other words, being=the field of consciousness (one) divides reality into polarities (two), but the two ends of the polarities still imply the existence of the original conscious perception, which, being not limited to having to perceive polarity in order to exist is thus separate from the pole as the watcher (which implies three: the two ends of the pole + the awareness), upon which all individual objects of cognition (including tokens/symbols) arise epiphenomenonally (the ten thousand things). But none of it could conceivably exist without the single field of consciousness. It's all so intuitive and obvious (and I don't mean that patronizingly); people just aren't comfortable with the pan-psychism implicit in idealism because they are racist against rocks and minerals (that's a joke) and obviously humans are naturally anthropocentric. Side note: undifferentiated beingness without even QUALIA can be experienced, paradoxically, on high doses of psychedelics. 5-MEO dmt is quite good at reliably doing this if you can let go of egomind and pop through the vortex. Anyone who has experienced this will know exactly what I'm talking about, and anyone who hasn't naturally won't believe it's possible, just like a person blind since birth wouldn't believe color is possible (and even if they did conceptually, it would not replace the actual experience). In closing, Krishnamurti: "The description is not the described."
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@IntuitArt-rb4br Perhap not materialist so much as metaphysical realist i.e. there’s a real, mind-independent state of affairs that science ought to disclose, not contingent upon the observer.
Note that Roger keeps his language very concrete, while the others throw around philosophical lingo private to their in-group. Even if you're unfamiliar with the topic (math, physics), that should be a clue as to which side here is more pragmatic.
Any intelligent person understands that religion, science, philosophy, and math have their own language and can speak through that domain. . . A cat can't bark like a dog when wanting food.
This is the type of conversation I'm looking for. As an unimportant curious low frequency human person.. thank you so much for making this possible. Subscribed.
20:20 it seems that sir Roger has not yet noticed the moment before cognition occurs. There is the _expanse_ of the unknown and then a "collapse" into a known. This transition does not happen materially, but it most certainly happens phenomenologically, and this is what is captured by QM.
I generally agree strongly with most of what Penrose says, but there is one point on which we take very different views. He said consciousness must have causal power since otherwise it would not have evolved. It would take me far too long to justify this here, but I am all but convinced that consciousness has virtually nothing to do with evolution. I believe that there really is no caudal power behind the observer, it is purely a passive awareness of things which are happening and which the perceiver cannot influence. I believe that occurrence and experience are two faces of a coin, they "arise mutually" so to speak. Lifeforms evolve intelligence and cognition for obvious reasons but the associated conscious experience is purely inadvertent. Simply everything which happens has an associated perception of it having happened. The human brain is just one of those things which happen, but happens to be very complex, taking in information from a large volume and combining it, contrasting, comparing, storing and replaying. All this gives rise to a rich conscious experience. But crucially, the brain does not generate awareness, rather the awareness was already there, the brain simply produces the objects of awareness.
My problem with Roger Penrose point of view is this: if its true: A) that consciousness can't be explain by a matematicaly computable formal way (with the invocation of the Godel's incompleteness theorem) B) the collapse of the wave function indicates that the QM theory is not complete (or correct in his own words). Then if we reach a point in the future that QM in complete (something that Penrose says it needs to be done) and its able to mathematically and formally explain the collapse of the wave function then it can't explain consciousness because that can't be explain formaly (and we're back to Godel incompleteness theorem).
So in my view if consciousness is not an emerging property of the formal laws of physics then it really needs to be fundamental and for that the explanation presented by Faggin makes more sense.
@@danielm978 Penrose seems too sure everything can be measured as if he thinks the world is just how it looks at face value, i expected more from him.. If this isnt a computer simulation and is truly analog reality then surely analog cannot always be reduced to a digital scale no? Like when people say something is physically impossible they are the science version of a religious nut because science must change to accept reality, reality doesnt have "laws" humanity has just lost its way and transformed a system of studying our environment into a belief system.. Teaching kids theories are facts to keep them dumb.. Since the 50s nobody will be allowed to accidentally advance research that may affect Fission based weapons, its been made sure of by totally changing how mainstream science sees itself and ensuring anyone who questions the status quo never becomes an expert and challenges the system.. History science medicine/drugs news it is all being controlled or discoveries covered up to ensure nato and the current global trade economy stays intact because it started for peace but now its just too inconvenient for the richest 1% to allow those old agreements to fail regardless of what the people want, anyone you are allowed to vote for is part of the magic show, whichever card you pick the result will always be the same. Its the illusion of choice to keep the majority docile, if people think they have some sort of control they are much less likely to try take back power for themselves in a more difficult manner as they believe in the system changing if they ask nicely which weakens and divides the masses.. Lots needs to change we are living in a system designed by dead people who never passed on the secret to the plan so its on autopilot now and being used to ensure the richest stay rich free of risk while making us all victims of data harvesting and surveillance.. We have much to fix the kids who arent old enough to remember before 2000 sadly dont realise whats happened. The frogs nearly boiled hopefully we free human progress from this corruption before its too late.. ✌❤️
thers a 3h eric weinstein vid very recently who sums it all up very well he knows the score.. Apart from science becoming a new form of religion historical sites like gobekli tepe been buried, grand canyon cave city was all concreted and barred shut with armed guards for 'peoples safety' too! but rock climbing sky diving cave exploring all legal, thers so much blatant interference. We the people deserve truth regardless of the effect on religions or alliances or rich institutions based on lies or mistaken history, those things are so much less important than truth. These things buried and lost from living memory is just unacceptable in my opinion.. The truth fragments still remain but ai will probably change that eventually i guess.. Stay free✌❤️
@@matthewmorrison9255and its not about beliefs , its about factual reality , thats why science is a thing , people question everything , all the time , and challenge their latest information , thats the reason we have the technologies we have , cuz we never stop at one single theory , we would go instinct if we just stopped at one theory of everything
What a beautiful dialogue among brilliant minds on a very interesting while profound subject... Thanks for this open discussion and thoughts provoking insights. Kudos from Japan ❤
37:45 Who said conscious needs to be useful? Consciousness just is! I thought free will had been disproved anyway! Experiment proved the brain decides before the awareness of the decision.
Just because brain has faster dedection of potential doesn't mean we should wipe the free will at the end we are deciding which decision gonna be approved or canceled
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data). Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory. Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality! Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes. Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes. AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals. Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Sir Roger is clearly brilliant when it comes to the physics of the 'headset' (to use Don Hoffman's term) but, also clearly, he will never get beyond the physicalist ontology.
I'm also a light-weight, and I agree that the wording of his idea is contestable. However, some conversations can't continue unless all parties are agreed upon some kind of perspective. It's like finding shapes in the clouds. *That cloud looks like a horse! 🐴 **I don't see a horse, all I see is a coalescence of dihydrogen monoxide particulates drifting aimlessly in the upper atmosphere. ☁️ *...Do you know what a horse looks like? **Yes. *Well doesn't that cloud look like a horse mid run? **...Yeah, I can see what you're saying. BUT IT'S NOT a horse. Do you see the horse or not? If you can't see the horse then you have no imagination, and if you have no imagination, then I can understand why you believe there's no free will.
The discussion is awesome and although there are different views they smile and are very polite. The bright analytical intellect, how Bernardo summarizes, is unparalleled and gives goosebumps. But there is always confusion between participants , also in many other discussions, how consciousness is defined. Some understand it as mind others as absolute consciousness. Nisargadatta brings in here awareness as the primordial which is the matrix of every experience. May I share: Nisargadatta Maharaj: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness? Nisargadatta: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy….., Sorry for the excursion. Best regards from Vienna 🤗
Thankyou for the excursion. Valuable. I appreciate your clarity on the usage of "consciousness" and "awareness". Many Teachers use these different terms . .. differently.. But when the student is earnest and sincere, he "gets it" clearly. . ...
Simply a superb educational video. Superstars. We are privileged to have this for free. I am with the group here on the uniqueness of consciousness. And that AI is not conscious and not intelligent. And that we are conscious and have free will. It is reassuring.
It sounds to me like the term "consciousness" was in a superposition of different meanings this entire conversation, and noone thought to turn the conversation into an observer that would collapse it into a single definition ;).
If we would have at least a reliable model to study those things/stuff associated with consciousness 😞 Perhaps we should start with a definition of qualia 🤔
22:01 It's evolving according to that theory. We don't yet have, which is the more complete theory27:34 make a difference and a feather would drop more slowly but if you had no air resistance they would fall complete together. 27:40 So as they fall, there is no effect, you effectively canceled out gravity. 27:45 So gravity is the one force if you can call it a force, which I'm a little bit dubious about. 27:50 It’s the one feature of physics which you can cancel by free fall, 27:57 and that feature is incompatible with the principle of superposition. 28:03 And you can make a little argument to show that they're inconsistent with each other and to make them consistent with each other, 28:10 you have to introduce this collapse of the wave function. It also gives you a measure of how much 28:16 when you expect the collapse to take place.34:52 I think it could be. I mean, if we understand, well we need to understand the physics better, 34:59 I would regard that as a small step. We don't have the theory yet, but I would think within the next 50 years we will have such a thing. 35:07 I think that tells us we will understand consciousness in that time and it's a much more sophisticated concept. 35:15 But what I am saying is the other way around, whatever consciousness is, it's something which depends on that phenomenon. 35:23 So we're not going to have a physical understanding of what things in the universe are conscious. 35:31 I mean even things like see you had mentioned Stuart Hameroff earlier, I think I mentioned him, but anyway 35:37 the connection with the microtubules was something I learned from him and his job is
I watched the program with great interest. I'm not a physicist and I'm far from understanding quantum physics, function collapsing, etc., but I notice that there are three people directly in the room, and the fourth one participates in the discussion, using an internet connection and a laptop, on equal rights, although he is far from the others. It tells me that everyone is equally consciously involved in the discussion, and to me that means that consciousness is something beyond this world of matter and biological life, that it is something that is a property of spirit. And here on earth it only expands his knowledge of feelings through the experiences of earthly life. So far, physics has no instruments to study the spiritual world, and therefore consciousness in this area.
To have Sir Roger Penrose, Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup in one meeting to share their views on consciousness and reality is something we will be ever so grateful for! Hans, you have navigated the map and territory so skillfully and respectfully. Deepest thanks for making this happen.
How many phat of the land are there behaving like pharaohs, quite a few? Science appears to have pharmed babies for exploitation by the many and whilst brazenly formulating the cerebrally narcissist streak to not believe it embarrassing?
Got to wonder on these people who consider themselves sweets stolen from babies; it looks very ‘dancer in the dark’ meets ‘walk the line’.
Mathematics is relation, yes?
And the collapse of the wave function is all relation, yes?
@@dltooleyyeah, relation is tech head and autism, tells her parents what you mean when they get it wrong. She can watch the Eminem voiceover of finding Alaska via children’s internet cartoon for 3 hours straight withought getting a headache though. I did say she’s a lot like my mother.
My mother however, gets annoyed if I read the film sub content like a mind map, if she can’t see it. Since our mind maps aren’t the same, she feels like she should be able to view everything my mind views, even though I can’t see what she views. The youths mind appears to be of similar lines, but the parents are putting words in her mouth to give away information about ‘an enemies situational disadvantages via popular choice of dissociation, except by less wealthy, less famous twin(s)’; ie: a flat or a room in someone else’s house, not a house or a large house itself, a supermarket or factory assembly line, not a large salary on the mintel demographic pyramid, put simply.’
It’s funny how that light on the tv on the right, looks like the photographs of the boy from the sixth sense, with a ghost or spiritual presence in every picture. Although it doesn’t feature the mind to mind communication experiments logos featured by some RUclips scientific research practitioners, since it isn’t a paid role.
Collapse caused by limit of spiritual traffic to mind can’t be measured via one to one contact by reality, because invisible psychological traffic isn’t a quantifiable anomaly which is easily measured, defined & categorised by conscious countability and support. Since hostility doesn’t appear something which anybody wants to be honest about and cultural purity isn’t a scientific question.
However, having to talk about oneself in the third person, due to popular mass hostility, is I’d say a real sign of an amount of psychological aggravate motivated by self-entitlement and assumed superior status with the intent of deliberated damage.
Thus said, although damaged, there appears to be no visible chain of psychologies…I guess such phenomena is deemed fixable via the Rossman fold narrative…although somebody would have to relinquish control over an army of memed psychologies used as a weapon of abuse & oppression? There’s no mention of such persons, processes & motives?
Looks like they want to say GOD is manipulating particles but they have not enough humility to do so and not enough humility to take Bible to their hands and put quantum mechanics in the corner..
"No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (Lord Jesus Christ)
I’ve come to expect a lot from Essentia, but can’t say I expected THIS. Hats off to Bernardo and his team, they continue to raise the bar for interviews on the frontier of physics and philosophy and it’s a privilege and a pleasure to watch it unfold!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
But don't you find it annoying when uploaders ask you to give a thumbs-up _before_ you see the video? How about giving hotels 5 Stars the week before you stay there, right?
@@hyperduality2838 Cobblers!
We love you SO dearly Roger. Thanks for staying engaged in this work and thanks for your theory. Watching a session or seminar with you is like opening a bottle of the finest wine, a delirious pleasure for the intellect.
@9:49 Penrose explains the most profound aspect of Godel's Theorem: That moment when you work through the proof yourself, and suddenly understand WHY Godel's Theorem must be true, you are experiencing a thought process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
Which is like the unconscious mind. We compute a flying ball hit by someone to us into lef t field with such precision with practice or hit moguls with precision coming down a snow-covered hill at 40mphs. The computational skills it takes to do these things in real time are cazy. I think the brain does have a quantum computational process to it.
What about beings without brains? How do they react quickly to their environment without a biological quantum computer? I'm not convinced the brain is quantum as you say (aside from the universal quantum laws it follows). Because if a quantum brain is the reason we can react with such speed and precision in real time, you'd have to find a reason for life forms being able to live and react without brains.@@esad-ij5ie
but that is not true. The goedel theorem is proved in such a way that a computer algorithm can prove it and thus also internalise and understand it. There is nothing i the proof that requires you to represent non-representable truths.
@@matswessling6600 A computer algorithm "understands" nothing. It can manipulate arbitrary symbols, but it takes human insight to recognize what makes those symbols meaningful.
@@QuicksilverSG "insight" isnt myserious, is just that the brain created shortcuts in the associations for that subject. The mind doesnt do what you think it does. The mind is no computer. the brain is in a way a sort of computer, but the mind isnt, its more like running software. our minds are not a "complete formal system" and thus is not needed to follow Gödels theorem.
The moderation at 16:35 or so blew my mind. What a thoughtful moderator to reframe the subject perfectly while two juggernauts have just laid out huge theories and allow them to move forward in a direction that is fruitful.
Yes, he did an amazing job. Often politely reframing a slightly missed question here and there. He carried on a beautiful conversation. This was a very special video, glad it's been recorded.
Only sir Penrose having subtitles is straight from the Monty Python sketch😂
😂😂😂
That's so true / funny / absurd
∆ love it.
Sir Roger Penrose is 93 and only I can say Wow What a mind! He is already a legend
hawkings and penrose books are awesome
He is so clear even at this age!
A word treasure.
I disagree. He seems pretty ignorant to me.
@@MostConscious let me know when you win a Nobel Prize
What an incredible discussion. I’ll never be able to see the world, life, my own mind the same after watching this. My late fiancé and I had these talks for years by e-mail before we met in person. He’d love this.
@@jenmdawg That's amazing! It's life changing 🙂
@@jenmdawg strange. I didn't think much of it. Everyone was tiptoeing around Sir Roger not wanting to offend his British sensibilities by suggesting the Hindus had figured out better than Einstein.
@@ChaLy-r4dDid they? really? Educate me 😅!
@@ChaLy-r4dyou don't know your history either.
@@ChaLy-r4d Exactly! He is stuck in the view that the world is real and Donald Hoffman and the Hindus can tell us it isn't. It's maya. But very impressiv for a man this old!
I’ve had a collapse of my brain function
I'm about to have one trying to hear what he's saying😆
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂
I am so grateful for the opportunity to see and hear these very interesting and knowledgeable guys speak. This is groundbreaking new media that is allowing us to understand the best minds and their specialisms.
❤❤❤
What a blessing to watch these three exceptional scientists having this wonderful conversation!Thank you for sharing!
Bernardo has the most open mind.
He is at the forefront for me, he has so much respect for everyone but more importantly he knows his experiences are coming from somewhere else.
... ya, from supermarket...
Great work, excellent moderation and vibe, sir
🙌
Wow! Thank you so much!
This is the first video ive seem by you. I LOVE this format, where you slice up the conversation and provide context. This makes these topics so much more digestible. Thank you and keep it up!
Experiments favorable is supportive. Penrose is a skeptical and thorough scientist. A Giant
Like is dumb diminishing experiments, EXPERIENCE.
Such a non egoistic conversation. This is how conversations should go.
What a pleasure. Thank you all so much.
I am happy to follow Roger Penrose since Convey's book for high school that dedlscribed his tiles in one chapter. Then in early 90s I have read the emerors mind and was totally fascinated by the ideas. Last time I have seen Roger was in Fairbanks Alaska when he visited UAF. I was shocked by the huge crowd of Alaskans tried to fit into the auditorium where Sir Roger used simple hand written slides and talked about physics. I don't know a deeper thinker currently alive than Sir Roger. Thank you for bringing this conversation online.
That was incredible and almost surreal, I think if Penrose were a peer of Kastrup, Hoffman et al he would be in total agreement, but he provides the wall so to speak that new theories must vault over.
Subscribed. Thank you! The Bernardo-Federico duo is awesome!
Wow, so good - Sir Roger Penrose - I dearly wish that minds and personhoods like his could go on forever. 🍂🍃🌈
Perhaps they do...
@@Franciscasieri Federico Faggini would agree :)
What a wonderful constructive argument - and a very thoughtful moderation ! Was a joy and pleasure to follow a very mind heavy topic!❤
What a huge privilege to be "a fly on the wall" while this amazing discussion, between these extraordinary humans, takes place. Deep thanks!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
You neglect narrator Point of View, Tense and the Active Voice. Consider this claim: Reality is arguably an Eternal Now, for it can only be verified in Nature when it is observable, ie. when it exists. You cannot observe the Future from this analog, and the Past is a matter of remove from the observer, its witness.
I am only 45 minutes into this conversation, but the phenomenon of personalities dancing around each other trying not to offend the others is very palpable. It's as if Gaggin, Kastrup and the moderator have agreed upon a very tentative conversational strategy up front. And Penrose is simply not biting and not sufficiently enticed to reason outside of his materialist world view. Having said this, it"s easy for me to say, obviously, and I respect the effort.
😂😂 Wow! This sounds like a typical sample of my inner dialogue as i watch such presentations.
True
Yes, it's fascinating to watch and also a little painful, as one witnesses the challenge of opening an old mind to a new idea, and one knows of course that we all have the same problem as Sir Roger.
@@Seeker2043 I ❤ you.
Yes, nice…Penrose is a materialist. He refers to two realities, one quantum, the other classical…No, Classical is the reality decided by the quantum world, which is not a reality but an infinite collection of possibilities put to consciousness.
Go to 56:02. Penrose says that the qualia of another’s conscious experience is something that simply can’t be known. He also says that quantum reality can only be confirmed, not ascertained. Perhaps these have some connection.
You can put thought into speech acts encoded into codified text, ie. a book. Doesn't mean the book is conscious.
Very grateful ! It was indeed a privilege to have access to such a brilliant discussion from the comfort of my bed, in the middle of the night. Simply sublime.
Thanks for sharing this magnificent talk !! Sir Roger Penros is an amazing scientist to listen to. I admire his intellectual humility and compassion. Consciousness is fundamental posing serious challenge to scientific materialism.
There cant be a better discussion and the team of debate than these 3 people
Add Don Hoffman, and I would agree.
Correct 👍🏼
After having a few LSD trips, anyone can become a real expert.
Just take a look at Kastrup, he used to be just a high level engineer, but now he is an expert on combining words and sentences that collectively create an illusion of knowledge.
@@ezbody Oh my! Is that why Penrose is holding his forehead?🤣
Add Alan Watts, and I would agree. Oh wait.
Sorry I’m a realist. Anytime someone mention qualia and how it’s something self evident - the same as considering consciousness and free will as postulates - I’m immediately let down by anyone proposing this.
Saying that something unexplainable (consciousness and free will) explains another unexplainable thing (quantum mechanics) is like giving up on both.
It is truly amazing how smart Bernardo is and how humble.
Language is symbolic so it’s use to precisely describe reality inevitably bifurcates the one reality into subject and object. I see Penrose using very precise descriptions so it’s no surprise he bifurcates reality into quantum (subjective) and classical (objective). Although, Faggin and Kastrup clearly appreciate and can articulate the dichotomy or duality of explicit reality, they also exquisitely and somewhat poetically gesture towards wholeness by describing implicit reality as a universal field of consciousness or subjectivity (Kastrup’s terminology).
Penrose’s explanation of the inevitability of wave-function collapse without conscious intervention doesn’t deny the catalytic power of agent-directed consciousness (attention and intention, free will) to speed up the process. Doesn’t our modern world exemplify the power of human consciousness to profoundly and exponentially reshape reality?
I appreciate the nuanced discussion around free will and acknowledge the difference between deterministic, self-identified agency and agent-directed attention (reflective consciousness) in creatively participating in manifesting the world or explicit reality.
The more humans consciously cultivate and recursively integrate the dual aspects of attention (right-brain openness and left brain closure) the more coherent will be the relations between inner and outer reality, between subject and object, between us and them, between me and you.
What a lovely discussion. A great example of the power of internet-mediated free speech, and well-moderated mutually respectful dialogue. Thank you for bringing it to us.
Let’s add the physics Tom Campbell with his MBT theory of everything in this discussion. Thank you great discussion 🙏🏽
I've been waiting years for these kinds of conversations. Thank you so much.
13:40 The collapse is the _expression_ of a field that has consciousness and free will. Brilliant. The consciousness is the field part, and the observation/measurement is the free will part.
Collapse = Rectification.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838you definitely live up to your username 😂
Free will? How?
@@scriabinismydog2439 Free will is a postulate here of an ontological primitive. So there is no "how". But it has the sense and benefit of being directly validated in each person's own experience. You experience it right at this moment, for example.
@@hyperduality2838 Interesting, thank you. It seems that the primal duality is found in the Heart Sutra.
I'm so grateful for the opportunity to see these greats all at the same time.
I am deeply appreciative of this gathering and discussion. Yet, with that said, I cannot help but to consider that it remains beyond tragic that the West, by and far, continues to act as though the East has no history of deeply examining both consciousness and free will, as if their history doesn't have a great deal of value to add to the West's conception and understanding of these subjects that can provide for a more robust understanding of ultimate reality. Though, thankfully, there is a generation of thinkers like Kastrup, Vervaeke, Sheldrake, and the like, who are breaking new ground in challenging the West's present cul-de-sac of thinking, which appears to be showing gtrat signs for the future.
Amen!
What an episode!!! Even though it is 131mins it took me nearly 2 hours to finish it. Thank you...
Consciousness remains a mystery. Conversation about it remains conversation.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Nope
I mostly agree, except for the mystery. It is just simpler than they can admit.
perfectly said. in a thousand years we will be no less closer to "solving the problem of consciousness". our tech will be way cooler though.
Actually, consciousness is the one thing that isn't a mystery. Everything else is a mystery, because consciousness is the only thing that has ever been experienced. There is no hard problem of consciousness. There is only a hard problem of matter.
What a gem of an interview, one for the history books for sure. Thank you all very much!
I don't understand the argument that free will exists, in fact I've never heard a logical argument that it exists so I'm surprised to hear it stated as an axiom in this discussion.
The consciousness discussion is fascinating although I'm persuaded by the possibility that we will never understand consciousness as it's not possible to study it objectively.
We may have to embrace uncertainty.
So you appeal to mystery? Like religious people do with free will.
You don't to search for a logical/physucal argument tha ' that free will exist' so for consciousness...these exist! It is evudent by itself, that what Federico Faggin says
Sometimes you just have to go trough the other way around: if free will doesn’t exists, everything could be, some how, calculated (or computed)
@@luizadolphs6084 or a combination of prior causes and randomness.
Guess you didn't have choice to write this. 😢
I see some analogous to what Donald Hoffman proposes and what Faggin is claiming. Would be interesting to see them talk about their theories.
Awesome channel! Top Quality guests! I sure hope dear Roger is around for a lot longer. What a joy to listen to him speak, whether you agree with him or not.
Have u noticed the vintage 8bit era computers at the back ? One is the little known casio fx 9000p from 1981 with a z80 cpu. What is the other to its left ?
That was absolutely wonderful! What an incredible conversation, thank you :)
One thing scientists (which also I am) should use from eastern mystics is that the core consciousness is “the witness” the one “who is there”. If you remove all senses, memory or even thoughts, will there be somebody ? Yes, that is consciousness
There was a Brian greene documentary exploring this idea. And also explore the fractal nature of consciousness within biological beings. That consciousness is inherent in the universe.
@@kronoscamron7412
Then what causes psychopathic abominable crimes? Is that the universe itself acting up? 😅
@@Megozkarub what if the deep meditative state enables the experience of the most basic level of awareness as the ability of the brain to be aware of its own existence and not some deeper reality?
Which of course doesn't exclude the possibility of such...
@@Littleprinceleonit can be even if very few can attain a level of meditation that opens the door to such possibilities. The main intention of my statement is to point to the hardship of defining consciousness, even the hard problem of concentration doesnt do the job. People still talk about “things” like color, smell etc but not the awareness which is witnessing it.
Yes and I think what hints at this is: how are we all conscious of the same things? If there was a red coat left on a table a monitor would pick up the red coat and report it found and the person who thought they lost it would show up. That shows that something beyond physical, in the human mind, identifies the red coat. Many human minds are detecting the red coat. So that’s maybe not seeing things as they really are, but it points to a universal consciousness that perceives the same thing. It may not be reality but it hints that we all are together and can witness reality together too because perhaps we are all the Mind of God perceiving Itself as we look to this Egotistic, One Ego & Mind.
I really like the mixture of high level thinkers addressing cutting edge ideas. THANK YOU!! I hope to see more content like this
Forget consciousness, I find it complicated in just trying to explain how is it that a flower is beautiful. However much I try I cannot give a complete description of what is it that makes a flower beautiful? Any amount of description remains insufficient and incomplete.
Finding something beautiful is an aspect of consciousness.
Thanks for great discussion. I am voting for Federico on this one
Fabulous conversation and people here! I don’t understand if Penrose is deliberately not entertaining the idea of consciousness as a fundamental concept in the fabric of reality. Gaggin and Kastrup are being crystal clear about their counter proposal. Quantum physical observations appear the way they do as a result of our conscious mind and its properties. Penrose, brilliant though he is, keeps going around it.
Glad I wasn’t the only one feeling the same
At one point he said something like “philosophers and physicists care about different things”.
Inspiring, revelatory, mind-expanding. Thank you so much Hans and Essentia Foundation - your content may be changing the course of my life, and certainly my interpretation of it.
40:08 Sir Roger is still old-school and insists on the subjective-objective world. This is a philoshical view that dogs many that is caught in this presupposition. Faggin on the other hand believes that the whole of reality is subjective and merely mirrors a fundamental consciousness both individually and collectively. I side with Faggin There is a story of two monks arguing. One insists that the wind is moving the tree. The other insists that the tree is moving the wind. The master arrives and tells them:"you are both.wrong,it is your minds that.are moving" .
Penrose doesn’t like to jump to assumptions or conclusions without a compelling understanding. Thanks for keeping it real, need more philosophers and physicists like him
Absolutely great - I love that you got Roger Penrose - these ideas have to be refined and put through the philosophical and experimental rigor otherwise it’s just new age wishful thinking - I’d trust Penrose’s intuition but I also feel like I’d personally love for Bernardo’s world view to be real because it explains so many things - still wishing for something is not enough we must follow scientific principles in our metaphysics as much as is reasonably possible
You’re already experiencing the world that Bernardo speaks of my friend. And your wishful thinking is the confirmation of that, the cat is alive if you believe it to be alive.
How fascinating is this discussion?! I have no idea what any of this means, yet I am so completely transfixed I can't stop watching. 😅 I wish more teachers were this inspiring.💗📚
Everything is a claim that I am not convinced by, Penrose is the only who has the skepticism I would trust.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838I bet you have also reflected why things take on a dual structure, if so please elaborate on that topic hyperduality.
There are many types of dualities but are you aware of the duality they all pertain to, the duality of duality?
And although categories certainly are dual to sets it is not true that syntax is exclusive to the former and semantics to the latter, the most generalised syntax for instance is doubtlessly containment which pertains far more directly to sets than to categories.
Categories are in mathematics what analytic predicates were for Kant, while sets are in mathematics what synthetic predicates were for Kant. Syntax is necessary everywhere where we are dealing with composites of distinct things, synergy, synthetic, synapse, syndicate, syntactic, they have one thing in common in addition to their morphology and etymology itself reveals it so we don't even need to theorise about it. Things are coming together without being already the same every time it starts with "syn".
@@julianfloa Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Contravariant is dual to covariant -- vectors, Functors or dual basis.
Riemann geometry is actually dual so curvature or gravitation is dual as there is a dual basis hiding in Riemann geometry, upper indices are dual to lower indices -- Tensors.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration - Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
The future is dual to the past -- time duality.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality.
Time is dual.
Likewise space must be dual:-
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry or space duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points where the points are the boundaries in topology (homology) -- space duality.
All lines or distances are non null homotopic -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality -- duality within duality or hyperduality.
Thesis (the future) is dual to anti-thesis (the past) creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis (the present) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The present is the synthesis of the past and future according to the Hegelian dialectic.
Time is a dual concept and space is a dual concept -- space is dual to time -- Einstein.
@@julianfloa Energy is also dual, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy or gravitational energy is dual.
Everything in physics is made out of energy or duality.
Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.
Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.
Hence there is a 5th law of thermodynamics as duality (energy) is being conserved -- Generalized Duality.
Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force.
Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.
If forces are dual then energy must be dual:-
Energy = Force * distance -- simple physics.
Gluons are force carriers as they attract and repel quarks.
The proton would collapse in on itself if there was no repulsion between quarks likewise two quarks attract each other via gluons otherwise the proton would not be stable. Gluons or force carriers are dual.
Energy is duality, duality is energy!
Thank you EF for this discussion, kudos to Hans the moderator, great job sir !!! 🙏
No, "collapse" does not correspond to any sort of physical process. The wave function doesn't even actually exist in physical space. It really exists in a "space of possible measurement outcomes. People get confused about this because so often the example that is considered is the POSITION measurement of a single particle. That space of possible results is a three-dimensional space of, well, POSITIONS, so it's easy to squint and let yourself think you're talking about physical space, but you actually are not. And in more complicated situations the space may not even be three-dimensional, so it's CERTAINLY not physical space.
Quantum theory is not a theory about "what happens in the world" the way classical physics is. Quantum theory is about WHAT WE EXPECT THE RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS TO BE. Therefore, you can't even get rolling until you specify what it is you're going to measure and how you're going to measure it. And when the pre-measurement quantum state becomes the post-measurement quantum state, there is no "physical" that steers that process. It's just an action we take as part of the problem solving procedure. We LOOK AT THE MEASUREMENT RESULT, determine the eigenstate of the measurement operator that corresponds to that result, and MANUALLY shove it in, as a step in our problem solving process. It's not physics at all.
Just to be clear, I don't mean for the above to contradict anything in this video. I agree with these guys by and large. All I mean is that collapse isn't something that happens physically IN THE CONTEXT OF MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I don't mean to say it doesn't represent anything at all happening. Just nothing that we can capture in our physical models.
My argument DOES address Penrose's objections to quantum theory. It does indeed leave out an explanation of what collapse is. But that's just because collapse has to do with stuff that's not included in the physical model at all - our minds, consciousness, and so on. There's no way it can be explained within the confines of ordinary physics.
'Not about "what happens in the world"' except it can give the answers which are applicable (and useful) in macroscopic world - our everyday life. Chemistry, metallurgy, electronics - nowadays these are based on specific solutions of the Schrodinger's equation.
I think we have similar intuition: QM is about outcomes of measurements, not about the reality itself.
You can reverse-engineer a structure of a car by using photons or electrons (microscopy) to see all details, but if you could only crash two cars and measure distribution of remains, what could you learn about mechanics?
But perhaps the collapse of WF is corresponding to the process of interaction between quantum fields, which is the same as the process of quantum measurement (we have to let something observable to interact with the quantum entity we want to get the eigenstate of)?
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 What I meant by that is that classical physics gives you a complete picture of the evolution of "the world" (or the part of it you're studying, at least). For example, if a golf ball is whizzing by, we can measure it's position and velocity at one instant and then calculate a complete trrajectory. We get a much bigger picture than just the result of the measurement. Quantum theory doesn't do that - we get the measurement result, and that is all. Of course, the theory gives us a full picture of the evolution of the wave function, in periods we are not measuring, but we can't really observe the wave function so that's not the same thing at all.
So, we can measure a particle at time A and learn something about it, and measure again at time B and learn something about it, but we don't get any info on observable properties in between those two times.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 Waves are not converted to particles by diodes. That's nonsense. Current waveforms simply have their negative going excursions suppressed. What's left is still a waveform - just a different one. That's if the diode is ideal, of course - a real diode only "approaches" such behavior.
I think you're just throwing around words that you t hink sound profound. Trying to sound like you know more than you do.
Ah yes, the "experts" on youtube are at it again,
These are GIANTS of humanity.
And Thank You ALL in this podcast ~ I am a big fan of you all!
Disaggree with BK on this : "Collapse is epistemic" may be right, but not because "superposition is epistemic". Superposition is not epistemic in a classic sense of theoretical construction, it is real, and proven by interferences between states, even for one quantum and one time. Feynmann path integrals have also been made to solve the many-path reality into one experiment. That is why, collapse can be ontologic. And when due to decoherence, it is ontologic too. Also, Parallel quantum computing is impossible if superposition is just "epistemic". Remind also than circular polarisation of light is a superposition of two electromagnetic fieds, even for only one photon.
Thank you all for this facinating discussion. Qudoes to the moderator for his excellent guidance through the piece.
Stan Sanderson
Yes , cells have microtubules, and buildings have trusses. Do trusses confer the property of "computation" to buildings? No, right? So, why would a structural support mechanism confer cells with any "information processing"
property?
Maybe because your presupposition that microtubules are just structural support is wrong. Which it is, cause microtubules are also used for transporting chemicals to different parts of the cell.
@@МатвейМиронов-г7с Any comment about "information processing" would be helpful.
Loved it. Thank you so much. Federico's consciousness mapped to quantum field is phenomenal!
After an NDE in 2002, I have been very focused on this very subject of consciousness and as a direct result i received answers to my questions.
I'd like to share something on this important question.
The brain is the engine room of the physical form we occupy.
The mind is in every cell and doesn't have original thought but rather operates from experience, external and internal events, what we learn, hear, taste and observe.
All creative thought comes from the field beyond our physical form, what seems to be separate but through Quantum Physics we discover is a part of us.
Everything IS consciousness and everything comes from consciousness. 💥
i came to same conclusion through DMT
This is not an answer. You have to correctly formulate how physical laws emerges from your proposed conciousness.
On the other hand, in order to say everything is conciousness, what causal relationships and symmetries and properties conciousness has, that governs its behaviour apart from randomness, needs to be defined first.
@@kriszSTNX0 ah! Kris, you're into the physical form and what we have to do. You must be living in a closet, Kris.
What if everything you believe is real was actually an illusion?
Take Time and Soace. Do you think Time and Space is real?
Einstein's theory of SpaceTime is beautiful, GPS and everything else is based on it.
But the very mathematics that proves his theory also shows its limits.
Time ceases to have any meaning at 10 - 43 seconds and Space at 10 - 33 cm.
In other words we have discovered that Time is a single moment NOW and Space/Distance is a single location HERE. Time is not linear and Space isn't real, both are an illusion. So Kris you'll have to rethink your THINKING.
You believe reality is the physical universe but you are not who you believe you are. "Time" to wake up. ❤️
Oh joy! To see these three wonderful people around a table. Congratulations to Essentia for making this happen
Wow! The concept of conciousness being a postulate, or an axiom is something incredible. Never explicitly stated, but this implys that the "universe" is "conscious, and quantum physics reflects the "free will" of the universe in the collapse of the wave function. I'm with Penrose on this being metaphysics, and creating more questions than it answers. Indeed, how can conciousness be seperated from a mind?
This isn't a new finding...the yogic science's are way beyond these guys.. journey onwards and outwards and escape the imaginary finite world of the mind and experience the infinite truth of of reality of what we truly are.
Dont say wow and get overexited by simple stuff my friend, what will you do when you understand that you are me, and that this comment you are reading right now is written by yourself?
@@masticloxpoker1006 or maybe get excited and fall hopelessly in love with the wowness of everything...wahe guru 😋
@@jimseventytwo7256 I'll disprove all your conviction with a few cans of beer
Just three actual experts respecting each others different ideas. Refreshing.
My reasoning and intuition tells me consciousness must be fundamental. I have listened to Hoffman and Kastrup extensively and they have convinced me. (I am just now starting to listen to Faggin more) Still fully absorbing it, yet I'm sure they are on the right path. It only makes sense to me that we are immortal beings of consciousness as opposed to just material. It seems very obvious to me that we are part of one consciousness. It's obvious because where do we come from if not consciousness itself. This is an experience the consciousness is having through us! that seems obvious to me. Yes we are dissociative now, but not after death. What is mental cannot be lost as it;s connected to the interweb of consiciousness. I did magic mushrooms once, phillosopher stones... i swear to god i heard voices in the universe. I felt a sensation that hte universe was conscious. It's exactly as they're describing that everything mental is all around us.
Totally agree!
I'm wondering how exactly are we the same (one) consciousness. It's impossible we do experiencing simultaneously since now I don't have yours experience. Do you live your live from second person (my) perspective? Or are we manifested sequentially and after my death I eventually become you. Other idea is we can live in sequential game. Once you fall asleep all other players take their turns
@@herzhory you can image this like that - every brain just probing a small portion of 'whole' consciouses. Becose it can be like fractal it work, at the same time for everyone.
Weird I have been getting the same exact intuition
@@herzhory To wrap your head around this concept picture our individual minds as a subset of whole consciousness. This subset is defined via the boundaries instilled through our ego. Our ego is a kind of illusion that makes our current conscious experience "feel" distinct, unique and "ours". You can see the boundaries of our ego as something that blocks the view beyond and into the collective consciousness thus preventing us from realizing the interconnectedness of all consciousness. By blocking this view, we are in a way blind and metaphorically amnesiac; as a result we must indulge in deep introspection of our own minds to realize this Truth.
Understanding this also makes it easier to understand why people who undergo a psychedelic experience report attaining this intuitive Truth: that we are all oneness and united under some unifying substrate (spoiler: the substrate is consciousness). This intuitive Truth is a product of the psychedelic sub-experience, Ego Death, such that by having your ego dissolve into nothingness you can see beyond the once in-place barriers and realize this Truth via pure subjective experience.
Penrose is a pragmatist. Pure, true, classic scientist. No dogma. Never begs the question, nor does he allow ontological arguments. Bravo.
Incredible discussion. I’m grad degree in philosophy 1979, and I’m usually with Bernardo, especially since he encompasses Schopenhauer, in my experience.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 All of which is empiricism, and has nothing to do with ontology, which is the issue at hand. In my experience many do not understand ontology. Syntax, information, mathematics, semantics, etc., do not deal with ontology. They describe qualities, quantities, appearance, behaviors, relationships.
I loverd this. It is just so beautiful how well this went. Intelegent, polite, respectful. An absolute honor to get to see these people interact so effectively.
Faggin has my vote. Penrose is still essentially a materialist. And Kastrup has the most compelling Direct Path notion as he just follows 'Nature' ... and knows that he is doing it. Love that!!!
Penrose has indicated platonic idealism multiple times - unsure where you are getting your information from
Faggin is opening up for debate an area that deserves serious academic study. Start with the postulate, forget the spiritual and religious connotations as that’s what seems to push people away (sadly). Just take it as a possible reality and create some experiment and theory to consider it a serious possibility. Science was never broken to push it into new eras without going against the commonly held beliefs of the day.
Penrose is definitely not a materialist, I don't think he thinks that mathematics is fundamental to all of reality, he just hasn't reconciled the dualism between math and consciousness and assumes that it can be done in a way that equals them out with a third understanding as opposed to positing that mathematics cannot exist without consciousness. The way I see it, in order to count something you must have a single perception that contains evidently differentiatable objects, but to perceive the coherent differentiation is to bely the a-priori perception that gave rise to the items. In that sense I am on Kastrup's side: everybody only has ever known oneness, inside of which everythingness exists. It reminds me of Lao Tzu: "From the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, from the three comes the ten thousand things." In other words, being=the field of consciousness (one) divides reality into polarities (two), but the two ends of the polarities still imply the existence of the original conscious perception, which, being not limited to having to perceive polarity in order to exist is thus separate from the pole as the watcher (which implies three: the two ends of the pole + the awareness), upon which all individual objects of cognition (including tokens/symbols) arise epiphenomenonally (the ten thousand things). But none of it could conceivably exist without the single field of consciousness. It's all so intuitive and obvious (and I don't mean that patronizingly); people just aren't comfortable with the pan-psychism implicit in idealism because they are racist against rocks and minerals (that's a joke) and obviously humans are naturally anthropocentric. Side note: undifferentiated beingness without even QUALIA can be experienced, paradoxically, on high doses of psychedelics. 5-MEO dmt is quite good at reliably doing this if you can let go of egomind and pop through the vortex. Anyone who has experienced this will know exactly what I'm talking about, and anyone who hasn't naturally won't believe it's possible, just like a person blind since birth wouldn't believe color is possible (and even if they did conceptually, it would not replace the actual experience). In closing, Krishnamurti: "The description is not the described."
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@IntuitArt-rb4br Perhap not materialist so much as metaphysical realist i.e. there’s a real, mind-independent state of affairs that science ought to disclose, not contingent upon the observer.
This was such a delightfully rich and well spoke debate. Much gratitude!
Note that Roger keeps his language very concrete, while the others throw around philosophical lingo private to their in-group. Even if you're unfamiliar with the topic (math, physics), that should be a clue as to which side here is more pragmatic.
Pragmatism isn’t under explicit or implicit discussion here.
That's because they are trying to explain something that can't be explained by materialism.
آفرین...nice point to consider
Any intelligent person understands that religion, science, philosophy, and math have their own language and can speak through that domain. . . A cat can't bark like a dog when wanting food.
@@EsdrasOlivaresPcmasterrace just because we don't have the language to explain shouldn't mean it doesn't exist.
This is the type of conversation I'm looking for. As an unimportant curious low frequency human person.. thank you so much for making this possible. Subscribed.
I would never bet against Sir Roger Penrose, that is a gut feeling not a intellectual one
Is gut feeling supposed to be good or bad?!
Thank you very much for this debate
20:20 it seems that sir Roger has not yet noticed the moment before cognition occurs. There is the _expanse_ of the unknown and then a "collapse" into a known. This transition does not happen materially, but it most certainly happens phenomenologically, and this is what is captured by QM.
Yeah you noticed and he didn't...wow Mark!!!
You solved it!!!!!
@@Franciscasieri Do you see it?
Thought-provoking discussion. Thank you.
I generally agree strongly with most of what Penrose says, but there is one point on which we take very different views. He said consciousness must have causal power since otherwise it would not have evolved. It would take me far too long to justify this here, but I am all but convinced that consciousness has virtually nothing to do with evolution. I believe that there really is no caudal power behind the observer, it is purely a passive awareness of things which are happening and which the perceiver cannot influence. I believe that occurrence and experience are two faces of a coin, they "arise mutually" so to speak. Lifeforms evolve intelligence and cognition for obvious reasons but the associated conscious experience is purely inadvertent. Simply everything which happens has an associated perception of it having happened. The human brain is just one of those things which happen, but happens to be very complex, taking in information from a large volume and combining it, contrasting, comparing, storing and replaying. All this gives rise to a rich conscious experience. But crucially, the brain does not generate awareness, rather the awareness was already there, the brain simply produces the objects of awareness.
You might like the work of the presocratic philosopher Paramandia, who famously kicked off this philosophical argument.
Great HOST! Really enjoyed the video. Host did a great good of summarizing and clarifying some comments from the panelists🌼
My problem with Roger Penrose point of view is this: if its true: A) that consciousness can't be explain by a matematicaly computable formal way (with the invocation of the Godel's incompleteness theorem) B) the collapse of the wave function indicates that the QM theory is not complete (or correct in his own words). Then if we reach a point in the future that QM in complete (something that Penrose says it needs to be done) and its able to mathematically and formally explain the collapse of the wave function then it can't explain consciousness because that can't be explain formaly (and we're back to Godel incompleteness theorem).
So in my view if consciousness is not an emerging property of the formal laws of physics then it really needs to be fundamental and for that the explanation presented by Faggin makes more sense.
Can something not be unexplainable?
@@danielm978@danielm978 yes, as Kant says, the thing in itself can't be explained or known as it's beyond the limits of our knowledge.
@@danielm978 Penrose seems too sure everything can be measured as if he thinks the world is just how it looks at face value, i expected more from him.. If this isnt a computer simulation and is truly analog reality then surely analog cannot always be reduced to a digital scale no?
Like when people say something is physically impossible they are the science version of a religious nut because science must change to accept reality, reality doesnt have "laws" humanity has just lost its way and transformed a system of studying our environment into a belief system.. Teaching kids theories are facts to keep them dumb.. Since the 50s nobody will be allowed to accidentally advance research that may affect Fission based weapons, its been made sure of by totally changing how mainstream science sees itself and ensuring anyone who questions the status quo never becomes an expert and challenges the system..
History science medicine/drugs news it is all being controlled or discoveries covered up to ensure nato and the current global trade economy stays intact because it started for peace but now its just too inconvenient for the richest 1% to allow those old agreements to fail regardless of what the people want, anyone you are allowed to vote for is part of the magic show, whichever card you pick the result will always be the same. Its the illusion of choice to keep the majority docile, if people think they have some sort of control they are much less likely to try take back power for themselves in a more difficult manner as they believe in the system changing if they ask nicely which weakens and divides the masses.. Lots needs to change we are living in a system designed by dead people who never passed on the secret to the plan so its on autopilot now and being used to ensure the richest stay rich free of risk while making us all victims of data harvesting and surveillance.. We have much to fix the kids who arent old enough to remember before 2000 sadly dont realise whats happened. The frogs nearly boiled hopefully we free human progress from this corruption before its too late.. ✌❤️
thers a 3h eric weinstein vid very recently who sums it all up very well he knows the score..
Apart from science becoming a new form of religion historical sites like gobekli tepe been buried, grand canyon cave city was all concreted and barred shut with armed guards for 'peoples safety' too! but rock climbing sky diving cave exploring all legal, thers so much blatant interference. We the people deserve truth regardless of the effect on religions or alliances or rich institutions based on lies or mistaken history, those things are so much less important than truth. These things buried and lost from living memory is just unacceptable in my opinion.. The truth fragments still remain but ai will probably change that eventually i guess.. Stay free✌❤️
Well done for arranging this interview... The guests are the heavy weights among the modern physicists....
Very clear example of primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness. Penrose is battling against reality deniers on every side.
You're a dualist?
@@OlofBerkesköld objectivist
So you’ll indefinitely update your ontological beliefs in line with the latest mathematical theory?
@@matthewmorrison9255 is that something you consider as wrong ?
@@matthewmorrison9255and its not about beliefs , its about factual reality , thats why science is a thing , people question everything , all the time , and challenge their latest information , thats the reason we have the technologies we have , cuz we never stop at one single theory , we would go instinct if we just stopped at one theory of everything
What a beautiful dialogue among brilliant minds on a very interesting while profound subject... Thanks for this open discussion and thoughts provoking insights. Kudos from Japan ❤
37:45 Who said conscious needs to be useful? Consciousness just is! I thought free will had been disproved anyway! Experiment proved the brain decides before the awareness of the decision.
Why would it be wipe the free will ?
Just because brain has faster dedection of potential doesn't mean we should wipe the free will at the end we are deciding which decision gonna be approved or canceled
Thank you very much! The best conversation on this topic of the year! Looking for more of this!
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication or information (data).
Objective information (syntax, form) is dual to subjective information (semantics, substance) -- information is dual.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Categories (syntax, form) are dual to sets (semantics, substance) -- category theory.
Probability amplitudes (waves, imaginary) are dual to probability densities (particles, real) -- the Born rule or wave/particle duality!
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
Waves are converted into particles using rectification in electronics -- diodes.
Alternating currents become direct currents via the process of rectification using diodes.
AC is dual to DC -- electromagnetic signals.
Signals are dual to noise -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics.
Your brain converts noise into signals, patterns, structure or forms -- a syntropic process, teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- information is dual.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Sir Roger is clearly brilliant when it comes to the physics of the 'headset' (to use Don Hoffman's term) but, also clearly, he will never get beyond the physicalist ontology.
I am just a light-weight, but I must protest that at 12:30 the statement asserting that “we all agree that we have free will” is contestable.
I'm also a light-weight, and I agree that the wording of his idea is contestable. However, some conversations can't continue unless all parties are agreed upon some kind of perspective.
It's like finding shapes in the clouds.
*That cloud looks like a horse! 🐴
**I don't see a horse, all I see is a coalescence of dihydrogen monoxide particulates drifting aimlessly in the upper atmosphere. ☁️
*...Do you know what a horse looks like?
**Yes.
*Well doesn't that cloud look like a horse mid run?
**...Yeah, I can see what you're saying. BUT IT'S NOT a horse.
Do you see the horse or not?
If you can't see the horse then you have no imagination, and if you have no imagination, then I can understand why you believe there's no free will.
The discussion is awesome and although there are different views they smile and are very polite. The bright analytical intellect, how Bernardo summarizes, is unparalleled and gives goosebumps. But there is always confusion between participants , also in many other discussions, how consciousness is defined. Some understand it as mind others as absolute consciousness. Nisargadatta brings in here awareness as the primordial which is the matrix of every experience. May I share:
Nisargadatta Maharaj: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.
Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness?
Nisargadatta: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy…..,
Sorry for the excursion. Best regards from Vienna 🤗
YES, Nisargadata is an important voice to consider ....read:. I AM THAT.
Thankyou for the excursion. Valuable.
I appreciate your clarity on the usage of "consciousness" and "awareness".
Many Teachers use these different terms . .. differently..
But when the student is earnest and sincere, he "gets it" clearly. . ...
Simply a superb educational video. Superstars. We are privileged to have this for free.
I am with the group here on the uniqueness of consciousness. And that AI is not conscious and not intelligent. And that we are conscious and have free will.
It is reassuring.
It sounds to me like the term "consciousness" was in a superposition of different meanings this entire conversation, and noone thought to turn the conversation into an observer that would collapse it into a single definition ;).
If we would have at least a reliable model to study those things/stuff associated with consciousness 😞
Perhaps we should start with a definition of qualia 🤔
22:01
It's evolving according to that theory. We don't yet have, which is the more complete theory27:34
make a difference and a feather would drop more slowly but if you had no air resistance they would fall complete together.
27:40
So as they fall, there is no effect, you effectively canceled out gravity.
27:45
So gravity is the one force if you can call it a force, which I'm a little bit dubious about.
27:50
It’s the one feature of physics which you can cancel by free fall,
27:57
and that feature is incompatible with the principle of superposition.
28:03
And you can make a little argument to show that they're inconsistent with each other and to make them consistent with each other,
28:10
you have to introduce this collapse of the wave function. It also gives you a measure of how much
28:16
when you expect the collapse to take place.34:52
I think it could be. I mean, if we understand, well we need to understand the physics better,
34:59
I would regard that as a small step. We don't have the theory yet, but I would think within the next 50 years we will have such a thing.
35:07
I think that tells us we will understand consciousness in that time and it's a much more sophisticated concept.
35:15
But what I am saying is the other way around, whatever consciousness is, it's something which depends on that phenomenon.
35:23
So we're not going to have a physical understanding of what things in the universe are conscious.
35:31
I mean even things like see you had mentioned Stuart Hameroff earlier, I think I mentioned him, but anyway
35:37
the connection with the microtubules was something I learned from him and his job is
Essentia has a new video. I stop everything I was doing...
No need to stop what you were doing, you would have done so either way :p
@jekonimus sorry, you forgot the r in your name after the e.
Loved the debate and the tone and respect of all participants and the great moderator. More like this please 😊.
Love sir Roger penrose but I'm with bernardo on this subject
And so what?
@@Littleprinceleon I believe its called a 'comments section'
Yes, it is a comment
@@altvibr and so what? 🤫
I watched the program with great interest. I'm not a physicist and I'm far from understanding quantum physics, function collapsing, etc., but I notice that there are three people directly in the room, and the fourth one participates in the discussion, using an internet connection and a laptop, on equal rights, although he is far from the others. It tells me that everyone is equally consciously involved in the discussion, and to me that means that consciousness is something beyond this world of matter and biological life, that it is something that is a property of spirit. And here on earth it only expands his knowledge of feelings through the experiences of earthly life. So far, physics has no instruments to study the spiritual world, and therefore consciousness in this area.
Incredible conversation Gentlemen.
Wonderful conversation. Thank you.
Penrose didn't politic for even a second and kept it real